Читать книгу Camerarius Polyhistor - Группа авторов - Страница 26

Nicholas A.E. Kalospyros (Athen)

Of the three criteria for a scholar to be included in the History of Classical Scholarship, according to Calder and Briggs:1 i) scholars who were innovative and exerted considerable influence upon their epoch and the forthcoming generations; ii) persons whose lives amounted to more than just bibliographies, which means that the evidence must point to something specific or rather specifically unusual about them; and iii) scholars for whom worthy biographies are available; with the exception of the third criterion – that one may substitute it with collective volumes and chronological introductions – the former two are still available in the case of Joachim Camerarius (12 Apr. 1500, Bamberg – 17 Apr. 1574, Leipzig). Besides, the history of classical scholarship is part of Rezeption, the way in which successive generations have received or reached to the heritage of ancient Greece and Rome. It is certainly not a matter of books about books, not even a collection of summarized biographies in the form of essays about the history of scholarship. It is the experience of Altertumswissenschaft. Therefore, in terms of the history of scholarship, the achievements of Joachim Camerarius, the universal scholar, consist also in the development by him of explanations of the world, that combine Christian religious viewpoints with rational as worldly ones in the vast parameters of philological knowledge.

Although my paper’s ambitions were originally limited to the perspective of locating Camerarius’ documented position in the history of German classical scholarship, afterwards the thought occurred to me that it would be more fruitful not to dislocate cultural data from the history of scholarship, such as our scholar’s pedagogical doctrines, manifested in his Oratio de studio bonarum literarum atque artium et linguae Graecae ac LatinaeCamerarius d.Ä., JoachimOratio de studio bonarum literarum atque artium et linguae Graecae ac Latinae. An attentive reader may find in this Oratio de studio bonarum literarum atque artium et linguae Graecae ac LatinaeCamerarius d.Ä., JoachimOratio de studio bonarum literarum atque artium et linguae Graecae ac Latinae, pronuntiata in Academia Lipsica à Ioachimo Camerario Pab.[ergensi] Idib.[us] Novembr.[is] Anni XLI, published in 1542 (Excusum Lipsiae, apud Iacobum Berualdum, anno MDXLII), a philological manifesto of learning and teaching classical thought, whereby humanity stands up as an argument for learning.2 This OratioCamerarius d.Ä., JoachimOratio de studio bonarum literarum atque artium et linguae Graecae ac Latinae exceeds the typographical expectations of a simple booklet about 40 pages. As usually for humanistic books, Greek and Latin poetical composition embraces the text of OratioCamerarius d.Ä., JoachimOratio de studio bonarum literarum atque artium et linguae Graecae ac Latinae: in pp. A2r–v we find a Latin poem pronounced ad Andraem et Egidium Morchios fratres […] Doctoris elegidion, dedicatorium orationis and in p. clv another poem De morte Simonis Grynei ἐπικήδειον marks the end of the book.

