Hidden Secrets or the Mysteries of Daily Life. Hebrew Entries in the Journal Books of the Early...

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012 EJJS 6.1Also available online – brill.nl/ejjs DOI: 10.1163/187247112X637597

HIDDEN SECRETS OR THE MYSTERIES OF DAILY LIFE. HEBREW ENTRIES IN THE JOURNAL BOOKS OF THE EARLY MODERN ASTRONOMER GOTTFRIED KIRCH

Sebastian Kühn and Bill Rebiger

Abstract

In the astronomical journal books written in German of Gottfried Kirch (1639–1710), a Christian astronomer and publisher with close connections to Pietists, several entries in Hebrew script are striking. In fact, it is not Hebrew or Yiddish but German in Hebrew characters. There is no doubt that the transcription follows more or less an orthography known from Yiddish. Since the content of these entries is rather banal and reflects daily life, it is possible that they are nothing but a kind of scholarly joke, a private pleasure, and practice of scholarly skills. While these private notes were not capable of academic discourse, perhaps Kirch playfully tried to enhance their status by using an uncommon script in contrast to the astronomical data. In this way, it was possible to cover over the triviality of daily life by a veil of mystery by transcribing it in Hebrew characters.

KeywordsHistory of science, Pietism, Gottfried Kirch, Christian Hebraism, Yiddish transcription

Introduction

In the astronomical journal books written in German of Gottfried Kirch, we can find several entries in Hebrew script from the 1680s onward till his death in 1710. That an early modern non-Jewish astronomer would write something in his observational journals in Hebrew characters is—as far as we know—a very rare case. At first sight, one is inclined to give several possible explanations for that: first, the astronomer might have been interested in Christian Kabbalah as so many scholars at his time. Second, he might have sought to conceal some astronomical discoveries or astrological secrets in a script not everybody could read. Third, he might have been playing with Hebrew words and letters, extracting from them astrological or religious meanings. Or fourth, he just might have been citing at times

148 sebastian kühn and bill rebiger

from the original Hebrew Bible in a religious way in his astronomical journals. However, a closer look will reveal that none of these possibili-ties seem to fit our case. The entries in Hebrew letters are more banal and at the same time more remarkable, as we will see in this article.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, scholarly practices were deeply rooted in and inextricably connected with everyday affairs. Even university teaching or research at the newly founded academies took place in the private households of their members. In that perspec-tive of scholarly working practices, science was not so different from the practice of crafts in early modern times. The household was the primary context of living and working, and all household members, including spouses, children, apprentices, domestics and guests, took part in this collective and cooperative form of living and working together. But only the (mostly male) head of the household could rep-resent the product of the household under his name, be it the product of a craft workshop or the printed book of a scholar.1

This is even more true in the case of astronomy, which was not taught at universities in this period. In fact, it was possible to attend courses in mathematics and geometry at the university. But in order to learn the use of instruments, the art of observation and calculation of the movements of celestial bodies, the knowledge and skills in astrol-ogy and weather observation—then an integral part of astronomy—one had to turn to a practitioner’s household and request a more or less formal apprenticeship. Probably most of the astronomical practi-tioners were not scholars but rather ordinary peasants or craftsmen. Astronomy was a ‘popular science,’ as it was immediately linked with common experiences and ways of living. Calendars with detailed information about celestial phenomena belonged to the most popular

1 On the scholarly household, see Alix Cooper, “Houses and Households,” in Early Modern Science (The Cambridge History of Science 3), eds. Katherine Park and Lorraine Daston (Cambridge: University Press, 2006), 224–237. Monika Mommertz, “Schattenökonomie der Wissenschaft. Geschlechterordnung und Arbeitssysteme in der Astronomie der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften im 18. Jahrhundert,” in Frauen in Akademie und Wissenschaft. Arbeitsorte und Forschungspraktiken 1700–2000, ed. Theresa Wobbe (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002), 31–63. Gadi Algazi, “Scholars in Households: Refiguring the Learned Habitus, 1480–1550,” Science in Context 16 (2003) (special issue: Scientific Personae, eds. Lorraine Daston and H. Otto Sibum): 9–42. On the mostly hidden collaboration of various persons in science, see Steven Shapin, “The Invisible Technician,” American Scientist 77 (1989): 554–563. On craft traditions in the sciences, see Arthur Clegg, “Craftsmen and the Origin of Science,” Science & Society 43 (1979): 186–201. Londa Schiebinger, The Mind has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989), 66 et sqq.

hidden secrets or the mysteries of daily life 149

printed materials in early modern times. They were not only prepared for feast days in different chronological contexts2 and for future inci-dents resulting from extraordinary apparitions such as comets, but, emanating from the calculation of the position of stars, they informed their users about the right time for bleeding, purging, hair cutting, timber felling or seeding and warned them of fatal days.3 But even if astronomers had scholarly aspirations and interests, they remained within this popular culture, at least in the activities producing such calendars and in their household organization. The question is: how can we learn more about this collective household practice of science? It is possible that it could change our view not only of what doing sci-ence entailed, but of science itself and its meaning?

For the practice of science, scrap-books and journal books are a very rich source. Fortunately, we possess an almost entire set of annual journal books authored by the astronomer Gottfried Kirch. Moreover, there are at least some fragments of journal books kept by his wife, Maria Margaretha née Winckelmann, and of their children.

The Kirch Family

Gottfried Kirch4 (1639–1710) was born in Guben/Lower Lusatia, the son of a tailor. After Latin school, he worked as a schoolmaster in villages in Thuringia. During this time, he learned the practice of astronomy and calendar production from the neighboring peas-ant astronomer Nikolaus Schmidt, and eventually published his own calendars. In 1674/75, he relocated to Danzig in order to learn the

2 Besides the Jewish and the “Ottoman” calendar, different calculations for Catholic and Protestant regions diverging by ten days existed before 1700.

3 On early modern calendars, see Bernard Capp, Astrology and the Popular Press. English Almanacs 1500–1800 (London: Faber and Faber, 1979). Walter Blank, “Astrologische Prognostik als Planungsfaktor im Spätmittelalter,” in Rhythmus und Saisonalität, eds. Peter Dilg et al. (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1995), 171–180. Gerhardt Petrat, “Der Kalender im Haus des Illiteraten und Analphabeten,” in Literatur und Volk im 17. Jahrhundert, eds. Wolfgang Brückner et al. (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1985), 701–726. Klaus Matthäus, “Zur Geschichte des Nürnberger Kalenderwesens. Die Entwicklung der in Nürnberg gedruckten Jahreskalender in Buchform,” Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 9 (1969): 965–1395.

