Titre :

Rudbeckius, Hägglund’s Codex, and the Problem of Authorship Ascription

Auteur(s) :

Tulenheimo, Tero [Auteur]
Savoirs, Textes, Langage (STL) - UMR 8163 [STL]
University of Tampere [Finland]

Titre de la revue :

Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift

Pagination :

159–176

Éditeur :

LiberFörlag

Date de publication :

2024-07-01

ISSN :

0039-6761

Discipline(s) HAL :

Sciences de l'Homme et Société/Histoire
Sciences de l'Homme et Société/Philosophie
Sciences de l'Homme et Société/Religions

Résumé en anglais : [en]

In 1992, Bengt Hägglund put forward a thesis according to which a codex in his possession is based on material Johannes Rudbeckius (1581–1646) authored in 1611, maintaining that the codex gives us infor- mation about ...
Lire la suite >In 1992, Bengt Hägglund put forward a thesis according to which a codex in his possession is based on material Johannes Rudbeckius (1581–1646) authored in 1611, maintaining that the codex gives us infor- mation about Rudbeckius's lectures on loci theologici in Uppsala during the years 1611–1613 and that it reveals to us characteristic features of Rudbeckius's thinking about dogmatics. Hägglund published the codex in 2001. I point out, first, weaknesses in Hägglund's argumentation. Second, I present indirect evidence against his thesis employing the two series of Rudbeckius's published dissertations on dogmatics (1611–1613, 1620–1644) and his own comments about his lectures. Third, I indicate that three parts of the codex that are particularly important for Hägglund's argumentation stem from other authors: the introductory part on the nature of theology, as well as the chapter on locus de ecclesia, have their origin in Jesper Brochmand's Universæ theologiæ systema (1633), while the con- clusion is taken from a dissertation that Balthasar Meisner published in 1614. The codex does not allow us to access a work Rudbeckius would have authored in 1611: it contains too many parts he cannot have authored then. In particular, the introduction and the conclusion of the codex do not tell us anything about Rudbeckius's characteristic thoughts on dog- matics. Hägglund's main reason for thinking that the codex is a transcript of Rudbeckius's work from 1611 is a date mentioned at the end of locus of the church. As it happens, this locus is borrowed from Brochmand, not from Rudbeckius.Lire moins >

Langue :

Anglais

Vulgarisation :

Non

Collections :

• Savoirs, Textes, Langage (STL) - UMR 8163

Source :

Harvested from HAL

Date de dépôt :

2024-09-19T02:58:44Z