The author’s invocation to Deum patrem clementissimi Domini nostri Jesu Christi marks the opening of the booklet; such an invocation is certainly moved by the theological imperative that every intellectual good is proclaimed to God, the source of goodness and wisdom. Then, a rhetorical attempt to raise to God the blessings of study follows an optimistic yearning for philological science; beyond devoting his own life to studying at least splendidly his doctrina, the feeling that it was not in vain prevails.3 In Camerarius’ OratioCamerarius d.Ä., JoachimOratio de studio bonarum literarum atque artium et linguae Graecae ac Latinae we may find various termini technici usual for humanity scholars’ texts, such as disciplinarum dignitas, praestantia, doctrina, eruditio, humanitas, naturae excellentia, ingeniae et liberalis nomen. His treatise, written in a phenomenical Ciceronian style reminding us of that of Pro Archia poetaCiceroArch., exhortates enthusiasm for those who neither understood nor learned, nor would be able to perceive these courses of classical learning, but who will follow that step with great pleasure.4 In it there are quotations of CiceroCicero, MartialMartial, Plato’s RespublicaPlatonResp., Apostle PaulPaulus (Apostel), PindarPindar, DemosthenesDemosthenes and CallimachusKallimachos. His vocabulary is relatively pure from medievalisms and imitates ordinary classical style in the Humanistic era. We have to bear in mind that, although at the previous century students in conservative university curricula were usually required to limit their active vocabulary in prose to words employed by CaesarCaesar, Gaius Iulius, Cicero, and LivyLivius, and this standard provided a certain academic discipline, it is seldom sought in an age in which positivistic notions of scholarship have become so prevalent that a man may be accounted a distinguished scholar of Latin without having produced ten lines of original composition in that language. But when Latin is used as an instrument of communication, as it was in humanistic era, it becomes obvious that classical clarity cannot always be attained in the discussion of post-Classical subjects without the use of post-Classical words: for instance editio, versio, typotheta etc. Beyond Camerarius’ great qualification as an eminent writer in Latin language and Ciceronian style, we may again underline the failure of Humanism to establish a literary tradition of its own. Many scholars, by ignoring their own precursors, glanced at their contemporaries and meditated the ancients. Camerarius’ was a conflated style, formed, it would seem, almost entirely by subjective standards, whenever he imitated what pleased him mostly. Anyway, a display of polymatheia and an adhortatio to adolescent pupils to insist on the study of both classical languages but with dignity and pleasure, distill the hardship of literary studies. The most stimulating issue concerning Camerarius’ OratioCamerarius d.Ä., JoachimOratio de studio bonarum literarum atque artium et linguae Graecae ac Latinae is the pending ideological and philological argument aspiring to override pedagogical and aesthetic notions of virtue: the anthem of active Humanism and irreversible optimistic study of classical literature. The whole speech seems addressed to those that were nurturing preparatory schools as entrance to the university tuition, so that they might improve learning through philological acquaintance. It is known that under the names of Lyceum or Gymnasium those German schools gave a more complete knowledge of the two classical languages and perhaps a new thrust to philosophy. The new treatments expanded on many of Erasmus Erasmus von Rotterdam, Desiderius’ ideas and transposed them into different contexts with theological presuppositions. Again for Camerarius the study of classical texts in an academic sense could in no way be separate from their study for reasons of aesthetic appreciation and particularly moral instruction.

This moral signification of classical knowledge enables the transition to the second part of my paper, which could be phrased in the form of a twofold rhetorical question: Should we estimate the biographical events of Camerarius’ life and ascribe him an eminent position in the history of German classical scholarship or render his achievements in a brief note tractable in the pages of a biographical lexicon meant to describe the Humanistic movement?

