an everyday realm which does not always comply with the plans made inside the
ivory tower. In my case, this meant that renovating one room to make it into a
third children’s room went a bit out of control and took far longer than I had
planned – which caused me to skip the post that would have been due last week
already. I’m sorry, but I can promise with a clear conscience that this will
not happen again. I don’t have got any other rooms to renovate. But since I’m
done with that room now, here’s what I’ve found since then.
forests and up into the Mountains
Well, I went back into the paper forest of learned journals, this time tackling the only one left to do for my comparative study, the Nova Acta Eruditorum, appearing in Leipzig in continuation of the Acta Eruditorum from 1732 until 1776 (technically until 1782, but there were no more issues since 1776). And to my surprise, I discovered a significant peak. I’m not sure yet if it really qualifies as a towering mountain, but at least it appears to be one if put into a diagram properly. What becomes visible here is that the Nova Acta Eruditorum took quite a liking to Adriaan Reland, who is referred to on 57 pages in the 25 years between 1732 and 1756 which you see to the right of this paragraph, dwarfing all my other protagonists. This is more than four times the number of references to the next in line, Eusèbe Renaudot, who is referred to 14 times during this period, and more than double the number of the references to all the other three combined, which total 27 for these years: Renaudot’s 14 plus 9 for Thomas Gale and 4 for Johannes Braun.
The high time of references to Reland in the Nova Acta Eruditorum thus are the 1740s, and this is interesting because this is precisely the time when the patterns of references to my protagonists in all the other Journals I have surveyed so far fall into the on-and-off mode of mentioning them now and then every few years which I have labelled ‘intermittent referencing’ and which I take to indicate being structurally forgotten within the frame of the medium in question. And until 1737, when references to Reland begin to multiply again, the same pattern could be observed concerning him in both the Acta Eruditorum up until 1732 and the Nova Acta Eruditorum since then. So this might be the specific difference which I have been searching for, the difference which explains why Reland’s posthumous remembrance career has been so much more successful than those of my other three protagonists.
difference is one thing; declaring it relevant another; and both are neither
equal nor conductive to explaining, which again is a totally different thing
altogether. So having encountered and labelled the phenomenon, how am I to
explain it? Why were the people writing reviews for this Middle German learned
journal so much more fond of Reland than of my other three protagonists – whom they
knew, but were not really interested in – at this particular time?
The specific context the interest in this particular book stems from was a decidedly Protestant one. The writers of the works in the reviews of which the references to Reland were made in the Nova Acta Eruditorum were either Lutheran ministers or Theologians employed as university or high school professors. The scholars in the reviews of whose works Reland was mentioned in 1740 and 1741, for example, were
and, as the only scholar from a non-German speaking and non-Protestant country, Étienne Fourmont (1683-1745), also known as Ismaël Ben-Abraham and 傅爾蒙 (Fu Er Meng), a French orientalist studying Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, and Chinese, and thus working within a shared disciplinary context.
They were interested in Oriental studies because such studies seemed useful to better understand the linguistic, cultural, and geographical setting of the Old Testament, ancient Israel or Palestine, the Holy Land. The Northern and Middle German Protestant universities of the time thus fostered the respective studies – of Hebrew, of Arabic, Persian, and other languages ‘Oriental’, of Biblical geography and history – and to do so, they built upon the results achieved by the scholars of the Dutch universities, among them Reland, with whom they shared much of the preconceptions of what godly scholarship and learning should be like. It surely was no coincidence that the Nuremberg publishing house of Monath in 1740 chose to reprint its 1716 pirated copy of Reland’s Palaestina Illustrata, thus providing fresh copies for the German market.
In the middle of the 1750s this fascination for Reland’s Palaestina Illustrata waned in the Nova Acta Eruditorum, which might be connected with the shift from a theologically based Orientalism to a more secularized discipline within the German universities; but this is something to be explored further. But as it seems, this decade of interest may have been crucial to fix Adriaan Reland within the emerging discipline of German Orientalism, and thus to pull him from structural forgottenness for a while.
Conrad Monath (ed.), Adriaan Reland: Hadriani Relandi Palaestina ex monumentis
veteribus illustrata; in tres libros distributa, tabulis geographicis
necessariis, iisque accuratis exornata, et a multis insuper, quae in primam
editionem irrepserant mendis purgata, Nuremberg: Monath 1740.
In last week’s post I addressed the inaugural lectures delivered by three generations of the Schultens family, Albert Schultens (1686-1750), Jan Jacob Schultens (1716-1778), and Henrik Schultens Albert (1749-1793). As interesting as their family practices in delivering academic speeches, if not more, is another part of their paper legacy although it makes for even more tedious reading, and that is their auction catalogues.
