Are women men or not?

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are women men or not? is the German translation of a book published anonymously in Latin in Germany in 1595 under the title Disputatio nova contra mulieres, Qua probatur eas Homines non esse . It was ascribed to Valens Acidalius , although he distanced himself from this ascription. In its German version, published in 1618, it is a fictitious and controversial argument between two religious in the course of the Querelle des femmes , which began in the late Middle Ages and which was increasingly discussed with the participation of learned women and artists until the 18th century. The German transmission combined the original script in dialogue form with the defense script for women (Defensio sexus muliebris) published by Simon Gedik that same year . Despite his meticulous refutation, Gedik already asked himself whether the unknown author of the Disputatio nova might have written it in jest. The German transformation is called "a funny conversation" in the heading.

Disputatio nova from 1595

First edition and response

At the beginning of 1595 a Latin script appeared in the Holy Roman Empire , in which neither the author nor the printer nor the place of publication was named. Its title was Disputatio nova contra mulieres, Qua probatur eas Homines non esse (“New disputation against women that proves that they are not human”). Since she apparently denied women being human, she triggered violent reactions and responses that same year defending the human condition of women. The theological faculties of Wittenberg and Leipzig responded in writing because they considered the work - regardless of its ironic and polemic character - to be dangerous and saw the Bible attacked. It was especially important to warn young students about the script. In the same year, Andreas Schoppius responded with a comprehensive defense of the "named but public Lesterer for refutation". Simon Gedik , then court preacher in Halle, wrote a particularly detailed and equally violent reply in February of that year, which was still in print in 1595. In his Defensio sexus muliebris ("Defense of the female sex"), also written in Latin, he also relied on the entirely anonymous version. Thesis after thesis, Gedik refuted the argumentation developed in the Disputatio nova , but asked himself in the introduction whether anonymous had written in jest.

Concern of scripture

All reactions in common is the fact they are on the real concern of the Disputatio nova not enter: the polemic against the Polish re baptist movement of the Socinians . Scripture begins with the words: "Since it is free in Samaritia [...] to believe and teach that Jesus Christ [...] just like the Holy Spirit is not God, it [...] will also be allowed to me, to believe […] that women are not human and what follows from this: that Christ did not suffer for them and that they will not be redeemed. ” Samaritia , which was emended in later editions for Sarmatia , is one created by the author Word creation, presumably based on the Latin term samartia ("error"). Both terms, immediately recognizable especially in the form of Sarmatia , are an alias for Poland, the home of the anti - Trinitarian Socinians mentioned again and again in the scriptures , who are called Anabaptists there. This group of beliefs was characterized by a particularly literal interpretation of the Bible, and with this means the author tried to refute their belief in 51 theses . The choice of topic reflects one of the Socinian beliefs - the human condition of women. To underpin his theses, the author draws on the Bible as well as Plato's views on the nature of women, elaborates on etymology about the word homo or invokes biological comparisons. The aim was to counteract what he saw as the absurd thesis of the essence of Christ with an equally absurd thesis about the essence of women.

Author's question

Immediately after the writing became known, the search for its author began. In this context, the Leipzig Council also questioned the publisher Heinrich Osthausen, who is represented in Leipzig and Frankfurt am Main. Osthausen admitted to having relocated the work and named Valens Acidalius as the author of the font. Acidalius, meanwhile also publicly attacked, now wrote to Jakob Monau and described the matter to him from his point of view. Accordingly, a copy of the script, originally from Poland, which had been circulating in certain circles for years, had been in his possession for some time, and when Osthausen, who had published Acidalius' work Valentis Acidalii in Q. Curtium animadversiones with considerable economic loss, urged him, he would have offered him this little pamphlet for free disposal, clearly indicating that he was not the author. Since then, the font has mostly operated under the name of Valens Acidalius, albeit with reservations.

