Talk:Samuel Hartlib

Additional reference suggestion

This is not my area of expertise, but someone who's been working on this page might want to look at the article "Interfacing Samuel Hartlib" by Mark Greengrass in History Today 43:12 (1993), pp. 45-49. It's available online through chadwyck.com and other academic library e-databases. -- E. F. Winerock (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Gdansk vote?

Space Cadet has referenced the Gdansk vote, which says "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively". The goal of the vote and WP:NCGN is to determine how best to describe historically complex places. The Silesian town was predominantly known as Brieg in English until its transfer to Poland in 1945. Considering the phrasing of the vote and that Hartlib was a German, it makes sense to me to Brieg should be listed before Brzeg. The phrasing is done so as to present the term historically relevant to the biography (Brieg) and the modern placename (Brzeg). The university was known in English as the Albertina, the Albertinus, the University of Königsberg, Königsberg University, etc. Aside from the fact that it was an academic institution and not a place, it has not been known as the "University of Królewiec". Olessi (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I buy Brzeg, no problem, and I know the Albertina was not called "University of Królewiec" in English, but the Polish name is important for double naming of the University location. Space Cadet (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? We are not talking about the city Königsberg, but a university not known by the Polish name. If anything, Kaliningrad would be a more relevant name to include than Królewiec, as it is the modern name. If the IKSUR was a direct continuation of the Albertina, then I could possibly understand linking the historic university and the modern one, but it is not. Olessi (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll buy it for now but I think we are escaping the issue and are not consistent with applying the Gdańsk vote. Space Cadet (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pepys

The connection with Samuel Pepys may be questionable. Pepys certainly knew Samuel Hartlib junior, the son. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction: Elbing taken by Catholic forces?

...they both had to take refuge from the Thirty Years War when Elbing was taken by Catholic forces...

However, according to warbox of Thirty Years War, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth wasn't a belligerent in the war. Moreover, the Commonwealth was predominantly Catholic itself, which "Catholic forces" are mentioned here?

Top.Squark (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Tricky, but see Pomerania during the Early Modern Age. Elbing was adjacent to the eastern boundary of Pomerelia, which along with Pomerania was part of Prussia (our maps and articles). Now Pomerania was certainly an area fought over intensively, after the Swedish forces occupied it. Without chapter and verse I can't be 100% sure about what happened, but I don't think the fact that Poland was technically out of the war is decisive. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The ODNB says Hartlib left in 1628 after the "capture of Mecklenburg and Pomerania by the imperial Habsburg armies". Charles Matthews (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

But Elbing was in Royal Prussia (a part of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth), not in the Duchy of Pomerania. The later was a part of the Holy Roman Empire and thus naturally involved in the war. Top.Squark (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, according to Polish–Swedish War (1626–1629), Elbing went under Swedish control as a result of the war. The Holy Roman Empire was not a belligerent in this war hence again its relevance is unclear. Perhaps the Poles captured Elbing from the Swedes at 1628 and lost it back later, but I can't find any evidence for this.Top.Squark (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What is written does seem questionable: in the Pyle Dictionary it says Hartlib left anticipating the Swedish intervention, and in another source it says that he was already planning to leave in 1627. And in another source I see that Dury's departure is attributed to the Merchant Adventurers pulling out of Elbing. So the specifics appear to be wrong. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's complicated. There was the separate Polish–Swedish War (1626–1629). This left Sweden holding Elbing when a truce was concluded (allowing Sweden to enter the Thirty Years' War). There are reports from Thomas Roe, there on the ground to carry out the diplomacy, describing the Danzig area as a devasted war zone (by 1629). So the article needs to be changed, still, but there was fighting enough in Royal Prussia to explain why Hartlib was keen to leave. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(I've now read the other note above re the Polish–Swedish War.) I think the original source here is what Hugh Trevor-Roper says [1] about the "Jesuit reconquest" squeezing Dury out of Elbing. Well, Trevor-Roper may be wrong on that detail, even though that's a famous paper. Interesting! Charles Matthews (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Elbing went back to Poland at the Treaty of Stuhmsdorf. It is debatable whether this is a part of the Thirty Years War. If this is indeed the reason for Hartlib and Dury leaving, it must be explained more explicitly. Also, the treaty occurred at 1635. According to the article, "Hartlib met the Scottish preacher John Dury in 1628. Shortly they both had to take refuge from the Thirty Years War when Elbing was taken by Catholic forces...". The 7 years between 1628 and 1635 hardly count as "shortly"! Top.Squark (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It does need to be changed. They each had reasons for leaving what was a war zone, but in neither case was it what Trevor-Roper implies, a change of religious dominance in Elbing. I have found a few citations. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've now changed this point, and added a couple of references. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the subject

The unsoured change has been made recently regarding the origin of the subject. RS say - Samuel Hartlib (c.1599-1670) was born in Elbing in Prussia c.1600 the son of George Hartlib, a Pole, and Elizabeth Langthon. His maternal grandfather John Langthon was a wealthy English merchant 👉[2] Where the German origin came from? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC) *(I properly sourced that with this edit --> [3]) - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Since he was born in Prussia, they say "German-Polish origin," to kind of strike some kind of a balance... But I believe that the previous version of the short description, which said "of East European origin" was better and should be reinstated. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Warshy - Sure, no problem, but is that “Eastern European” origin sourced anywhere? Elbląg (place of his birth) is located in Central Europe. You can’t get more central than that. Where 20th century Cold War term for these people comes from? Maybe because the region is always East for the Brits, that’s why? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

These geographic decisions are always hard, but I've changed my mind. In accordance with the article itself I think "of German-Polish origin" is really the best characterization here after all... Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)