4 For more details on Gottfried Kirch, see Klaus-Dieter Herbst, ed., Die Korrespondenz des Kalendermachers Gottfried Kirch (1639–1710), 3 vols. ( Jena: IKS Garamond, 2006), vol. I: LXXXI–LXXXIV; Klaus-Dieter Herbst, “Neue Erkenntnisse zur Biographie von Gottfried Kirch,” in 300 Jahre Astronomie in Berlin und Potsdam, eds. Wolfgang R. Dick and Klaus Fritze (Thun: Deutsch, 2000), 71–85.


practice of calculation and observation in the household of the renowned astronomer Johannes Hevelius (1611–1687) and his wife Elisabeth née Koopman (1647–1693). In steady correspondence with most of the German astronomers and calendar makers of the day, he had successfully organized the production of various calendars for dif-ferent regions and purposes in his household, at times up to 13 issues.5 In 1675, he moved to Leipzig and was able to live from the earnings of his calendar production. In this he was helped occasionally by friends and apprentices, but the main work in his household was done by his wife, his eldest son Gottlieb (1669–1697?) and domestics.6

After the death of his first wife in 1690, he married Maria Margaretha Winckelmann7 (1670–1720) in 1692. She had learned, quite extraordinary for the daughter of a parson, the practice of astronomy in the household of the peasant Christoph Arnold. As Gottfried Kirch’s young wife, she continued with this practice, and by and by, likewise due to the fact of Gottfried’s declining strength, took over a large part of the observations and calculations. Both belonged to the first Leipzig Pietist community around August Herrmann Francke (1663–1727). Because of the strong persecution of that Protestant reli-gious movement, they relocated to Guben in 1695. After the founda-tion of Berlin’s Societaet der Wissenschaften (“Academy of Science”) in 1700, Kirch was employed as the official astronomer and moved to Berlin. Even if the official start of the society’s gatherings started only in 1710, after completion of the royal observatory, Kirch worked for the production of the Prussian calendars for which the society held

5 Klaus-Dieter Herbst, “Die Kalender von Gottfried Kirch,” Beiträge zur Astro-nomiegeschichte 7 (2004): 115–159.

6 For more details on the Kirch household and the work of women and children, see Mommertz “Schattenökonomie.” Monika Mommertz “Geschlecht als ‘tracer’: Das Konzept der Funktionsteilung als Perspektive für die Arbeit mit Geschlecht als analytische Kategorie in der frühneuzeitlichen Wissenschaftsgeschichte,” in Nonne, Königin und Kurtisane. Wissen, Bildung und Gelehrsamkeit von Frauen in der Frühen Neuzeit, eds. Michaela Hohkamp and Gabriele Jancke (Königstein: Helmer, 2004), 17–38. Londa L. Schiebinger, “Maria Winkelmann at the Berlin Academy: A Turning Point for Woman in Science,” Isis 78 (1987): 174–200. Sebastian Kühn, Wissen, Arbeit, Freundschaft. Ökonomien und soziale Beziehungen in den Akademien von London, Paris und Berlin um 1700 (Berliner Mittelalter- und Frühneuzeitforschung, vol. 10), (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2011), esp. Chap. II.4.

7 For more details on Maria Kirch, see Jürgen Splett, “Maria Kirch,” in Bio-Bibliographie Brandenburgischer Gelehrter der Frühen Neuzeit, eds. Lothar Noack and Splett Jürgen (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2000), vol. 2: 222–226; Alphonse Des Vignoles, “Eloge de Madame Kirch à l’occasion de laquelle on parle de quelques autres Femmes & d’un Paisan Astronomes,” Bibliothèque germanique ou histoire littéraire de l’Allemagne, de la Suisse et des pays du nord 3 (1722): 155–183.


a monopoly in order to finance his undertakings. Nevertheless, the Kirch household continued to produce calendars of their own.

Gottfried and Maria Kirch were assisted by apprentices, domes-tics, friends and, successively, by their children as well.8 Some of the daughters, even if they had not been as purposefully instructed in the practice as the sons, played a growing role in the household. Theodora (1683–after 1710) is often mentioned in the journal books until her marriage in 1709. Christine (1697–1782) and Margaretha (1703?–after 1748) learned a good deal after the death of their father, obviously from their mother. After Gottfried Kirch passed away in 1710, she asked to be permitted to continue the calendar production for the society, but her request was rejected. She produced calendars for different publishers and moved with the family temporarily to Danzig. Finally, the household was able to return to Berlin in 1716 in order to regain the position in the society, when Gottfried’s son Christfried (1694–1740) was deemed old and skilled enough to suc-ceed his father’s position as astronomer. His mother and sisters helped him in observations and calculations. After the death of Maria Kirch in 1720, Christfried, together with his sisters, formed an astronomer’s household, in which the sisters Christine and Margarethe played a major role. After the death of Christfried in 1740, both sisters contin-ued their astronomer’s household until the 1770s, in steady exchange with the astronomers of the official society. For their work in prepar-ing the society’s calendars, they received 400 Thaler annually. Even if they were supposed to stay in the background in the society and the observatory, as was their mother previously, they were acknowledged for their astronomical knowledge and skills.

Kirch’s Astronomical Journals

There is an extant collection of Gottfried Kirch’s annual astronomical observation books complete almost in its entirety from 1677 to 1710.9

8 For the Kirch children, see Alphonse des Vignoles, “Eloge de M. Kirch le Fils, Astronome de Berlin,” Journal littéraire d’Allemagne, de Suisse et du nord 1 (1741): 300–351.

9 The originals of Gottfried Kirch’s journals are kept in Paris, Observatoire, Mss. B 3.1–6 (1677–1695, 1700–1710) and B 2.13 (1696–1700). In the following, the journals if not otherwise indicated are cited only with their dates, referring to these journal books of Gottfried Kirch in the Observatoire. In the archive of the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (BBAW), only the incomplete and


Of those of his second wife, Maria Winckelmann, and of his children Christfried, Christine and Margarethe, at least some fragments are preserved. They used these observation books as a household diary. Working together by taking the continuous observation of the night sky in turns, the journal books represent the work of the collective household, even if they are written in one hand. In almost daily entries, observation of the weather and the celestial phenomena were recorded. Therein, extremely varied forms of the entries alternate, including entire prose phrases in the 1st person singular concerning the weather and special observations, tables for the data of the regu-larly taken altitudes of sun and moon or other celestial bodies, short notices to explain these entries, and drafts to visualize the position of certain celestial bodies.