New editions and translations

The attention drawn by the reactions led to a series of new editions from 1638 onwards, which printed the font itself together with Gedik's replica. They appeared under the title Disputatio perjucunda qua Anonymus probare nititur mulieres homines non esse: cui opposita est Simonis Gedicci ... defensio sexus muliebris , in The Hague in 1638, 1641, 1644, in Paris in 1683, 1690, 1693 and in Leipzig in 1707 In these prints, both fonts were placed one behind the other. One of these editions found its way to Italy, where it was translated into Italian in 1647 by the Roman Horatio Plata . The translation was published with false information about printer and location and immediately sparked outrage. With Francesco Valvasense, one of the richest printers in Venice , the person responsible was immediately identified and handed over to the Inquisition , and the script itself was placed on the Roman index . As a reaction to the Italian translation, the pseudonym Galerana Barcitotti was published in 1651 by the Venetian Benedictine nun Arcangela Tarabotti Che le donne siano della specie degli uomini, difesa delle donne di Galerana Barcitotti contro Orazio Plata traduttore di quei fogli che dicono: Le donne siano della specie degli uomini della specie degli uomini (for example, "Why women are of the kind of man, Galerana Barcitotti's defense of women against Orazio Plata, the translator of the script, which says that women are not human") - her last work - which is also the index to Victim fell. Another translation into French was done in 1744 by the writer Anne-Gabriel Meusnier de Querlon and was reprinted in Krakow in 1766 by Charles Clapiès. In 1783 a Hungarian translation of the disputation appeared anonymously , which was followed by an independent defense in 1785 under the pseudonym Anna Carberi.

Are women men or not? by 1618

In 1618 an edited German translation of the writings appeared - anonymously and titled as "a funny conversation": Basic / and probable description / argument and final article, as well as detailed answers attached: Concerning the question / whether women are people / or Not? Most of the time out of holy scripture / the rest of the above, outside of other scribes and the experience itself, never seen Teutsch in the truck before: Anietzo, however, to noticeably good news / before the female gender / to civil responsibility / conversational white funny written and published, by a special one Lovers of love and humility Anno 1617 . These are the freely translated Disputatio nova and the Defensio by Simon Gedik, which are offered here as a dialogue between Brother Endres, the misogynist Benedictine order, and Father Eugenius, whose surname is Feminine Friend Emeritus Jesuita . As in the original writings interwoven here, the disputants mostly refer to the Bible. Without being a literal translation, the script largely follows the lines of argument of its models, although both are clearly abbreviated.

Misogynist Aspects of Argumentation

In literary history, the type of structure is viewed from the point of view of a literary or logical-rhetorical exercise, as a game with satire, parody and paradox. “But satire and irony do not rule out a deeper meaning,” says Gisela Bock . Within the subtle logic and eloquence of the pros and cons in Scripture. Whether women are human beings or not? the rhetorical means of opposing the degradation of women often aim below the level of satire and irony into the vulgar . Animal comparisons - with dogs, pigs, donkeys, snakes and the beast par excellence - are tried again and again. The author counters the argument that women can speak and therefore participate in human existence by pointing out that this could also be done by birds like the parrot or the magpie, even Balaam's donkey would have spoken and yet would not have been human. He counters the reference to the reasonableness of women with the argument that man can in principle learn from the reason of animals, such as snakes and ants.

According to Manfred P. Fleischer , the most hair-raising argument can be found in the ninth thesis. Here the author asserts that in the context of human reproduction the man has the role of the causa efficiens , the "effective cause", while the woman embodies the causa instrumentalis, the "instrumental cause"; for “a blacksmith cannot forge a sword unless he has a hammer as an aid; a scribe cannot write unless he also has a tool, a pen; a tailor cannot sew if he does not have the needle as an aid, a person cannot produce if he does not have the woman as an aid. But just as the hammer is not a blacksmith, the needle is not a tailor, the pen is not a scribe, so the woman is not human either. ”In the German translation, the“ misogynist ”Brother Endres explains that the sensation of pain does not lead to a creature People make and thinks: "Woman is saved through child-witnessing, and it is because women want to make themselves human with it, but they are far from it, and the answer is already ready for them, namely that the animals are also hurting but they are not human. ”In summary, the misogynist comes to the conclusion:“ Summa Summarum: No animal is so poisonous, woman is even more poisonous, even more devilish and malicious than the devil himself. "

Disputatio nova and Querelle des femmes

The reaction took place in the same year and made it clear that a degradation of women and their downgrading to a level below humans was neither accepted nor met with understanding from even ascertainable parts of those interested in such questions. Nonetheless, it repeatedly sparked discussions within the Querelle des femmes .

