LÜTHY-Veno

8/12/2019 LÜTHY-Veno

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/luthy-veno 1/41

The Doctrine, Life, and Roman Trial of the Frisian Philosopher Henricus de Veno (1574?-1613)Author(s): Christoph Lüthy and Leen Spruit

Source: Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Winter, 2003), pp. 1112-1151Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1261981 .

Accessed: 09/03/2014 06:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and Renaissance Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Renaissance Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Sun, 9 Mar 2014 06:33:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1261981?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/1261981?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsa

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress



, 7-1.1 eDoctrine,i e,andRoman rial

o,fhe risianhilosopherHenricuseVeno

574?-161byCHRISTOPH LOTHY AND LEEN SPRUIT

Thispaperetracesheife fHenricuseVeno,rofessorfphilosophyt the risian niversityfFraneker,ummarizesis eaching,nddocumentshe rial hatwas onductedgainstim y heRomannquisitionn1597-98.De Venowas robablyhemostnnovativeutch eacherfphilosophynthefirstyearsf he eventeenthentury,s he combinedhenewProtestant

metaphysicsith

cosmologyndphysicsnspiredyGirolamo ardano.nstead

f dmittingbeforeisCalvinistolleagueshat ehadbeennprisonndhad onvertedoCatholicismeforetheRomannquisition,e claimed ohave btained arious niversityegreesbroadHis

philosophicaliews ndreligiousnterestsorrespondotheArminianemandforlibertas

prophetandind certainoctrinalpen-mindedness.

INTRODUCTION

mong hekey lementshat eparatehe cholasticnderstandingfnature rom hat fmoderncience,urhistoryooks outinelyingle

outmatterheoryorts mportance.hedifferenceetweenhe wo iewsofnatureies nthis:AccordingoAristotelianylemorphism,aturalub-stancesre nthe ast nalysisnderstoodscompositesfprimematterndof ubstantialorms,here he atternherenthe ormernly ransitorily.When, or xample,he lement aterwhichs characterizedy old ndwet) oses tswetnessnd becomesnstead ot, tsimplyransmutesntoair. lementss well sallhigherubstancesre hus xclusivelyefinedytheirtransient)ualities. ycontrast,he tomic ndcorpuscular odels

that avebeendeveloped rom he ate ixteenthenturynwarduggestsomethingery ifferent,amelyhe xistencef mmutablehysicalor-

puscles hepropertiesfwhich emainntact venwhen heynter nto

higher-orderoleculartructures.

Althoughhehylemorphicndthe tomic nderstandingfmatterre

diametricallypposed o oneanother,twould emisleadingoassumeas has ometimeseendone that here as precisemomentnthehis-

toryf arlymoderncience hen paradigmhiftrom he irst odel o

*The uthors ish othankhe ditorfRQ,ProfessoraulF.Grendler,nd the efer-ees,Professorsoseph . Freedman, ohn edeschi, ndJanPapy, or heirnsightfulcommentsnearlierersionsfthis aper. he researchfC.H. Liithyasbeenmadepos-sible y fellowshipf heRoyalNetherlandscademyfArts ndSciences.

Renaissance uarterly6 (2003): 1112-51 [ 1112 1








THE FRISIAN PHILOSOPHER HENRICUS DE VENO 1113

the econd ccurred.' hreedifferenteasonsmilitategainstuch n as-sumption.irst,he tomic heoryeverntirelyeplaced ylemorphism,someversion fwhichurvivednchemistryandalso nnaturalhiloso-phy)untiltheendof the nineteenthentury.' econd,beginningn

fifteenth-centurytalyherexistedome urrentsithin ristotelianismt-selfwhich ook hemicalmixturesopossess corpusculartructurendwhich hereforeombinedtomic ndhylemorphicotions.3inally,arlymoderntomic ndcorpuscularodeling as phenomenonf uchheter-

ogeneityhat twouldbe

quitemplausibleo call ta

paradigm.iordano

Bruno'snsouledmonads, ene' escartes'divisible)articlesfres xtensa,PierreGassendi'sindivisible)tomswith heir ooks ndeyes, nd thechemical toms ndcorpuscleshatwere roposedntheperiod etweenDaniel Sennert nd RobertBoylehaveveryittlencommonwith neanother.

Alreadyurd asswitz,hoseGeschichteerAtomistikf1890remainsto this ay he tandard ork nthe opic, asdrawnttentiono thehet-

erogeneityfthe tomic evivalnd themotiveshataybehindt.One of

the igureshatmost uzzled imwas Dutch uthory hename fDavidGoriaeusvulgo avid vanGoorle), fwhose dentityasswitz as com-

pletelynthe ark. llheknewwere he wo osthumouslyublishedooks

by his uthor,he nti-Aristotelianxercitationesphilosophicae1620)andthe deaphysicaeI 651). Bothworks ontain fully orked-outtomistdoctrine,hichccordingoLasswitz'shronologyakes oriaeus he ar-liest rofessingtomistfter iordano runo 548-1600).What ntriguedLasswitzboutGoriaeus'tomism asthattsfoundationseremetaphysi-

calandquiteunlikenythinge hadfoundnthewritingsf ither runoor uch therarlymoderntomistss GalileoGalilei 564-1642), anielSennert 572-1636), rJoachimungius 587-1657).Unable oobtain

anynformationbout his uthor,asswitz ade nappeal ofutureisto-rians:AmonographnGoriaeusndon thismportantecadewouldbemost esirable. 4

'ThomasKuhn, i-xiii,asdescribed is xperienceOnememorableandvery ot]summeray ) fmanagingo break nto he ogic fAristotelianhysics,nterpretinghis

experiences a returneyondhe estaltwitch fthe cientificevolution. Vhilehe er-sonal xperiencesfullyredible,he ttemptoapplyttoan historicalituationsnot.

'As ate s 1875, he hemist homas terryuntwriteshatmixturesno j'uxtaposi-tion, s conceived ythe tomistichemists, uthas to be interpenetration,nd heinvokes ristotle'sndHegel'srgumentso buttressis ase 428,450).

'This traditionsbrieflynalyzednLiithy,00 b. As hall eseen elow, e Veno s n-debtedo that radition.

4Lasswitz, :482.








1114 RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY

Such monographasrecentlyeenpublished.' owever,tsfindingsrender oriaeus1591-1612)bynomeans lessmysteriousigure,hieflybecauset shows hat his ioneeringtomist as a theologytudent hodied tagetwenty-one.hesefindingsbviouslymplode hedistinctiondrawny hehistorianf hemistry.R. artingtonetweenhe hilosoph-ical speculations fGiordanoBruno nd the scientific tomism fDavid Goriaeus.Theyalsomaket nevitableo ookover he houldersfthis ery ounguthoro as toverifyhetherewasnot implyollowingnthe ootstepsf morematurehinker hose heoryecopied.

Anenquiryntohis ntellectualackground ust eginwith heUni-versityfFraneker,hereGoriaeushad been anundergraduate.henexamininghe anks fhis eachers,newill ventuallyncounterveryn-usual eachery hename fHenricus e Veno fig. ).As tturnsut, hisprofessorf thicsndphysicsot nly upplied oriaeus ith everalo-tions hatwere rucialothe atter'sork,utwas fascinatingigurenhisownright.

Today, e Veno sverymuch forgottenigure,ven mong istoriansofDutch

philosophynd

science,his ack

ffortunaeing ueto the act

that e s notknown ohavepublishednyworks. owever,number f(hithertonanalyzed)hilosophicalisputationshich ccompaniedeVeno'sectureoursesre xtantnEuropeanibraries.hey uggesthat ewas he east cholasticndmostmodern utchnaturalhilosopheruringthe peningecade f he eventeenthentury.isphilosophicalpproachisat once heologicallyroundedndheavilyndebtedo talian aturalism,4 aGirolamo ardanoO 501-76) ndJulius aesar caligerI484-15 8).Althoughisprecocioustudent oriaeus astoexceed im nproductiv-

ity,oherence,nd ntellectualorce,e Veno's northodoxiewswerenecessaryreconditionorGorlaeus'metaphysicsndphysics.

If ne dds ohisunusual octrineshe quallynusual acthat, efore

becomingprofessortFraneker,eVeno pentmore han yearntheRo-manprison f the nquisition,here eem o exist ufficienteasons or

erectingor his orgottenharacter smallmonumentntheform famonograph.or hehistorianfDutch ntellectualistory,uch bout eVeno snoteworthyith espectothe ebatever he dmissibilityf lib-ertas

rophetandind

philosophandi,hich

ruptedntheDutchProvinces

inthe ery earsnwhich eVenowas eachingtFraneker.or he istorianofphilosophyndof cience,e s furthermorenterestingsoneof he irstinstitutionalon-Aristotelians,ithouthom he reakawayrom ristotleandthedevelopmentf henew ciences ouldnothave eenpossible.

5Liithy,200 la.

6Partington,260-6 1.









#A4

FIGURE 1: Henricus de Veno. Portraitby an anonymous painter,originallyhung in

the Senate Chamber of theAcademy of Franeker.Courtesy of the StadelijkMuseum

'tCoopmanshu's, raneker. This portrait s analyzed in Ekkart,74-75.

DE VENo's EARLY LIFE

Henricus de Veno (who also wrote his name as de Veen and Van der Veen)7was born in the Frisian capital Leeuwarden around 1574. He was the sec

ond son of jantje Gerrits Mamminga and of Laurens de Veno, who was

secretary of Leeuwarden's city council and town magistrate. Henricus' three

'Usually,de Veno's dates aregivenas ca. 1570-1613. We believe nstead that he wasborn n 1574, first,ecause de Veno toldtheRoman nquisitorsn 1597 thathe hadformallystopped dhering otheCalvinist aithwhen he wastwenty-three.iventhat n 1596 he was









brothersere o obtainnfluentialositionsnthe rmy,rade,nd at thecourts, hilehis istermarriedohanneshala, hereceptorfreligiouspropertiesnFrisiaontvangerandegeestelijkegoederen).'

AfteravinginishedheGymnasiumtLeeuwarden,e Veno nrolledat theUniversityfFranekern 13May1591.The universityegister(Albumtudiosorum)istshimduring herectoratefAlardusAuletiusO544-1606) sa student f philosophy,anguages,ndtheology.

9The

UniversityfFraneker,oundedn 1585as theDutchRepublic'second

universityaftereiden, 575),was t that

ointnly ixyears ldandstill

anextremelymallnstitutionith n uncertainuture.e Venowas nfactonly he130 studentince tsfoundation,ndthe ollsmention total f

eighteentudentsor he alendarear 591.Whatmakes hat mall ranekernstitutionnterestingor he ntellec-

tualhistoriansthe acthat,ncontrastith he ther utchuniversities,its tatutesid notprescribehe eachingfAristotelianhilosophy.'ohe

only on-negotiableequirementorts eachersas hat hey egardhem-selves s anintegralart ftheReformedhurch nd didnotviolatets

doctrines.ndeed, raneker'sirstrofessorsf heology ade ure veryoneunderstoodhe ink etweenheologyndthe est f he ciences.nFrisia,theReformationadgained heupper and srecentlys 1580,and thefoundationf he niversityas ntendedoproviden ntellectualalvin-ist lite or heprovince. hilosophy,hichwasviewedssubordinateo

theology,as xpectedogive handnthis nterprise,utdivergentiewssoondevelopeds to how hishould est edone.Rivallingroposalss tohow o reconcilehilosophyith alvinistheologyeremade, ndnot ll

ofthem elied n theAristotelianorpus.nfact,heRamistogician re-deric tellingwerffd. 1623) spoken 1610 ofAristotlesof that opeofnebulouspinions. evertheless,utspokennti-Aristotelianismasnottherule. olliusAdamaO 544-1609),withwhom eVeno tudied atural

philosophy,as till roud ffollowingnthe footstepsfthePreceptor

still studentf heologytFraneker,is onversion,f here as ne,must ave aken lace

between596 nd1597 o thatn1597deVenowas itherwenty-threertwenty-four.ec-ond,mostFranekertudentsnrolledt their lma matert the geoffifteenr sixteen.

(DavidGorlaeus,or ne,wasbornn1591andenrolledt Franekern1606.)

'Vriemoet,13;Boeles, :75; Galama, 7.

9FockemandreaendMeijer,6: Henricus eVeno, hil t ing t theol.

See Galama, 7-18,who omparesheFranekertatutes ith hose fLeiden, tre-cht,Groningen,eventer,ndHarderwijk.

Stellingwerff,refacesine agina): fumosarumpinionumontifexlle.









Aristotle,lthougheconcomitantlyisplayed certain eakness or helogic fRamusI 515-72).

2

AsVriemoet,he ighteenth-centuryiographerf heFranekerrofes-sors, ells s,de Venodid not ontent imself ithwhat he ittle egionaluniversityould ffer,ut aspiredouniversalrudition. owexactlyewent bout btaininghis oalwas,however,nclear oVriemoet,stoalllater istorians.romhe ources eknow hat n 18August593,deVenowas awarded master'segreenphilosophytLeiden,where epubliclydefendedothThesesogicaeecategoriisndThesesphysicaeeprincipiisn-

derprofessorntoniusrutius,neof hose arly utchprofessorswhosenames renot oundnthehistoryooks. oth ets f hesesre nconspic-uous ndunsurprisingntheir ontents.heyhave,nfact,ven een itedto llustratehe dogmatismnd he extual ristotelianeachingt Leidenin the irstearsftertsfoundationn1575.4

In 1596,de VenoreappearednFranekers a theologytudentnd on22Maydefendeddisputationnder rofessorenricus ntonii erdenus(I 546-1614),whichwaspublishednderhe itle isputatioheologicae

usuris. tthat ime, e Veno implyigneds magister,hats,withhe i-tlehehadacquiredhree ears eforenLeiden.'

But, nsteadffinishingistheologyegree,e Veno mbarkedn a

peregrinatiocademica. sually,uch oursookFrisiantudentso eading

Adama, 1609, 16: vestigia raeceptoris. n Adama's nterestn a Ramistreiriterpre-tation flogic, eeGalama,39-47. The subordination fphilosophy otheologywasdefinedin theStatutes ftheUniversitys follows: Cum philosophicus oetus tiampars ssedebeatEcclesiae Dei, omnesphilosophiae professores uramdoctrinamEvangelii, uam Ecclesia

nostraprofitetur,mplectuntor:t taphilosophiam ocento,ne traducant ublicevelpriva-tim doctrinam cclesiarumnostrarum: ec serunto, utprobanto, ut defenduntoprofanasopiniones:sed tuentor acem publicamEcclesiae,amandoeamet ministrosjusdem arti-culus 18; quotedfromDibon, 130). On thegeneralhistoryftheteaching fphilosophy t

Franeker,eeGalama; alsoDibon, 127-63. On Franeker'stheological pproachtoallknowl-

edge,see also ensma, 1985a, 11-14. On Franeker'slimited) ppeal to foreigntudents,eede Ridder-Symoens;or tsspecific mportance o New EnglandPuritans,ee Sprunger.