Not only astronomical observations were kept in the journals; they also contain seemingly accidental or familial information and even New Year prayers. Illness of household members, festive days, the presence of friends and guests were mentioned, as well as other mun-dane circumstances, such as the neighbor’s laundry hanging in the garret and thus hindering their observation of the sky.10 As there was no difference between work and household life, the entries cover a wide range of topics, not only such dedicated to “science” as separated from everyday life. In the main, the journals are a kind of scrapbook including deletions and later additions. The family members used the entries of these continuous record books in order to organize their joint work in the household as well as to identify and interpret celestial phenomena and the regularities of nature.

Normally, there is one author of such a journal book. Sometimes, parallel versions in the hand of several household members are pre-served. In addition, some jottings are extant, which were only of temporary use for drafts or quick notes meant to be promptly copied

revised copies of the eighteenth century remain, without the Hebrew entries: BBAW, Nachlass Kirch, Mss. 1–5 (1700–1709). However, a part of the journals of Maria Kirch have been preserved: BBAW, Nachlass Kirch, Mss. 6–8 (1713, 1714 and 1717), Mss. 119 and 121–123 (1705f. together with the son Christfried, 1714f.), and of the Kirch daughters Margarethe and Christine: BBAW, Nachlass Kirch, Mss. 118a–b (1742–1748). The journals of Kirch’s son Christfried Kirch are nearly complete there: BBAW, Nachlass Kirch, Mss. 120 (1708f.) and 9–29 (1716–1739). The nearly com-plete series of the journals of Maria Kirch and her daughter Christine, which could not be consulted for this study, are housed in the Crawford Library of the Royal Observatory Edinburgh, Mss. 2.31–2.63 (Maria Kirch: 1696–1720; Christine Kirch: 1730–1774).

10 13 November 1706.


in the main journal book kept by Gottfried Kirch. Since observation work was mainly collective,11 the data of several household members were contained in the books. Sometimes these entries were identi-fied, in that following the altitudes, the names of those who measured them were recorded. The books were works in progress insofar as the Kirchs used them to compare their observations, to detect regularities in the weather or the movement of celestial bodies, and to add or to delete remarks. Finally, the family members referred to their particular journals in the following way, as for example Christfried Kirch made reference to his mother’s book: “See M[aria] M[argaretha] K[irch] weather book.”12

These astronomical journal books were of great importance for the family in many respects. They contained the work of the family and, in its regularity and continuance, represented a unique repository of astronomical observations. Gottfried Kirch himself was aware of the scientific and economic importance of his journal books. As early as the 1680s, he had his annual “Schmierer-Buch” (scrapbook) bound and gilded, underlining its worth in this way.13 The intellectual and economic capital of the entire household consisted in these astro-nomical journals. Soon after his death, Kirch’s bequeathed journals attracted the interest of other astronomers. Thus, when the French astronomer Joseph-Nicolas Delisle (1688–1768) was on the way to St. Petersburg, he stopped in Berlin in 1726 intending to acquire the astronomical manuscripts of Gottfried Kirch. Actually, he paid only for the blueprints in which the weather observations and all other

11 E.g., one had to look through the telescope, another had to maintain the micrometer and keep notes, and a third was downstairs by the pendulum clock to record the exact time.

12 BBAW, Nachlass Kirch 11,1: Christfried Kirch, Astronomische und Meteo-rologische Observationes, gehalten 1717, 36 (“Siehe MMK Wetterbuch”).

13 Regarding Kirch’s esteem for his astronomical data, see also Observatoire, B 3.4: Gottfried Kirch: Journal autographe de ses observations, 1689, introduction: “A righteous devotee of the stars esteems good astronomical observations more than gold, silver and precious stones. Because it is still possible in the end to come by these: but observations made once in the past can never be made again. What happened has happened and will never happen again. The Astronomical Observations are heavenly history books which describe what has occurred now and then in the heavens above.” (“Ein rechtschaffener Liebhaber des Gestirns hält gute Astronomische Observationes über Gold, Silber und Edelsteine. Denn diese kann man noch endlich wol bekommen: aber die Observationes welche einmal gehalten worden können nimmer mehr wieder gehalten werden. Was geschehen ist, das ist geschehen, und geschieht nimmer mehr wieder. Die Astronomische Observationes sind Himmlische Historien-Bücher, die da beschreiben, was sich hin und wieder am Himmel zu getragen hat.”)


accidental remarks, including the entries in Hebrew letters had been left out. But finally, after the death of Christfried Kirch, the origi-nals were instead transferred to Paris14 and the blueprints stayed in Berlin.

Let us now turn to our main topic here: in addition to these entries in German, we find several notes in Hebrew characters.15 In the total corpus of Gottfried Kirch’s journal books from 1677 until 1710, cov-ering in all 105 such entries in Heberw characters, there is only one entry each in the journals of 1682, 1683 and 1685, and none from 1687 to 1701. There are 11 in 1703, 10 in 1704, only one in 1705, 25 in 1706, 23 in 1707, 16 in 1708, 15 in 1709, and only one in 1710, the year Kirch died. There seems to be a major concentration of these entries in Hebrew characters between 1703 and 1709 amount-ing to 102. In addition, we also find six entries in Hebrew characters in the journal book of Maria and Christfried Kirch from 1706. For Christfried Kirch, a perusal of his journals from 1716 to 1739 yielded only five such entries, in March and April 1717. In most cases, these entries occur very irregularly and normally at the end of the daily notes, offset and at the right margin, following the normal direction of Hebrew writing.

Kirch’s System of Transcription

Throughout Gottfried Kirch’s journals, German words and personal names are transcribed in Hebrew characters.16 As usual in Hebrew, the script in these transcriptions is written from right to left. The script is not the square script typical for printed books as well as religious writ-ings, but a cursive used first and foremost for private purposes. This cursive script generally reflects the paleographic features of Ashkenazi script at this time. Almost all Hebrew written entries are very short. There are only a few longer sentences of more than five words.

14 Archives Nationales de France; Marine 2JJ 61, 26 (Delisle to Christfried Kirch, 21 January 1727).

15 Latin occurs only occasionally, as a citation or for technical terms, while Greek does not appear at all.

16 For much earlier evidence of this practice, see Raphael Loewe, “A Mediaeval Latin-German Magical Text in Hebrew Characters,” in Jewish History. Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky, eds. Ada Rapoport-Albert and Steven J. Zipperstein (London: Peter Halban, 1988), 345–368.


