Disputatio nova contra mulieres

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Disputatio nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas homines non esse (English translation: A new argument against women, in which it is demonstrated that they are not human beings) is a satirical Latin-language treatise first published in 1595 and subsequently reprinted several times, particularly throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. The Disputatio was written anonymously, although it has been attributed to Valens Acidalius, a 16th-century German critic. Disputatio nova contra mulieres was a fictitious and controversy-provoking confrontation between two religious men in the course of the Querelle des femmes, which began in the late Middle Ages and was discussed until the 18th century, increasingly with the participation of learned women and artists. The German translation combined, in dialogue form, the original writing with a meticulously executed refutation (Defensio sexus muliebris) published by Simon Gedik in the same year. Gedik already wondered whether the unknown author of the Disputatio nova might have written it in jest.

Despite the fact that the treatise was meant to parody the Socinian Anabaptist belief that Jesus of Nazareth was not divine, it has also been "used as a serious text to pour ridicule on women".[1] Disputatio proved to be unusually provocative in its time for a publication of its size, which eventually led to the Holy See listing the manuscript in its Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) on multiple occasions.

History

First edition and reaction

At the beginning of 1595, a Latin manuscript appeared in the Holy Roman Empire that did not mention its author, printer, or place of publication.[2] Its title was Disputatio nova contra mulieres, Qua probatur eas Homines non esse ("New disputation against women, by which it is proved that they are not human beings").[3] Because it apparently denied that women were human beings, it provoked fierce reactions and responses that same year defending the humanity of women. The theological faculties of Wittenberg and Leipzig reacted in writing, since they considered the work — regardless of its ironic-polemizing character — dangerous and saw the Bible under attack. In particular, the young students had to be warned against the writing.[4] In the same year, Andreas Schoppius responded with an extensive work.[5] A particularly detailed and equally vehement replica was written by Simon Gedik, then court preacher in Halle, as early as February of that year, which was still in print in 1595. In his Defensio sexus muliebris ("Defense of the Female Sex"), also written in Latin, he, too, relied on the entirely anonymous version.[6] Thesis by thesis, Gedik refuted the line of argument developed in the Disputatio nova, but wondered in the introduction whether the anonymous man had written in jest.

Themes

All contemporary reactions had in common the fact that they did not addressed the actual concern of the Disputatio nova: The polemic against the Polish Anabaptist movement of the Socinians. The writing begins with the words, "Since in Samaritia [...] it is optional to believe and teach that Jesus Christ [...] as well as the Holy Spirit is not God, it will [...] also be permissible for me to believe [...] that women are not human beings and what follows from this: that Christ therefore did not suffer for them and that they will not be redeemed." Samaritia, emended to Sarmatia in later editions, is a neologism created by the author, presumably based on the Latin term samartia ("error"). Both terms, immediately recognizable especially in the form Sarmatia, stand as an alias for Poland, the home of the anti-Trinitarian Socinians repeatedly mentioned in the text, where they are referred to as Anabaptists. This group was characterized by a particularly literal interpretation of the Bible, and by this means the author attempted to refute their approach to faith in 51 theses. The choice of subject reflects one of the Socinian tenets of faith — the humanity of women. To support his theses, the author draws not only on the Bible but also on Plato's views on the nature of women, elaborates etymologically on the word homo, or invokes biological comparisons.[7] The goal was to counter what he saw as the absurd thesis of the nature of Christ with an equally absurd thesis of the nature of women.[8]

Authorship question

Immediately after the publication of the Disputatio nova, the search for its author began. In this context, the Leipzig council also questioned the publisher Heinrich Osthausen, who was represented in Leipzig and Frankfurt am Main.[9] Osthausen admitted to having published the work and named Valens Acidalius as the author of the writing. Acidalius, by now also publicly attacked, now turned to Jakob Monau by letter and described the matter from his point of view.[10] According to this, a copy of the writing, originally from Poland and already circulating in certain circles for years, had been in his possession for some time, and when Osthausen, who had published Acidalius' work Valentis Acidalii in Q. Curtium animadversiones with considerable economic loss, pressed him, he would have offered him this small writing for free, clearly indicating that he was not the author. Since then, the writing usually trades under the name of Valens Acidalius, albeit with reservations.[11]

New editions and translations

The attention generated by the reactions led to a series of new editions starting in 1638, which reprinted the writing itself together with Gedik's replica. They appeared under the title Disputatio perjucunda qua Anonymus probare nititur mulieres homines non esse: cui opposita est Simonis Gedicci ... defensio sexus muliebris, in The Hague in 1638, 1641, 1644, in Paris in 1683, 1690, 1693, and in Leipzig in 1707.[12] In these printings, both writings were placed one after the other. One of these editions found its way to Italy, where it was translated into Italian in 1647 by the Roman Horatio Plata.[13] The translation was published with false information about the printer and place and immediately caused outrage. With Francesco Valvasense, one of the richest printers in Venice, the person responsible was immediately identified and handed over to the Inquisition, and the manuscript itself was placed on the Index. In response to the Italian translation, the Venetian Benedictine nun Arcangela Tarabotti published Che le donne siano della specie degli uomini, difesa delle donne di Galerana Barcitotti contro Orazio Plata traduttore di quei fogli che dicono in 1651 under the pseudonym Galerana Barcitotti[14] (roughly, "Why women are of the species of man, Galerana Barcitotti's defense of women against Orazio Plata, the translator of the writing that affirmed thus") — her last work — which was also placed on the Index.[15] Another translation in French was made in 1744 by the man of letters Anne-Gabriel Meusnier de Querlon,[16] and underwent a new edition in 1766 in Cracow by Charles Clapiès.[17] In 1783, a Hungarian translation of the Disputatio appeared anonymously,[18] followed in 1785 by a stand-alone defense under the pseudonym Anna Carberi.[19]

In 1618, an edited German translation of the writings appeared — anonymously and dubbed "a funny conversation": Reason/ and Probable Description/ Argument and Concluding Article, together with Attached Detailed Answers: Concerning the question/ Whether women are human/ or not? Mostly taken from sacred scripture.[20]

It was the freely translated Disputatio nova and the Defensio by Simon Gedik, which was offered here as a dialogue between Brother Endres and Father Eugenius. As in the original writings interwoven here, the disputants refer for the most part to the Bible. Without being a literal translation, the writing largely follows the lines of argumentation of its models, both, however, clearly shortened.

Disputatio nova and the Querelle des femmes

The reaction took place in the same year and made it clear that a degradation of women and their declassification to a level below man was neither accepted nor met with understanding from even identifiable parts of the circles interested in such questions. Nevertheless, it triggered discussions within the woman question time and again.

