If one were to judge Christian Thomasius on the quality of his correspondence, one would most probably use less than complimentary terms to describe him. In stark contrast to his contemporary Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who considered crafting letters to be a significant, constituent part of his work, the influential intellectual Thomasius often considered this task rather onerous. When it came to replying to, or archiving correspondence therefore, Thomasius was negligent. Unsurprisingly, those with whom he exchanged letters would at times complain about Thomasius’ late replies, or indeed, about responses which never came.

With this in mind, it seems rather surprising that the first of four volumes containing the professor’s letters is now available at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (MLU). The volume contains all correspondence written or received by Thomasius between 1679 and 1692. To be more precise, the volume contains 268 letters, which, despite the tardiness described above, have remained intact for posterity.

In total, there are 1200 examples of correspondence, which the project leader Dr Frank Grunert and his colleagues, the historian Dr Matthias Hambrock and the political scientist Dr Martin Kühnel from the Interdisciplinary Centre for European Enlightenment Studies (Interdisziplinäres Zentrum für die Erforschung der Europäischen Aufklärung, IZEA), have been collating and reconstructing since 2010. The majority of letters originate from different archives and libraries in locations including Copenhagen, Hamburg, Berlin and, of course, the City of Halle. The letters have been divided into four volumes, which will be rounded off with a biographical dictionary.

“The letters reveal an exciting picture of the everyday life of an academic. And they show which topics really concerned Thomasius,” explains co-editor Frank Grunert. The group have been able to access parts of Thomasius’ correspondence with academic colleagues, as well as institutions. This includes a letter that Thomasius received from the council of the City of Halle in August 1690. In the letter, the city elders try to explain to the professor, who was living in the City of Halle, and who had already fallen into disfavour at the University of Leipzig, why he could not hold his lectures in the local “Ratswaage”. This building was used for both weddings and local meetings, as well as theatre performances. And although the German in which the letter was first formulated sounds somewhat strange to today’s reader, the degree of reservation and unwilling with which the message is expressed is still obvious 300 years later.

On multiple occasions throughout the volume it becomes clear that Thomasius was an argumentative individual, who made no effort to avoid confrontation. What’s particularly clear is that more often than not, his letters concern arguments or disputes. These arguments are voiced with a clarity and directness, which would be quite shocking for us today. A typical example of this is the letter which Thomasius addressed to the clergy of Leipzig, the so-called “Geistliche Ministerium”, on 3 July 1689. In this letter, he classifies the members of the clergy according to their propensity to engage in disputes or conflicts. Thomasius hereby places the theologian August Pfeiffer in the worst category. Writing in archaic German, Thomasius explains that Pfeiffer has vilified him, spending almost an hour deriding him, describing him as a villain and rogue to his listeners, “bey nahe eine gantze Stunde auff mich nahmentlich gelästert, und mich als den ärgsten Schurcken ausgemachet”. As such, Thomasius considers it quite impossible that he would ever come to any kind of agreement with Pfeiffer.

Some of the letters, however, prove that Thomasius has a softer side. This becomes quite clear, for example, when it comes to Thomasius’ own professional situation. One sees just how uncertain Thomasius could be. This becomes acutely clear in the letter Thomasius wrote on 15 March 1690 to his former teacher Johann Christoph Becmann in Frankfurt. Thomasius outlines his concern that he would be banned from publishing or teaching in Leipzig. It is quite clear that Thomasius did not have a “plan B” when it came to his existential problems.