First of all, the names of visitors are noted. Hence, most of the words in Hebrew characters are personal names. Since we know these names in Latin characters as well, we are in the rather comfortable position to be able to analyze Kirch’s system of transcription. In view of the quite unstandardized German orthography, the spelling of per-sonal names is rather fixed. The same is true concerning Latin words, as also evidenced by Kirch.

In general, there is no evidence for Hebrew words or even the knowledge of Hebrew language and grammar in these entries. Regarding the frequently discussed question of how to distinguish between German and Western Yiddish,17 there is no indication in Kirch’s Hebrew written entries that he knew the Yiddish language and grammar. But there is no doubt that the transcription follows more or less an orthography known from Yiddish.18 This is, first and fore-most, obvious from the typical transcription of vowels that follows the system of scriptio plena. So the Hebrew consonant ayin is only used for the German vowel “e.” However, there is no evidence of a phonetic system of Yiddish and Ashkenazi pronunciation. Furthermore, unlike the Yiddish transcription of some vowels and diphthongs, there is no use of vowel signs like patah and qamats. The possible alternative system of Hebrew matres lectionis, i.e. consonants used for vowels, is also not attested in the specific Hebrew manner. In general, Kirch’s system is not a transliteration, i.e., allowing a one-to-one correspondence in both directions, but only a transcription of German characters and phonemes in Hebrew letters.

Without any ambiguity, the German consonants b, d, g, h, l, m, n, and r are transcribed in Hebrew with נ ,מ ,ל ,ה ,ג ,ד ,ב, and ר. The following chart shows the transcription of the remaining and ambigu-ous German characters and phonemes in Hebrew script according to Kirch’s usage:

17 Aya Elyada, “ ‘Eigentlich Teutsch?’ Depictions of Yiddish and its Relations to German in Early Modern Christian Writings,” European Journal of Jewish Studies 4 (2010): 23–42; Thomas Kollatz, “Schrift zwischen Sprachen. Deutsch in hebräischen Lettern (1765–1820),” Aschkenas 18/19 (2008/2009): 351–366.

18 See Jechiel Bin-Nun, Jiddisch und die deutschen Mundarten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des ostgalizischen Jiddisch (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1973), 124–140; Solomon A. Birnbaum, Yiddish. A Survey and a Grammar (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 197–223.


German character/phoneme

Hebrew script Examples

a א Lange—לאנגעä or ae ע communitaet—קוממוניטעטau(initial sound)

ויאוי

Tschirnhaus—טשירן־הויסauf—אויף

c קצ

collectanea—קוללעקטאניאFabricius—ֿפאבריציוס

ch ֿכחקש

Michael—מיֿכאעלArchiv—ארחיוChuno—קונוCharlotte—שארלוטע

ck ק Starcke—שטארקעe(unstressed)

עי

Spregel—שפרעגלgestorben—גישטורבן

ei(initial sound)

ייאיי

Lichtscheid—ליֿכטשייטeiner—איינר

eu יי neuen—נייעןf ֿפ Hoffmann—הוֿפמאןi(initial sound)

יאי

Winkelmann—ווינקל־מאןin—אין

ie(final sound)

ייא

hier—הירdie—דיא

j י Jablonski—יאבלונזקיk ק Kammer—קאמרo(initial sound)

ואוא

Borst—בורשטocular—אוקולארObservation—אבזערואציון

ö י Königin—קיניגיןp פ Hofprediger—הוֿפפרעדיגרpf פֿפ Pfautz—פֿפויצph ֿפ Ludolph—לודאלֿפs (voiced) ז

סElisabeth—עליזאבעטgewesen—גיוועסן

s (unvoiced) ס שז

Ehlers—עלערסerste—ערשטעEssen—עזזען


German character/phoneme

Hebrew script Examples

sch ש Lichtscheid—ליֿכטשייטsp שפ Spener—שפענערst שט Sturm—שטורםt ט Tochter—טוֿכטרth ט Margaretha—מארגארעטאtz צ Pfautz—פֿפויצu(initial sound)

ואו

Grube—גרובעum—אום

ü or ue י Rüdiger—רידיגרv (voiced)(unvoiced)

וֿפ

observatorio—אבזערואטוריוvon—ֿפון

w וו Wagner—וואגנערy י Wilckowsky—ווילקאווזקיz צ Wenzel—ווענצעל

We can make the following observations about Kirch’s system of tran-scription. The Hebrew letters het and tav are never utilized except for two occurences of het. This is typical for Yiddish orthography insofar as the letters het and tav are commonly employed only for words of Semitic origin. Since there is no word of Semitic origin in Kirch’s jour-nals, he simply did not need these letters. The two occurrences where the letter Het is written can perhaps be explained. The het in בייחטע (“Beichte”) in the last Hebrew entry before Kirch’s death19 is obviously a mistake, since the many other evidences of this word are written as expected with kaf and overbar—בייֿכטע. It is possible to interpret the het in ארחיו (“Archiv”)20 as an analogy to words of Semitic origin in Yiddish spelling because this German loan word is of late Latin ori-gin. The use of double Hebrew vav for the German consonant “w” is very common. The typical Yiddish way to avoid the sequence of three vavim by inserting an alef between the consonantal and the vocalic vav is obviously unknown to Kirch; see, e.g., ווורצל־בויר (“Wurzelbaur”)21

19 Cf. the entry of 21 June 1710.20 Cf. the entry of 18 November 1706.21 See the entry of 10 February 1707.

Table (cont.)


instead of 22.וואורצל־בויר Of the alternative second spelling of the so-called Hebrew begadkefat letters, Kirch uses only the letters kaf and pe. In both cases, these letters are marked with an overbar (rafe) as is usual in Yiddish. On the other hand, a dagesh dot indicating the first spelling of these letters is never used. The usual final forms are applied with the exception of the letter tzadi. When the last letter of a word is a tzadi, Kirch uses the standard form of this character, against the rule. Double consonants are sometimes transcribed contrary to the Yiddish way,23 but often not.24

In almost all cases, an alef is added when a word starts with a vowel, except an “a,” or a diphthong. Infrequently, an alef is added follow-ing a diphthong at the end of a word; see, e.g., בייא —“bei.”25 Long vowels marked with the letter “h” in German are given mostly without Hebrew he.26 The German short spelled vowel “e” in unstressed syl-lables at the end of a word is mostly not transcribed.