As was common practice, after the death of a scholar the library of the deceased usually went on sale at least partly. Those books the heirs could not put to their own uses were sold, the sale’s proceedings most often being used to support the widows. If the family had a scholarly tradition, the books could also be partly or in full passed on to the next generation(s) who might have an interest in or use for them. In the Schulten’s case, there are auction catalogues available for the libraries of all three family members mentioned above which presents a rare case of completeness in an 18th century context. Moreover there is a fourth additional catalogue, as the library of Albert Hendrik Schultens was bought en bloc by Johann Henrik van der Palm (1763-1840) at the original auction and resold after Palm’s death, making the four catalogues cover almost one century, from 1750 to 1841. So let’s have a look at how they compare to each other and how they fit in with my overall interest in how scholars got forgotten. Only Palm’s catalogue will be left out today, as Palm was not a Schulten’s family member (but this does of course not mean it will not be considered later on!).
Book sales in figures
cautionary note beforehand: The books listed in an auction catalogue under a
scholar’s name may not be taken to have belonged to or have constituted the
full library of the deceased at face value. For on the one hand the auctioneer
might slip leftovers from his other auctions into the catalogue unmentioned,
hoping to finally sell them off, especially if the scholar’s name was likely to
attract many customers to an auction, so that there might be more in it than
the original library contents. On the other hand, the heirs or the deceased
might already have given away books to persons or institutions before the
auction, or selected them for their own keeping, which would prevent them from
appear in the catalogue, so that there might be less in it than the original
library contents. While it is not possible to trace ownership of a particular
book to a particular scholar this way directly and definitely, it gives a good
indication of the likely overall composition of his library and offers some
reason to claim or postulate that he had a copy of a listed title, which then
should – if possible – be backed up by other evidence or reasoning.
But now to
the catalogues. First of all, let’s have a sober and boring comparison of their
main characteristics – how many titles do they feature, and how are these distributed
Jan Jacob Schultens
Hendrik Albert Schultens
1.130 [M: 8]
3.859 [M: 37]
7.022 [M: 72]
Octavo & smaller
these are quite comparable figures. That the auction catalogue of Albert
Schultens contains the smallest number of titles is easily explained by only a
part of Schultens’s library being auctioned off. His son, Jan Jacob Schultens,
would have inherited the rest, which also partly explains why the total figures
in his catalogue are so high compared to the others. Closer scrutiny of Jan
Jacob Schultens’s library’s auction catalogue would help to estimate a rough
figure of the overall size of Albert Schultens’s library, but this I have not
done yet. Henrik Albert Schultens does seem to have owned fewer books as his
father and grandfather, but still had a well-stocked library at his disposal. His
auction catalogue also does reveal that there had been a substantial carryover
between his father’s books and those in his library, so that the 12.000 items
of Jan Jacob Schultens’s library still underestimate the total size of his
collection. And while I’m talking of underestimating, please don’t equate the number
of catalogue items with the actual number of books on the shelves, which was
much higher. A title might come in several volumes which would all be offered
as one item to buyers, especially if it was a journal, in which case a single
title might stand in for dozens of annual volumes. Those people owned many
books, and they had to. Public and institutional library systems were quite
underdeveloped compared to today, and interlibrary loans and online available
digitized copies where not there yet.
explains why the passing on of books between generations was important for
scholars. When your private library constituted the main resource of literature
you would be able to put to use in your research, the passing on of books
constituted a direct transfer of scholarly capabilities, especially in cases of
original research notes, manuscripts, and annotated volumes. There is one thing
to be kept in mind, though, when thinking of such transfers, and that is their
timing. It would be wrong to assume that these transfers would only take place
in form of bequests, because this would have been a solution quite impractical
for the purposes of furthering family member’s careers. A son could hardly only
start his own career at his father’s death because of waiting to inherit the
paternal library. As soon as a scholar’s children would start out scholarly
careers, they would need their own libraries, and would ideally built them up
and collect books over the whole course of their lives. Especially when family
members worked in the same scientific fields – as all three Schultens’s did,
being Philologists concerned with ‘Oriental languages’ and theology – this
would lead to parallel developments in the individual collections, which would end
up in a lot of doublings and functional redundancies after an actual
inheritance if the decedent just passed on everything. So it made good sense to
sell off what was not needed anymore and only keep what would really enhance
your scientific resource base once death bereaved you of a relative. And that
is precisely what the Schultens’s did over three generations upon closer
inspections of the auction catalogues they left behind.