If encyclopedically lemmatized, Camerarius (actually Joachim Kammermeister) is known as a German Humanist and poet, who came from the family of the Bamberg aldermen Liebhard, but he was generally called Kammermeister, since previous members of his family had held the office of chamberlain (camerarius) to the bishops of Bamberg. He quickly developed a particular interest in Greek, which he studied at Leipzig with the Englishman Richard CrokeCroke, Richard (1489–1558) and the German Petrus MosellanusMosellanus, Petrus (1493–1524), and also at Erfurt and Wittenberg, where he became intimate with Philipp MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp (1497–1560), who remained a lifelong friend. He began studies in Leipzig in 1513 (facultas artium), in Erfurt in 1518 (magister artium 1521) and in Wittenberg in 1521, where he enjoyed a close friendship with MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp and, thus, became a follower and pioneer of the Reformation. In 1526 he went into Prussia, and in the year following was nominated by Melanchthon to fill the office of Greek and Latin professor at the newly-founded college (Egidiengymnasium) in Nuremberg.5 He became professor of rhetoric in 1522, although he often spent long periods in Bamberg and travelling, in 1524 with MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp to Bretten and as LutherLuther, Martin’s emissary to ErasmusErasmus von Rotterdam, Desiderius in Basel. In 1525 he became professor of Greek in Wittenberg, in 1526 rector in Nuremberg, in 1535 professor of Greek at Tübingen, and in 1541 at Leipzig, chiefly teaching Greek and Latin. He evinced an extraordinary passion for that language, and in 1524 put forth his first work, a Latin translation of one of the orations of DemosthenesDemosthenes. Apart from playing an important part in the Reformation movement, his advice was frequently sought by leading men in the economic and scholarly circles of Leipzig in the 16th century. Camerarius’ biography should be treated with respect to that perfect balance between Humanistic teaching and protestant liberalistic views of reorganizing Humanistic discussions about religion and knowledge.6 After being sent as deputy for Nuremberg to the diet of Augsburg, where he helped MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp in drawing up the Augsburg Confession, he was commissioned by Duke Ulrich of WürttembergUlrich (Herzog von Württemberg) in 1535 to reorganize the university of Tübingen and raise the quality of education there, while avoiding the mainstream of the controversies swirling around Württemberg between Reformed and Lutheran fractions, since he was not a major Protestant dogmatician7; in 1541 he rendered a similar service at Leipzig,8 where the remainder of his life was chiefly spent.9 Camerarius was a close friend and student of MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp,10 and was in contact at various times with the circle of classical scholars that included Conrad Mutianus RufusMutianus Rufus, Konrad, Crotus RuveanusRubeanus, Crotus, and Eobanus HessusHessus, Helius Eobanus.11Humelius, Johannes He also maintained a sporadic epistolary friendship with Desiderius ErasmusErasmus von Rotterdam, Desiderius after their meeting in Basel in the summer of 1524,12 but this friendship seems to have been strained but not broken by a conflict between the two in 1535 stemming from a letter (now lost) that ErasmusErasmus von Rotterdam, Desiderius wrote to Eobanus HessusHessus, Helius Eobanus in which he severely criticized Camerarius’ editions of the works of Greek astrologers.13 He produced the first printed Greek edition of Ptolemy’s astrology text, the TetrabiblosPtolemaeus, ClaudiusTetrabiblos, in 1535. It was printed in a quarto format by the publisher FrobenFroben, Johann at Nuremberg along with Camerarius’ translation to Latin of Books I, II and portions of Books III and IV, accompanied with his notes on the first two books, the Greek text of the Centiloquium (Καρπός) and a Latin translation from Iovianus PontanusPontano, Giovanni. An avid believer in astrology, he followed it with a second edition of the TetrabiblosPtolemaeus, ClaudiusTetrabiblos in Greek in 1553, with an accompanying Latin translation by MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp and the Centiloquium (Καρπός) in Latin and Greek. This was printed in Basel, Switzerland in octavo format by Johannes OporinusOporinus, Johannes. During his lifetime Camerarius published widely on a range of subjects, including editions of HomerHomer, SophoclesSophokles, CiceroCicero, and PlautusPlautus; a recent estimate of his output puts the number of books published under his name at “at least 183”, not including minor revisions of works and reprintings.14 He bequeathed his pupils the seal of scholarship and his contemporaries admired his manifold Humanistic activities. For example, the French eminent scholar Adrianus TurnebusTurnebus, Adrianus (1512–1565) seems to have thought highly of Camerarius and their correspondence is an attested evidence of scholarly intercourse between France and Germany; adjusting to StählinStählin, Friedrich’s observation that the progressive influence of the new scholarship in France upon scholarship in Germany and in other countries was a decisive fact. Rudolf Pfeiffer extended this observation by presenting two exemplary cases about MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp’s pupils and friends, and more specifically those of Camerarius and of Hieronymus WolfWolf, Hieronymus,15 both teachers of distinction and heads of the newly founded Protestant schools in Nuremberg and Augsburg respectively; both scholars superior to MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp, and both great editors. Surprisingly the histories of classical scholarship do not provide the readers with a certain evaluation of Camerarius’ philological greatness: Wilamowitz mentions Camerarius’ friendship with MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp,16 Conrad Bursian Camerarius’ major works and John Edwin Sandys offers a short cv along with the mentioning of Camerarius’ major works.17 But Camerarius was the most important German philologist of the 16th century. His first editions are still important today, as are his editions based on manuscript material much improved in comparison to others’ earlier attempts. His editio princeps of Ptolemy’s QuadripartitumCamerarius d.Ä., JoachimPtolemaei Quadripartitum (Nuremberg 1535) and the Μεγάλη σύνταξις, the Almagest (Basel 1538) are still essential, appearing in modern editions with the abbreviation ‘c’. Camerarius possessed a very wide knowledge of the ancient world, akin to the learned encyclopedism of the 17th century, but still more cultured and sympathetically humane. All his extant manuscripts and letters, the “Cameriana”, are located in the Bavarian State Library.