The German copula “und” is transcribed in the common Yiddish abbreviated way (apocope) as 'אונ (“un’ ”).27 There is only one example for a ligature of two Hebrew letters: alef and lamed in the word מאל (“Mal”).28 Numbers are given in Hebrew letters together with the usual abbreviation mark gershayim. The title “Doctor” and the address “Herr” (“Mister”) are almost always abbreviated in the same way as .respectively, following the German abbreviations ה" and ד"

The German declination is adopted in the Hebrew transcription; see, e.g., פֿפויצן Herrn Pfautzen.”29 Names of women are“—העררן given in the German standard form of the time, adding ־ין (-in) at the end; see, e.g., שובערטין for “Schubertin,” i.e., Mrs. Schubert.30 An example for a phonetic transcription is the long vowel “ow” at the end of the personal name “Chunow” as 31.קונו Sometimes the devoicing of consonants is attested. Thus, the name “Borst” is either spelled בורשט

22 Cf. also ווילקאווזקי instead of ווילקואווזקי for “Wilckowsky” (11 May 1707).23 See העררן—“Herrn” (14 October 1682).24 See הערן—“Herrn” (19 July 1708).25 See the entry of 16 December 1708.26 Cf. עלערס or עהלערס for “Ehlers” (17 April 1702, 24 July 1707, 1st July

1709).27 See the entry of 25 June 1706.28 See the entry of 14 September 1706.29 See the entry of 14 October 1682.30 See the entry of 14 Noevember 1703.31 See the entry of 4 October 1707.


or פורשט thus indicating the devoicing of “b” to “p.”32 Terminal devoicing of “d” to “t” typical at the end of a syllable or word is shown by the transcription of “Lichtscheid” as 33.ליֿכטשייט Personal names of biblical Hebrew origin are not given in their original Hebrew form. They are simply transcribed; see, e.g., דאניעל (“Daniel”)34 instead of biblical דניאל and מיֿכאעל (“Michael”)35 instead of biblical מיכאל. The two parts of a compound word or name are mostly linked by a maqaf; see, e.g., טשירן־הויס—“Tschirnhaus.”36 To sum up, Kirch’s system of transcription is a slightly simplified and adopted the system of the common Yiddish spelling. Despite some minor mistakes and cases of incongruity, his system is rather unified and unequivocal.

In order to get an impression of the variety of Kirch’s Hebrew writ-ten entries, we would like to present in the following some typical examples. Most of these entries involve names of visitors and persons Kirch was in contact with. For the most part, only their names are given without any further information. Many more or less famous persons are well known from other sources like Philipp Jacob Spener (1635–1705), Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus (1651–1708) and Daniel Ernst Jablonski (1660–1741). But others belong only to Kirch’s private circle of family members, neighbors, servants or local crafts-men, thus providing important additional data in many cases unknown before. Throughout his journals, Kirch sometimes mentioned when he was going to confession. Unfortunately, he did not present the con-tent of his confession, since he mentioned laconically only the pure fact—בייֿכטע (“Beichte”). Sometimes, certain activities are noticed, such as the arrival and departure of guests, eating and sleeping, being ill, giving birth or dying. Rather rarely we find details related to Kirch’s astronomical or publishing work, such as sketches of oculars, observations or printing of calendars. Since Kirch was employed as an astronomer in the Prussian Academy of Science, it is not surprising to find some remarks on the academy and court affairs, such as meetings and conferences of the academy, as well as the arrival and wedding of

32 Cf. the entries of 19 April 1702 (בורשט) and 10 February 1706 (פורשט). It is also possible to find in Kirch’s transcription the pronunciation of this name as “Borscht,” typical for several German dialects.

33 See the entry of 2 October 1703.34 See the entry of 23 December 1703.35 See the entry of 18 April 1706.36 See the entry of 27 September 1685.


the Crown princess Sophia Dorothea of Hanover in November 1706. In addition, the payment of the wig tax, the house rent or the postage of a letter is written in Hebrew characters. In the astronomical journal of Maria Kirch (1705), the wife of Gottfried, even such activities as washing, candle dipping or soap boiling were noted in that way.

Christian Hebraism

To survey the Christian knowledge of a transcription system appropri-ate for German as well as Yiddish in Kirch’s era and area, the follow-ing selected references are relevant. The main authority for Christian knowledge of Yiddish orthography is certainly the Christian Hebraist Johannes Buxtorf the Older (1564–1629).37 His Thesaurus grammaticus linguae sanctae hebraeae printed in Basle in 1609 includes a treatise titled “Lectionis Hebraeo-germanicae usus et exercitatio” which contains some orthographic rules in Yiddish.38 Buxtorf ’s descriptions of Yiddish orthography were adopted by Andreas Sennert (1640–1689), Professor of Hebrew at the university in Wittenberg. His book titled Rabbinismus, hoc est Praecepta Targumico-Talmudico-Rabbinica, printed in Wittenberg in 1666, includes an “Appendix: de scriptura ebraeo-germanica” on pages 63–65. A very similar description of this system of Yiddish transcrip-tion can be found in August Pfeiffer’s (1640–1698) Critica sacra printed in Dresden in 1680 (see especially pp. 517–526: “De lectione ebraeo-germanica”). Johann Christoph Wagenseil39 (1633–1705) published a large volume titled Belehrung der Jüdisch-Teutschen Red- und Schreibart in Königsberg in 1699. The title continues: “durch welche alle so des wahren Teutschen Lesens kundig für sich selbsten—innerhalb wenig Stunden—zu sothaner Wissenschafft gelangen können” (“by which all familiar with true German reading are able by themselves—in a few hours—to achieve such science”). In this book, a section entitled “Bericht, wie das Jüdisch-Teutsche zu lesen” (pp. 81–90) can be found, dealing mainly with orthographic rules of how to transcribe German words with Hebrew letters.40 Wagenseil’s book was so successful that

37 Cf. Stephen G. Burnett, From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies. Johannes Buxtorf (1564–1629) and Hebrew Learning in the Seventeenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 1996).

38 See Max Weinreich, Geschichte der jiddischen Sprachforschung, ed. Jerold C. Frakes (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 105–114.