Vriemoet,114: ad universalemaspirans ruditionem.14FordeVeno'stheses, eeTrutius.Meursius, 51: quorumnomina nhistoria onha-

bentur. On Trutius nd thephilosophical eaching

fthefirst ecades ofLeidenUniversity,seeDibon, esp. 12-57.On deVeno'sdisputations nderTrutius,eeGalama,78. Sassen,39:

UenseignementhilosophiqueaLeydee'tait 'un dogmatismexclusif.15From the 1590s there exists an undated letterbyde Veno to JohannesSaeckma

0 572-1636), who had asked de Veno about his viewsregardingheappropriatenessfper-formingndwatching heater lays n Christian chools, hurches,nd public places. fthedate of1597,whichhasbeensuggested ytheeditor f theSaeckmacorrespondenceEngels,1:254-59), iscorrect,hiswould mean thatdeVenostayed n at Franeker or ome time fterthedate ofhistheological isputation.









Protestant niversities uch as Heidelberg, Marburg,Basel, orGeneva,where heywould try o obtain theirhigher egrees. When de Veno re-turned o Frisia n early1599, he claimed to have done justthat, o be in

possession fdoctoratesnthedisciplinesf aw,medicine, ndphilosophy,and to be also an expert heologian, lbeitwithout he doctor'shat n that

discipline.He wouldsignwithhisthree itles nddidnotpreventtudentsfrom allinghim thrice reat or his riple ualification. Oddlyenough,none of his colleagues seemsto have doubted his claims,althoughthechroniclersf Franeker niversityereunable ospecifyheplaceswherehe

had obtainedhissundry ualifications.8

However, n the basis ofrecently oundevidence, tappearsthatdeVeno's universal ualification as,at eastpartly,sham.The first ieceofevidence s an entryn theregisterftheFaculty fTheologyof Basel Uni-

versityfNovember 598 (fig. ), which tates:

HenricusfVeno, risian. eclareshatfterecomingoctorf aw nFrance,hefurthermoreishedo finishis tudyf heology.e wasdetained or nentireearn Romentheprisonf he nquisition.`

In late 1598, then, deVeno had still not completedhis theologicalstudies, ut claimedtopossess t least doctoraten law.Whenand wherehe obtainedthisdegree s unclear.However, e Veno was from familyf

lawyers, racticedaw for woyears fter eturningo Frisia n 1599, andidentifiedimself s a doctor f aw already otheRoman nquisitors.owe mustnotdismiss he dea thathe had done sufficientoursework ordoctorate n law,eitherbetween1593 and 1596, when he resurfacedt

Franeker,rafter istheological isputationf1596.

Howeverthatmaybe, the moststartlingspectof the Basel entryssurelyhe ssertion hat ur Calvinist heologytudent ad wished opursue

16For heuniversitiesisitedyFrisiantudentsuringheireregrinatiocademica,eethe tatisticsnZijlstra,9-59.

17TheAlbum f heUniversitytates,or xample:Anno 609rectore agnificoen-ricodeVeno urisutriusque,medicinae tphilosophiae octore, thices c physicesprofessoreFockema ndreae ndMeijer,3). Vriemoet,14,acceptedhese itles:undefactus,ttriplicirnatusaurea,uris triusque, edicinae?ndPhilosophiaeoctor. hethricereat ccursna studentisputation;eedeVeno, 604e, edication:D. Henrico

deVeno, hil.M. and .V.D. Trismegisto,heologonsigni,iberaliumrtium agistro,c neadem cademia hysicesthicesquerofessoriectatissimo.

Galama, 7: Waar etitels ehaaldijn, sniet ekend.

19Matriculafacultatisheologicae,597-,fol. 3: Henricus e VenoFrisius,uris oc-tor nGallia reatus,eddeincepstudiumheologiaeeamplexurumrofitens.ntegrumannum omaencarcerenquisitionisetentusuit. e Veno lso ignedhe eneralegisterofBaselUniversityduringhe ectorshipfCaspar auhin, 598-99) s Henricus eVeno,Frisius. eeWackernagelt l.,2:469,no.54.









..............

. ........-

..........

.......

FIGURE 2. De Veno'sentry

in BaselUniversi-tys

Matriculafacultatis theologicae,1597-, fol. 43. Courtesy of the UniversitiitsbibliothekBasel.

histheological tudies t thecenter fCatholicism, nRome,and thathehad beenarrestednd ailedbythe nquisition. his is all themore urpris-ing,because studying t Rome was forbidden o Dutch studentsbytheStates-General.or do weknowofany nother risian rotestant ho after

21theReformationried o study heologynRome. Yet, s it turns ut,theBaselentrys correct. n the basis ofthe Decrees oftheCongregationf

theHolyRomanandUniversalnquisition, emayreconstructhefollow-21ingchainofevents.

DE VENo's TRIAL

On 3June1597, theCongregationftheHolyOffice nRomeexaminedconfession hathad presumably een madeonlya fewdaysbefore yoneRobertBrown, twenty-two-year-oldcotsmanfrom heOrkney slands.The cardinalsdecided thatBrown houldabjure ut formalis aereticus.

This phrase mpliedthat he crimeofheresy ad beenproved.Brownwasmade toabjure nd insodoingreturnedo thefold ftheCatholicChurch.

Duringthe amesession, hecardinals ecidedthatHenricusdeVeno,whohadbeendenouncedbyBrown nd hadsubsequentlyeenarrested,hould

22remainntheprison ftheHolyOffice.

Forstatisticalables ftheforeignniversitiestwhich risiantudentsnrolled,eeZijlstra,3;Bots ndFriihoff,9.

2'The transcriptionf thedocumentsreservesriginal pellingndpunctuation

throughout.ointed rackets> indicatentegrations;quare racketssic] ndicate om-ments.The Archive ftheHoly Office s todayheld at the RomanArchivio ellaCong-regazioneer aDottrina ella ede henceforth:CDF), togetherith heArchiveftheCongregationf he ndex.

22ACDF, SO, Decreta,597,fol. 75r: Roberti runei coti e nsulaNorcadiensiilijquondamoannis etatisuorumnnorum2vel irciterudita ius pontaneaomparitioneinhocS. Officio actac lecta rrorumuorumonfessione,tomnibusmatureonsideratisIllustrissimitReverendissimiomini ardinaleseneralesnquisitoresraedictiecreverunt









Wedo notknowwhatRobertBrown'smotives ordenouncing

eVeno

might avebeen,although omeconjecturesre morereasonable hanoth-ers.First fall,the nquisition sually ressed efendantsodenounce heir

accomplicesnd offered moremoderate erdictnexchange or uch nfor-mation. t is also possiblethatBrownhad offered ospitalityo de Veno.

Hostingheretics asby tself iewed s favoringeresynd was thereforei-able topunishment. nder hese ircumstances,t waspreferableo confess

21hospitalityefore eingdiscovered.

One month ater,Brown's ase was submitted o thepope,who asked

theJesuit obertBellarmineI 542-1621),whohadonlyrecentlyeguntoworkfor he nquisition,

4 tocheckwhether rown ould be confined o a25

monasterynAvignon. In thefollowing eek,Brownobtained hepope's26

permissiono leave theecclesiasticalerritory.Concerning eVeno,how-2

ever, t was decided thathe should be brought o trialforheresy. In the

etordinaveruntuoddictus obertusecipiaturngremium. matriscclesiaeactabiura-tioneutformalisaereticuspposita lausula itra oenam elapsusttenta ius uvenili

aetate. enrici enussic] hrisijenunciatia upradictoobertoxcausis equibusn ctisIllustrissimiuditadictadenuntiationeecreveruntuoddictusHenricusdeti>neturnsancto fficio.

This was neof hemotives hichedtheVenetian obleman iovanni ocenigoodenounce iordano runo;eeFirpo, 43-47.

14TheJesuitobert ellarmineadbeen ppointed emberf heHolyOfficet the

beginningf he ame ear,nd ook is ath n5February597.On3March 599,hebe-came cardinal.

15Decree f he ongregationf heHolyOfficef OJuly,nACDF,SO,Decreta,597,fol.502r: ProRoberto ilio

uondamoannisBruni coto x nsulisOrcadis,

uinupersponteomparvitersonaliternhoc . officioectomemorialier um xhibitoanctissimusD N praedictusrdinavit,tmandavituodPater obertusellarminiusnus xconsultor-ibusdicti ancti fficijbidemneadem ongregationenteressentee informetn adsit

CollegiumnCivitate venionist bicollocariossit uiaSanctitasuaaliquidmpendet.26DecreeoftheCongregationftheHolyOfficef17July,nACDF,SO, Decreta,

1597,fol. 1Or: ProRoberto runo cotonuper ponte omparenten hoc.S. officio,actarelationeerP.Bellarminiumtc. anctissimus. N. praedictusnnuit are idemRubertoViaticumtpossite conferreovanium. contemporaryopy s nACDF, SO, Decreta,1597,1598,1599,42: Roberti runi cotinuper ponte omparentisnSanctoOfficio,

facta uit elatio erP. BellarminumuoddictusRobertusontraxitponsalia rouxoreducendanfra iennium,ecest dmodumonstans,ec doneusiterarumtudiis,ossettamen i dari iaticumro tinereovanium.anctissimusnnuit.

2'Decree ftheCongregationftheHolyOfficef 10September,nACDF, SO, De-creta, 597,fol.553r: Henrici ilij uondamaurentije Venode Civitate eovardienPhrisiaarceratincarceribusictae . Inquisitionis,c nquisitusxcausis equibusnactisrelato iusprocessullustrissimit ReverendissimiominiCardinaleseneralesnquisitorespraedictiecreverunt,tmandaveruntuod liqui eligiosiuaenationisum oagant tver-itatemntegr'eateatur,uia benign eum oagetur.









autumnf1597,

de Veno onfessedhat ehadembraced alvinisteresiesuntil he geof ighteen,ut hat ehadrelinquishedishereticaliews ythe ime e wastwenty-threeearsf ge.2' Given hatnthepreviousearde Venohad tilltudiedheologytFraneker,t s ikelyhat etried oper-suade hemagistrateshat etween591,when e enrolledtFraneker,nd1596,whenhe eft risia or is eregrinatio,e hadgraduallyosthisCal-vinistaith,ndthat y he ime eenteredtaly e hadformallyonvertedtoCatholicism.

However,his nswer id not atisfyhe ardinals, horegardedestatements a partial 29 In order o get o thebottom fVeno' confession.

the ruth,hey ecided o haveDutchpriests isit e Veno nprison.nMarch 598,theylso ent hewell-knownlemishheologianndeditor

30ofpatristicorks, erard ossiusI 540-1609), so as tobringe Veno oafiill onfession.1 It seems hat he isits fhisfellowountrymenroduced

28See thecontemporary opy of thepreviousdecree, n ACDF, SO, Decreta, 1597,1598, 1599, 113: HenriciVeni Leovardiensis risii arceratinsanctoofficioecto eiuspro-cessu n quo fatetur enuisseheresesCalviniusque ad 18 annum,abindecitra, um suae sit

etatis nnorum23 asserit estituisse ereses. ecretumquod aliquiprobireligiosiuae natio-niscum eo agant,ut veritatemintegr'eateatur,uoniambenign'eecumagetur.

))

21See theDecree of theCongregation f theHoly Officeof23 December, nACDF,SO, Decreta, 597, fol.609r: HenricusfiliusquondamLaurentij e Venode UrbeLeovardiein Frisia . U. D. carceratusn carceribus icti S. officij,c inquisitus x causis de quibus inactiseductus e ictis arceribus tin aulamcongregationisoramsupradictisllustrissimistReverendissimis ominis Cardinalibusgeneralibus nquisitoribuspraesentatus,t ab illisVisitatus tauditusfuit uperUniversis iusnecessitatibustetiammonitus d dicendam n-

tegram mniumveritatem; osteaamotusa dicto loco congregationis ecretum uitquodrepetanturestesper nformatione. officijxaminati, osteadentur idefentiones. raft n

ACDF, SO, Decreta,1597-98, fols.82r-83r,contemporary opy inACDF, SO, Decreta,1597,1598,1599,207.

3OGerardusossiuswas born nBorgloon in theprince-bishopricfLi ege) nd died in1609 atLi'ege.AfterstudyingtLeuven,hetaught hetoric tLi'ege. n 1572,hefirst ent o

Rome,wherehe obtained hisdoctorate n theology.Underthepatronage f theCardinals

Morone,SirletotheVatican ibrarian),ndCarafa,he notonlymade a considerableareer tthepapal court,but was also involved n majoreditorialenterprises. e edited the works f

Chrysostomus,phraem yrus, ndTheodoretus nd was the uthor fRhetoricaertismeth-odum0 571), the Commentariumn SomniumScipionis0 575), and theGestaGregoriiX

papae 0586).

Thanks to hisexcellentonnections,

e was thenaturalintermediary

or lem-ishand Dutch Catholicswhowished to bring heir ases to theattention f thepapal curia.See Gysens,1992; forVossius' ditorshipeeGysens,1994.

31Decree oftheCongregation f theHoly Office f 16 March, nACDF, SO, Decreta,1598, fol.242r: Henricusde Veno de LeovardiaFisicus sic, orFrisicus] uit isitatus c de-cretum uod dominusGerardusVossius d illumaccedat, c secumbenign egat,ut errores

integre ateatur.temdominusHerculesHessinius familiarisllustrissimi . CardinalisS.Severinaed eummittat uendampropinqum uum,ut dem officiumprestet. eferaturiuscausa in prima congregationellustrissimi omini inclinaruntquod expediatur bsque









atleast omeofthedesired esults,ecause nJune 598 thecardinalsreachedhe erdicthat e Venohad toabjures a formaleretic, hichmeant,nthis asetoo, hat isheresyad beenproven.

2By bjuring,e

Veno eturnedfficiallyo theCatholic old.

Surprisingly,owever,eVenowasreleasedromrison ithiness hana week. nd s hewasnotyet llowed o eaveRome, ewas ven rantednallowanceor is ivingxpenses.

3 InSeptember,inally,e wasgiven er-missiono returno hisnative risia.4

Unfortunately,he xtant ocumentationfdeVeno's rial oesnot n-

formsabout he easons or is rrest. salwaysnsuch ases,he cts eferfor his ind f nformationothe efendant'sersonalile.