So what did the Schultens’s pass on, and what not? And how does this relate to my four protagonists and the processes in which they got structurally forgotten? Interestingly, both questions can be preliminarily answered by the same approach, and that is, having a look at works by my protagonists in those catalogues. Beginning with Albert Schultens’s library, it is readily apparent that no manuscripts went on sale, neither by him nor by others. Moreover, quite a few works by Adriaan Reland ended up in the sales pile. This might now either indicate that they were of no use for his son Jan Jacob Schultens and thus discarded from the family libraries, or that he owned them already and they were sold as duplicates. Usually this is as far as interpretation of auction catalogues can be taken because nothing much is known about the inheritor, but in this case it is, and as I will explain shortly, this leads me to conclude that here Reland’s works were indeed sold off to avoid duplications. But first of all let’s finish with Albert Schultens. What about works by my other three protagonists? Thomas Gale can be easily dealt with as there are no books by him in Schultens’s auction catalogue; what this means I’ll speculate on later on. There were, however, one book by Eusèbe Renaudot and two books by Johannes Braun. These were the staples, so to say, Renaudot represented by his “Liturgiarum Orientalium collection” and Braun by his “Doctrina foederum” and his “Selecta Sacra”. But as Schultens had been a pupil of Braun at Groningen before moving on to Reland’s direction at Utrecht, one might think that there should be more of Braun’s works on the list. At first appearance, this seems to confirm what I already presumed in an earlier post about Schultens’s closer scholarly relation to Reland than to Braun. But before leaping to conclusions let’s first have a look at the other two Schultens’s libraries.
of Jan Jacob Schultens was, at least if judged by the catalogue’s title page,
sold in its entirety – with over 12.000 items on the list this seems quite
likely. A comparison to the auction catalogue of his father’s books now reveals
some interesting details. While a substantial amount of manuscripts was sold,
none were by his or his father’s hand. And judging by the number of Reland titles
listed I now feel entitled to assume that those five titles sold in the auction
of his father’s books were just double – now there were no less than 19 items by
Reland himself plus two to which he significantly contributed on the list.
This is not only an impressive list in itself but it moreover again points to
Jan Jacob Schultens taking over literature most likely acquired originally by
his father. Listed as Octavo items n° 1287 and 1288 are two very early
treatises published by Reland in 1696, “de Symbolo Mohammedico Non est Deus
nisi unus, pro S. S. Trinitate” and “de consensu Mohammedanismi & Judaismi”.
As these were student’s theses – Reland had been only twenty years old at the
time and had not yet finished his studies – which would have only been printed
in very small runs and only have had experienced limited circulation, they
would likely have been hard to get by in Jan Jacob’s time. The best explanation
for these treatises ending up between his books thus is that he got them from
his father, who himself might have directly got them from the author.
to my other protagonists the emerging picture is quite similar. There are five
works by Johannes Braun listed plus one directly referring to him,
and from these five it becomes clear that those which were sold in the auction
of Albert Schultens’s library – “Doctrina foederum” and “Selecta Sacra” – had
duplicates in Jan Jacob Schultens’s library already. It still points to the
family being much more concerned with Reland than with Braun. Although, to be
fair, I have to point out that Braun had published considerably less than
Reland had, so that a larger share of his total oeuvre was found in Jan Jacob
Schultens’s library nevertheless.
Gale, Jan Jacob’s auction catalogue marks the only point in which he appears in
the Schultens’s bibliographical records considered here. Four of his works are
to be found dispersed over four categories,
but offer no indication whether they had been procured by Albert Schultens or
by his son. And Eusèbe Renaudot comes in last of the four, with two works on
revealing the “Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio” copy of Albert Schultens to
have been a duplicate also.
Manuscripts and family
Now turning to the last of the three professors Schultens, Henrik Albert Schultens, and the auction catalogue of his library from the year 1794, in which it does not become entirely clear if it really encompassed all of his books. It does not give any other indication, so I’ll assume it to be the case until corrected by better evidence. The catalogue is digitized in two versions, one heavily annotated (digitally available by the KB The Hague) and one without any manual entries (by Harvard University via Hathi Trust). Both however share the same printed text. This text now testifies to a number of interesting things, given the fact that at least 12.000 volumes of Schultens’s books had been sold only fourteen years earlier.
of this is the still quite high number of Reland volumes, including – among others
– the two early treatises, which by this time were almost a century old.
In total, his library still contained 15 titles by Adriaan Reland, and five of
these are especially interesting because they in turn contained manuscript
annotations by his father or grandfather, in some cases even of both.