39 See Weinreich, Geschichte der jiddischen Sprachforschung, 121–143.40 Cf. Weinreich, Geschichte der jiddischen Sprachforschung, 131–134.


it was printed twice soon after, in 1715 and 1737, both editions in Frankfurt am Main. Before this, the short introduction into German-Yiddish transcription included in Wagenseil’s volume was adopted by Caspar Calvör (1650–1725), who was then Generalsuperintendent in Clausthal. In his Gloria Christi, oder Herrligkeit Jesu Christi, printed in Leipzig 1710, the last pages consist of an addendum called “Anleitung, wie das Jüdisch-Teutsche zu lesen” (pp. 766–768), i.e., instruction of how to read Jewish-German, following Wagenseil.41 As we see, the access to knowledge of the Yiddish system of transcription was rather easy, at least for scholars in Kirch’s time. In addition to this evidence, we can refer to the printing of Hebrew and Yiddish books in Germany attested as well in this era.42 However, we would like to stress the point that only the Hebrew square script is taught in all these books, and not the cursive.

Kirch’s Knowledge of Hebrew

It is evident that the Kirchs—at least father Gottfried and son Christian—had competence in Hebrew. Christian Hebraism of this period has recently been acknowledged by scholarly inquiry.43 As already mentioned, Gottfried Kirch belonged to the first Leipzig group around the Pietist August Herrmann Francke. He took part in the col-legium philobiblicum at the university, reading the Bible in the Hebrew original. After being banned from the university, some of these even-tually free seminars took place in the private chambers of Gottfried Kirch.44 Kirch could indeed read Hebrew and as early as in the 1670s, well before the Hebrew entries in his journals, he received let-ters with Hebrew words and it was thought that he could understand

41 See Weinreich, Geschichte der jiddischen Sprachforschung, 136–138.42 See Menahem Schmetzer, “Hebrew Printing and Publishing in Germany

(1650–1750): On Jewish Book Culture and the Emergence of Modern Jewry,” Yearbook of the Leo Baeck Institute 33 (1988): 369–83; Jean Baumgarten, Introduction to Old Yiddish Literature (Oxford: University Press, 2005), 39–71.

43 See Gianfranco Miletto and Giuseppe Veltri, “Die Hebraistik in Wittenberg (1502–1813): von der ‘lingua sacra’ zur Semitistik,” Henoch 25 (2003): 93–111; Giuseppe Veltri and Gerold Necker, eds., Gottes Sprache in der philologischen Werkstatt: Hebraistik vom 15. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (Leiden: Brill, 2004).

44 See Hans Leube, “Die Geschichte der pietistischen Bewegung in Leipzig. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Charakteristik des deutschen Pietismus (1921),” in Orthodoxie und Pietismus. Gesammelte Studien von Hans Leube, ed. Dietrich Blaufuß (Bielefeld: Luther-Verlag, 1975), 153–267.


these words.45 Furthermore, he seems to have had at least rudimental knowledge in Hebrew from the 1660s on, as he published a Christen- Jüden- und Türcken-Kalender using Hebrew and explaining it.46 Besides the predominant usage of Greek letters, he used also Hebrew letters for the denomination of stars.47 His son Christfried was at school in Halle and attended classes of Latin, Greek and Hebrew.48 However, only in spring of 1717 did he made entries in Hebrew letters, in the main concerning visitors.49 Unfortunately, we know nothing about Kirch’s possible knowledge of Yiddish.50 But regarding the aforemen-tioned evidence of Christian Hebraism, it is not surprising at all that Kirch was able to transcribe German in Hebrew characters according to a Yiddish spelling system. All the above-mentioned scholars, from Buxtorf to Calvör, advised direct contact with Jews in order to learn the Hebrew cursive script as used by Kirch in his journals.

In fact, the Kirch family obviously had personal contact with Jews and Jewish culture. In 1684, Gottfried Kirch wrote a letter of rec-ommendation to Johannes Hevelius in Danzig, that he might find a place for Friedrich Albrecht Christiani, the Hebrew lector at Leipzig University, as a professor of Hebrew.51 The letter clearly shows that Kirch knew him quite well. Christiani was a Jewish convert who had taught Hebrew amongst others to August Herrmann Francke—and possibly to Kirch, we may assume.52 Furthermore, if we interpret one of the proper names in the entries, possibly on visitors, “Frau Israelin,”

45 See letters from Christoph Richter (30. August/9. September 1676 and 4./14. September 1677), in Herbst, Die Korrespondenz des Kalendermachers Gottfried Kirch, I, 17 and 27f. The edited Hebrew sentence צמנו טל in the first letter is obviously a mistake and has to be corrected to אל .עמנו

46 See now Bill Rebiger, “Judentumskunde in der Frühaufklärung. Die multikul-turellen Kalender von Gottfried Kirch,” in Schreibkalender der Frühen Neuzeit im Spiegel der Altenburger Kalendersammlung, ed. Klaus-Dieter Herbst (Bremen: edition lumière; Jena: HKD, 2012) (in press). Cf. the bibliographical information and digitized copies: http://zs.thulb.uni-jena.de/receive/jportal_jpjournal_00000281.

47 Herbst, Die Korrespondenz des Kalendermachers Gottfried Kirch, I, 434. For a compa-rable use, cf. Gottfried Kirch, Christen- Jüden- und Türcken-Kalender 1689, Anderer Theil, G II; or Christfried Kirch in his astronomical journals, e.g., BBAW Nachlass Kirch 16/2: Astronomische Observationen von C. K. 1725, fol. 29r.

48 Archive of the Franckesche Stiftungen Halle/Saale, S L 1: Schülerbuch Pädagogium, 211, n° 538.

49 BBAW Nachlass Kirch 11/1: Christfried Kirch: Astronomische und Meteoro-logische Observationes 1717, 55, 73, 87f.

50 On this topic, see Aya Elyada, “Protestant Scholars and Yiddish Studies in Early Modern Europe,” Past and Present 203 (2009): 69–98.

51 Herbst, Die Korrespondenz des Kalendermachers Gottfried Kirch, I, 298f (Kirch to Hevelius, 26 April 1684).

52 August Herrmann Francke, Schriften zur biblischen Hermeneutik, ed. Erhard Peschke (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003), Introduction of the editor, 5.


as belonging to a well-known Jewish family in Berlin,53 the Kirchs had contact with Jews in Berlin as well. More evidence of this kind of con-tact is provided by the following intriguing example. After the death of Gottfried Kirch, his widow wrote a letter to her son Christfried, then in apprenticeship in Nuremberg, and described to him an apparently not unique visit from a Jew:

About the known Israelite still visiting me and vice versa; he asked diligently about you. Quite recently we discussed theological topics. He said that rogues and godless people slandered that they (i.e. the Jews) blaspheme the lunacy of Nazareth, insofar as ♁ was an honest man and great prophet. And as far as I can see, the old fogey is familiar with the story of the Lord Jesus. He said that we had made more of him than he was in truth. He was sent to them, and he was also a Jew. God adds wisdom to talk to him according the truth about him. I asked if the Jews did well when they killed him. He said: I do not want to take the responsibility for that.54