The roots of the Querelle des femmes go back to statements made by some church fathers and the church writer Tertullian about Eve's role in the Fall and the nature of women in general. During the renaissance , the Querelle was nourished by the dispute over a new definition of "human". The Renaissance humanists posed the question of what man is and how the two sexes embodied "man". In 1486 the humanist Giovanni Pico della Mirandola prepared his epochal, later printed but never given speech Oratio de hominis dignitate (“Speech on the dignity of man”). But also for Pico "only Adam [...] was the addressee of God's word, according to which man should determine his own nature according to his free will and the form in which he wished to live."

Nonetheless, in the speech of the then 23-year-old Pico, the shift in the question is evident: The focus was no longer on the question of people themselves and how they are, but rather the question of whether women belong in principle - to the crown of creation, as which man is seen. As a result, numerous “anti-women” writings appeared, including the Disputatio nova and its German translation. Whether women are human beings or not? are to be counted. They carried the Querelle to Germany.

In 1910, Max Funke published his dissertation with a similar question as the Disputatio nova , in which, with reference to the biblical account of creation and to philosophers such as Schopenhauer, he stated in the title that women are not people (“Mulieres homines non sunt”) . With Funke everything is undoubtedly meant seriously and he gives the impression that this has been scientifically proven, says Elisabeth Gössmann .

See also

expenditure

  • Valens Acidalius (originally anonymous): Disputatio nova contra Mulieres, Qua probatur eas Homines non esse. Without place, 1595 ( digitized version ).
  • Valens Acidalius: Disputatio nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas homines non esse - New disputation against women to prove that they are not human. Latin and German. Edited with the translation by Georg Burkard and explained by Ralf Georg Czapla and Georg Burkard (= Bibliotheca Neolatina. Volume 11). Manutius, Heidelberg 2006.
  • Thorough and probable description / argument and final article, sampt attached detailed answers: Concerning the question / whether women are human / or not? ... 1618 ( Google Books )
  • Elisabeth Gössmann (Ed.): Whether women are people or not? (= Archive for women's research in the history of philosophy and theology . Vol. 4). 2nd, revised and expanded edition. Academium, Munich 1996, ISBN 3-89129-004-7 , pp. 101–124 (text), pp. 52–62 (commentary by Jörg Jungmayr).

literature

  • Valentin Heinrich Schmidt: About the critic Valens Acidalius, especially about his share in the writing of an unnamed that women are not people. In: Journal for Germany, historical-political content. Volume 13, 1819, pp. 113-148 ( digitized version ).
  • Manfred P. Fleischer: Are Women Human? - The Debate of 1595 between Valens Acidalius and Simon Gediccus. In: Sixteenth Century Journal. Volume 12, Number 2, 1981, pp. 107-120.
  • Jörg Jungmayr : Introduction to Henricus Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, to Valens Acidalius and the counter-writing by Gediccus as well as to… Whether people are women or not? In: Elisabeth Gössmann (Ed.): Whether women are human beings or not? (= Archive for women's research in the history of philosophy and theology . Vol. 4). 2nd, revised and expanded edition. Iudicium, Munich 1996, pp. 46-62.
  • Gisela Bock : Women in European History. From the Middle Ages to the present (= building Europe. ). Beck, Munich 2000, ISBN 3-406-46167-0 , pp. 14-16.
  • Magdalena Drexl: The Disputatio nova contra mulieres, Qua probatur eas Homines non esse and their opponents. Querelle des Femmes in denominational polemics around 1600. In: Gisela Engel, Friederike Hassauer , Brita Rang, Heide Wunder (eds.): Gender dispute at the beginning of European modernity - The Querelle des Femmes. Helmer, Königstein / Taunus 2004, pp. 122–135.
  • Magdalena Drexl: women enemies - women friends? The Querelle des femmes in the context of confessional conflicts around 1600. Campus, Frankfurt / Main and New York 2006, pp. 40 ff. 176–226.