5 Allweknow sthat e wascharged ith nd condemned or eresy,hichnthose ayswasregardeds a serious rime n a parwith igh reason crimenaesaemaiestatis ).3' he tribunalfthemodern omannquisition,hich adbeen oundedn1542byPopePaul II with hebullLicetb initio,idnot

proceedad nstantiamartis,edex officio not t the equestf party,but xofficio),lthoughheirroceduresere suallyriggeredy charge

as in deVeno's ase.Wheneverhepreliminaryroceedingsersuaded

tortura,cbenign eecumgaturtante iusorigine,t educationeparentibusaereticis.

ContemporaryopynACDF, SO,Decreta,597,1598,1599, 78.12Decree ftheCongregationftheHolyOffice f17June,nACDF, SO, Decreta,

1598,fol. 91v: Henrici eni hrisijarceratinSancto fficiocinquisitieet uper ae-reticaravitateebusquelijs tc. ecto rocessuontra umformatot memorialier umexhibitoc relato llustrissimit ReverendissimiominiCardinaleseneralesnquisitores

praedictiecreverunttordinaveruntuoddictusHenricus biuret t haereticusormalisimpositisoenis alutaribusrbitrioorum ommissariusllum xpediat. ontemporarycopynACDF, SO, Decreta,597,1598,1599, 72.

33Decree ftheCongregationf theHolyOfficef25June,nACDF, SO, Decreta,1598,fol. 95v: ProHenrico enodeLeovardian Phrisia uper arcerato,cexpeditonhoc s. officioectomemorialillustrissimiominidecreveruntuodeidenturcuta uo-decimdepecunijs. . officijsic].Adeat llustrissimumt ReverendissimumominumCardinalemfondratumtcogiteture modo ubventionistmaneat er liquotmensesnUrbe. ontemporaryopynACDF,SO, Decreta,597,1598,1599, 82.

3'Decreeof theCongregationf theHolyOffice f9 September,nACDF, SO,Decreta, 598, ol. 32r: ProHenrico eni ilio uondam aurentijeVeno e Civitatee-ovardiaen Frisia recanteibi oncediicentiamedeundihrisiamectomemorialier umexhibitollustrissimitReverendissimi. Cardinalesemiseruntd llustrissimumtRever-endissimum. Cardinalem adrutiumuideliberetirca icentiamiscessus,eumoramnUrbe. ontemporaryopynACDF,SO, Decreta,597,1598,1599, 53.

35See,forxample,he xpressionnthe ecreesf10Septembernd23Decemberseeabove, n.27,29): inquisitusxcausis equibusnactis.

36Prosperi,3.









the nquisitiono setupa formalrial,he vidence ascollectedna spe-cific ile.Unfortunately,ost f hese iles avebeen ost ntheyears hentheArchive ftheHolyOfficewas n French aptivity.37or ourreconstruc-tion of de Veno's trialwe mustthereforeely lmostexclusivelyn theso-calledDecreta,whichreporthedecisions aken ythecardinals uring heirsessions nd recorded ythenotary.38

The Decreta onfirmhatdeVeno's rial eveloped ssentiallylongthelinesof an ordinarynquisitorialrial. twas thetaskoftheHolyOffice oestablishwhether he crimeofheresywas committed nd, if uchwas the

31case,toproceedagainst hesuspect. In an inquisitorialrial, reliminaryproceedingsndinvestigationsereassigned o theofficials(ufflciali)f thecourt:that s,to the friars nd priestswho assisted he cardinals.The car-dinals ubsequently eighed he vidence, onsulted hepope indemandingcases,and formulated he verdict nd the sentence. n the1590s, the Ro-manInquisitiongenerallymettwice week,on Tuesdays feria ertia) nd

Wednesdaysferia uarta).The officialsmet also on Mondays,but theresno extantdocumentation ftheirmeetinLys.he vove was informed fter

At the end oftheeighteenthentury,heholdings f theArchive f theHoly Officeweredistinguishedccording ofive ategories: octrinalwritings;ocumentsconcerninghe

jurisdiction f theCongregation,nparticular oncerningtsjuridical ompetence; section

containing criminal ecords; civil ection; nd an economicsection.The third nd largestsectionwas theone thatwas mostdamaged during heyearswhen the archivewas inFrance.For a reconstructionf tscontents,ee Beretta, 000, and Cifres.The Archive f theHolyOfficewas seriouslymutilatedwhenNapoleon moved t to Paris; eeTedeschi, 5-46.

MHowever, ot all items fdiscussionwererecorded. acunaeareparticularlyumerousintheDecreta f theendof the ixteenthentury,ecauseofthedisordernwhich henotaryFlaminioAdriani,who was ncharge rom 575 untilhisdeath nOctober1600, left hereg-isters.Duringthe sessionof8 November1600, the cardinals sked the newnotary hat he

registerse redacted nd the notes of hispredecessor e preserved;eeACDF, SO, Decreta,1600-01,347 (copy).On thebasisof thenotes nd registersf FlaminioAdriani, everal ol-umes werecomposed,whichcontain opiesofthedecrees f theAdrianiyears. everal f thede Veno documents recontained n suchvolumes,namelyACDF, Decreta, 597, 1598, and

1599. These copies reproduce he essence f thedecisions hatweretaken, utdo notrepro-duce the formal lements ontained n theoriginal egister,uchas the namesof thosewhowerepresent, hedate and preciseplace of thesessions, nd theopinionsexpressed ytheconsultants.

3'To establish hehereticalnatureof an opinionorproposition equires hatone firstdiscern propositio e fidedefinita. he five riteriadevelopedbyAlfonso e Castro nDeiustahaereticorumunitione recertainly f some help: first, oly Scripture, s longas itssense s apertus t indubitatus ; econd,conciliardecrees,given hatthe content fseveralarticles f faithsnotexplicitly iven nScripture;hird,he consensus niversaliscclesiae,that s,tradition, efined t theCouncil of Trent s a sourceoftruth; ourth,heopinionoftheHoly See; fifth,heopinionsof the doctores. ee de Castro,fols.17r-22v. he fifthri-terionwas highly ontroversialduring hesixteenthentury.









theWednesday eetings.fnecessary,Thursday eetingas dded feriaquinta), uring hich hemost emandingaseswere iscussedW'lthhepope.0

The documentshowthatde Veno's asewasmainly iscussed n

TuesdaysndWednesdays.herewas no interventiony hepope, partfrom he inal erdict.41heres,however,notherspect fde Veno's rialthat eservespecial ttention,amelyhe ole fDutchpriestsngeneralandofGerard ossiusnparticular.heir nterventionormedart f he l-

ready-mentionedracticefpushinghedefendantoa full onfessionnd

ofconvincingim o denounce urtherartisansfhiscause. nfact,heInquisitionid notregarderesysa privatersociallysolated henome-non.ThearrestfdeVenomayndeed aveed othe rrestf ther eretics.Theadvantageor hosewhodenouncedellowereticsas hatheyouldcount n a less evereentence.2

De Veno's rial evelopedta comparativelyapid ace.Therepetitio43testiumasgrantedfterfewmonths,eforehe ndof1597. De Veno

wasfurthermorereated ithoutarshness,ith he ardinalsecommend-

ingseveral imes hathe be treatedna friendly annerbenigne )ndwithoutheuseof orture.4

Oncethe hargefheresyadbeen ormallyrovenndconfessed,heconvictiononsisted enerallyn an abiuradeformalindprison erm,which ould ven mount o a life entence,utwhichnmost aseswas

substantiallyhorter.o-calledmpenitentidefendantshose uiltwas

provenutwhorefusedoconfessrabjuresuch s Giordano runo)andrelapsi defendantshohad beenpreviouslyondemned were

usually anded ver othe ecularourtbraccioecolare)o be executed.nthe requentases f uspectederesy,here ere ariousoursesf ctiont

disposal.Wheneverhe uspicion as light, hedefendantas entencedtoan abiura e evi,whilenthe ase f stronauspicion,he entenceas

4OTedeschi,3-124. It is worthmentioninghat he nquisitionwastheonlyCongrega-tionthatwas chairedbythepope.

4'Duringthe trials f otherphilosophershat ookplaceduring he sameyears, uchas

thetrials f GiordanoBrunoandof TommasoCampanella,thepope'sadvicewassought ev-

eral times. ee Firpo,311-39; Spruit ndPreti.42In this ense the nquisition nticipated hepractice fpentiti nd informatorin the

contemporarytalian administrationfjustice.43See thedecreeof23 December (quoted above,n. 29). It is not at all clearbywhom

thesetestimoniesmighthave been given,considering hat Brownhad leftRome several

months arlier.44Forbenigne,ee thedecrees f 10 September 597 and 16 March 1598 (quotedabove,

nn.27, 31); for he exclusion ftorture,ee also the atter ecree.









an abiuradevehementi.45hose whopresented

hemselvespontaneouslythesponte omparentes suchas RobertBrown nthepresent ase,could

abjurecoram ongregationebefore hecongregation) nd werespared nsomecases thepoenastemoralessecularpunishment). hose chargedwith

havingfavoredheresy, hich ncludedhousingheretics r offeringhem

hospitality,ould,whenthechargewas notdismissed, e condemned itherto abjuring, o a purgatio anonica, r to a simple dmonition.

De Venowas condemned oabjure s a formal eretic, sentence hat nmostcases would haveinvolved ratherlongprisonterm. t is therefore

quite surprisingo see thathe was released lmost mmediatelynd allowedto leave Rome onlytwo months ater.The documentssuggestthat the

Congregation egarded isyoung ge and his educationbyProtestantar-entsas mitigatingircumstances.he relativelymild verdictmust lso beunderstoodn the broader ontext f the nquisition's olicy owards rot-estant oreigners.

The Inquisitionwas supposed to have urisdiction verall baptizedChristians nd thus lso overProtestants. his meant hat ll cultural co-

nomicexchanges etween taly nd the Protestantegions fEuropewerenominally nder ontrol f the nquisition. he arrogationf thesepowerswas clearly nd uncompromisinglyxpressedbyPius V's bull In coena

Domini,which was read n Catholic churches veryHoly Thursday.Thebullexcommunicated ll Protestants hohappenedtobe underthejuris-dictionoftheRoman nquisitionndprescribedheir rosecutions formalheretics.4' o the arrested rotestants he nquisitionoffered hepossibil-ity fconversion,shappened nde Veno's ase. n fact, heir hoicewas re-

strictednthe ensethat refusalf the nvitation o convertmeant hat heunrepentantereticwashandedover o the ecular ourt.4'Accordingoin-

quisitorialaw, ontactswithheretics adto be denounced mmediately,ndfailureo do so entailed rosecution.4'hispolicy fprotectingheCatholic

orthodoxygainstheterodox nfluences ulminatedn ClementVIII's bull

45In the ate ixteenthndearlyeventeenthenturies,he ondemnationoanabiuriade vehementias nflictednseveralhilosophersndscientists,ncluding irolamo ar-dano 1571),Tommaso ampanella1595),and GalileoGalilei 1633). SeeBaldini nd

Spruit,000, 154; bid., 001, 185;Pagano, 54.46SeeSchmidt,000, 366,n.5,whoreportshe irstersionfthis entence:Excom-

municamust nathematizamusussitas, iclefistas,utheranos,winglianos,alvinistas,Ugonottos,nabaptistas,rinitariost Christianaidepostatas,c omnes t inguloslioshaereticos,uocunque omineenseantur,tcuiuscumqueectae xistant,c iiscredentes,eorumqueautorestgeneraliteruoslibetllorumefensores ;ee lsoSchmidt,001,107.

47SeeBeretta,998,93-163.48Carena, t.2,title ;Mirto, 05-08.









Cum icutI 595),which rohibitedatholics romtayingnProtestantcountrieshat ackedufficientatholicnfrastructures.Had theseanctionseen ppliedwith minimumfefficiency,om-

mercebetween talyand theNorthwould havecollapsed,withthepeninsula arred ff ehind n iron urtain. s a matterffact, owever,many oreignersontinuedovisittalywithoutelinquishingheironfes-sional dentity.ndeed, he nquisitorialocumentsrequentlyentiondifficultiesnapplyingestrictiveeasures.9

Many oreigners,erchantsnparticular,ereffordedrotectiony ecularowers.

1 InGenoa ndVen-

ice,for xample,rotestantoreignersere ven llowed osettle,rovidedthat hey id notopenly rofessheir aith.Moreover,pain igned actswith nglandndSwitzerland,hichlso ffectedheKingdomfNaples.Finally,ocalprincesrdukes ftenrantedafe-conducts.' Tobesure,heInquisitionttemptedoundermineuch rrangements,utmostly ithoutdurable onsequences.hus,protectioname ndifferentegrees. nlywhere hemechanism fcontractual,iplomatic, r socialprotectionworkedncompletelyidthenquisitionepresentreal hreat. ut nsuch

cases here asofcourse notherolution: masteryftypicallyatholicbehavioryProtestantoreignersade tvirtuallympossibleo ndividuatethem ndmuch educed he nquisition'sapacityo ntervene.

As for eVeno,t s ikelyhat he uestions to hismotivationor is-

iting omewill emainorevernanswered. ashereallyCatholiconvertby he ime ehadreached ome, s heexplainedo the nquisition?fnot

as histrialuLyyests what ttractedhis alvinistheologytudentoRome?t should ekeptnmind hat he ate ixteenthndthe arlyeven-teenthenturyas period hat awforeignrotestantsromveryart fEuropetreamingo Rome obe reconciled ith heCatholic hurch.hiswasclearlyhe ase forBrown,whopresentedimselfspontaneously.De Veno, y ontrast,asdenounced,othatwe haveno reasono believethat ehaddecided oconvert.is casemay e similarothat f he amousDutchtheologian acobArminius, hoas a student isited aduaandRome. In ater ears, hehistorianfArminianism,arrison,xplains,itwas ssertedyhis nemieshatArminius]issed he ope's oe nthe ter-nalcity,ormednacquaintanceith ardinal ellarmine,ameunderhe

influencef theJesuitsndsecretlyenouncedhereformedeligion.2

41See Schmidt,2000, 368-69, who analyzesthe fileACDF, SO, Stst.,MA.b, whichcontains richdocumentation or heperiod1617 to 1670 regardingdiversos aereticos e-

gentes n Italia variousheretics esidingn Italy).'Merchants had tobe distinguishedrom isiting oblesorstudents n theirperegrina-

tio cademica.51Schmidt, 000, 369-70; Schmidt, 001, 109-10.52Harrison, 2.









WhileinthecaseofArminius,this

was,of

course,mere

vulgar alumny, 53muchof thiswas ofcoursequitetrueforde Veno- whichexplainswhyhepreferredo hide t from is fellow itizens ack n Frisia.