Conclusion: On the Use of Hebrew Letters

Why did Gottfried Kirch, and very occasionally his second wife Maria and his son Christfried as well, use Hebrew letters in their journal books, and why for these kind of entries? Normally, they wrote German. If we look at these astronomical journals not exclusively in their quality as astronomical observation notes, but in their entirety of entries as household books and therefore as household diaries, we can compare them to other diaries of scholars. Gabriele Jancke has analyzed a wide sample of such diaries of the 15th and 16th centuries.55 Despite the fact that the diaries reviewed were written a hundred years

53 Observatoire, B 3.6., 1707, 121 (26 July 1707). Cf. the list of the Berlin Jews of 1700 by Selma Stern, Der preußische Staat und die Juden, vol. I/2: Die Zeit des Großen Kurfürsten und Friedrich I. (Berlin: Schwetschke, 1925), 529f., no. 43: Jost Israel.

54 University Library Basel, L Ia 699, 218f. (Maria Kirch to Christfried Kirch, 9 June 1713): “Von dem bekanten Jsraelitter der besucht mich noch, ich auch ihn, er fragt fleißig nach dir. Wir haben neulich wol so schon theologisch mit ein ander gesprachet [sic]. Er sagte das redeten ihnen Schelme und gott lose Leute nach, daß sie den Irsinn von Nazareth lästerten, als welcher ♁ ein prafer Mann und großer prophet gewesen, und wie ich verstahe weiß der alte Kautz gar wohl um die historia des Herrn Jesu, Er sagte wir machten mehr aus Ihm, als an der Wahrheit wäre, er wäre ihnen gesendet, er wäre ja auch ein Jude gewesen. Gott verliehe Weisheit, nach der Wahrheit mit ihm darvon mit ihm zu reden. Ich fragte ob denn die Juden recht gethan, daß sie ihn getötet, sagte er: das will ich nicht verantworten.”

55 See Gabriele Jancke, Autobiographie als soziale Praxis. Beziehungskonzepte in Selbstzeugnissen des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts im deutschsprachigen Raum (Köln: Böhlau, 2002), 166–210 (chapter 3: Für andere Schreiben).


before our journals, and that none of her samples belong to an astron-omer, Jancke’s findings on the use of languages are quite remarkable. Contrary to what one might suppose, early modern Christian scholars did not naturally use Latin as their common language. Most of them wrote in a vernacular which was by no means a language contrary to the scholarly culture; and only a few used more than one language in their diaries. Latin as the scholarly language was a communication system which could connect scholars from different regions and, at the same time, define the scope of Christian and generally male scholarly groups. Gottfried Kirch and his son Christfried used Latin as well, especially for the printing of their astronomical discoveries, but also in their manuscripts. In the latter, Latin occurs mostly as quotations from other Latin works, in some letters to other scholars, or as drafts for publication. Maria Kirch had at least a reading competence in Latin, since she used Latin references, but did not write in Latin except for some astronomical terms. Her daughter Christine admitted she could not even read Latin at all.56 Along with Latin, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew indicated additional scholarly competence. From a Christian perspective, Greek was highly valued, whereas Hebrew was favorably seen only as the language of the Holy Scriptures and rabbinic lit-erature. In the tradition of Christian anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, Hebrew could be seen as the language of the other, the stranger. But from a more philosemitic perspective, Hebrew could be admired as the language of revelation and, in the context of Christian Kabbalah, of hidden secrets. Hebrew was not regarded as an active spoken, liv-ing language. Hebrew or even Yiddish was taught only in the context of Christian mission.57 In this light, the entries in the Kirch journals seem to be exceptional. Kirch father and son (and to a certain degree Maria as well ) had competence in Latin and Greek, but did not use it for their entries in favor of the Hebrew transcription employed.

However, why did Kirch transcribe some of his ‘private’ notices using Hebrew characters? Against the assumption that privacy was the motivation, we could argue that there are many instances of exactly the same notes in German characters as well. Statistically, there are

56 Archives Nationales de France; Marine 2JJ 65, 118a (Christine Kirch to J.N. Delisle, 24 February 1740).

57 Andreas Kilcher and Philipp Theisohn, “Jüdische Gelehrsamkeit und das Judentum im europäischen Gelehrtendiskurs,” in Diskurse der Gelehrsamkeit in der Frühen Neuzeit. Ein Handbuch, ed. Herbert Jaumann (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 667–713; Veltri/Necker, Gottes Sprache in der philologischen Werkstatt.


even more such entries of visitors and visits, familial or extraordinary incidences etc., written in German characters. Interestingly, even the layout of the Hebrew entries occurs within the German ones from time to time. Since most of the Hebrew entries are written at the end of the corresponding daily entry, clearly out of line and beginning at the right margin, some of the private notes written in German are also located on the right side.58 Consequently, the entries could not have been meant to keep something private from the curious eyes of other household members or visitors not able to decipher the code. They were not a code for piquant critics such as the critique in Greek of Luther in the Latin correspondence between Melanchthon and Camerarius.59

Another explanation could be secrecy, but there is no hint as to hid-den secrets whatsoever. Since Kirch was one of the leading German astronomers, one could suspect some astrological or even magical meaning in the entries. But in his journals, prints and correspondence, there is no hint regarding any deeper astrological interests than might be necessary for the usual predictions in the calendars. Kirch even complained about the superstition in astrology.60 In the correspon-dence, there is just one letter preserved, from a student, who asked to help him procure “cabbalistic and magical” books for an Austrian count.61

Besides the few references on confession, there is no allusion what-soever to religious meanings that were well known in the English interregnum era, and much less to the Pietist context or the Christian Kabbalah.62 But, on closer inspection the names of the visitors could indicate a more precise context. One of the visitors in the Hebrew

58 See, for example, the entry for the 29 June 1709.59 Stefan Rhein, “Katharina Melanchthon, geb. Krapp. Ein Wittenberger Frauen-

schicksal der Reformationszeit, in 700 Jahre Wittenberg. Stadt-Universität-Reformation, ed. Stefan Oehmig (Weimar: Böhlau, 1995), 501–518, here 516.

60 Klaus-Dieter Herbst “Der Societätsgedanke bei Gottfried Kirch (1639–1710), untersucht unter Einbeziehung seiner Korrespondenz und Kalender,” Beiträge zur Astronomiegeschichte 5 (2002) (Acta Historica Astronomiae 15): 115–151, esp. 119–121.