proof

  1. ^ Although according to Johann Christoph Bekmann's testimony there was another edition printed by Bonavent Schmid in Zerbst ; compare Johann Christoph Bekmann: Politica parallela. Meyer, Frankfurt / Oder 1694, p. 477 f. ( Digitized version ); see also Valentin Heinrich Schmidt: About the critic Valens Acidalius, especially about his share in the writing of an unnamed that women are not people. In: Journal for Germany, historical-political content. Volume 13, 1819, p. 129.
  2. ↑ Another translation option reads: "... that they are not men"; for the translation, see Magdalena Drexl: The Disputatio nova contra mulieres, Qua probatur eas Homines non esse and their opponents. Querelle des Femmes in denominational polemics around 1600. In: Gisela Engel, Friederike Hassauer , Brita Rang, Heide Wunder (eds.): Gender dispute at the beginning of European modernity - The Querelle des Femmes. Helmer, Königstein / Taunus 2004, p. 122; Ralf Georg Czapla, Georg Burkard: Valens Acidalius: Disputatio nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas homines non esse - New disputation against women to prove that they are not human. Latin and German. With the translation by Georg Burkard. Manutius, Heidelberg 2006, p. 18.
  3. ↑ On the answers from the universities see Magdalena Drexl: Weiberfeinde - Weiberfreunde? The Querelle des femmes in the context of confessional conflicts around 1600. Campus, Frankfurt / Main and New York 2006, pp. 100–145, especially pp. 126–145.
  4. ↑ Andreas Schoppius: Frawen honor vnd conscience shield. The women are abundant, men, in the faith of God children and heirs of salvation are: for their consolation, for their named, but public Lesterer for refutation. Eisleben 1595 ( digitized version ).
  5. ↑ Simon Gediccus: Defensio sexus muliebris, opposita futelissimae disputationi recens editae. Michael Lantzenberger, Leipzig 1595 ( Google Books ).
  6. ^ Translation after Ralf Georg Czapla, Georg Burkard: Valens Acidalius: Disputatio nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas homines non esse - new disputation against women to prove that they are not human. Latin and German. With the translation by Georg Burkard. Manutius, Heidelberg 2006, p. 29.
  7. ↑ Ralf Georg Czapla, Georg Burkard: Valens Acidalius: Disputatio nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas homines non esse - New disputation against women to prove that they are not human. Latin and German. With the translation by Georg Burkard. Manutius, Heidelberg 2006, p. 105.
  8. ↑ Manfred P. Fleischer: Are Women Human? - The Debate of 1595 between Valens Acidalius and Simon Gediccus. In: Sixteenth Century Journal. Volume 12, Number 2, 1981, pp. 107-120.
  9. ^ Heinz-Jürgen Voss : Making Sex Revisited: Deconstruction of gender from a biological-medical perspective. transcript, Bielfeld 2010, pp. 108–110, here: p. 109 ( PDF ).
  10. ↑ Ralf Georg Czapla, Georg Burkard: Valens Acidalius: Disputatio nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas homines non esse - New disputation against women to prove that they are not human. Latin and German. With the translation by Georg Burkard. Manutius, Heidelberg 2006, p. 7 incorrectly state that Osthausen was based in Frankfurt an der Oder; but compare Albrecht Kirchhoff : Reading fruits from the files of the city archive in Leipzig. In: Archive for the history of the German book trade. Volume 12, 1889, pp. 131-142, here: p. 132 ( digitized version ).
  11. ^ Valens Acidalius: Epistola apologetica ad Cl. Virum Iacobum Monavium. In: Valentis Acidalii Epistolarum Centuria 1. Hanoviae [= Hanau] 1606, pp. 339-344 ( Google Books ).
  12. ↑ On this Valentin Heinrich Schmidt: About the critic Valens Acidalius, especially about his share in the writing of an unnamed that women are not people. In: Journal for Germany, historical-political content. Volume 13, 1819, pp. 113-148, here: pp. 141-147; Ralf Georg Czapla , Georg Burkard: Valens Acidalius: Disputatio nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas homines non esse - New disputation against women to prove that they are not human. Latin and German. With the translation by Georg Burkard. Manutius, Heidelberg 2006, p. 8. 10 f .; Magdalena Drexl: women enemies - women friends? The Querelle des femmes in the context of confessional conflicts around 1600. Campus, Frankfurt / Main and New York 2006, pp. 40. 89–93. 96 f.