Fortunatelyorhim,de Veno wasa foreignerf Calvinist tock ndthusnotguiltyfhis nitial eresy,ecause hecontemporaryrials f talianphi-losophers emonstratehat he nquisitionwas incomparablymore everetowardsborn Catholics. At thesametime thatde Veno stoodtrial,Tom-maso Campanella 0 568-1639) was jailed for everalyears, ortured,nd

eventuallyonfined o Roman and Calabrianconvents. ven morefamous

is, of course,the trial ofGiordano Bruno,who after seven-year rial0 593-1600) and a fair mount ftorture asexecuted ythe ecular ourt,

having efusedo abjurehis heresies.For the ntellectual istorian,hefact hatde Veno wasconfined o the

sameprison s GiordanoBruno shighly uggestive.n fact, here xist tleast woseparateists fprisonersisited ythe nquisitorsn theprisons ftheHolyOffice hatmention runo and de Veno sidebyside. ' Givenhowsmall henumber fprisoners as- thirteennone case andtwentynthe

other it squite ikelyhat hetwo men met achother,lthough o suchencounters recordednthe extensive runoscholarship. utthen,unlessde Veno had denounced Bruno fromwithin theprisonforhisheretical

opinions, herewould have been no reasonfor heir ossible onversationsto resultn anywritten ecord.

This knowledge ftheir patialvicinityempts ne to look forpossibletracesofBruno's views n de Veno'sdisputations see below). However,there re nonethat eap to theeye.De Veno's cepticism is-'a'visAristote-lian natural

hilosophy,r his

emphasisn

primary,ivine ausation othe

detrimentfsecondary, atural auses,are moreeasily xplained hroughCardano,who is acknowledgeds a source, hanthrough runo.However,we do not knowwhatde Venotaughtnhis ecture ourses,nd since Bru-nianinfluence n Gorlaeushas sometimes eensuggested, e cannotruleout that de Veno discussed,anonymously r otherwise, heviewsofthefamous, ragictalian.

DE VENo's RETURN To FRISIA

In contrast oBruno, hen, eVeno wasallowed o leavetheprison nd,on9 September 598, also thecity fRome. He didnottarryndspeedily e-moved himself o Protestant ands. We recall that he enrolled at Basel

Universitywomonths ater.However,forreasonsunknown,he did not

53Ibid.

5'The ists re itednFirpo, 24 (n.50c)and306 (n.50b).









stayongnSwitzerland,or idheobtain degreentheologyhere.or l-ready ivemonthsater,nApril 599,wefind impracticingsa lawyer(advocaat)n thecityof Leeuwarden,ishometown.

Back nFrisia, e chose o ieaboutwhere ehadbeenduringis imeabroad nd abouthisRoman rial, onviction,nd conversiono Catholi-cism. nstead,werecallhow hebraggedboutthree niversityegreesobtainedbroad. lthough,or he easonspecifiedbove,t shard ode-cidewhetherrnothepossessedlawdegree,t eems lear hat ishigher

qualificationsnphilosophy

ndmedicineremerenventions.orwhenwesubtracthe ime hat espentnthehands f henquisition,ittle emainsofdeVeno'studyime broad. etween2May1596,when e defendedhisFranekerisputationntheology,ndMay1597,when e was rrestedinRome,he hadexactlyneyear'sime, nder hefavorablessumptionthat e eft ranekermmediatelyfterhedateofhistheologicalisputa-tion.Ofcourse,nroute or ome, emay ave toppedrieflytPaduaamuchmore bvious lace or rotestantsn taly buthewould othavehadthe ime oobtain doctoratenmedicine.5

Afterractisingaw t Leeuwardenor woyears,eVeno ppliedohisalmamatern 1601for heposition fprofessorftheology,hichhadfallen acantfterhedeath fMartinusydiusca. 1539-1601). utgiventhat e Venohad neither inished isdegree or ould nany therwaydemonstrateistheologicalkills,he enate referredo elect heFrench

56theologianranciscusuniusduJon, 545-1602). However,n23October1601,de Venowasproposedor new hairnethics ndphysics.n23 Septemberfthe ollowingear, isnomination asconfirmedy he

Gedeputeerdetaten,ndhebegan is areersFraneker'srofessorthicestphysicest a salaryf600florinseryear.

7

De Venoremainedn hischair ntil isearly eath n 22April 613.As a teacher,eappearsohave een uite opularmonghe tudentsndwas ater ondlyecalledy ome f hem. he funeralrationnhonor fFrisia'state istoriographerndFraneker'srofessorfeloquence,ieriusWinsemius 585-1644), orxample,ecallsphysicsisputationkillfully

ForFrisianstudying

nPaduabetween550and1650, eeZijlstra,

4.56Vriemoet,I 5.Boeles, : 5,andGalama, 7,quote he eliberationsf he enate f

18September60 ,which ive he easons hy unius aspreferredode Veno: hoewelij[themembersftheAcademicenate] pdepersoneanD' Venoniet elehadden e eg-gen, nders athijeen onghmanwas,diehemprincipalijckenn ureendeMedicinae

geoeffent,ndenoit een pecimennTheologia. . -)g'exhibeertadde,nde aerommeoo

vruchtbaerlijckeneselve rofessieiet oude unnen edienen,lsdevorss. unius. ikeotherandidates,owever,uniuseverame o Franeker.

57Vriemoet,I 5.









defendedythedeceased nder he upervisionf that

reatHenricus

de Veno. However,istoriansfFranekerniversityecord gravenci-dentthat ccurredn 1609.After aving ssumed herectoratefthe

universitynJune,eVeno ecamenvolvedn eriousitigationith num-berofhiscolleagues. he professors arcusLycklama,imaeusFaber,LolliusAdama ndhis onAugustinusdama, driaanMetius,ndSixtusArceriusollectivelyenounced im o the tates-General.ewasthere-

upon uspendedrom is wo hargess rectorndprofessor,houghtthesame ime he alariesf

Augustinusdama,Metius,ndArcerius ere ow-

ered achby 00 florinssa punishmentor heiritigiousness.9

Unfortunately,hereasons or he candal re notexplainedntherecords.riemoetuggestshat e Veno verestimatedimselfndhisuni-versalompetencend that is rrogance ayhave ngerediscolleagues.He also urmiseshat e Veno's ormereacher,heAristotelianolliusAd-ama,mayhave akenxceptiont thenovel latonistypothesesaughtyhis Upil.60 Most ubsequentistorians,cceptinghisnterpretation,peakof battles etweenupportersndopponentsfAristotelianism.61

It is,

however,nlikelyhat hematter as ssimplesthat, or e Venohadal-readyeen eachingispeculiar hilosophyor even earst the imewhenhewas uspended.rom he raceseftf hatitigation,t sclear hat ues-tions fboth tiquettend doctrine erenvolved,orwhen e Venowasreinstallednhis ldchair n 28January61 incidentally,tthe ower al-arv f500 florins),his aDDenedn conditionhat ewould lwavs ollow

Wybinga,fol. b2v: in Physicamagnum llum Henricumde Veno,I.V. etMedicinae

Doctorem,LiberaliumqueArtiumMagistrum, ub ej'us praesidio plurimasquaestiones n

publicocongressu cutedefendit,anta umanimialacritate,antapromptitudine,anto u-dicio, ut ipsus [sic]Praeses n publica disputatione, ollegam ipsumnominare c salutare,non dedignatus uerit.

Register ftheAcademicSenateof 18 December1609, and 15January610 (seeBoe-

les,1:76). For the archival vidence, omparevan Nienes etal., 194.60Vriemoet, 17: Non difficile st collectuexhisceetpraecedentibus,ndenatae ites

istae, tquantaefuerint. ocuitqueVenoniproculdubio,exnimiade universaliuadameru-ditione ua,aliorumquehoc nomineadplausu,praesumtione, ata morosaarrogantia,t an-imi impotentiseffrenatio.. Philosophiae eratAcademicae propugnator; ostentante

inscriptioneDisputationismoxmemorandae.Quod ipsumei forte, cedentepraesertim

nimia novarum ypothesinactatione,pud L. Adamam,praeceptorumliquandosuum,Ar-istotelimagis ddictum,nvidiaefuit.

6'Boeles, 1:76; Galama, 76; Napius and Lindeboom,41: twisten.. die aan de Aca-demie te Franekerwoeddentusschen e aanhangersn tegenstandersande leervanAristo-teles. Compare also van Berkel,426-27, who links thehastypublication of Frederic

Stellingwerff'samistdialecticsn 1610 to thede Veno scandal and to thedeathof thephi-losopherLollius Adama in 1609. Van Berkelrightly onderswhetherhispublicationmightbe a signthatStellingwerffoped to inherit e Veno'sposition.Dibon, 135, pointsout that

personal nd doctrinal onflictsften verlappedn thatperiod.









the aws f heuniversity,abstain romubtlearergandquaestiones,ndalsofromefamatorycts ndwords, nd,finally,hat ewould tophisextracurricularontact ithtudents,ho eem ohave idedwith e Veno

duringhe lashwith iscolleagues.We shall rgue elow hat e Veno'sremoval rom ispositionss ikelyo havehad also a theologicalompo-nent.A fewmonths eforeherowbroke ut, heArminianispute adreachedraneker,nd deVeno,whoconsideredimselfnexpertheolo-

gian,s ikelyohave idedwith heArminianaction.After

eingeinstalled,eVeno

aughtor womore

ears.e died

pre-maturelyn22April 613, troughlyortyearsf ge.

DE VENo's TEACHING

Asde Veno s notknown ohavepublishednybooks, ndas almost llofhisextant isputationsrekeptn ibrariesutside ftheNetherlands,it snot urprisinghatnoneof thehistoriansfFranekerniversityasbeen bletoappreciateheunusual aturefhisteaching.

3 Inparticular,

thenoteworthyisputationsfhisphysicsourse avenever een nalyzed.Moreover, ecauseof thefact hat n theonly xtant isputationn a

politicalubject,eVeno scalled defenderfAcademichilosophy,t64hasbeen ssumedhat eVenowas Platonist.However,nce ll ofthe

known xtant isputationsretaken nto ccount weknow oday feleven isputationsninephysical,nemetaphysical,nd onepolitical)for he ake f rainingexercitiiratia) nd oneset fdisputationsor b-

taining master'segree pro radu) it becomes videnthat urFri-sian

philosopheras

byno means Platonist. e

mayescribeimmore

The Recordsof theAcademicSenate of28 January 611 mention he condition hat

de Veno had to lesen endedocerenhordpomeridianamoralem ftenaturalemphilosophiamAristotelis,nde hem soe in docendo als disputandowachtenvan subtile parergesende

quaestin, oockvan contumeliose aden endewoorden ;and thathe had to holdenende

helpenonderholdentranquillitatemcademicam,nde hemwaachtenvan eenigecorrespon-dentie 'holdenmet tudenten, etsy nde burseoftedaerbuijten. See Boeles,1:76-77.

63Vriemoet, 15 and I 18, had onlyseen the Dissertatiooliticademagistratude Veno,

1606), andhe therefore rites: In qua [professioneluo pactoversatus uerit, on adeo con-

stat. Boeles, 1:75-76, in turn,knewonlytheDissertatiopoliticand theQuaestionesllustres(deVeno,1606 and 1605), so thathisdescriptionfdeVeno's eachingsequally nadequate.The sametwo temswereknowntoGalama,79 - Tweevande onderde Venogehoudendisputatiesijn nonsland bewaardgebleven although e at least nalyzes heir ontents.

Dibon, 136, mentions he twophysics isputationsheld at Paris,Biblioth'equeNationale,butsaysvery ittle boutthem.

64De Veno, 1606, titlepage: AcademicaePhilosophiaepropugnatorc Professorele-

berrimus. All but one (namely1604b) of thecurrently nownextantdisputationsheld

underde Veno are isted nPostma ndvanSluis,43.









profitablys a philosopherhocombined rotestantheologynd meta-

physicswith taliannatural hilosophy.65The importanceftheologysalready videntnde Veno'spremise hat

there an exist nlyone single ruth, hichhas been revealedntheSacred

Scriptures. iventheuniqueness nd unity ftruth,t s illegitimateo ar-

gue thatAristotlewas right hilosophicallybutwrongtheologically. ytaking hisview,de Veno follows n thefootsteps f some contemporaryGerman Protestantswhom he frequentlyites,notablyOtto Casmann

(1562-1607), Rudolf Goclenius (1547-1628), and Nicolaus Taurellus

0 547-1606). These authors adrecentlyeguntostage battleagainst hedouble-truthoctrine fthe o-calledAverroists,ccordingo whomcertain

philosophical tatements ould be philosophically ruewhileat the sametimebeing heologically rong.norder o remove he ension etween hi-losophyand theology, hesewriters ad, in different ays,tried o alignthese wodisciplinesndhad, ntheprocess, horoughlyeformulatedris-totelianmetaphysics,ogic, and naturalphilosophy.66 e Veno clearlyinserts is effortsnto thislarger eformistnterprise.ike theGerman u-

thorshe admired,he borrowedmanynon-Aristotelianoctrines rom heItalianmedico-philosophersirolamo Cardano andJuliusCaesarScaligerandfrom hemical uthors f the Paracelsianradition.

It is typical f this ettinghat he first isputationfde Veno'sphysicscourse penswith he ssueofhow toreconcileheconflictinguthoritiesf

Holy Scripturend philosophy. ince thedayoftheFall,de Veno argues,our cognitive aculties ave been limited, nd all of ourknowledge s in-secure.67X%oeverwants o overcome heseshortcomings illhave to turn

to biblicalrevelation,o experiencend observation,nd to reason. n thisenterprise,hysicsornatural hilosophy) s a very seful ool (thesis19).

Althoughde Veno'sdefinition fphysics ollows heexampleofcontem-

porary extbooks Physicssthecontemplativecience fnatural odies,insofar s they renatural thetheologicalnd medicaluses towhichhedirects hisdisciplinemake tassumenew and often ecidedlynti-Aristote-

65Theproblemsurroundinghe uthorshipf arlymodernniversityisputationsrenotorious.owever,nde Veno's ase, he riterionf

oherence,oth

monghe octrines

expoundednthe arious isputationsefendednder is hairmanshipndamong he u-thoritiesnvokednthem,eadsustoregardhese isputationswith he xceptionfdeVeno, 604a)asa direct eflectionfdeVeno's eaching. eassume hat e eitherirectlywrote,r at east pprovedf, he ontentsfthe arious isputations.or his eason,urbibliographyists hem nder isname.