In school education Camerarius recommends that classical literature should be used as a warning example by which pupils can learn a proper method of translation. Just as many early Humanists despised the ad verbum method and execrated the version of Leontius PilatusPilato, Leonzio, a persistent strain in Humanism continued to look askance at versiones composed on the ad verbum principle. On their first printing in 1537, the versions of Divus had been immediately criticised by Camerarius, in the preface to his own explication of the first book of the IliadHomerIl., published in 1538, to which he appended a translation in Latin hexameters (Commentarius Explicationis primi libri Iliados HomeriCamerarius d.Ä., JoachimCommentarius explicationis primi libri Iliados Homeri, loachimi Camerarii […] Eiusdem libri primi Iliados conversio in Latinos versus, eodem auctore etc., Argentorati 1538). Even if the translator coins good Latin words, Camerarius disapproves of diverging from the laws of Latin syntax and grammar. The ad verbum versions corrupt both the matter and manner of the original as well as obscuring and degrading them and so should be avoided.18 Camerarius’ acumen enabled him to induce further discussion concerning the authorship of ancient poetry with the blend of poetry. For example, an examination of the Lament for Adonis’ linguistic and prosodic signals, as well as what might be called its conscious signals, provides ample evidence to uphold Joachim Camerarius’ original hypothesis of 1530 that Bion of SmyrnaBion von Smyrna authored the poem.19 After all, Camerarius exerted his wonderful erudition almost in every aspect of philological curriculum, from orthography20Camerarius d.Ä., JoachimDe orthographia to interpretation; the latter setting his major contribution to encompassing philology with Christian morality. Should the history of interpretation be envisioned as intellectual history, about the ways in which ancient texts were interpreted and discussed in Reformation Europe and under sober theological consideration or liberal theology, and the prominent role such ancient texts and the debates on them played in the intellectual history of Europe, Camerarius’ contribution could be conceived within this very frame of intimate personal scholarship. Therefore, we may ascribe the commentary method the Dutch Humanist and jurist Hugo GrotiusGrotius, HugoAnnotationes in Libros Evangeliorum (1583–1645) applied in his Annotationes in Libros Evangeliorum (Amsterdam 1641) to Camerarius’ Commentarius in Novum FoedusCamerarius d.Ä., JoachimCommentarius in Novum Foedus which was published at first in 1572, thus continuing FlaciusFlacius Illyricus, Matthias’ grammatical approach.21 In this work, Camerarius argued that the writings of the New Testament must be interpreted from the perspective of its authors and within the understanding of their world; otherwise, it would be impossible to grasp the meaning of the text as each New Testament writer intended it. By insisting on the knowledge of the context of the Biblical authors and not the opinions of early Church Fathers, as providing the key for interpreting the New Testament, Camerarius founded the historical-critical method22 to interpreting the Bible for modern Protestant commentaries.

His sense about textual sources as resources of interpretation drove him to write an influential commentary on the Theban plays of SophoclesSophokles (1534) as an introduction to his commentary on Oedipus TyrannusSophoklesO.T., reprinted in Henri EstienneEstienne, Henri’s 1568 edition and elsewhere, at a time when few readers in early modern Europe were able to read Sophocles in the original Greek. In a time when AristotleAristoteles’s PoeticsAristotelesPoet. were regarded either obscure or scarcely comprehensible, and fourteen years before Francesco RobortelloRobortello, Francesco’s commentary on Aristotle’s PoeticsAristotelesPoet. appeared (1548) – establishing AristotleAristoteles as authentia on that issue – and just before MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp’s Christianization of Greek tragedy through which Protestant Humanists marked a pivotal moment in the history of interpretation of Greek tragedy, Camerarius performed the Aristotelization of Sophoclean tragedy,23 in a way of conciliating AristotleAristoteles’s normative theory of tragedy in his PoeticsAristotelesPoet. and attempts to make sense of Sophoclean drama. Camerarius defines tragedy as a moral lesson, that is an imitation of momentous events entailing an unexpected and undeserved change of the tragic hero’s fortune from bad to good, around περιπέτεια, but categorically rejecting the workings of divine justice against the wicked being punished upon what they deserve, because in such cases the spectators or the readers could neither feel nor have pity, elements that in AristotleAristoteles’s concept of ἁμαρτία must result as the emotional effect of tragedy from its plot structure. When Camerarius began in his influential work what Michael Lurie has called the “Aristotelization of Greek tragedy”,24 the interpretation of the plays according to contemporary understanding of the PoeticsAristotelesPoet., he merely understood tragedy presenting a virtuous person suffering an undeserved fate that arouses in the spectators pity and fear. By reflecting this Aristotelian conception of Greek tragedy, Camerarius sees AntigoneSophoklesAnt. as the virtous protagonist unjustly destroyed; even Oedipus, a morally good being, commits crimes unknowingly, as an outcome of ignorance.25SophoklesAnt. After all, these moral insights into tragedy reflect Humanist receptions of Greek tragedy,26Stählin, Friedrich especially in the seminal works of Camerarius and MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp.

