Cover not available

In:Historical Pragmatics of Controversies: Case studies from 1600 to 1800
Gerd Fritz, Thomas Gloning and Juliane Glüer
[Controversies 14] 2018
► pp. 131–170

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 4
Old and new medicine

The Gehema/Geuder controversy over medical practices (1688/89)

Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.14.04fri
Article outline
  • 1.The controversy, its context, and its relevance
  • 2.Writing medical pamphlets in German: The vernacular strategy
  • 3.The pragmatic organization of Gehema’s attacking pamphlet (1688)
    • 3.1The overall structure of the pamphlet
    • 3.2Topics and topic management in Gehema’s pamphlet
    • 3.3Moves and strategies in Gehema’s pamphlet
      • 3.3.1Gehema’s repertory of moves
      • 3.3.2Accusations and criticism
      • 3.3.3Complex argumentation
      • 3.3.4Anticipating objections and staging a virtual dialogue
      • 3.3.5Criticizing the appeal to authorities
      • 3.3.6Criticizing the appeal to experience
    • 3.4Mentioning his own medical methods
    • 3.5Thanking God for medical enlightenment
    • 3.6Gehema’s rhetoric
    • 3.7Language use
  • 4.The pragmatic organization of Geuder’s pamphlet
    • 4.1Geuder’s reasons for entering the controversy
    • 4.2Principles of scientific discourse – Geuder’s preface
    • 4.3Topic management in Geuder’s pamphlet
    • 4.4Digressions as a method for evading the point-by-point constraint
    • 4.5Answering accusations and criticism – moves and strategies
      • 4.5.1Contradicting his opponent’s claim
      • 4.5.2Making a (partial) concession and adding modifications or objections
      • 4.5.3Making a distinction and refuting part of the claim
      • 4.5.4Denying presuppositions of a claim
      • 4.5.5Showing logical or dialectical defects of a move made by the opponent
      • 4.5.6Replying in kind
      • 4.5.7Appeal to experience
      • 4.5.8The demand to publish secret recipes
  • 5.The dynamics and the result of the controversy
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
References (38)
Sources
Gehema, J. A. 1683. De Morbo vulgo dicto Plica Polonica. The Hague: Petrus Hagius.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1688 [1980]. Grausame Medicinische Mord=Mittel […]. Brehmen: no publ. [Reprint Lindau: Antiqua-Verlag 1980].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1689. Die beste Zeit=Vertreib. Bremen: no publ.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1691. Jani Abrahami à Gehema Apologia oder höchstabgedrungene Vertheydigung wider seine Lästerer und Verläumbder. Franckfurt am Mayn: no. publ.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1702. Zwey und zwantzigjährige Bewährte ohnfehlbare Fieber=Cur/Ohne Aderlassen, purgiren, vomiren, schwitzen, und Juleppen, alle Febres intermittentes oder so genannte abgehende kalte Fieber […] geschwinde, sicher, angenehm und beständig zu curiren. Berlin: Saalfeldischer Wittwe Schrifften.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1703. Vernunfft= und Erfahrungsmässige Erörterung Der Wichtigen Frage: Ob es rathsam seye/in denen so genandten Hitzigen Fiebern spirituose und volatilische Medicamenten zu gebrauchen? Ulm: Verlag Georg Wilhelm Kühn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geuder, M. F. 1689a [1980]. Heilsame Medicinische Lebens=Mittel/Denen grausamen Medicinischen Mord=Mitteln […] Entgegen gesetzt […]. Ulm: Georg Wilhelm Kühn. [Reprint Lindau: Antiqua-Verlag 1980].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1689b. Diatriba de Fermentis Variorum corporis animalis partium specificis & particularibus. Amsterdam: Johannes Wolters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Helmont, J. B. 1648. Ortus Medicinae. Id est, initia physicae inaudita. Progressus medicinae novus, in morborum ultionem, ad vitam Longam […]. Amsterdam: Ludovicus Elzevirius.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1662. Oriatrike, Or, Physick Refined. The Common Errors therein Refuted, And the whole Art Reformed & Rectified: […]. now faithfally rendred into English, in tendency to a common good, and the increase of true Science; […]. London: Lodowick Loyd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1683. Aufgang der Artzney-Kunst/Das ist: Noch nie erhörte Grund-Lehren von der Natur, zu einer neuen Beförderung der Artzney-Sachen […]. In die Hochteutsche Sprache übersetzet, in seine rechte Ordnung gebracht […] genannt Die Morgen-Röthe [translated by Christian Knorr von Rosenroth]. Sultzbach, Johann Andreae Endters Sel. Söhne. [Reprinted, and edited by W. Pagel and F. Kemp. 2 vols. Munich: Kösel 1971.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horlacher, C. 1691. Die höchstschädliche Würckung Deß Aderlassens und Purgierens […]. Franckfurt und Leipzig: Georg Wilhelm Kühn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
References