66On the evelopmentf specificallyrotestantetaphysics,ee, bove ll,Leinsle.6'DeVeno, 603, hesis .Theonly nownopy f his isputationsheld ttheBrit-

ishLibrary,306f.6 no.38.









lianovertones.ndeed,sde Veno tresses,t s notAristotle,ut the ac-rosanct ord fGod, hatmust onstitutehe extualtartingoint or henaturalhilosopherthesis4),for asfar s tsmattersconcerned,risto-tle'sphysicss imperfect. he fact hatde Veno istsAdam,Noah,Solomon,ndother ld Testamentiguresmong he authorsfphysics(thesis5) revealshat e soneof hoseRenaissanceuthors hobelievedinthe,xistencef Mosaicphysics. nthis espect,isreferenceo the

prolegomenonf Otto Casmann's ecent osmo eia Christiana1598),whichxplains hyAristotleust ede oMoses, srevealing.

0

Inthe ubsequentisputationOntheprinciplesndcauses fnaturalthings, e Venodefines hree onstitutiverinciplesf naturalhings.These renotmatter,orm,ndprivation,sonemight ave xpected,utinsteadmatter,orm,nd pirit.pirit, hich eplacesheAristotelianriva-tion,s defineds the fficientause hat ringsbout hemergerfmatterandformnto substancendwhich lso nheresn the atter.7'Nor smat-ter ure otentiality,s most ristoteliansontinuedoclaim,or tpossessesits wnbody,albeit mostmperfectne. 72ts wnbodily aturexplains

whymatter oesnotdesire form fort desiresothingfthat, hich t73has ). AlthougheVeno oesnothere ite ny hilosophicaluthoritiesn

supportf he olehe attributesospirit,twill ppear romur nalysisflater isputationshatt staken rom irolamo ardano.

Thesubsequent isputation,hich ealtwith he firstffectionsfbody motion, est,nd time is nolongerxtant,utwepossesshe

68Ibid., thesis18: Physica st scientia ontemplativaorporumnaturalium, uatenus

sunt naturalia. On traditional extbook efinitions fphysics eeReif, 0.

6'De Veno, 1603, corrollaria, o. 1: Quoad materiam, hysicaArist[otelis] on estperfecta.

'Oln theprolegomenon f his Cosmopoeia1598), Casmann rebuts hearguments or-

mulated nthe ixth entury ytheNeoplatonic ommentatorimplicius gainst hebiblical

accountof creation.De Veno, 1603, thesis 4, mentions heseargumentsnd states: Quaeautemhic adversusMosen a Symplicio abricataunt,ut impiaprorsus tpaganaexecramur

etdetestamur.egi autempotest orumrefutatioapud OtthonemCasman. In proleg.Cos-

mop. On Casmann'sprinciple Cedat AristotelesMosi, seeMahnke,330. On Casmann'srelation o the other mosaicphilosophers, ee Blair.

De Veno,1604b. Theonly

knownopy

of thisdisputation

skept

tthe Universitdts-bibliothekErlangen-Niirnberg.8: Triaergoeffectioniseu constitutioniserum tatuimus

principia, piritum,ui efficiendi imhabet;materiam,uae actionisubjicitur, tformam,

quae tanquameffectiouaedam producitur; uae non modo suntprincipia onstituendi es

ipsas, edpartes tiam llisconjunctae.12Ibid., ?14, question2: Anmateria itcorpus.Nos corpuseam esseasseveramus,ed

imperfectissimum.Ibid., question5: An materia ppetatformam? egat.Quia omnis materia abetfor-

mam,nihil utem d appetit, uod habet.









fourthisputation

einfinito

t oco.4Thereweencounternce moreOtto

Casmann,whom de Veno followsndenyinghat nyphysical bjectcan beinfiniten the senseof acking ither imits r a middle theses and IO).God is theonly ctual nfinitethesis ). Asfar splace (locus) sconcerned,

only reated eings entia)have a place,whereasGod,whoseessence s infi-

nite,cannot be placed (thesis 13). Place itself s defined, ollowing he44most earned nd subtle caliger,

3as the spaceof thething rbodythat s

placed,andwhich scontained nsideofthesurrounding ody.7' De Venothus ccepts caliger's ell-knownejection fAristotle'soncept f place

(as a kindof skinthat nvelops heobject)and accepts he alternativero-posalofdefiningheplaceof a bodyas thequantity fgeneral pacethat s

occupied bythatbod .71

Invoking hearguments f Casmannand of thefamousPaduanphilosopher acopoZabarella I 533-89), de Venofurther-moreargues hattheaccidentof quantity annot be separated rom he

body tself. ikeother rotestantuthors,'heraws rom his heconclusionthat heCatholicdoctrine f transubstantiationan thereforeot be true 7

With thefifthisputation e mundongenere, e leavetherealm fthe44affections nd turn o thephysical odies themselves.

8

The disputationbeginsbydefiningheworld mundus) s a bodythat ontainsheaven ndearth nd all that s in them thesis ). There is no worldsoul,as thePla-tonistsbelieve,but the world is governedbyGod's most noble spirit(thesis ). Like other rotestanthinkers,articularlyalvinists, e Veno at-tributesmuchthatusedto berelegatedosecondaryausesdirectlyo God's

agency.Worthmentioning rehis rejectionofCopernicus'heliocentricmodeland theargument,aceAristotle,hatthe world s noteternal, utwas created 561 vears tzo theses15-23).

De Veno, 1604c. The two knowncopiesofthisdisputation reheld atGeneva,Bib-

lioth'eque ubliqueetUniversitaire,d. 145-48; andParis,Biblioth'eque ationale,R. 2102.15Ibid.,thesis18: Nos cum doctissimo tsubtiliScaligeroocum hoc mododefinimus:

locus estspatiumrei ocatae,vel locaticorporis, uod intra uperficiemorporis xteriorisambientem ontinetur.

16The rejection fAristotle'splace locus) nd its ubstitution ith space spatium)sfound nScaliger, 5, nexercitatio,sectio2, Vacuumquomodo detur : Atnos illudprof-itemurvacuum, in quo corpusest. Idemque essevacuum, et locum: neque differre, isinomine.Sane si nonesset acuum,non esset ocus. Est enimvacuum,

patium,nquo

estcor-

pus. And sectio 3: Loci definitio : Non est igitur ocus, exterioriscorporisambiens

superficies:ed id,quod intra amsuperficiemontinetur. orthe confessional easonswhylate-sixteenth-nd seventeenth-centuryalvinists endedtoacceptScaliger's eplacementflocusbya general patium rubi,seeLeijenhorstnd Liithy, 84-95.

De Veno,1604c, thesis18, question3. On thetopicof theconfessionalizationfsix-

teenth-centuryhysics, ee Leijenhorstnd Liithy.18De Veno, 1604d. The onlyknowncopyofthisdisputationsheldatGeneva'sBiblio-

th'eque ubliqueetUniversitaire,d. 145-41.









Amongthe

extant hysics isputations,heeighth,ntitled e elemen-tis, omes next. Elements redefined, ather raditionally,s corporealessences,ndividuatedccording ospecies, ubj'ecto change, ut ofwhichall mixts reconstitutednd intowhich hey reresolved. Thisdefinitionshows no trace of the atomismthat would constitute the basis of the

metaphysicsndphysics f de Veno's tudent, avid Gorlaeus. ndeed,forde Veno, elements emain the firstgeneratable nd corruptible odies

(thesis 1) as theyhad been forAristotle,which means thatthey an betransformedntoone another nddissolvento

higherorms. clear

depar-ture rom heAristotelianiew sconstituted, owever,ythedoctrine hatthere re notfour, utonly hree or even usttwo elementsthesis ).De Veno excludesfire rom he ist ofelements, rguing hat t is a mere44

(a phenomenon ccurringnthestratumfair;thesis 5). Thethreeremaininglements redefined ytheir espectiveegrees f warmth

(warm, emperate,old),which are their rimaryffections,nd bythree

degrees fhumiditywet,humid,dry),which are their econdary, assiveactivitiestheses I, 24, and25). Thesethree lementsre,however, ot on

a par,becauseunlike arth ndwater, ir never nters ntothecompositionofnatural odies,but fills ll empty paces nthe universe nd functionssthecarrier fheavenly eat theses 5 and 18). In allbodies, t stheelementof earth hatprovides heshapeof thesubstance,ustains heheavenlysig-nature, ndnurtureshe seeds thesis 0).

Similar,houghnot dentical, octrines rebroachednanunnumbered

disputationAbout ir De aFre)ofthe ameyear.81This time, ir sclearlyexcludedfrom he istofelements,hough t s defined s a simplebody.

The reasonofferedyde Venofor tseliminations that nthebeginning,God created eaven nd earthwithout eeding ir as an original ngredient(thesis 5). After onsideringbriefly heviews of Scaliger,Goclenius,Taurellus,Justus ipsius O 547-1606), and Lambert Daneau (Danaeus,1530-95) on thequalities fair, e Veno concludes hatno substantialrans-mutation f air ntoeither ire r earth spossible thesis 7). There can beno doubtthat his et oftheses,whichdeVeno himself alls a disputationagainst heviewsofmanyAristotelians,sdirectlynspired ythewritings

De Veno,1604e. The onlyknown opyofthis hesissfound t Geneva'sBiblioth'eque

PubliqueetUniversitaire,d. 145-61.

'Olbid.,thesis : Elementa unt essentiae orporeae, pecie ndividuae,mutationi b-

noxiae, xquibus,et nquas omnia mixta tconstituuntur,tresolvuntur.

De Veno, 1604g. The onlyknowncopyofthisdisputation s held at Paris,Biblio-

th'equeNationale,R. 2217.









ofGirolamo ardano.

2

In hisDe subtilitate550),Cardano addevelopeda theoryhat adfirsteen dumbratednAristotle'seteorologyV,wheretisproposedhat aturalubstancesremade pexclusivelyf arththe rin-ciple fdryness)ndwaterthe rinciplefwetness),hichmixed nderheinfluencef elestial eat. All ecognizableubstancesnourworld ontainthese wo lements, ristotleays here,and re obeassignedooneor heotherccordingo theproportionnwhich heyontain arth rwater.3

From he ate ifteenthenturynward,his heoryadattractedhe tten-tion ofPaduan

physiciansnd

philosophers,nd commentaries n

MeteorologyV began oproliferate.irolamo ardano,whowas Padua-trainedhilosopher-physician,evelopedhiswo-elementodelnto ver-itableosmology.ike eVeno fterim, edefinedlementssthose odiesthat ould nterntomixtures.e excludedire, hichwasnosubstancetall, nd ir,whichwas ertainlysubstanceutnot mixableody,ts unc-

84tion eingmainlyhat f arryingelestialeat own othenaturalodies.Thatde Venowas cquainted ith ardano'shysicssevident,or e

mentionsimwith pprovalnanother isputation,here he tudents

asked odefendhefollowinghesis: Isthereny lementaryirexistingunderneathhe unar phere?WedenytwithCardano. 85nyet notherdisputation,e Venohad alsodenied hat ook4 ofMeteorologyas cor-rectlyamed nd hadarguedhat his ookwasnot boutmeteorologicalmatterstall,but boutperfectomogenous ixtures.8'nsodoing, esidedwithAlexanderfAphrodisias2

d cent.A.D.),whohad stated hat

MeteorologyV was bout erfect ixtures,ndwithtalianuthorsuch sAgostino ifo 1473?-1538)nd Pietro omponazzi1462-1525),whore-

Ibid., thesis 3: Haec de aere etejus regionibus,ufficiensitcontramultorumAris-totelicorumpinionesdisputatio.

13Aristotle, eteorology,28a5. Translation yDiiring,41.84See Cardano,1550, 135: Triatantum ere nmistis erra taqua promateria, tcalor

coelestisagens. See alsoCardano, 1560, 1301 and 1296: Tria untprincipiamistorum,edduo tantumpraebent ualitatem,cilicet oelum etaqua, because earthhasno quality: Solaenimterra stexpers mnisqualitatis, t tamennonestnecessariumlementouthabeatqua-litatem, ui non concurrit t ullamactionem . . See Piccolomini,fol. 108r: AffirmavitCardanus n liberdemistione,mixtum on constare x

igne,nec exaere, ed tantum xterra,

aqua, etcelesti alore. On Cardano'snaturalphilosophy nd histheory f theelements,ee

Ingegno, hap.6, esp.223-40. On Cardano'sand Scaliger's ebt to thePaduancommentarytradition n Aristotle'sMeteorologyV,compareLiithy, 00 lb.

85De Veno,1605, thesis 0: Andeturignis lementarisublunaegloboexistens? ega-mus cumCardano.

86De Veno, 1603, thesis 0: utvidere st ntitulo ibri . Meteorologorum ui verenonestmeteorologicus ; orollarium : Subjectum ibri4. Meteorologicorum stcorpusper-fectemistumhomogeneum.









named hisAristotelianorkiber e mixtisnd iber emixtione,espec-tively.Thetwo-elementheoryonstitutesn mportantridgeo arlymodern

atomism,ecausef arths dentifiedithhe rinciplefdrynessndwaterwith heprinciplefwetness,tbecomesmuchmore ifficultosubscribeto a theoryftransmutation.ecan see from ardano nd evenmore ofromcaligerow tbecameuite aturalothinkf hese womaterialrin-ciplesntermsfunchangingarticlesnd to magineheir nion s the

spacial omingogetherfsmall

articles.heeminentistorianf

tomism,Kurd asswitz,howasfullyware f his,edicatedspecialectionoGor-laeus' wo-elementheory,hich eendedwith hewords:Itwould eemsifGorlaeus adbeen hefirst hodenied he ransmutationfwaterntoearth. ut nthis ointwemay ow orrectasswitz:eVenowas arlier,and twasthis ranekerrofessorrom homGorlaeus ook his heory.

Given he ntimateinkbetween heredefinitionfthe lementsndthe heoryfmixture,t sfortunatehat he enultimatextantisputationofde Veno's hysicsourse reatsfthegenerationndcorruptionfmix-

turesDe mistienerationet jus nteritu). ixtureshere efineds themutationfthe lementsy he piritor he ake ftheproductionf

mixed ody. Thisdefinition,hichwasadumbratedlreadynthe ec-onddisputationeprincipiist ausis erumaturalium,s once gainnotAristotle's,utCardano's. he same strue fthe iew hat he spiritwhich nthedisputation e mundo ngenere ad been dentified ithGod's mostnoble pirit, hich governed heworld isthe fficient

causeofmixtures,hile he nstrumentalause s heavenlyeat. De

Venofurtherelieves hat he ualityfcold s never esponsibleormix-tures, ut has imited gencynasmuchs itmoderates eatthrough

12s -elementeactionreactione).Here,he relies ncemore nCardano'two

theory,or ewriteshat hematerialf llmixturess the lementsnsofarastheyrehumid nddry thats,waterndearth]. orthese rethe c-cidentshat ccompany atter ecessarily. 13nlikehispupilGorlaeus,

81See Liithy, 001b, 544.88Lasswitz, :335.

