24 Hieronymus Hirnhaim’s De typho generis humani (1676) and Scepticism about Human Learning

Abstract

This paper focuses on scholarly vices in early modern discussions and specifically in the writings of one seventeenth-century polemicist, the philosopher Hieronymus Hirnhaim (1637-79), an abbot of the monastery of Strahov in Prague.1 Hirnhaim was one of the important, but now forgotten, religious critics of his day who endeavoured to invalidate the power of human reason in favour of religious faith. Hirnhaim criticised learning and scholarly sins from the Christian and sceptical perspectives. He declared that all human knowledge was uncertain and harmful, since it gave rise to many vices and did not contribute to salvation. He composed a major polemical work on a humanity swollen with pride, De typho generis humani (1676), which has been called one of the most provocative publications of the seventeenth century and one of the most violent attacks on secular science.2 Hirnhaim's work is noteworthy, because it is exceptionally rich in images and polemical commonplaces which criticise the vices of learning. Furthermore, it must be read as a text that functions as part of the wider contemporary discussion on scholarly vices. A sceptic who expressed contempt for human knowledge and who declared that man should seek knowledge only from God and revelation, Hirnhaim questioned the self-sufficiency of the human mind and claimed that learning was evil unless it was supported by virtue. For him, revelation from God and an internal spiritual light were the only foundations of human knowledge.

Untitled

“…The differences come from the nature of society, of which the academic degree makes an integral part. Knowledge developed in a totally different cultural context in Early Modern Europe: secular science was not fully recognized at that time, so its importance and sometimes even existence had to be constantly defended in disputes with Orthodox clergymen [Kivistö, 2015]. The latter would persuade their flock that scientists were guided not by the passion for the supreme celestial truth in their studies but by foul motives like arrogance, vanity, deceitfulness, and greed entailing windbaggery, plagiarism, impudence, and idle curiosity [Kivistö, 2014].…”