Moreover Henrik Albert Schultens’s
collection contained seven manuscript volumes on Reland’s text by different
It contained not a volume by Gale or Renaudot, though, and only one by Braun.
this say about family, scholarship, and forgetting?
The Schultens’s family of scholars obviously followed a strategy of keeping a certain strand of books in the possession of the family members for three generations and half a century, regardless of which other books they sold on the way. These were those volumes which were deemed necessary for their own research, which mainly centred on Arabic philology, and this obviously was the case with Reland’s works, and most of all with those into which former generations of the family had inserted notes. Yet Reland was not the only scholar treated this way; the works of Thomas Erpenius (1584-1624) were treated quite the same, perhaps even more heavily annotated. While the professors Schultens owned volumes by Renaudot, Gale, and Braun, they discarded them on their way through the academic system(s) of their time(s), something which they did not do with those of Reland, although their founding father Albert Schultens had been a pupil of both Reland and Braun. In this family, three of my four protagonists were structurally forgotten as the 18th century ended, but one was still cherished and remembered. Now the next task is figuring out why.
 1) Anon.: Pars Bibliothecae
Schultensianae, Continens libros nitidissime compactos in quibus excellunt
biblia, patres graeci et latini, commentatores, theologi, philologi, hebraei,
orientales, auctores gr. et lat. antiquarii, numismatici, historici,
litteratores, aliique miscellanei, livres francois [sic], en nederduitsche
boeken. Quos collegit vir clarissimus Albertus Schultens […]. Accedunt
Appendices duae […] quos A. v. D. emit ex bibliotheca Thomsiana non solvit,
& secundum conditionem venduntur. Quorum Auctio fiet in Officina Luchtmanniana. Ad diem Lunae 19. Octobris
& seqq. diebus 1750, Leiden: Luchtmans 1750.
Bibliotheca Schultensiana, sive catalogus librorum quos collegit vir
clarissimus Johannes Jacobus Schultensius, Th. Doct., Theologie et linguarum
orientalium professor in academia Batava, collegii theologici regens primarius,
et interpres manuscriptorum legati Warneriani. Qui publica auctione vendentur
per Henricum Mostert, Die Lunae 18. Septembris & seqq. 1780, Leiden:
Bibliothecae, quam relinquit Henricus Albertus Schultens, A. M. Ling. O.O. et
Antt. Jud., in Academia Batava, professor ordinarius; et legati Warneriani
interpres. Cujus publica fiet distractio in aedibus Defuncti, ad diem 27.
Mensis Octobris & seqq. Anni 1794, Leiden: Honkoop 1794.
 Catalogus librorum ac
manuscriptorum bibliothecae Schultensianae, qua, dum in vivis erat, usus est
Joh. Henr. van der Palm, Lit. orient., Antiqq. Hebr. et Oratiae sacrae in Acad
Lugd. Bat. prof. ordin. etc. Accedit ejusdem viri clarissimi appendix librorum
ac manuscriptorum similis argumenti. Quorum omnium publica fiet auctio, Lugduni
Batavorum, in aedibus defuncti. Die 20, sqq. m. Aprilis A. MDCCCXLI. Per S. et
J. Luchtmans, Academiae Typographos, et D. du Mortier et filium. Libri, in
aedibus Defuncti, diebus 16 et 17 Aprilis, ab hora 10 matutinâ ad 3
pomeridianum, cuivis inspiciendi patebunt, Leiden: Luchtmans/du Mortier 1841.
 Anon.: Pars Bibliothecae Schultensianae,
Leiden 1750, p. 22: « 223 H. Relandi Palaestina ex monumentibus veteribus
illustrata, Ultr. 1714. 2 tom. 1 vol. », filed under « Philologi,
Hebraei aliique Orientales in Quarto » ; p. 47: « 113 H. Reland de Spoliis Templi
Hierosolymitani in arcu Titiano, Ultr. 1716. 114 — Antiquitates Judaicae
edente J. E. Ravio, Herb. 1741. 115 — Dissertationes Miscellaneae, Ultr. 1706.
2 tom. 1 v. 116 —
Dissertationes Miscellaneae, ibid 1708. pars 3. », all filed under
« Philologi Hebraei aliique Orientales in Octavo”;
 Anon.: Pars Bibliothecae
Schultensianae, Leiden 1750, p. 26: “336 E. Renaudotii Collectio Liturgiarum
Orientalium, Paris. 1716. 2 vol. more gallico”, filed under “Philologi, Hebraei
aliique Orientales in Quarto”.
 Anon.: Pars Bibliothecae Schultensianae,
Leiden 1750, p. 19: « 131 J. Braunii Doctrina Foederum, Amst. 1688. 132 —
Selecta sacra, ibid 1700“, filed under “Biblia, Patres, Comment. aliiq. Theol.
 Anon: Bibliotheca
Schultensiana, Leiden 1780: S. 50 [.] “98 H.R. (H.Relandi) Elenchus
philologicus, quo praecipus, quae circa textum & versiones S. S. disputari
solent, breviter indicantur, L. B. 1755”, filed under “Isagogici, Hermeneutici,
Critici, in Octavo”; p. 81: “782 H. Relandi Dissertationes miscellaneae, 3 tom.
2 vol., Traj. 1706”, and p. 82: “790
Parerga Sacra seu Interpretatio quorundam textuum N. T. (cum praef. Hadr.
Relandi), Traj. 1708”, both filed under “Diss. & Obs. Variae ad Phil. &
Exeg. Sac., in Octavo”; p. 132: « 1287 Adr. Reland
de Symbolo Mohammedico Non est Deus nisi unus, pro S. S. Trinitate, Traj. 1696.
1288 — de consensu
Mohammedanismi & Judaismi, ibid 1696“, filed under „Theol. Gent. Mohamm. & Jud. in Quarto » ; p. 205 : “1876 Ad. Relandus de Religione Mohammedica, Ultr.
1735 l.g. 1877 La Religion des Mahometans tire du Latin de M. Reland, a la Haye
1721. 1878 Adr. Reland van den Godsdienst der Mahometaanen/ Utr. 1718 »,
filed under « Theologiae Mohammedicae fontes, Vindices, Oppugnatores”; p.
269 : « 1788 H. Relandi Palaestina ex Monumentis veteribus illustrata,
Ultr. 1714 2 vol. », p. 273 : « 1862 Hadr. Relandi Antiquitates Sacrae, Traj.
1741 », and p. 275: “1901 Joh. Conr. Hottingerus de Decimis Judaeorum cum
Hadr. Relandi Epistola ad Auctorem, L. Bat. 1713”, all three filed under
“Historia & Antiquitates Judaicae, in Quarto”; p. 281: “3214 Hadr. Relandi
Antiquitates Sacrae Veterum Hebraeorum, Traj. ad Rh. 1708”, p. 283: “3252 Hadr.
Relandus de Spoliis Templi
Hierosolymitani cura Hrn. Aug. Schulze, Traj ad Rh. 1775 c.f.”, p. 284: “3279 Adr. Relandus de Nummis
Veterum Hebraeorum, Traj. ad Rh. 1709. – Idem de Spoliis Templi
Hierosolymitani, ibid. 1716. 3280
— Lettre au Comte de Kniphuisen », all five filed under « Historia
& Antiquitates Judaicae, in Octavo”; p. 312: „3361 Had. Relandi
Oratio de Galli cantu Hierosolymis audito, Roter. 1709“, filed under „Vita Christi &
Apostolorum, & Hist. Eccles. Recentior » ; p. 396: “4368 P. &
Hadr. Relandi Fasti Consulares, Traj. Batav. 1715, l.g.”, filed under:
“Antiquarii & Numismatici, in Octavo”; p. 449: “4977 Hadr. Relandi Galatea,
Traj. ad. Rh. 1710 – Paraphrases Horatianae elegiaco carmine, Amst. 1715. -Odae
quaefam Horatianae in aliud carminis genus conversae, ibid. 1714. – Sam. Munckeri
Artis Poëticae Periculum, Goud. 1688. – Rymproeve in allerhaande styl en stoffe/
gedaan door Sam. Muncherus/
ibid. 1688. I. ii.” bound together in one volume, filed under “Poëtae
Recentiores”; p. 470: “5342 Borhaneddini Enchiridion Studiosi Ar. & Lat.
ed. ab H. Relando, Ultr. 1709. », filed under « Paroemiogr.,
Mythogr., Embl. Satyr. &c., in Octavo » ; p. 487 : « 3143 Epicteti Manuale
& Sententiae ut & Cebetis Tabula Gr. & Lat. cura Hadr. Relandi, Traj. Bat. 1711 l. b. », filed
under « Philosophi Veteres & Recentiores, in Quarto » ; p.
531 : « 3549 Adr. Relandi Oratio pro Lingua Persica, & Cognatis
Literis Orientalibus, Traj. 1701. l. b. », filed under « Gramm. &
Lexicogr. Ling. Orient., in Quarto » ; p. 553 : « 6265
Hadr. Relandi Analecta Rabbinica, Ultr. 1723. l. b. », filed under
« Gramm. & Lexicogr.