The extant and thematic range of Camerarius’ writings are typical of a scholar of German Humanism in the 16^th century, in that he left a prodigious oeuvre both of quantity and of thematic usage; unfortunately, there is still no modern complete edition, nor is there a comprehensive and chronologically reliable bibliography, so as to reinforce his eminent position in German classical scholarship. The number of books printed under his name are at least 183 – translations from Greek to Latin and an almost equally large number of commentaries on Greek and Latin authors, and original works on historical and antiquarian topics –, not to mention minor revisions of works or re-printings; besides, poems in Greek and Latin which attest his excellent knowledge of both classical languages and literary style. In that considerable body of Latin verse, published in vol. II of the Delitiae poetarum Germanorum (1612), we can read two eclogues appearing among the pastorals, literary in inspiration but not wholly derivative in content, and eighteen Latin and two Greek pastorals in Libellus continens eclogasCamerarius d.Ä., JoachimEclogae (Leipzig 1568).27 His pastorals are interesting as a philological project in which he combined various elements from VirgilVergil to present a new bucolic situation that creates new myths, so as to add a new motif to the classical repertoire; for instance, in the attractive second of his eclogues Dirae, seu Lupus, a poem of 112 hexameters with a few elisions.28 Well-known are also the translation into Latin of two of his friend Albrecht DürerDürer, Albrecht’s (1471–1528) vernacular works on art expressing the German Renaissance and his composed Epistularum familiarum libri VI, Epistularum familiarum libri V and Epistulae posteriores, published as a corpus of five volumes at Frankfurt in 1583 and 1595. The influence on Camerarius from such poets as TheocritusTheokrit, BionBion von Smyrna and MoschusMoschus, and Camerarius’ role in reconnecting 16th-century bucolic verse with the Greek origin of the genre, attribute much to the evaluation of his poetic personality, which lies beyond his philological oeuvre including biographies of celebrated contemporaries, e.g. Helius Eobanus HessusHessus, Helius Eobanus, Philipp MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp, George of Anhalt and Albrecht DürerDürer, Albrecht, ecclesiastical history, theological treatises, works of pedagogy and natural science, and a substantial correspondence with contemporary Humanists.

The most extensive, however, are his philological works, obviously intended for use in university tuition, as can be seen not only in the manuals of style, rhetoric and grammar, but also in the forewords to his many commented editions of Greek and Latin texts, from HomerHomer to Christian late antiquity. These editions formed the core of Camerarius’ philological activity and form the qualitative arguments upon which he might be considered the most important Humanist after ErasmusErasmus von Rotterdam, Desiderius. His primary activity was that of a critic, editor, and commentator; he edited and annotated, among others, the following: DemosthenesDemosthenes (1524, 1547), TheocritusTheokrit (1530, 1545), Dio ChrysostomDion Chrysostomos (1531), SophoclesSophokles (1534, 1556), MacrobiusMacrobius (1535), CiceroCicero (1538, 1540, 1542, 1543, 1550, 1552, 1562, 1570), Homer (1538, 1540, 1541, 1551), QuintilianQuintilian (1532, 1538, 1542, 1546, 1549), AesopAesop (1538, 1539, 1571), PlautusPlautus (1538, 1558, 1566), XenophonXenophon (1539, 1543, 1545, 1553, 1561, 1572), ThucydidesThukydides (1540, 1565), HerodotusHerodot (1541, 1557), EuclidEuklid (1549, 1577), VergilVergil (1556), PlutarchPlutarch (1576). His editions of AristotleAristoteles appeared mostly after his death; three opera aristotelica edited by him are Explicatio librorum Ethicorum ad Nicomachum (Frankfurt 1570), Politicorum et Oeconomicorum interpretationes (Frankfurt 1581), and Oeconomica scripta, quae extant titulo Aristotelis in sermonem Latinum conversa et explicata, adiunctaque eis interpretation Oeconomici libri Xenophontis (Leipzig 1564). As it can be seen, works on Greek authors predominate; it should nowadays be generally accepted that Camerarius effectively founded the study of Greek in Germany.