Bremer, K. 2005. Religionsstreitigkeiten. Volkssprachliche Kontroversen zwischen altgläubigen und evangelischen Theologen im 16. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dascal, M. 1998. “Types of polemics and types of polemical moves”. In S. Čmejrková et al. (eds), Dialoganalyse VI. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 15–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Debus, A. G. 1977. The chemical philosophy: Paracelsian science and medicine in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 2 vols. New York: Science History Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fritz, G. 2005. “On answering accusations in controversies”. Studies in Communication Sciences. Special Issue: Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction, 151–162.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. “Communication principles for controversies: A historical perspective”. In F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen (eds), Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 109–124.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016a. “Zum Sprachgebrauch wissenschaftlicher Kontroversen im Deutschen um 1600”. In G. Fritz, Beiträge zur Texttheorie und Diskursanalyse. Linguistische Untersuchungen. Bd. 9. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek, 153–171. ([URL]).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016b. “Zum Sprachgebrauch wissenschaftlicher Kontroversen im Deutschen um 1780”. In G. Fritz, Beiträge zur Texttheorie und Diskursanalyse. Linguistische Untersuchungen. Bd. 9. Gießen: Gießener Elektronische Bibliothek, 173–223. ([URL]).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gierl, M. 1997. Pietismus und Aufklärung. Theologische Polemik und die Kommunikationsreform der Wissenschaft am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gloning, T. 1999. “The pragmatic form of religious controversies around 1600: A case study in the Osiander vs. Scherer & Rosenbusch controversy”. In A. H. Jucker, G. Fritz and F. Lebsanft (eds), Historical Dialogue Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 81–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Organisation und Entwicklung historischer Wortschätze. Lexikologische Konzeption und exemplarische Untersuchungen zum deutschen Wortschatz um 1600. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harley, D. 1993. “The beginnings of the tobacco controversy: Puritanism, James I, and the Royal Physicians”. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 67, 28–50.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
King, L. S. 1961. “The blood-letting controversy. A study in the scientific method”. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 35, 1–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. 2006. The Art of Controversies. Translated and edited, with an introductory essay and notes by M. Dascal with Q. Racionero and A. Cardoso. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pagel, W. 1982. Joan Baptista Van Helmont. Reformer of science and medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paintner, U. 2010. “Aus der Universität auf den Markt. Die disputatio als formprägende Gattung konfessioneller Polemik im 16. Jahrhundert am Beispiel antijesuitischer Publizistik”. In M. Gindhart and U. Kundert (eds), Disputatio 1200–1800. Form, Funktion und Wirkung eines Leitmediums universitärer Wissenskultur. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 129–154.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partington, J. R. 1936. “Joan Baptista van Helmont”. Annals of Science 1, 359–384.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ragland, E. R. 2017. “Experimental Clinical Medicine and Drug Action in Mid-Seventeenth-Century Leiden.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 91(2), 331–361.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ratia, M. 2011. Texts “Con” and “Pro”. The Early Modern Controversy over Tobacco. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, Tome LXXXII) . Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ratia, M. and Suhr, C. 2011. “Medical pamphlets: controversy and advertising”. In I. Taavitsainen and P. Pahta (eds), Medical Writing in Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 180–203.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Porter, R. 2000. Die Kunst des Heilens. Eine medizinische Geschichte der Menschheit von der Antike bis heute. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomasius, J. 1670. Erotemata Logica pro incipientibus. Acceßit pro adultis Processus disputandi. Lipsiae: Frommanni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wear, A. 2000. Knowledge and Practice in English Medicine, 1550–1680. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. “Medical ethics in Early Modern England”. In A. Wear, J. Geyer-Kordesch, and R. French (eds), Doctors and ethics: The earlier historical setting of professional ethics. 2nd ed. Amsterdam/NewYork: Rodopi, 98–130.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue