Allison P. Coudert received her PhD from the Warburg Institute, University of London. Her focus of interest is on the interaction between religion and science with a special emphasis on Jewish contributions to science and gender issues. Her most recent book Religion, Magic, and Science in Early Modern Europe and America was published by Praeger in 2011. Her published work includes Leibniz and the Kabbalah (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995) and The Impact of the Kabbalah in the 17th Century: The Life and Thought of Francis Mercury van Helmont, 1614-1698 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 1999). Among her recent articles are, ““Friend or Foe: Current Debates in Science and Religion.” Controversies in Contemporary Religion: Education, Law, Politics, Society, and Spirituality. 3 vols. Ed. Paul Hedges (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2014), 2:23-52. “Rethinking Max Weber’s theory of Disenchantment,” Magic and Magicians in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Age. Ed. Albrecht Classen. Fundamentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2017, 705-39.She is currently working on a book about changing attitudes toward pain and suffering in the West, 1450-1900.
Ajs Review-the Journal of The Association for Jewish Studies, Apr 1, 2014
Years in the making, Stephen Burnett’s monumental work of scholarship is a tour de force that wil... more Years in the making, Stephen Burnett’s monumental work of scholarship is a tour de force that will be of enormous use to scholars of early modern Europe. Burnett’s book thoroughly investigates theworld ofChristianHebraismduring theReformation era. His aim is to explain the exponential growth in the market for Christian Hebraist books in that period; to identify Christian Hebraist authors, their printers, and their collectors; and to examine the effect that press controls had on the dissemination of Christian Hebraist texts. While books have been written about individual Christian Hebraists, no book in recent years has been devoted to the relationship between Christian Hebraism and the Reformation. Burnett’s book does precisely this and in doing so sheds light on theway confessional differences affected Christian Hebraist scholarship. Roughly two thousand Christian Hebraist imprints were published between 1501 and 1660. By identifying these books, their authors, printers, and publishers, Burnett has been able “tomap theworld of ChristianHebrew scholarship with its centers and peripheries” (6). Such a map tells us what kinds of Jewish learning were considered “useful” knowledge for Christians. Burnett’s conclusion that Christian Hebraism moved steadily northwards after 1560 as Reformation controversies intensified may come as no surprise, but the detailed evidence he provides to support this claim has wider implications for Reformation scholarship in general and for the history of European Jews and Jewish-Christian relations. Before 1560 Protestant and Catholic Hebraists communicated with each other and often worked with Jews who taught them Hebrew and helped with the printing of Christian Hebraist works. After the Council of Trent (1545– 1563), however, such confessional fluidity became ever more difficult, and with the publication of the first Roman Index of Prohibited Books in 1559 Christian Hebraists were increasingly trained and worked in different religious environments. As Jerome Friedman pointed out in The Most Ancient Testimony: SixteenthCentury Christian Hebraism in the Age of the Renaissance (1983), the growth of Christian Hebraism led somewhat paradoxically to diminished collaboration between Christians and Jews, a conclusion supported by Burnett. In his first chapter, “The Birth of a Christian Hebrew Reading Public,”Burnett argues that the Reformation provided the catalyst that jump-started Christian Book Reviews
Gershom Scholem’s philosophy of Jewish history rests on the assumption that forces within Jewish ... more Gershom Scholem’s philosophy of Jewish history rests on the assumption that forces within Jewish culture are sufficient to explain historical developments without recourse to the intrusion of foreign ideas or influences.1 Thus for Scholem, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain set off a chain reaction that led from the Lurianic Kabbalah, to Sabbatian messianism, and finally to secularization and the Haskalah. Rather than a gradual progression, Scholem envisions Jewish history as a series of catastrophic ruptures.2 This is especially true in the case of Sabbatianism, which Scholem contends destroyed Judaism from within. Thus, fervent, antinomian messianism, when disappointed, led to its polar opposite, secularism and religious indifference.
In order to establish the influence of van Helmont on Leibniz it is important to dispel the gener... more In order to establish the influence of van Helmont on Leibniz it is important to dispel the general opinion that van Helmont was something of a lovable buffoon, tolerated but hardly taken seriously by Leibniz (or by any other intelligent person). Manuscript evidence proves beyond doubt that Leibniz was a careful reader of van Helmont’s books as well as an attentive listener to his conversation. He wrote extensive analyses and critical commentaries about van Helmont’s opinions, mostly for the benefit of his patron, the Electress Sophie of Brunswick and Hanover. A close look at these letters and memoranda reveals that while analyzing van Helmont’s various theories about God, souls, matter, the divine attributes, pre-existence, the transmigration of souls, and the rationale for sin and suffering, Leibniz modified and adapted his own theories. There are three key areas in which van Helmont’s kabbalistic philosophy had a significant impact on Leibniz: 1) in the development of his concept of monads; 2) in his evolving ideas about free will and determinism; and 3) in the formulation of his theodicy. Van Helmont’s views also helped to shape Leibniz’s theory of causation in terms of volition. But before substantiating this influence, the reader must be persuaded that Leibniz did indeed take van Helmont seriously.
Journal of The Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 1976
... In England he found that a leading Quaker spokesman, George Keith, agreed with him. Assuming ... more ... In England he found that a leading Quaker spokesman, George Keith, agreed with him. Assuming Keith spoke for the Quakers as a whole, van Helmont thought he had at last found a practising religious group which united the strands of his beliefs. ... Keith ...
One of the first to suggest that Leibniz was influenced by van Helmont was Heinrich Ritter in 185... more One of the first to suggest that Leibniz was influenced by van Helmont was Heinrich Ritter in 1853. Ritter argued that of all Leibniz’s contemporaries, van Helmont was closest to him both personally and in terms of his thought.109 R. W. Meyer also recognized “many intellectual affinities between the two men.” He believed Leibniz had appropriated the term “monad” from van Helmont, but he did not think that was enough to bridge the vast difference between the philosophies of the two men. Van Helmont remains in his view an eccentric mystic and enthusiast, whose ideas form an incoherent jumble, while Leibniz is the systematic, rational, and logical thinker, who subordinates his mystical inclinations to scientific ends. Hence, van Helmont’s role was to inspire in Leibniz ideas which he himself could not comprehend. Furthermore, van Helmont was only one of many contemporaries to influence Leibniz; his influence was therefore in no way special: With Frans Mercurius van Helmont ... Leibniz had many actual interests in common, and in spite of a great difference in age there are many intellectual affinities between the two men; and thus Helmont’s life and his way of thinking deserve somewhat closer attention. For in discussing Helmont’s thought we hope to bring out once again Leibnitz’s many affinities with the contemporary ways of thought, and to show that the only thing which distinguishes him from other contemporary thinkers is his highly conscious and urgent sense of commitment to the problems of his age. ... [Van Helmont’s] adventurous life is reflected in his writings: a vast collection of inventions, plans, prescriptions, formulae and curious calculations on past and future events; violent attacks on Descartes, Spinoza and Hobbes; sketches for a mechanistic cosmology; empiricist and sensualist theories; and cabalistic and mystical theories of number — all these lie jumbled up in his countless papers. Yet everything he wrote was inspired by his enthusiastic plans for the Academies in which he hoped to see his projects executed; and all his projects were conceived with a view to their imme?diate practical application. His “natural” Hebrew alphabet, for instance, was to be used for curing the deaf and dumb; he devised a mechanical method for curing scoliosis — claiming that an English woman had opened a hospital in London in which the method was used with great success; he had cures for every kind of ailment, affliction and debility. Yet the ultimate purpose of all his speculations was once again a reunion of the Churches; already he saw secret signs of the future Universal Church that would be proclaimed in the new century. Leibnitz, though more cautious and sober in his hopes, shared Helmont’s belief that this future Church could only be of permanent benefit to the peoples of Europe if it were armed with all the ideas of the new science. In this belief Leibnitz founded in 1700 the Berlin Academy. In Helmont’s mind (as in Leibnitz’s) this scientific chiliasm was inextricably linked with philosophical doctrine. The aim was to reconcile theology with the “philosophia reformata”.
Ajs Review-the Journal of The Association for Jewish Studies, Apr 1, 2014
Years in the making, Stephen Burnett’s monumental work of scholarship is a tour de force that wil... more Years in the making, Stephen Burnett’s monumental work of scholarship is a tour de force that will be of enormous use to scholars of early modern Europe. Burnett’s book thoroughly investigates theworld ofChristianHebraismduring theReformation era. His aim is to explain the exponential growth in the market for Christian Hebraist books in that period; to identify Christian Hebraist authors, their printers, and their collectors; and to examine the effect that press controls had on the dissemination of Christian Hebraist texts. While books have been written about individual Christian Hebraists, no book in recent years has been devoted to the relationship between Christian Hebraism and the Reformation. Burnett’s book does precisely this and in doing so sheds light on theway confessional differences affected Christian Hebraist scholarship. Roughly two thousand Christian Hebraist imprints were published between 1501 and 1660. By identifying these books, their authors, printers, and publishers, Burnett has been able “tomap theworld of ChristianHebrew scholarship with its centers and peripheries” (6). Such a map tells us what kinds of Jewish learning were considered “useful” knowledge for Christians. Burnett’s conclusion that Christian Hebraism moved steadily northwards after 1560 as Reformation controversies intensified may come as no surprise, but the detailed evidence he provides to support this claim has wider implications for Reformation scholarship in general and for the history of European Jews and Jewish-Christian relations. Before 1560 Protestant and Catholic Hebraists communicated with each other and often worked with Jews who taught them Hebrew and helped with the printing of Christian Hebraist works. After the Council of Trent (1545– 1563), however, such confessional fluidity became ever more difficult, and with the publication of the first Roman Index of Prohibited Books in 1559 Christian Hebraists were increasingly trained and worked in different religious environments. As Jerome Friedman pointed out in The Most Ancient Testimony: SixteenthCentury Christian Hebraism in the Age of the Renaissance (1983), the growth of Christian Hebraism led somewhat paradoxically to diminished collaboration between Christians and Jews, a conclusion supported by Burnett. In his first chapter, “The Birth of a Christian Hebrew Reading Public,”Burnett argues that the Reformation provided the catalyst that jump-started Christian Book Reviews
Gershom Scholem’s philosophy of Jewish history rests on the assumption that forces within Jewish ... more Gershom Scholem’s philosophy of Jewish history rests on the assumption that forces within Jewish culture are sufficient to explain historical developments without recourse to the intrusion of foreign ideas or influences.1 Thus for Scholem, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain set off a chain reaction that led from the Lurianic Kabbalah, to Sabbatian messianism, and finally to secularization and the Haskalah. Rather than a gradual progression, Scholem envisions Jewish history as a series of catastrophic ruptures.2 This is especially true in the case of Sabbatianism, which Scholem contends destroyed Judaism from within. Thus, fervent, antinomian messianism, when disappointed, led to its polar opposite, secularism and religious indifference.