61 Herbst, Die Korrespondenz des Kalendermachers Gottfried Kirch, II, n° 519 (Gerdesius to Kirch, 6 November 1692).

62 For the alliance of Württemberg Pietism and Christian Kabbalah, see, e.g., Otto Betz, “Kabbala Baptizata. Die jüdisch-christliche Kabbala und der Pietismus in Württemberg,” Pietismus und Neuzeit 24 (1998): 130–159. On the politico-religious uses of Hebrew in the context of Puritans during the English interregnum, see Nigel Smith, “The Uses of Hebrew in the English Revolution,” in Language, Self, and Society. A Social History of Language, eds. Peter Burke and Roy Porter (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 51–71.


written entries is Samuel Crell (1660–1747), a pastor of a Socinian dynasty. If we add the Pietist background of the Kirch family and his liberal friends in Berlin, e.g., Alphonse Des Vignoles (1649–1744) and Daniel Ernst Jablonski mentioned earlier, we could assume a religiously quite open-minded context, philosophically rather radical. It is exactly in this context in the beginning of the eighteenth cen-tury, around Des Vignoles, Crell, Jablonski and the Berlin Huguenot Mathurin Veyssière de La Croze (1661–1739), that a Jewish anti-Christian manuscript appeared and was secretly discussed, thus pro-viding arguments for the radical Enlightenment.63 However, Kirch does not seem to fit into that ‘underground’ network. The majority of his visitors were simple folk, like a coachman or his former Guben neighbor Mme. Schubert and her daughter, very likely not interested in explosive Jewish manuscripts at all.

The Hebrew written entries are rather banal and occur in German in other instances. These seeming banalities make it even more dif-ficult to explain why Kirch should use another script over than the German one in which the bulk of the journals was written. Perhaps we do not have to search so intently for a possible meaning of the entries, but rather a pattern for the use of different languages or codes. Martin Crusius (1526–1607), a Graecist in Tübingen, used to note in Greek all the German sermons he heard; and in his diary, he shifted between Latin and Greek without any regularity. In addition, he noted down his dreams mostly in Greek.64 He seems to have done this mainly for pleasure, to practice his skills. Kirch’s son Christfried apparently also had a preference for languages. He like to try out his at times only very rudimentary skills, such as in a letter in English to an unknown Englishman:

Sir, I pray you to excuse me, that I am so foolish to write you in an Language that me is heel unknown. If ye not kan understand me, ye must rather. I am very infortunate that I no have English Dictionary, Monsieur, J’avois envie de vous ecrire une petite letter en anglois, mais j’ay trouvé tant de difficulté, que j’ay dû changer ce propos.65

63 Martin Mulsow, Moderne aus dem Untergund. Radikale Frühaufklärung in Deutschland, 1680–1720, (Hamburg: Meiner, 2002), chap. II.

64 Diarium Martini Crusii, 4 vol., eds. Wilhelm Göz and Ernst Conrad (Tübingen: Laupp, 1927–1961).

65 University Library Basel, L Ia 699, 221 (Kirch to an unknown addressee, 14 December 1720).


Along with the use of Hebrew, we find, albeit in two instances only, a very similar use of Greek in his journal book, and exactly in the same book containing his Hebrew notes. The first note is a proper Greek word meant to replace a German word he had scratched out: “Frau Schubertium mit ihrer to[chter] λογισιχεν.” The second note, however, is a transcription as in the Hebrew case: “Jungf. Bärin, kleine Bär, H. Wagner. κλεινε χρισχεν” (kleine Krischen, i.e. the child of Krisch).66 He apparently liked to play with languages and codes.

Finally, we tend to assume that the entries in Hebrew letters were nothing but a kind of scholarly joke, a private pleasure and a chance to practice the scholarly skills. Kirch learned the Hebrew alphabet and was familiar with the Yiddish system of transcription. Perhaps he simply enjoyed his ability to transcribe German words and names. This kind of scholarly play and joke were not uncommon at all.67 Since these private notes were not on the level of academic discourse, Kirch may well have tried playfully to enhance their status by using an uncommon script that was in contrast to the astronomical data. In this way, it was possible to cover the triviality of daily life by a veil of mystery by transcribing it in Hebrew characters.

Sebastian Kühn, Ph.D. (2010) Free University Berlin, is a post-doc at the Centre Marc Bloch in Berlin. Publications on early modern his-tory and science, including “Experimente im Tagebuch. Serielle Experimentbeschreibungen im 17./18. Jahrhundert,” in ‘Es ist nun einmal zum Versuch gekommen.’ Experiment und Literatur I. 1580–1790, eds. Michael Gamper, Martina Wernli and Jörg Zimmer (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2009), 255–276, “Saturn—‘als ein rundes Küglein in einer Schüssel.’ Spuren mündlicher Kommunikation in naturforschenden Aufzeichnungen um 1700,” Jahrbuch für europäische Wissenschaftskultur/ Yearbook for European Culture of Science 6 (2012) vol. 2: 13–38 (in press). Wissen, Arbeit, Freundschaft. Ökonomien und soziale Beziehungen in den Akademien von London, Paris und Berlin um 1700 (Göttingen: V & R Unipress, 2011).

66 BBAW Nachlass Kirch 11/1: Christfried Kirch: Astronomische und Meteo-rologische Observationes 1717, 90.

67 Paula Findlen, “Jokes of Nature and Jokes of Knowledge. The Playfulness of Scientific Discourse in Early Modern Europe,” Renaissance Quarterly 43 (1990): 292–331. Martin Mulsow, Die unanständige Gelehrtenrepublik. Wissen, Libertinage und Kommunikation in der Frühen Neuzeit (Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler, 2007), 87–107.


Bill Rebiger, Ph.D. (2004) Free University Berlin, Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter at the Institut für Judaistik at Free University Berlin. Publications on rabbinic literature and Jewish magic, including Gittin—Scheidebriefe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), Sefer ha-Razim I und II—Das Buch der Geheimnisse I und II, vol. 1: Edition, vol. 2: Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar (together with Peter Schäfer, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), Sefer Shimmush Tehillim. Buch vom magischen Gebrauch der Psalmen. Edition, Übersetzung und Kommentar (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).

Hidden Secrets or the Mysteries of Daily Life. Hebrew Entries in the Journal Books of the Early...

Documents

Transcript of Hidden Secrets or the Mysteries of Daily Life. Hebrew Entries in the Journal Books of the Early...