8'De Veno, 1604f. The onlyextantcopyof thisdisputationsheldat London,British

Library,306 f. 6 no. 46.

'Olbid., hesis : Generatio stmutatio lementorum spiritud producendum orpusmixtum. ee also theses and 6.

See Ingegno, 34.12De Veno, 1604f,thesis .13Ibid., thesis1 1: Materia untElementa, uatenus unthumida and sicca.Hxc enim

sunt accidentiamateriam ecessario omitantia.









whowas o defendhe iew hatmixturesremerelyntia er ccidens,hat

is, ccidentalonglomeratesf ndivisibletomic nits, e Veno rguedn amore raditionalannerhatna mixture,ewformsrise out f hepo-tency fmatter. 94evertheless,isposition s notstrictly eripatetic,ndhe rejects othAristotle'sndAverroes'deathat he formsthat s,the pe-cific ualities) ftheelementsrestrengthenedrweakenednthemixture,as 44

simply alse thesis 4). Whathappens nstead s that he unionofthe

primaryualities,beingtheproduct f theirmutual ction and reaction,

produces specific emperamenttemperamentum).9's far s corruptions

concerned, e Veno offers technical xplanation hat s developed n re-

sponse to JeanFernel's 1497-1558) theoryofputrefaction.9'Natural

corruptions the resolution fthemixturento ts lements.t scausedbythe nfluence f ambientheat,which ncreases he naturalheat of themix-

ture, pensup itsouterparts, ndtherebyeadsto the scapeof the nclosed

humidity.n the case oforganicbeings, his lso leads to the oss of vitalheat. What is left ehindgrows uickly old and soft or, f t s organic,dies theses 4, 25, 36, and37).

The last xtant isputationf hephysicsourse reats f herational ouland its facultiesDe anima rationali teiusfacultatibus) traditionallyhe

crowningndconcluding opicofnatural hilosophy.7 De Venomentions s

a premise haton thesubjectmatter f thesoul,all ancientphilosophershad beenwrong.

8 He reliesmuchon ThomasAquinas,whom he quotesfrequently,nd on Thomists uchas Crisostomoavelli (ca. 1470-1538),ThomasBricotd. 1516),andArchangelus ercenariusd. 1585). Much ofthedisputationsdevoted oa causal account f the oul.As for he fficient

cause,deVenoargues hat hepaganphilosophers avefailed ounderstandthat he mmediate fficientauseof thesoul isGod. As far s the rationalsoul sconcerned,urauthornsistshat thas neither material or formal

14Ibid., thesis12: Haec igiturnter e miscentur,lterantur,c postremo orrumpun-tur, t nova oriatur orma, on quidemex formarum lementariumemissione,t inunam

quandam speciediversam ormamcompositione,ed ex materiaepotentiagenita. ee Gor-

laeus,1620, 24-26, and exercitatio 3: De atomis, 25-49.95Ibid., thesis19: Temperamentumstprimarum ualitatum nter e unio,exmutua

earum ctioneetpassioneprodiens.96See Fernel, k.2, chap. 10. This theorys also found nCardano, 1565, bk.4, contro-

versia4, where thestarting oint is incidentally nce more Aristotle'sMeteorologyV, ofwhichCardanosays: Philosophus uartoMetheororum efinit utredinemnteritumalidinativi nhumidoab externo alore.

9'De Veno, 1604h. The onlyextant opyof thisdisputationsheldatGeneva,Biblio-

th'eque ubliqueetUniversitaire,d. 145-97.

9'Ibid., (sinepagina), , prior o theorem ,wherede Veno speaksof the erroneas et-erumphilosophorum e illa [anima]opiniones.









cause.nstead,eing the ormhat nformsthe ubstanceflmant

s thesubstantialormfman. ts inalause,nturn,are llthe perationsf hesoul. De Veno, ollowinghe rgumentsftheRenaissancehilosopherand ogicianhomas ricot,nsistshat he oulhasnomaterialr ompositeaspect, ut s a formal eing ens)that sincorporealndyet ubsisting(theorema6).Unlikemanyontemporaryrotestants,erejectshe iewthat here re hreendependentouls nhumansvegetative,entient,ndrational).' He followsnsteadhe o-calledunicist ccount hen ewritesthat heresonly ne soulwithhreefoldunctions. 'hisonesoul anbestudiedither nits wn asan mmortalndself-sustainingmmaterialentity or nconjunctionith he ody,fwhicht sthe firstct nd he

informingorm, ut nlyhe econdspect elongsothe tudyfnatural

philosophytheorema6).Ofthe hree nown isputationshat reunrelatedodeVeno's hysics

course,ne s a set f eventeenfamousuestions hat candidateor hemaster)sitlenphilosophyisputednder eVeno's residencyn1605.02

Althoughhe heses fthis isputationrefewnnumber ndextremely

short,heyrovidenice verviewfdeVeno's hilosophicaloncerns.hecandidate,hobegins ith thics,irsteclares imselfo be closer o StoicandPlatonistositionshan oAristotle's,ot east ecauseheformerremoreompatibleithHoly cripture.

03 Next heturnsometaphysics,sk-

ing: Is the ubject fmetaphysicshe ntelligiblenasmuch s it s in-

telligible,r nsteadhe ns nasmuchsit s anens? hefirstosition asbeendefendedy omeneoterics,utwe defendhe atterhesisgainstthem. 04 The neoterics lluded o are heRamists, ho t Franekerad

Ibid., theoremata -I 1, theorema12: Animarationalis stforma nformans om-

inem. Theorema13: Anima utemestforma ubstantialis ominis. Theorema15: Finalis

animaecausa sunt omnesoperationespsius.... Ibid., theorema 9: Potentia nimae sunttres, empe vegetativa,ensitiva,t intel-

lectiva. Here again,de Veno refers o Thomas Aquinas and to the Thomistphilosopherjavelli.

'O'Ibid.,theoremata 0-23. In this rgument, e Veno also makes use ofMercenarius,

1590. For a descriptionf thepluralistndunicist iewofsouls and forms nd itsrelation o

earlymodernmatter heory,eeMichael,275-86.102De Veno, 1605. The onlyknowncopyof thisdisputationsheldat the Provinciale

Bibliotheek, eeuwarden,A 1669. Incidentally,his s notonlythe earliest nownM.A. de-

greedefended t Franeker, ut it is theonlyextantmaster'sdisputationbetween1585 and

1613. See FockemaAndreae ndMeijer,18.103Ibid.,questions2-4. De Veno refers ereto Plato,Plotinus, amblichus, eneca,Ci-

cero, nd FoxiusMorzillo's ompendium f ethics f 1561.104Ibid.,question6: An ubiectummetaphysicesitomneintelligibileuatenustale, n

vero nsqua ens?PriusNeoterici uidam,contra uos posteriusustinebimus. e Venopre-









strong upport, venin

thepersonof de Veno's own

teacher,oiliusAd-

ama.105n defendingAristotle's raditional efinition fmetaphysics, e

Veno showshispreferenceor heontological pproach ometaphysicshatwasdevelopingt thetime nProtestant ermany.

o'This preferences alsoevident n thesubsequent question,which takes a stabat thePhilippo-RamistHeizo Buscher 564-98). AgainstBuscher, e Veno's andidate f-firms hatno essentialproperties an be removed rom bodywithoutconcomitantossof ts essence question7). Not onlyLutherans, utalso

Catholics, ome under ttack.CardinalBellarmines shown o havearguedwronglyn hisDisputationes e controversilshristianaefideihata bodycould be in severalplacesat once,withoutfilling pace (question8). It is

strikingo observehow casuallyBellarmine s mentionedhere.Nothingabout this standardrebuttal f the cardinal'smuch cited anti-Protestantwork ould have madetheaudience uspect hatde Veno waspersonallyc-

quaintedwithBellarmine,hefamousnquisitor,nd thathehadrepeatedlyfacedhimas a judgeduringhisRomantrial.

Movingon tophysics,he candidate ffirmshatprimematter s an in-

corruptible odyand, as we havealreadymentioned, hatthere xistsnoelementaryfire under the moon (questions 9 and I 0). Tycho Brahe

0 546-1601) - withwhom de Veno'scolleague, he mathematician dri-aan Metius0 571-1635), had personallyworkedon the Danish island ofHven- is invoked gainstAristotle'siewthat omets rephenomena en-erated rom nd in air question12).107n theremaininguaestionesf the

disputation, inally,hecandidatepostulates hatAristotlewas alsowrongaboutcreation,bout thehighest ood,abouttime, nd about thematter f

theheavens,which s the same as the matter f thesublunaryphere ques-tions13-17).

Thereare,finally,wo extant isputationshat reentirelynrelatedonatural hilosophy. he first ealswith subjectbelonging opublic aw.

sumably ountsamongthesenoterics lso ClemensTimpler,who (in his 1604 metaphysicstextbook,bk. 1, chap. 1, thesis 1) definesthe subject matterof philosophyas omne

intelligibile.

'Adama, 1606, thesis 1,had maintained: Res ndialectica onsiderata st ensetnon

ens,quod uno vocabulo cum D. Goclenio etTimplero,philosophis.clarissimis,6tv OTIro,v,

id est,omneintelligibile,ectissimesignificamus. uicquid enim ntellectu umanopercipiet comprehendi otest, ive llud habeatessentiam,ivenon, id usui logicaerectissime ub-sternitur. ee ourpreceding ootnote.On Timpler'smetaphysics,eeFreedman, hap. I 1.

116On thedevelopmentfsixteenth-centuryrotestantontology,ee Leinsle.On the n-fluence fRamism tFraneker,ee van Berkel.Wemightwish oadd to van Berkel hat lreadydeVeno's eacher, olliusAdama,seemstohave beenattractedyRamism seeabove,n. 12).

'On Metius'workwithBrahe, ee ensma, 1985b,459.









Given hatntheAristotelianniversityradition,ublic awwasunder-stood as a politicaltopicwhichbelongedto therealmofpracticalphilosophy,twasnatural hat e Venowould lso havehadtocover hisfield. heDissertatioolitica emagistratuf 1606dealswith hepowersandfunctionsfmagistrates.tasks,mong therhings,bout he ersonalqualities equiredfmagistratesnd their owersnthedomains fwar,politics,ndreligion.e Venorelies eavilynJean odinO530-96), heso-called atherf tateovereignty.e defendstype fmeasuredbsolut-ism,

tatinghat he

princetandsbove he

people,ut he aw bove he

prince. owever,heprinces notbound y ny pecificaw which ecanchange),ut nly ynaturalaw.Hispowersrederivedirectlyrom od(who sthe ausa fficiensrima,ncontrastothe ocietyfmen,whichrepresentnly he ausa fficiensecunda) an dea hatwe find so nBo-din. 0'ParticularlyoteworthysdeVeno'snsistencehat hemagistrates,not hereligiousuthorities,houldwatch ver hereligious racticenddoctrine.09For,s we hall ee,withhat ositione Venowould ave lliedhimselfuitenaturallyith heArminianamp,whichwasformingnthe

very earsnwhichhis isputationook lace.Thelast fthe xtant isputationssentitlede signot ignato.

0Itstopic, herelationetween ign ndsignified,sdefinednthe peningthesiss a subjectmatterhat elongsxclusivelyometaphysics,lthoughmanyf he hesesiscussuestionshat elonglearlyo ogic.nfact,neofthekeyworks lunderedor rgumentss theProblemataogica fRu-dolphGocieniusO 547-1628).

111The locus lassicus ordiscussinghereligiouselevancef he elationf ign nd ignifiedasthe ourthook

oftheSentences.nde Veno's isputation,oo,thereligiousmplicationscome uicklyothe ore:All he utheransrr ravelyhen heylaim hatthe ignsalwayst the ameplace s the ignified. '

2 The centralssue tstakes, s n omanytherisputationsf hat eriod,henterpretationftheEucharist,r,more recisely,hepresencef thebody ndbloodofChristntheconsecratedread ndwine,which heCatholics nd theLutheransffirmalbeitwith ifferentrguments)nd theCalvinistseny.

'De Veno, 1606. This disputations analyzed nsome detailbyGalama,80-8 1.

'De Veno, 1606, collaria, uestion2: Anreligio ubditorum eu cultusDei ad curammagistratus ertineatt an magistratusitcustosutriusque abulaeDecalogi?Affirmatur.

OIbid., 1604a. The onlyextant opyof thisdisputation s found at Geneva,Biblio-

th'eque ubliqueetUniversitaire,d. 145-34.... Ibid., thesis1.Comparecorollarium : An mne ignum it rgumentum?on.Vide

Goclenium eruditehac de redisserentemn 1. parteproblematumogicorum roblema10.112

Ibid., thesis3: Unde graviterrrant utherani mnes,signumcum signato imulloco semper sse statuentes.









For heCalvinists,he eal resencefChrists not nthe onsecratedreadandwine, ut ccursnthe piritf he elieveruringhe ctof onsump-tion.To prove he ocalseparationf ign ndsignifieds thus centralconcernor alvinistheologians.ypically,hedefendantnthis isputa-tion nsistshat or conceptocapturehe ns hat ssignifiedy t, tmustbespatiallyeparatedromt. The ubiquitarianswhomaintain hat herisen hrist subiquitousnthe ameway s His Father nd can thus e

equally resenttallaltarsimultaneously)hereforerr nassuminghatnthe ucharistherexistsdouble

ign, amelyhe xternal

ignfwine nd

bread ndthe nnerign fthebody nd bloodofChrist. urrespondentinsistshathe atterremerelyhe ignified,ut hat he ignifiedanneverbe nternalo the ign. '

THE ARMINIAN ISSUE

Thisdisputationemonstratesxceptionallyell owkey alvinistoncernsdictatedowmetaphysics,ogic,ndphysicsad obealigned ithheology.

Unusualabout thisdisputations that hetheses efendedn it werenotde Veno's aswouldhave een he asewith ll the ther isputationshechaired butClemens impler's1563/64-1624),s thepostscriptdeclares.14In hisdedication,hedefendant,neAugustinus rnoldi,identifiesimselfsa studentrom heGymnasiumllustre rnoldinumtSteinfurta town lose otheDutchborder),nd he mentionsmong isteachers otonly hephilosopherimpler,ut lsothe iberalheologianConrad orstius569-1622).'5This teinfurtinksnoteworthyoreveralreasons.Between tsfoundationn 1588 and theestablishmentf theUniversityfGroningenI614)and he llustrechoolnDeventerI630),

'Ibid., thesis : Ergonecessariosequitur mnesignumpraeter eiconceptus sse ensexternum tnullum nternum.Hinc patetcrassusubiquitariorumrror, ui in Eucharistia

duplex ignum tatuunt, numexternumquippe panemetvinum, lterumnternum,t cor-

pus etsanguinemChristi.Praeterquam nimquod corpusetsanguisChristi n Eucharistiasunt ressignatae,male etiamsignaappellantur,umnullumsignumprater eiconceptum itinternum ed omne externum. Thesis 37: Hinc nullo modo Signatum in signo esse

potest . . . Unde porromanifestumvadit,graviter allucinari osqui

in Eucharistia tatu-unt,corpusChristi sse in panevel localiter, el alio modo. Si enimsignatumnullomodo

potest sse n signo; neque corpusChrstiullo modo potest sse n pane,cum illudsitsigna-tum. Hic verosignum.