Camerarius’ philological logic, applied in his commentary on book one of the IliadHomerIl. (1538), has been called “the first attempt to write a true commentary” on the work of HomerHomer in the early modern period.29 His practical aim in writing the commentary seems to have been to make the first book of the IliadHomerIl. accessible not only to his students,30 but also available to readers on several varying levels of sophistication as well, since it would have been difficult for all of his prospective readers to have a thorough background in Greek, and therefore he occasionally provides glosses for lines that a reader familiar with Greek would have no particular trouble with. The Basle editions of the IliadHomerIl. and the OdysseyHomerOd. μετὰ τῆς ἐξηγήσιος (“with the explanation”) which he edited together with Jacob MicyllusMicyllus, Jakob (1541 and 1551, respectively), are remarkable contributions to the essential exegetical apparatus handed down from antiquity (namely the D-scholia). Camerarius also produced a commentary on IliadHomerIl. A and B (Straßburg 1538 and 1540, respectively), in which he offered a pedantic elementary grammatical and syntactical analysis of the text, together with some references to later authors and some antiquarian details, but with very little emphasis on Platonic or Stoic allegory, which he mostly dismissed with utter scepticism. It is noteworthy that in pp. 35–39 of his commentary under the heading De interpretibus Homericis he compiled the first modern list of Homeric exegetes. Though he aimed not at showing off a vast amount of learning towards his colleagues, but rather at determining the moral tenets of the Greek world, all represented in Homer’s epics, his obvious purpose of learning the Greek language is expanded in the promotion of their thought so that it would enhance both the cultural and the moral level of his pupils. This constant and enduring conflict between philology and allegory, between a “textual” and a “moralistic” approach, has been infused in Camerarius’ thought through a commentary viewed not only as a work of scholarship aimed at fellow cultivators of optimae litterae, but also as a multifaceted resource in fact available to readers on several varying levels of sophistication. Although original textual criticism, which is an important feature of Renaissance commentaries on other works, seems to be a noteworthy omission, it is true that Camerarius acknowledged the unique manuscript tradition of the Homeric epic poems in terms of their undisputable reliability in the classical world, which is a philological situation quite different from the one his contemporaries faced when writing commentaries on other classical texts rescued from obscurity. Beyond that, however, Camerarius also displayed a genuine interest in earlier commentators at the fortune of Homer’s poetry among Greeks and Romans, by emphasizing on Homer’s eloquence. His commentary aims at providing the reader with a taste both of the peculiarities a particular Renaissance scholar’s approach to an ancient text would have coped with, and of the culture of classical scholarship within which scholars were studying it. Due to the fact that for him the study of ancient classical texts in an academic sense is in no way separate from the study of them for reasons of aesthetic appreciation and particularly moral instruction, Camerarius tried to exercise the role of translation in perceiving both ideology and rhetorical scope of classical literature; by including two different translations into Latin in the commentary and by proposing in his preface to the line-by-line commentary that the first book of the IliadHomerIl. would have been useful not only in rhetorical or legal settings but also as an exemplum vitae, he managed to draw regularly in the course of his commentary the reader’s attention to passages which he deems artistically noteworthy. Such a commentary could not have been complete, unless laced with passages from other ancient sources, intended as a tool for understanding the text itself and simultaneously as a resource for seeking instruction from authors outside of Homer, especially VirgilVergil. Probably, VirgilVergil could also provide us with an equally useful set of examples for human instruction and education to those found in the IliadHomerIl..31HomerVergil The content of the commentary ranges widely, from etymological observations, grammatical and syntactical explanations to metrical analysis, paraphrasing and background ideological information.32