In order to establish the influence of van Helmont on Leibniz it is important to dispel the gener... more In order to establish the influence of van Helmont on Leibniz it is important to dispel the general opinion that van Helmont was something of a lovable buffoon, tolerated but hardly taken seriously by Leibniz (or by any other intelligent person). Manuscript evidence proves beyond doubt that Leibniz was a careful reader of van Helmont’s books as well as an attentive listener to his conversation. He wrote extensive analyses and critical commentaries about van Helmont’s opinions, mostly for the benefit of his patron, the Electress Sophie of Brunswick and Hanover. A close look at these letters and memoranda reveals that while analyzing van Helmont’s various theories about God, souls, matter, the divine attributes, pre-existence, the transmigration of souls, and the rationale for sin and suffering, Leibniz modified and adapted his own theories. There are three key areas in which van Helmont’s kabbalistic philosophy had a significant impact on Leibniz: 1) in the development of his concept of monads; 2) in his evolving ideas about free will and determinism; and 3) in the formulation of his theodicy. Van Helmont’s views also helped to shape Leibniz’s theory of causation in terms of volition. But before substantiating this influence, the reader must be persuaded that Leibniz did indeed take van Helmont seriously.
Journal of The Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 1976
... In England he found that a leading Quaker spokesman, George Keith, agreed with him. Assuming ... more ... In England he found that a leading Quaker spokesman, George Keith, agreed with him. Assuming Keith spoke for the Quakers as a whole, van Helmont thought he had at last found a practising religious group which united the strands of his beliefs. ... Keith ...
One of the first to suggest that Leibniz was influenced by van Helmont was Heinrich Ritter in 185... more One of the first to suggest that Leibniz was influenced by van Helmont was Heinrich Ritter in 1853. Ritter argued that of all Leibniz’s contemporaries, van Helmont was closest to him both personally and in terms of his thought.109 R. W. Meyer also recognized “many intellectual affinities between the two men.” He believed Leibniz had appropriated the term “monad” from van Helmont, but he did not think that was enough to bridge the vast difference between the philosophies of the two men. Van Helmont remains in his view an eccentric mystic and enthusiast, whose ideas form an incoherent jumble, while Leibniz is the systematic, rational, and logical thinker, who subordinates his mystical inclinations to scientific ends. Hence, van Helmont’s role was to inspire in Leibniz ideas which he himself could not comprehend. Furthermore, van Helmont was only one of many contemporaries to influence Leibniz; his influence was therefore in no way special: With Frans Mercurius van Helmont ... Leibniz had many actual interests in common, and in spite of a great difference in age there are many intellectual affinities between the two men; and thus Helmont’s life and his way of thinking deserve somewhat closer attention. For in discussing Helmont’s thought we hope to bring out once again Leibnitz’s many affinities with the contemporary ways of thought, and to show that the only thing which distinguishes him from other contemporary thinkers is his highly conscious and urgent sense of commitment to the problems of his age. ... [Van Helmont’s] adventurous life is reflected in his writings: a vast collection of inventions, plans, prescriptions, formulae and curious calculations on past and future events; violent attacks on Descartes, Spinoza and Hobbes; sketches for a mechanistic cosmology; empiricist and sensualist theories; and cabalistic and mystical theories of number — all these lie jumbled up in his countless papers. Yet everything he wrote was inspired by his enthusiastic plans for the Academies in which he hoped to see his projects executed; and all his projects were conceived with a view to their imme?diate practical application. His “natural” Hebrew alphabet, for instance, was to be used for curing the deaf and dumb; he devised a mechanical method for curing scoliosis — claiming that an English woman had opened a hospital in London in which the method was used with great success; he had cures for every kind of ailment, affliction and debility. Yet the ultimate purpose of all his speculations was once again a reunion of the Churches; already he saw secret signs of the future Universal Church that would be proclaimed in the new century. Leibnitz, though more cautious and sober in his hopes, shared Helmont’s belief that this future Church could only be of permanent benefit to the peoples of Europe if it were armed with all the ideas of the new science. In this belief Leibnitz founded in 1700 the Berlin Academy. In Helmont’s mind (as in Leibnitz’s) this scientific chiliasm was inextricably linked with philosophical doctrine. The aim was to reconcile theology with the “philosophia reformata”.
Uploads
Papers by Allison Coudert