'Ibid., postscriptsinepagina): Atquehaecde generali igni tsignati octrina x rev-erendoet clarissimoviro M. ClementeTimplero, Praeceptoremeo observando,hausta,brevitericta sunto.

'Ibid., dedication sinepagina).Arnoldi's edicationgoes,first fall,to theCount ofBentheim, hefounder nd patron f theGymnasiumllustre.









both fwhichwerenearby,teinfurt'symnasiumllustre asone oftheforemostnstitutionsoprovidehenascent utchRepublic ith alvinistministers.nthose ecades,many utch tudents ent oSteinfurtogetleast art ftheir ducation romtsdistinguishedaculty.ttoCasmann,whomwehave lreadyepeatedlyncounterednde Veno's isputations,taughtt Steinfurtetween589and1595, nd Clemens impler,is uc-cessor,ecturedhere rom 595to 1624. Their ombinationf Ramist

methodologyith reformedristotelianetaphysicsndphysicsnflu-enced he eachingt Franekernnumerousays.

However,nthe econdhalf ftheyear 610,this erene elation fmutual enefit urned our.The reason or his udden hangewas thenominationfSteinfurt'sheologyrofessor,onradVorstiuswhomwehaveust ncounterednthededicationfdeVeno'student),s the ucces-soroftherecently-deceasedacobArminius t LeidenUniversity.his

appointmentrovidedhe tartingoint or he en-yearattle etween e-monstrantsArminians)ndcontra-Remonstrantsalsoknown s anti-ArminiansrGomarists),hich nded nlyn1619,when heSynod f

Dordrechtanned orstiusrom utch oil.Thisepisodend ts ventualoutcome ave eft eep racesnthe volutionfDutchCalvinism.n thisbattle,eVeno'solleague,he heologianibrand ubbertca. 1555-1625),wasthe irstndpossiblyorstius' ost bnoxiousdversary.'Aggressivebynature,ubbert ad lreadytartedcontroversyith ohannesrusius0 550-1616), rofessorforientalanguages,hom eaccusedf ncliningto theArian eresy.n1615,he would lsovie gainstfurtherolleaguefhis, he heologianohannes accovius 588 1644),overwhatbecame

known sthe ausaparticularisrisica,controversyetweenupra-nd n-fralapsarianism.18AsvanderWoudewritesnLubbert'siography:

Inall heseears,ewas ngagednfightsn ll ides. iscampaigngainstVorstiusadnot et inishedhenhe onflictith rusiustartednd ehadtodefendimselfgainstrotius.hebattleagednsidehepherefDutchProtestantism,av,withinhe ervwalls f heFranekercademy.'9

'On thehistoryftheGymnasiumllustre,ee Heuermann ndRiibel;on its mpor-tancefor heNetherlands,ee Abels.

'Forinstance,

seeHarrison,

176: thenorth-easterly rovinces

of Friesland and

Groningenwere the stoutest upporters fHigh Calvinism n theNetherlands.. In this

zealousallegiance heUniversityf Franekered theway, nd themouthpiece fthe Univer-

sitywas SibrandusLubbertus.

'See Nijenhuis, 30.

'Van derWoude, 127: Hij is in deze jarenaan alle kanten n strijdgewikkeld.De

campagnetegenVorstiuss nogniet teneinde,ofhij komt n conflictmetDrusiusen moet

zichverwerentegenGrotius.De strijdwoedt binnende kring anhetNederlandsProtestan-

tisme,a, binnende murenvande Franeker kademie elf









It snoteworthyhat heArminianssue, hought had been moulderingbefore,laredpat Franekeruringhe irsteeksfde Veno's ectoratendreachedts irsteak round he imewhen e wasforcedoresign.nJuneof1609,Simon piscopius1583-1644),Arminius'alentedtudentandeventualuccessorntheLeiden hair), addared o show pat theFrisianuniversity.gainstllbetterdvice, e hadallowed imselfoget ntangledinpublic isputationsith ubbert and thas nfact een tipulatedhathedidsoonpurpose,o as to weaken hereputationnd nfluencefthe

self-appointedatchdogfCalvinistrthodoxy.o It has lsobeen eported

that ubbertrotestedith heUniversityuratorsbout heArminianac-tionwithin heirwnuniversity. 'lthoughone four ourcesmentionde Veno nthis ontext,he emporaloincidencesstriking.eginningn1609,Lubbert, hobegan ostyle imselfs the nti-Arminianarexcel-lence, ade ure hatwhat eperceivedo be the rthodoxiew etainedhe

upper and.Theensuingurificationfthe tudentody eachedtspeakin 1611,when everal fVorstius' ormertudents ere xpelled romFranekern the roundshathey eredheringoSocinian eresies.22

Asfor eVeno,twould eem hat ewasnot nly nder he nfluenceofSteinfurt'shilosophers notablyfCasmann but lso nurtured

theologicalympathiesorts heologian,orstius. is own greementithBodin's allfor strong overnmentatchingver state fconfessionaltolerance as haredyVorstius,ho nhisdedicationetterrefacedohisAnti-Bellarminusf161 called pon heDutch tates-Generalokeep hechurchesnder heirightontrol hile uaranteeinglibertasonscientiae,a nativaibertasndoctrinalnterpretation,ndaprophetandiibertasnex-

poundinguch

nterpretationsublicly.

23

Althoughepresently

avenodirectroof or his ffiliation,octrinalndbiographicaleasonsmake t

120Ibid., 183.

12'Van Limborch, .122On theearlyhistory fArminianism,Harrison'slively ccount is stillreliable; ts

chap. 6 analyzestheVorstius ffair.On Lubbert'srole in thisaffair,ee van derWoude,203-26. On the ntellectualconsequences fArminianism or e Veno's tudentGorlaeus, ee

Liithy, 00 la, 272-78. Episcopius' descriptions fhissojournat Franeker recontained nvanLimborch,etters 31 (toArminius) nd 136 (to Corvinus).

123

It appears o us that he mportance fConrad Vorstius or heevolution f thecon-ceptoflibertasphilosophandias so farbeenunderestimated,lthoughhe clearlynticipateddistinctions hat reoften ttributedo laterArminians ikePhilippvan Limborch.Forex-

ample, nhis etter f13 October161 1 to IsaacCasaubon,Vorstiusnticipateshe mportantdistinction etween ssential nd non-essential octrineswhencontesting ausaubon'sde-mand for ynodalrestrictionsn theologicalviews.Vorstius feelsthatonlyscripturallygrounded octrinesmustbe imposed,whereas reedom finterpretationustbe guaranteedfor ll otherdoctrines: Et illicquidem assensio trictesemperurgenda:hic vero ibertas l-

iqua inquirendi, ut etiamdissentiendi,octisomninoconcedendaest;neveritati,magisque









naturaloassume hat e Veno idedwith heArminiansgainstubbert.Like ther rominentrminians,emay venhavehoped or n eventualreconciliationf he onfessions a hope hatmaynfactxplain is m-

prudentisitoRome. heeminentheologianohannesytenbogaerttheauthor fthefamous rminian emonstrancef161 ) wrote searlys1606that octrinalissent asnotdangerousor heChurch,utmight,fleft o tself,ventuallyesultna greateronsensus. For his nd relatedreasons,heEnglish ere ocalltheir wnArminiansLatitude-menaterin the entury.e Veno'sife nddoctrinesuggesthat e feltheneed or

much atitude.dmittedly,eknow ext onothingfhishopes ndaspi-rations. uthisdisputationsisplay greaterpennessnd more esire ordoctrinalnnovationhan man uch sLubbertolerated,orwhomAris-totlewasthephilosophical uardian freligious rthodoxyndwho

thoughtffreedomf nterpretation,otablynmattersheologicalbutbyextensionlso nmattershilosophical),s anopendoor oheresy. 5

AfterheArminianssuehadexplodedtFraneker,e cannotxcludethat e Veno's xtensiveseofphilosophicalibertiesame obe associated

with he heologicalibertiesemandedyVorstiusnd other rminians.Afterll,philosophy as understoodyCalvinistheologiansobeinti-

matelyonnectedotheologicaloncerns,ot east ecausemostheologicaldisputes inged nmetaphysicalssues.One ofthemain ines fattack

against orstiusasthat e hadphysicalizedodby ubjectingis ssencetothe raditionalen ategoriesfbeing a chargehat homasFuller'sChurchistoryxpressedfew earsaternthesetrong ords:

For,whereasthath een he abour f he ious nd earnednallages o

mount an oGod,asmuch smighte),by sacreddorationwhichhemoreumble,hemoreigh)f he ivinencomprehensibleness;his retchdid eek o toop od oman,y ebasingis urity,ssigningim materialbody;onfiningismmensity,snot eingverywhere;hakingis mmuta-

insinuare e cupienti,ostium occluderevelle videamur. ancta,inquam, atque Christianamoderatiohic,ut in omnibus, ervanda st:ne,dum unumpraecipitium imiumvitare u-

pimus, naliud non minuspericulosumncidamus vanLimborch,etter 75,288). For the

pre-Spinozist istoryf the term ibertas

philosophandi,ee Sutton;forthe linkbetween

Arminianism, olerance,nd libertasphilosophandi,ee Simonutti, 5-42.124Letter romUytenbogaertoJohannes eciusof27 September 606: Nos dissensum

metuimus. ed quid si ea tenderet d majorem onsensum? vanLimborch,etter 4, 176).125See, for xample,Lubbert's egative eaction oVorstius nd Hugo Grotius'demand

forlibertasprophetandi:Sed haec libertasnon vagabiturn infinitum;lloquin in foedemlicentiam ransformabitur.uod igitur? emper e continebit ntraanalogiamfidei Vri-emoet, 14, from ubbert,1614, 2, which n turn ppears o be a repetitionfan argumentusedinLubbert,1611). For Lubbert's trict dherence o AristotelianismeeVriemoet, 1.









bility,s ifhiswillwere

ubjectochange;darkening

isomnisciency,

suncertainnfutureontingents:ithmanymoremonstrouspinions,itterobe remandedohell, han ommittedowriting. '

Materiality,mmensity,biquity,mmutability,hangeability,nd future

contingentsre allphilosophical erms. he charge gainstVorstiusndhisfollowers as indeedthat heywere pplying hysical ategoriesoGod. 21

Around1610, it thusbecame moredangerousnthe Dutch context o

apply philosophy o theology,nd all the more so ifone did it in such anovelmanner s de Veno wished. Under the further

ssumptionhatthis

Franeker rofessorllowedhis ikely onfessional ndpolitical risedeposi-tion nfavor fArminianismo becomepublicly nown,wehave a new, rat least n additional, xplanation orwhyhisremoval rom ffice ccurredin 1609. Recall that n 1610 de Veno was readmittedo his chairunder heconditions hat nhisteaching nd disputations e would henceforthab-stainfrom ubtle arergandquaestiones,nd alsofrom efamatorycts ndwords. Thiswarningmayverywellhave been aimed at de Veno's heologi-cal extrapolationsrom trictlyhilosophicalmatters.

CONCLUSION

In the ixteenthnd seventeenthenturies,hilosophicalextbooks erefre-

quently ublishedbystudents,nd often nly fter professorad movedon to a differentaculty. utde Veno never toppedteaching thics nd

physics.When he diedprematurelyn 1613, none ofhisstudents eems ohavewanted o take tuponhimself ocollect ecture otes nddisputationsso as to

perpetuatehe

memoryftheir eacher

bypublishingis

physicscourse.Nor is it ikely hat uch an initiative,ven f thad beenproposed,wouldhavemetwith heapproval fthe Franekerommunity.orthoughde Veno seems to have been likedbyhisstudents, e was in conflictwithseveral f hiscolleagues.The evidence uggestshatthey ook ssueeitherwithhispresumptionr withhisdoctrinal nd confessional iews, r withboth. As forhispresumption, e have shown thathe exaggerated ised-ucational credentials.How he managedtopersuadehiscolleaguesof theexistence f his threedoctorateswithoutpossessing he relevant iecesof

parchmentoprove tremains,fcourse, omewhat f a mystery.Vhile is

degreen awmayhavebeengenuine, ismedical ndphilosophical octor-

'Fuller,3:249121See Liithy, 001a, 279-80.









atescertainly erenot. Butthen, he medicalfacultytFraneker as a verymediocre ne,andperhaps herewasno onetoputde Veno tothetest. '

Despitethisfraudulentspectof hischaracter,tappearsfrom he ex-tantdisputations hatde Veno'steaching epresented noteworthyom-bination frecently-developedhilosophical ositions.We have seenthat,

contraryoothers tFraneker,ewas not nterestednRamism, utwasin-stead ttractedythetheologically-motivatedntological oncerns fsuchGermanphilosopherss Gocienius,Taurellus,nd the aterCasmann.Fur-

thermore,e Veno was theonly

Dutchprofessor

hoseteaching

eflectedthecosmologyndmatterheory f GirolamoCardanoand,to a lesser x-

tent, fJuliusCaesarScaliger.We havefurthermoreeenthatde Veno wasawareofTychoBrahe's bservations f comets nd used them odenythe

immutabilityf the celestial pheres nd the existence f a non-elementalether.Although, fewdecades ater,twouldno longerbe uncommonforteachers f natural hilosophyo mention henovelresults f theempiricalsciences, e Veno seemsto have been theonlyDutch philosopher o havedoneso inthefirst ears f the eventeenthentury.