Eloquence dressing an elegant and flawless style is always admirable; this was the reason for admiring HerodotusHerodot and setting forth in 1541 an edition, based on a codex that had belonged to Richard CrokeCroke, Richard, Camerarius’s teacher of Greek in Leipzig in the 1510s. Apart from regarding this edition as pointing to a historicization of the father of history metaphor,33 coloured by his esteem for a father figure from his student years,34 Camerarius’ preference for HerodotusHerodot seemed to arouse for HerodotusHerodot’ exemplary figures which overwhelm many historical inaccuracies in the Histories. Camerarius identified the Herodotean historical methodology not with mere rhetorical refinery, but he embroidered it in particular with moral instruction:35 he could admire the ancient historiographer for the latter’s decision not to satisfy a desire for knowledge, but also to provide instruction and to obtain moral edification through enlivening his narratives which included fables or mythic elements. These personified exempla virtutis found in HerodotusHerodot opened the way for seeking much of the same in other Greek historians, such as ThucydidesThukydides or LivyLivius.36Livius How else could a protégé and close friend of MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp not agree with the Lutheran reformer that the main purpose of the study of history was to offer moral examples? Therefore, his biography about MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp (De Philippi Melanchtonis ortu, totius vitae curriculo et morte […] narratio diligens et accurate Ioachimi Camerarii, Leiden 1566)37 testifies to this belief in so far as it focused in particular on the exemplary virtues of its protagonist.38 It was finally as an exemplar of eloquence and morality in style and spirit that HerodotusHerodot was described by Camerarius in his 1541 edition of the Histories as “in all respects the chief writer of history”.39

The summit of his oeuvre, however, was the first complete printed edition of the comedies of PlautusPlautus, adiectis […] argumentis et adnotationibus, first published in 1552 at Basel, which ushered in a new phase in the history of early modern Plautian philology. Whereas all previous editions had been based on late and haphazardly distorted Humanist manuscripts, Camerarius was the first to draw on two medieval texts, one of which, the Palatini B still called the Codex vetus Camerarii,40 is a manuscript of German provenance dating from the 10th century, and offers the oldest and by far the most reliable textual basis for the entire Plautian corpus. Admittedly, the degree to which he used that manuscript is variable from play to play. He did achieve the first reasonably reliable division of lines throughout the text, cleansed the text of its many Humanist accretions, and broke with the vulgate of the day in hundreds of passages. The other manuscript is C (Codex alter Camerarii decurtatus). To this day, no philologist has more generally accepted conjectures in the Plautus texts than Camerarius and no significant improvement in the state of the text he achieved was made until Friedrich Ritschl, working over 300 years later.41

Being a follower of elegance in style he insistently tried to combine it with allegorical composition and allegorical interpretation as basic exercises to foster mental agility. Thus, for AphthoniusAphthonios’ progymnasmata that we find almost every day in the schoolrooms of Lutheran Germany, making the same easy transitions between rhetoric and fictional narration, the new translator J. Camerarius did not only append some notes on the exercises but using the fable of Apollo and Daphne he accused AphthoniusAphthonios of self-contradiction when blaming the authors of poetic fiction for going against what is normal and natural. Those exercises indeed have excellent pedigree as paradigms for linguistic expression and analysis, encourage and generate intellectual pleasure, because they totally rhetoricize allegory42 as a means of instruction in reading classical poetry, and thence the writing and reading of poetry by adults; perhaps this chapter of education nearly began with another Elementa rhetoricae (Basle: J. OporinusOporinus, Johannes 1545) on the subject of rhetoric43 published at first in 1540 by Joachim Camerarius;44 a typical rhetorical work of him that reflects Camerarius’ integration of Humanism with Protestantism insofar as he placed in it the traditions of the ancient rhetorical manuals and medieval homiletics and added to this a theory of didactic texts. In his Elementa he allowed rhetorical narration and strategies for reading to develop along more interesting ways than MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp’s narrow way, but he kept allegory securely demystified. In Joachim Camerarius’ expression, rhetoric becomes an instrument both of speaking and writing coherently and persuasively and of deriving critical evaluations of Scripture and profane texts. Of course, MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp’s pedagogy had a tremendous impact on the development of Protestant education, although his successors soon narrowed his program by adopting a more rigorous Ciceronianism45, and Camerarius, his friend and biographer, was, like MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp, a moderate Ciceronian. For Camerarius, CiceroCicero first demonstrated the full powers of the Latin language and remains the timeless and unsurpassable standard. Furthermore, in the Disputatio de imitatione that Camerarius included in his commentary on Cicero’s Tusculan DisputationsCiceroTusc., he responds to ErasmusErasmus von Rotterdam, DesideriusCiceronianus’ Ciceronianus (1528),46 i.e. a treatise attacking the style of scholarly Latin written during the early 16th century, which style attempted to adherently imitate Cicero’s Latin.