The roots of the woman question[21] go back to statements of some Church Fathers and theologians such as Tertullian about the role of Eve in the Fall and the nature of women in general. The woman question received nourishment in the Renaissance during the debate about a new definition of man. Renaissance humanists questioned what man was and in what ways the two sexes embodied "man." In 1486, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola prepared his epoch-making Oratio de hominis dignitate ("Speech on the Dignity of Man"), later printed but never delivered.[22] But for Pico della Mirandola, "only Adam [...] was the addressee of God's word, according to which man, according to his free will, should determine his own nature and the form in which he wished to live."[23]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ J. Jungmayr, ‘Einführung zu Henricus Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, zu Valens Acidalius und der Gegenschrift von Gediccus’, in Ob die Weiber Menschen sein Oder Nicht?, ed. Elisabeth Gössmann, Iudicium 1996, pp. 46-62
  2. ↑ Although, according to the testimony of Johann Christoph Bekmann, another edition printed by Bonavent Schmid in Zerbst existed; see Bekmann, Johann Christoph (1694). Politica parallela. Meyer: Frankfurt/Oder, p. 477; see also Schmidt, Valentin Heinrich (1819). "Ueber den Kritiker Valens Acidalius, besonders über seinen Antheil an der Schrift eines Ungenannten, dass die Weiber keine Menschen sind." In: Journal für Deutschland, historisch-politischen Inhalts. Vol. XIII, p. 129.
  3. ↑ Another possible translation is: "... that they are not men"; for the translation see Drexl, Magdalena (2004). "Die Disputatio nova contra mulieres, Qua probatur eas Homines non esse und ihre Gegner. Querelle des Femmes in denominational polemics around 1600". In: Gisela Engel, Friederike Hassauer, Brita Rang & Heide Wunder, eds., Geschlechterstreit am Beginn der europäischen Moderne - Die Querelle des Femmes. Königstein/Taunus: Helmer, p. 122; Czapla, Ralf Georg; Georg Burkard (2006). Valens Acidalius: Disputatio nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas homines non esse - Neue Disputation gegen die Frauen zum Erweis, dass sie keine Menschen sind. Latin and German. With translation by Georg Burkard. Heidelberg: Manutius, p. 18.
  4. ↑ On the response of the universities, see Drexl, Magdalena (2006). Weiberfeinde - Weiberfreunde? Die Querelle des femmes im Kontext konfessioneller Konflikte um 1600. Frankfurt/Main and New York: Campus, pp. 100–45, esp. pp. 126–45.
  5. ↑ Schoppius, Andreas (1595). Frawen Ehren vnd Gewissen Schild. Das Weiber warhafftig, Menschen, im Glauben Gottes Kinder vnd Erben der Seligkeit sind: Jhnen zu Trost, jrem vnbenameten, doch offentlichen Lesterer zur Widerlegung. Eisleben.
  6. ↑ Gediccus, Simon (1595). Defensio sexus muliebris, opposita futelissimae disputationi recens editae. Leipzig: Michael Lantzenberger.
  7. ↑ Fleischer, Manfred P. (1981). "Are Women Human?"-The Debate of 1595 between Valens Acidalius and Simon Gediccus," The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. XII, No. 2, pp. 107–20.
  8. ↑ Voß, Heinz-Jürgen (2010). Making Sex Revisited: Dekonstruktion des Geschlechts aus biologisch-medizinischer Perspektive. Bielfeld: transcript, p. 109.
  9. ↑ Kirchhoff, Albrecht (1889). "Lesefrüchte aus den Acten des städtischen Archivs zu Leipzig." In: Archiv für Geschichte des Deutschen Buchhandels, Vol. XII, pp. 131–42.
  10. ↑ Acidalius, Valens (1606). "Epistola apologetica ad Cl. Virum Iacobum Monavium." In: Valentis Acidalii Epistolarum Centuria 1. Hanoviae, pp. 339–44.
  11. ↑ Schmidt, Valentin Heinrich (1819). "Ueber den Kritiker Valens Acidalius, besonders über seinen Antheil an der Schrift eines Ungenannten, daß die Weiber keine Menschen sind." In: Journal für Deutschland, historisch-politischen Inhalts, Vol. XIII, pp. 113–48.
  12. ↑ Jungmayr, Jörg (1996). "Einführung zu Henricus Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, zu Valens Acidalius und der Gegenschrift von Gediccus sowie zu ... Ob die Menschen Weiber seyn, oder nicht?" In: Elisabeth Gössmann, ed., Ob die Weiber Menschen seyn, oder nicht? München: Iudicium, pp. 46–62, particularly p. 46 and 52; Segler-Messner, Silke (1998). Zwischen Empfindsamkeit und Rationalität – Der Dialog der Geschlechter in der italienischen Aufklärung. Berlin: Schmidt, p. 47, note 80.
  13. ↑ Plata, Horatio (1647). Che le donne non siano della spetie degli huomini. Discorso piacevole. Lyon: Gasparo Ventura [in fact: Francesco Valvasense, Venezia].
  14. ↑ Tarabotti, Arcangela (1994). Che le donne siano della spezie degli uomini: Women Are No Less Rational Than Men. Edited by Letizia Panizza. London: Institute of Romance Studies.
  15. ↑ Hilgers, Joseph (1904). Der Index der verbotenen Bücher. In seiner neuen Fassung dargelegt und rechtlich-historisch gewürdigt. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, p. 153.
  16. ↑ Meusnier de Querlon, Anne-Gabriel (1744). Problème sur les Femmes. Amsterdam [actually, Paris: Weller].
  17. ↑ Clapiès, Charles (1766). Paradoxe sur les femmes, où l’on tâche de prouver qu’elles ne sont pas de l’espèce humaine. Krakau.
  18. ↑ Megmutatás, hogy az asszonyi személyek nem emberek. Az irásból, és a józan okoskodásból nap-fényre hozatott. (1783).
  19. ↑ B. Carberi Anna kis-aszszonynak kedveséhez írtt levele, mellyben meg-mutatja, hogy az aszszonyi személyek emberek. Pest (1785).
  20. ↑ Full title: Gründ/ und probierliche Beschreibung/ Argument und Schluß-Articul, sampt beygefügten außführlichen Beantwortungen: Belangend die Frag/ Ob die Weiber Menschen seyn/ oder nicht? Meisten theils auß heilger Schrift/ das obrige auß andern Scribenten und der Experientz selbsten zusammen getragen/ Zuvor Teutsch im Truck nie gesehen: Anietzo aber zu merklicher guter Nachrichtung/ Bevorab dem weiblichen Geschlecht/ zu gebürlicher Verantwortung/ Gesprächsweiß lustig verfasset und publicirt, Durch einen besonderen Liebhaber der Lieb und Bescheidenheit Anno 1617.
  21. ↑ Bock, Gisela (2005). Frauen in der europäischen Geschichte: vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. München: C. H. Beck.
  22. ↑ Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni (1990). De hominis dignitate. Edited and introduced by August Buck. Hamburg: Meiner (Latin text with a German translation by Norbert Baumgarten).
  23. ↑ Bock, Gisela (2014). Geschlechtergeschichten der Neuzeit. Ideen, Politik, Praxis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p. 78.

References

  • Disputatio Nova Contra Mulieres/A New Argument Against Women A Critical Translation from the Latin with Commentary, Together with the Original Latin Text of 1595, Hart, Clive, Edwin Mellen Press, 1998. ISBN 0-7734-8280-6.
  • Treatise on the Question Do Women Have Souls and Are They Human Beings?: Disputatio Nova Expanded and Revised Edition, Hart, Clive, Edwin Mellen Press, 2003. ISBN 0-7734-6541-3.
  • Czapla, Ralf G. [Ed.]; Burkard, Georg [Ed.]; Burkard, Georg [Trans.]: Disputatio nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas homines non esse / Acidalius, Valens. (Neue Disputation gegen die Frauen zum Erweis, dass sie keine Menschen sind). Heidelberg 2006. ISBN 3-934877-51-6
Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Disputatio_nova_contra_mulieres&oldid=726852074"