Ling. Orient., in
 Anon: Bibliotheca Schultensiana,
Leiden 1780: p. 43: “540 J. Braunius in Ep. ad Hebraeos, Amst. 1750”, filed
under “Commentatores in Quarto”; p. 46: “605 J. Braunii selecta sacra, Amst.
1700”, filed under “Diss. & Variae Observ. ad Phil. & Exeg. Sac., in
Quarto”; p. 64: “413 Dan. Flud a Giffen Epistola as Jo. Braunium de Loco Ezech.
VIII. 14., Amst. 1686”, filed under “Commentatores in Octavo”; p. 114: “949 Jo.
Braunii Doctrina Foederum, Amst. 1688”, filed under “Integra Systemata Doctrina
Theologicae, in Quarto”; p. 374: “1888 Jo. Braunius de Vestitu Sacerdotum
Hebraeorum, Amst. 1680 l. b. cum fig.“, filed under „Historia &
Antiquitates Judaicae, in Quarto”; p. 586: “3750 Jo. Braunii Doctrina Foederum,
Amst. 1691 (cum charta pura & notis MSS.)”, filed under “Libri Omissi, in
 Anon: Bibliotheca
Schultensiana, Leiden 1780: p. 354: “2278 Antonini Iter Britanniarum, curante
Thom. Gale, Lond. 1709. l. b.”, filed under “Chronologi, Geographi, &
Historiae Universae Scriptores Recentiores”; p. 407: “4486 Rhetores Graeci
Selecti Gr. & Lat. cura Th. Gale, Oxon. 1676, l. b.”, filed under “Oratores
Veteres Gr. & Lat., in Octavo”; p. 441: “4811 Historiae Poëticae Scriptores Antiqui Graeci gr. & lat. cura Thom. Gale, Paris.
1575 [sic,=1675] l. b.”, filed under “Poëtae Vet. Graeci, Latini & Orientales, in Octavo”; p.
484: “935 Jamblichus de Mysteriis Gr. & Lat. cura Thom. Gale, Oxon. 1678. l. b.”, filed under “Philosophi
Veteres & Recentiores, in Folio”.
 Anon: Bibliotheca
Schultensiana, Leiden 1780: p. 308 : « 2228 Eus. Renaudotii
Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio, Paris, 1716. l. g.“, and p. 309: “2238
Euseb. Renaudotii Historia Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum Jacobitarum, Paris.
1713. l. a.”, both filed under “Historia Ecclesiae Orientalis ».
 Catalogus Bibliothecae, quam
relinquit Henricus Albertus Schultens, Leiden 1794: p. 54: « 300 A. Reland
de Consensu Mohammedanismi & Judaismi, Ultr. 1696. 301 — de Symbolo
Mohammedico: Non est Deus nisi Unus, ibid. 1696. », both filed under « Theol.
Moh. Jud. rec. fontes, &c. in Quarto ».
 Catalogus Bibliothecae, quam
relinquit Henricus Albertus Schultens, Leiden 1794: p. 20: « 153 H. R.
(Relandi) Elenchus Philologicus, quo praecipua, quae circa textum &
versiones SS. disputari solent, breviter indicantur, L. B. 1755 (cum notis MSS
J.J.S) 154 Idem libellus. Accedunt S. R. (Ravii) Positiones Philologicae
controversae, in usum Disputationis privatae, Ultr. 1753 » both filed
unter « Isagogici, Critici, Hermeneutici in Octavo »; p. 36: 275 H.
Relandi Oratio de galli cantu Hierosolymis audito, Roter. 1709, filed under « Commentatores,
in Octavo »; p. 41: « 318 H. Relandi Dissertationes Miscellaneae,
Ultr. 1706 3 voll. », filed under « Variae Obs. ad. Phil. & Exeg. Sacr., in Octavo »
; p. 54, « 300 A. Reland de Consensu Mohammedanismi & Judaismi, Ultr.
1696. 301 — de Symbolo Mohammedico: Non est Deus nisi Unus, ibid. 1696 »
(see note 10); p. 56: « 454 H. Relandus de Mohammedica, Ultr. 1717. (Nonnulla adscripsit J. J. S.) »,
filed under « Theol. Moh.
Jud. rec. fontes, &c. in Quarto” ; p. 70: “579 Borhaneddini
Enchiridion studiosi, Arab. & Lat., cura H. Relandi, Traj. 1709 (cum notis
Mss A. S.) 580 Idem liber, (cum emendationibus Mss. H. A. S.) Accedis Relandi liber de Spoliis
templi Hierosolymitani, ibid. 1716. cum fig. », both filed under « Philosophi
veteres & recentiores, in Octavo”; p. 86 : « 529 Adr. Relandi Oratio pro Lingua
Persica, & Cognatis Literis Orientalibus, Traj. 1701. l. b. », filed
under « Gramm. & Lexicogr. Ling. Orient., in Quarto»; p. 92: « 758
Hadr. Relandi Analecta Rabbinica, Ultr. 1723. l. b. », field under “Gramm.