  13. ↑ Jörg Jungmayr: Introduction to Henricus Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, to Valens Acidalius and the counter-writing by Gediccus as well as to ... Are people women or not? In: Elisabeth Gössmann (Ed.): Whether women are human beings or not? 1996, pp. 46-62, especially pp. 46 and 52 f .; Silke Segler-Messner: Between Sensitivity and Rationality - The Dialogue of the Sexes in the Italian Enlightenment. Schmidt, Berlin 1998, p. 47, note 80
  14. ↑ Horatio Plata: Che le donne non siano della spetie degli huomini. Discorso piacevole. Gasparo Ventura, Lyon [actually: Francesco Valvasense, Venice] 1647.
  15. ↑ Joseph Hilgers: The Index of Forbidden Books. In its new version presented and legally and historically recognized. Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1904, p. 153 f. ( Digitized version ).
  16. ^ Anne-Gabriel Meusnier de Querlon: Problèmes sur les femmes. Amsterdam [actually: Paris] 1744.
  17. ↑ Charles Clapiès: Paradoxes sur les femmes, où l'on tâche de prouver qu'elles ne sont pas de l'espèce humaine. Cracow 1766 ( digitized version ).
  18. ↑ Meg-Mutatás, hogy az Asszonyi személyek nem emberek.Az Írásból és a Józan okoskodásból Nap-fényre hozatott, Nyomtattatott 1783. Esztendőben.
  19. ↑ B. Carberi Anna kis-aszszonynak kedveséhez írtt levele, mellyben meg-mutatja, hogy az aszszonyi személyek emberek. Plague 1785.
  20. ^ Reprinted by Elisabeth Gössmann (Ed.): Whether women are human beings or not? 1996, pp. 101-124.
  21. ^ Gisela Bock: Women in European History. 2000, p. 19.
  22. ↑ Manfred P. Fleischer: Are Women Human? - The Debate of 1595 between Valens Acidalius and Simon Gediccus. In: Sixteenth Century Journal. Volume 12, Number 2, 1981, p. 107.
  23. ^ Translation after Ralf Georg Czapla, Georg Burkard: Valens Acidalius: Disputatio nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas homines non esse - new disputation against women to prove that they are not human. Latin and German. With the translation by Georg Burkard. Manutius, Heidelberg 2006, p. 37.
  24. ↑ Thorough and practical description / argument and final article, sampt attached detailed answers: Concerning the question / whether women are people / or not? ... 1618, p. 17 ( Google Books ); Elisabeth Gössmann (Ed.): Whether women are people or not? 2nd, revised and expanded edition. Iudicium, Munich 1996, p. 112, 123; Gisela Bock: Women in European History. 2000, p. 19 quotes more freely and meaning changing: “that“ women want to make themselves human [by giving birth] ”,“ the answer is already ready for them, namely that animals also give birth with pain, but that is why they are not People [...]."."
  25. ↑ Thorough and practical description / argument and final article, sampt attached detailed answers: Concerning the question / whether women are people / or not? ... 1618, 36 ( Google Books ); Elisabeth Gössmann (Ed.): Whether women are people or not? 2nd, revised and expanded edition. Iudicium, Munich 1996, p. 123; Gisela Bock: Women in European History. 2000, p. 19.
  26. ^ Heinz-Jürgen Voss: Making Sex Revisited: Deconstruction of gender from a biological-medical perspective. transcript, Bielfeld 2010, pp. 108-110.
  27. ^ Gisela Bock: Women in European History. 2000, p. 13.
  28. ↑ a b Gisela Bock: Women in European history. 2000, p. 14.
  29. ^ Gisela Bock: Women in European History. 2000, p. 20.
  30. ^ Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: De hominis dignitate. = About human dignity (= Philosophical Library. Vol. 427). Edited and introduced by August Buck . Meiner, Hamburg 1990, ISBN 3-7873-0959-4 (Latin text with a German translation by Norbert Baumgarten).
  31. ↑ Gisela Bock: Gender stories of the modern age. Ideas, politics, practice (= critical studies on the science of history. Volume 213). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2014, p. 78.
  32. ↑ Max Funke : Are women people? Mulieres homines non sunt. Studies and presentations based on scientific sources. Spies, Baden-Baden 1911; compare Elisabeth Gössmann (ed.): Whether women are human beings or not? 2nd, revised and expanded edition. Iudicium, Munich 1996, p. 25 f.