His historical nfluencesmostvisible n thewritings fhisstudent,David Goriaeus.Although here s much about the atter'stomism nd itsnominalistnderpinningy-shathas no linkwhatsoevero de Veno's eaching,an entire eriesofspecificallyhysicaldoctrines asseddirectly rom heteacher o hisgiftedtudent.Notably,Goriaeus cceptedde Veno's Italian)two-element octrine nd thecosmological iew that elestial eat,carriedearthwardyair, s thechief gentofphysical hange.Further lements e

adoptedwere he deasthat uantitys inseparable rom ody nd that here

is therefore o suchthing s purely otential rimematterpaceAristotle)and that heAristotelian otion ofplace (locus)mustbe replacedbyspace(spatium).Both of these deas arenecessary reconditions or tomism,which swhyde Veno'spreparatoryoledeserves obe known.Moregener-ally,however, e Veno introducedGoriaeus to a wayofexplainingnaturethattried o be independent fpaganGreek ystemsnd in concordancewith he Christian eligion,whileat the sametime atisfying etaphysicalrequirementsndempirical bservation. '

AlthoughGorlaeuswould soon discover ther,morepowerful, hilo-sophicalheroes,his first ole-modelwasclearly isteacher t Franeker.nthis espectt salsosignificanthatde Venoeither onsidered imself,rat

'For themediocrity f Franeker's arlyprofessorsfmedicine,see Otterspeer nd

Aerts-van ueren, 6.

'The detailsofGorlaeus' indebtedness o de Veno arediscussedin Liithy, 001a,262-70.









least ehavedndtalkedike,nArminian,ecause oriaeuselongedoanArminianamily,ndbecause is xercitationesanbeunderstoods aphilo-sophical apologia for heembattledArminian heologianVorstius.

Althoughoriaeus seddifferentetaphysicalndphysical ethodshanhisteacher,eclearlyontinuedndeVeno's ootstepsy cceptinghe

premisehat hilosophicalnsight as a necessaryreconditionor ur

spiritual ealth an assumptionhatwasexplicitlyeniedbythe nti-Remonstrants.

De Venohadreceived fair rial tRome, ndalthoughereturnedohisnative risia ndtaughtt a Calvinistnstitution,e hadnot urnedntoa fumingalvinistfLubbert'sind. he circumstantialvidenceresentedinthis rticleemptsstodepict im s a Latitude-manvant a lettre.fthis ypothesisscorrect,hen e Veno's oman ojournmightossiblyeviewed s the ign f confessionalpen-mindednessreven s the xpres-sion of thehope na confessionaleconciliation.ucha hope nspiredseveral fthe renic rminiansfhis ge, ncludingorstiusndGrotius,whobalked tthe deathat he ecentchism asdefinitivendtried o usereasonedrgument philosophyngeneralndmetaphysicsnd naturalphilosophynparticular to find way ut.

UNIVERSITY OF NijMEGEN, THE NETHERLANDS [LOTHY]

UNIVERSITY LA SAPIENZA, RoME, ITALY [SPRUIT]









BibliograpAbels,Paul. 1988. Das Arnoldinum und

dieNiederlandewhrend seiner rstenBliitezeit: Das Verhdltnis einerHagliebe. In 400jahreArnoldinum1588-1988, ed. Kreisheimatbund

Steinfurt,8-97. Greven.

Adama, Lollius. 1606. Theseslogicae,denatura logices. Resp.] Liebwertusa

Wynshem. raneker.. 1609. Fortunati Crellii Isagoges

logicae, in duas partes tributae, incommunemetpropriam. raneker.

Baldini,Ugo, and Leen Spruit. 000. Car-dano e Aldrovandi nelle letteredelSant'Uffizio omanoall'Inquisitore i

BolognaO 571-73). Bruniana Cam-

panelliana6:145-63.. 200 1. Campanellatra lprocesso

romanoe la congiuradi Calabria. Apropositodi due lettere nedite San-tori. Bruniana e Campanelliana7:179-87.

Beretta, rancesco.1998. Galilie devant eTribunal e lYnquisition.ribourg.

. 2000. UArchiviodella Congre-gazione del Sant'Uff'lcio: bilancio

provvisoriodella storia e naturadeifondi d'antico regime. n LInquisi-

zioneromana:metodologia ellefontistoria stituzionale,d. A. Del Col andG. Paolin,119-44. Trieste-MonterealeValcellina.

Blair,Ann. 2000. Mosaic Physics nd theSearchfor Pious NaturalPhilosophyin theLate Renaissance. sis91:32-58.

Boeles,WB.S. 1879. FrieslandsHoogeschoolen hetRijksAthenaeum e Franeker.

parts n 3 vols. Leeuwarden.

Bots,J.A.H.,andWTh.M. Frijhoff.985.De studentenpopulatie van de

Franeker cademie: een kwantitatiefonderzoek O 585-181 1). In Univer-siteiteFraneker585-1811,ed. G. Th.

Jensma,F.R.H. Smit,and R Westra,56-72. Leeuwarden.

Cardano, Girolamo. 1550. De subtilitatelibriOU. Nuremberg.

. 1560'In calumniatoremibrorumde subtilitate, actio prima. In Desubtilitate ibri XXI. Third rev.ed.,1265-1426. Basel.

. 1565. ContradicentiumedicorumlibriH. Paris.

Carena, Cesare. 1655. Tractatus e OfficioSanctissimaeInquisitionis,tmodo ro-cedendi n

causisfidei.remona.

Casmann, Otto. 1598. Cosmopoeia et

Ov'pavoypaOia Christiana.Frank-furt.

Cifres,Alejandro. 2001. Das ArchivdesSanctum Officium: Alte und neue

Ordnungsformen. n Inquisition,n-dex, Zensur: Wissenskulturen derNeuzeit im Widerstreit,d. H. Wolf,45-67. Paderborn.

de Castro,Alfonso.1549. De iustahaereti-

corumpunitione. 1547. 2nd. ed.Venice.de Ridder-Symoens,H. 1985. Buiten-

landse studenten aan de Franekeruniversiteit 585-181 I. In Univer-siteit eFraneker585-1811,ed. G.Th.

Jensma,ER.H. Smit,and R Westra,73-89. Leeuwarden.

de Veno, Henricus. 1603. Disputationumphysicarumprima,ephysica. Resp.]Bernardus aludanus.Franeker.

. 1604a. Disputatiometaphysicaesigno tsig-nato.Resp.]Augustinus r-noldi. Franeker.

. 1604b.Disputationumphysicarumsecunda, eprincipiist ausis erum at-uralium. [Resp.] Duco a Buvama.Franeker.

. 1604c. Dispu atio umphysicaruquarta,de infinito t oco. [Resp.] Pi-eriusH. Winsemius.Franeker.

. 1604d.Disputationumphysicarumqul'nta,de mundo in genere. Resp.]

Gualtherus ellius. Franeker.. 1604e. Disputationumphysicarum

octava, e elementis.Resp.]Duca a Bu-vama.Franeker.

. 1604f Disputationumphysicarumnona,de mistigenerationetejus inte-ritu. [Resp.] Bernardus Paludanus.Franeker.











. 1985b. Uit hethuisvanArcerius.

Acht'artes'-studentennhunopvattin-genoverwetenschap nmaatschappij,1589-1639. In UniversiteitteFraneker

1585-1811, ed. G. Th. jensma,ER.H. Smit,and E Westra,452-69.Leeuwarden.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1977. The EssentialTension: elected tudies n ScientificTraditionnd Change.Chicago.

Lasswitz,Kurd. 1890. GeschichteerAtom-

istik omMittelalter isNewton. vols.

Hamburgand Leipzig.Leijenhorst,Cees, and Christoph Liithy.

2002. The Erosion fAristotelianism.Confessional hysicsn EarlyModern

GermanyndtheDutchRepublic. nTheDynamicsofAristotelian atural

Philosophyfromntiquityo1700, ed.Cees Leijenhorst, Christoph Liithy,and Johannes M.M.H. Thijssen,375-411. Leiden.

Leinsle,UlrichGottfried. 985. Das DingunddieMethode.MethodischeKonstitu-tion und Gegenstand der friihenprotestantischenetaphysik.ugsburg.

Lubbert, ibrand. 161 1. Declaratiorespon-sionisConradiVorstii. raneker.

. 1614. ResponsiodpietatemHu&onis Grotii. raneker.

Liithy, hristoph. 001a. David Gorlaeus'

Atomism, r: The Marriage fProtes-tantMetaphysicswith talian Natural

Philosophy. In Late Medieval and

EarlyModernCorpuscular atterThe-

ories,ed. Christoph Liithy,JohnE.

Murdoch,and William R. Newman,245-90. Leiden.

.2001b. AnAristotelianWatchdogas Avant-Garde hysicist:ulius aesar

Scaliger. TheMonist84: 542-61.

Mahnke,Dietrich.1908. Rektor asmannin Stade, ein vergessenerGegnerari-stotelischerPhilosophie nd Naturwis-senschaftn 16. Jahrhundert. rchiv

ftirdie GeschichtederNaturwissen-

schaftenund der Technik5:183-97,226-40, 352-63.

Matriculafacultatisheologicae,597-. MS.Universitdtsbibliothekasel,A 116.

Mercenarius, rchangelus. 585. Dilucida-

tiones bscuriorumocorum tquaest-ionumphilosophiae aturalis.Leipzig.

Meursius,J. 1625. AthenaeBatavae, ivedeurbe eidensi tAcademia, irisquelaris

qui utramque ngeniouoatque scriptisillustrarunt.eiden.

Michael,Emily.1997. Daniel Sennert nMatterand Form. At the unctureoftheOld and the New. EarlyScienceandMedicine2:272-99.

Mirto,Alfonso.1986. Un ineditodel Sei-centosull'Inquisizione.Nouvelles e a

RipubliquedesLettres:99-138.

Napius,Wj., and G.A. Lindeboom. 1985.

Hooglerarenn de Geneeskundean de

Hogeschool en het Athenaeum teFraneker.msterdam.

Nerdenus,HenricusAntonii.1596. Dispu-tatio theologica de usura. [Resp.]HenricusdeVeno. Franeker.

Nijenhuis, W. 1985. DeTheologischeFaculteit:Inleiding. n Universiteite

Franeker 1585-1811, ed. G. Th.

Jensma,ER.H. Smit,and E Westra,227-35. Leeuwarden.

Otterspeer,W, andJ.E.Aerts-van ueren.1985. Werkplaatsenan wijsheid, e-leerdheid n hetwaregeloof- fDe wis-

selwerkingussen e universiteitenanLeidenen Franeker. raneker.

Pagano,S.M., ed. 1984. Idocumentidelpro-

cesso i GalileoGalilel.VaticanCity.Partington,amesRiddick.1939. The Or-

iginsof theAtomicTheory. AnnahofScience :245-82.

Piccolomini, rancesco.1600. De mixtione.In Librorum d scientiam enatura t-tinentiumpartes quinque. 2 vols.Venice.2:98r-I12v.

Postma, erenc,ndJan anSluis.1995.Au-ditorium Academiae Franekerensis,

BibliographieerReden,DisputationenundGelegenheitsdruckwerkeerUniver-sitdtund des Athendums n Franeker1585-1843. Leeuwarden.

Prosperi, Adriano. 1991. Per la storia

dell'Inquisizioneromana. n L'inqui-sizione romana in Italia nell'et,moderna: rchivi,roblemi i metodonuove icerche,d. AndreaDel Col andG. Paolin,27-64. Rome.









P%-Ceif,atricia.1969. The TextbookTradi-tion in Natural Philosophy,1600-1650. Journal ftheHistory fIdeas30:17-32.

Riibel, Rudolf. 1953. Das BurgsteinfurterGymnasiumArnoldinumm WandelderZeiten.Burgsteinfurt.

Sassen,R 1941-42. Grotius,philosophearistote'licien. rotiana :37-52.

Scaliger,JuliusCaesar. 1576. ExotericarumexercitationumiberXV de subtilitate,ad HieronymumCardanum. 2nd ed.Frankfurt.

Schmidt, P. 2000. Ulnquisizione e glistranieri.In LInquisizione glistorici:un cantiereaperto, 65-72. Rome.

' 2001. Fernhandel nd r6mische

Inquisition. Interkulturellesmanage-ment' m konfessionelleneitalter. In

Inquisition,ndex,Zensur. Wissenskul-turen erNeuzeit mWiderstreit,d. H.

Wolf,105-20. Paderborn.Simonutti, uisa.1984. Arminianesimotol-

leranzanel eicentolandese. 1carteggioPh.vanLimborchJ. e Clerc. lorence.

Spruit,Leen, and C. Preti.2003. I docu-menti inediti e editi negli archiviromanidel Sant'Ufficio dell'Indice.In [new edition ofl L. Amabile, FraTomma-soCampanella. a sua congiura,i suoiprocessi la sua pazzia. 5 vols.

Paris-Turin,ol. 1: forthcoming.Sprunger,K.L. 1985. William Ames and

the Franeker Link to English andAmericanPuritanism. n Universiteitte Franeker1585-1811, ed. G. Th.

Jensma,ER.H. Smit,and E Westra,264-74. Leeuwarden.

Stellingwerff,rederik.1610. De constitu-tione logicae disputatio scholastica.Franeker.

Sutton,RobertB. 1953. The PhraseLiber-ta-sphilosophandi. JournaloftheistoryofIdeas14:310-16.

Tedeschi,John.1997. Ilgiudice e 1'eretico.Studisull'Inquisizioneomana.Milano.

Timpler,Clemens. 1604. Metaphysicaeys-tema methodicum, libris quinquecomprehensum.teinfurt.

Trutius,Antonius. 1593. Theseslogicaeex

Categoriis;hesesphysicae eprincipiis.[Resp.]Henricusde Veno.Leiden.

vanBerkel,Klaas. 1985. Franeker ls cen-trumvan ramisme. n Universiteite

Franeker 1585-1811, ed. G. Th.Jensma,ER.H. Smit,and F.Westra,424-37. Leeuwarden.

van derWoude, Cornelis. 1963. SibrandusLubbertus. even nwerken.,nhetbij-zondernaarzijn correspondentie.h.D.

thesis,VrijeUniversiteit msterdam.vanLimborch, h.,ed. 1704.Prxstantiumc

eruditorumirorumepistolxcclesiasticxettheologicx.' revised d. Amsterdam.

vanNienes, A.R,J.Rinzema,M. Offringa,RAJ.van den Berget al. 1985. De ar-

chieven an de UniversiteiteFraneker

1585-1812. Leeuwarden.

Vorstius,Conrad. 1610. Anti-Bellarminuscontractus: hoc est., ompendiosumexamenomniumfideiontroversiarum.Hanau.

Vriemoet,Emon Luius. 1758. AthenarumFrisiacarumibriH. Leeuwarden.

Wackernagel, Hans Georg et al., eds.1951-80. Die MatrikelderUniversitdtBasel.5 vols. Basel.

Wybinga, Martinus 'a. 1645. Laudatio

funebris abitapostexequias n temploacademico n honoremc moemoriam... D. Pierii Winsemii ... Leeu-warden.

Zijlstra, amme.1996.HetgeleerdeFriesland- een

mythe?Universiteit en

maatschappij n Friesland en Stad enLandea 1380-1650. Leeuwarden.

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	laiagabe
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

LÜTHY-Veno

Documents