& Lexicogr. Ling.
Orient., in Quarto »;
p. 159: “836 Hadr. Relandi Antiquitates
Sacrae Veterum Hebraeorum, Ultr. 1741. (cum notis Mss. J. J. S.)”, p. 162: “1487
H. Relandi Antiquitates Sacrae, cum notis J. E. Ravii, Herborn. 1743”, , filed
under “Antiquarii, in Quarto”; p. 168: “1557 Adr. Relandi Dissertatio de
Marmoribus Arabicis Puteolanis, & Nummo Arab. Constantini Pogonati, Amst. 1704. Lettre de M.
Reland a M. le Comte de Kniphuisen, sur une piece d’or trouvée dans ses terres,
Utr. 1713. avec fig. 1558 — de Inscriptione Nummorum quorundam Samaritanorum,
Amst. 1702, 2 tomi 1 vol. », both filed under « Numism.,
Inscript., Marm., &c. in Octavo. »
 Catalogus Bibliothecae, quam
relinquit Henricus Albertus Schultens, Leiden 1794: p. 190: « 52 A. Schultens
Dictata ad Relandi antiquitates Hebraicas. 53 — Praelectiones ad Selecta
quaedam Philologiae S. capita. 54 — Commentarius ad Relandi Antiquitates
Hebraeas. 2 voll. (Autographum Auctoris)“, filed under „Apographa Cod. M. S. S.
Orient ab Eur. Facta » ; p. 191: « 55 C. Ikenii
Commentarius ad Relandi Antiquitates Hebraeorum, descriptus manu D. Hackmanni.
2 voll. 4°. 56 W. Koolhaas Dictata in C. Ikenii Antiquitates Hebraicas. 4°. 57 D. Millii Dictata in Ikenii
Antiquitates Hebraicas. 4°. 58 J. J. Schultensii Dictata ad Relandi Antiquitates
Hebraicas. Pars II. 4°“, all filed under „Praelection. Academ., aliique
nostrat. libri Mss.“
 Catalogus Bibliothecae, quam
relinquit Henricus Albertus Schultens, Leiden 1794: p. 37: “216 Jo. Braunii Selecta Sacra, Amst. 1700“,
filed under „Variae Obs. ad. Phil. & Exeg. Sacr., in Quarto”.
Friday N°2 plus one (Saturday), October 13th, 2018
First lesson learned
Regularly scheduled updates may become difficult once family matters have to be reckoned with. As I was on the road with the kids yesterday as promised centuries ago, I subsequently deliver my update today. And promise to be punctual from now on. But now let’s move on to the interesting things.
As I am following my trails into the 19th century – treading on unfamiliar terrain here, so moving on cautiously – I have recently stumbled upon two interesting Dutch figures and an even more interesting memory crossings. But let me start from the beginning: Last Wednesday I proposed that references are the building blocks for structural remembrance – or forgetting. But references do not just pop up and float around; they are made by specific people with a specific purpose each time. Which means that, to put it shortly, structural forgetting comes into being through mass omission: by references not being made, connections not being drawn, names not being dropped. And to be able to discern this, I have to make use of those – fewer – references that are still being made, and to use them like little spotlights in the dark: To draw clues about where to look next.
Now I had discovered long ago already a curious case of referencing and non-referencing of two of my protagonists: Adrien Reland (1676-1718) and Johannes Braun (Braunius, 1628-1708). While Reland had an entry in the ADB, the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Braun had none. Not very interesting, where it not for the fact that there was no reason to include Reland into the ADB while Braun might well have been. For the aim of the General German Biography was to collect the biographies of the most important persons from the German-speaking areas of Europe from the early Middle Ages up until the 19th century when it was written. Now Braun was born in Kaiserslautern in 1628 and lived there until the burning of the city during the Thirty Years’ War, after which the rest of the family moved to the Netherlands. Being of German extraction, he would have made good ADB material. Reland in turn was born in 1676 in De Rijp, north of Leeuwarden in Western Frisia, and had no German family background. So, why include one but not the other? For such selections are the stuff structural forgetting is made of. One referenced, one not; one remembered, one not. Unfortunately that question cannot be answered directly, as the ADB archive is missing since decades and we frankly do not know how those who were portrayed were selected. We do know from a number of examples, however, that the editors could be quite generous in determining the ‘German-speaking area’ from which the biographies were to be drawn. What to do now? Well, when questions cannot be tackled directly, do it in a roundabout way.
Enter the first Dutch scholar
Jacob Cornelis van Slee
I already knew from other inquiries that there was one author who had portrayed some early modern Dutch scholars for the ADB. Perhaps this would give something like a clue? And indeed it does, and this is where the first of the two 19th century Dutch scholars I announced above enters the stage. Jakob Cornelis van Slee (1841-1929), predikant in Deventer and part-time historian specialising in church history and history of knowledge with a local focus, wrote 205 entries. Most of them are about Dutchmen, and all situated within the history of church and theology – befitting a preacher, one might say. Now Slee accurately saw to it that he did not portray anyone born after 1648, the date of formal Dutch independence from the Holy Roman Empire. Which would provide good reason why he did not include Reland himself; that entry was written by Richard Hoche (1834-1906). But why did Slee not reference Braun, who was born before 1648, spent most of his life in the Netherlands, and was professor for theology at Groningen university? A question that becomes even more interesting as Braun was suspected of unorthodox views, accused of being a Spinozist, and Slee obviously had something of an interest for such people, having written a history of Socinianism in the Netherlands in 1914. And how came Slee’s connection to the ADB about? Well, as material about him is quite sparse, I am going to the sources next week and have a look at what’s left of his materials in the Stadsarchief and the Athenaeumbibliotheek Deventer. The hunt is on!
Exit Slee, enter a German scholar
Now to Richard Gottfried Hoche who wrote the ADB entry on Reland. Biographical information concerning him is even harder to come by, but he was director of a Hamburg gymnasium, then became head of the Hamburg education authority, and published some works about classical philology and Roman mathematics. He wrote 183 entries for the ADB, for the most part about philologists, teachers, and scholars from somewhere between the 16th to the 19th century. He most likely picked Reland because he also was a philologist, and Hoche had no problems in including Dutch philologists, no matter if born after 1648 (see for instance his entry on Jakob Perizonius (1651-1715), a close contact of Reland). Now Braunius was neither a teacher nor a philologist in the strict sense of the word, but he was a scholar with strong philological interests pertaining to biblical Hebrew. So Hoche could have included him in principle, but he did not. I did not yet find out if any materials from Hoche have survived, but this is on the list. And will not be forgotten.
Exit Hoche, enter the second Dutch scholar
Willem Boele Sophius Boeles
If Braun was not mentioned by both Slee and Hoche, perhaps this just to be taken as a sign that he was, already at the time, quite definitely forgotten? Perhaps this is the case. But at least one 19th century Dutch author did lose a few words about him, and that is the second Dutch scholar I promised. It is Willem Boele Sophius Boeles (1832-1902) who was president of the Leeuwarden Court of Law and part-time historian, specialising in church history and history of knowledge with a local focus (sounds familiar? Yes, he and Slee might make for a good comparison couple). He wrote zero articles for the ADB, but among his many publications there is a biographical compendium of the professors of Groningen university – where Boeles himself had studied law – from 1864 which, of course (this time), features Braun as the Groningen professor he was. Boeles later wrote about the history of Franeker university also, and about some individual scholars whose memory he wanted to keep alive. Slee had done the same for the Deventer Athenaeum, and for those individual scholars whose memory he wanted to be upheld. So Boeles will be worth a closer look too, to find out more about why 19th century Dutch scholars as these referred back to their predecessors in the way they did, and why and how Johannes Braun and Adrien Reland became tangled up in this. Work to do!
“IT is therefore the Privilege of Posterity to adjust the Characters of Illustrious Persons, and to set matters right beween those Antagonists who by their Rivalry for Greatness divided a whole Age into Factions. We can now allow Caesar to be a great Man, without derogating from Pompey; and celebrate the Virtues of Cato, without detracting from those of Caesar. Every one that has been long dead has a due Proportion of Praise allotted him, in which whilst he lived his Friends were too profuse and his Enemies too sparing.”
Nicely said. And placing a huge responsibility on those who judge, by the way. But is it really true in the end? And have those who have not been thus handed down to us as illustrious just been weighed and found wanting (as the quote seems to suggest)? Which are the factors at work in this presumed grand arbitration? And does it not only hold for politics but also for learning itself – who judges the judges? How does the academic world select who is remembered, and how, and who is not? In short, what about forgotten scholars?
A large bundle of questions which I will explore a bit further on this blog. Each friday from now on, so don’t forget to drop by!