Camerarius included letter-writing in his Elementa, a textbook that adapted the ancient progymnasmata in a graded series of exercises: narratio (fabula and historia), expositio and descriptio, chreia, sententia, ethologia, epistola, comparatio, paraphrasis, imitatio, aetiologia, aenigma, loci communes, probatio and reprehensio, laudatio and vituperatio. His illustration of most of these exercises, for instance his famous description of Albrecht DürerDürer, Albrecht’s “Melencolia I” as an example of expositio and descriptio (ecphrasis), suggest that he encouraged original composition.47 Camerarius edited a Greek text of TheonTheon, Ailios’s progymnasmata adorned with model themes from Libanius together with a Latin translation of the exercises and the themes in 1540; TheonTheon, Ailios commenting briefly on letter-writing. If we consider the axiom that intellectual history is not the story of personal genius, great ideas, or chains of influence, but only a project of applied scepticism,48 rhetorical projects in the Confessional Age were elaborated and schematized upon the classical canon, supplemented at times by select Church fathers and the leading Humanists of the preceding generations. When Camerarius assures his readers that rhetoric must be taught to schoolboys “so that we can defend against the ignorance and rudeness of our age and repel nonsensical barbarisms”,49 the more overtly political function of oratory in fostering obedience to the law or modifying the behaviour of the masses (in moderanda plebe) cannot be really excluded from the purpose of preparing textbooks on rhetoric larded with rules for correct usage and designed to raise neo-Latin to the Italian standard.50 But Camerarius’ notion of rhetoric did not entail any sort of scepticism, for it enhanced upper moral and pedagogic intentions such as those of hagiographic writing. Hagiography was practised particularly intensely throughout the Middle Ages and it was closely linked to the medieval concept of sainthood and to the ritual of the cult of the saints. These Lives were generally brief, quite unlike some luxuriant Humanist biographies such as ErasmusErasmus von Rotterdam, Desiderius’ Life of Jerome or Camerarius’ Life of MelanchthonMelanchthon, Philipp.51Melanchthon, Philipp The later sixteenth-century Lives of the reformers, regardless of whether they were friendly or hostile, helped create an image or images of the Reformation which survived into the twentieth century and beyond, although the original accounts remain for the most part forgotten and neglected. Moreover, rhetoric could disclose the meanings of enigma and apocalypse,52 which might “exercise the intelligence” according to Poole recapitulating the vices of style presented by George Puttenham in his Arte of English PoesiePuttenham, GeorgeArte of English Poesie (1589).53 In the case of the application of rhetorical analysis to Biblical text this point is always crucial, mainly for a Protestant scholar that adjusted himself to a historically orientated interpretation of the sacred texts.

If the 15th century had rediscovered antiquity, then the 16th was slowly deciphering it. The spirit of the Revival of Learning, so called, ordered that the position of classical philology was originally and essentially ancillary, so that ancient authors were to be rescued and brought back into the effective service of humane studies. Although in the stylized prefaces of the early editors of the text, who seem to prefer to discuss rather anything than the text of the author and its sources, one commonplace is recurring again and again: the idea, expressed in images of polishing the rust engendered by centuries of slothful neglect, that the editor’s task should restore the author to its pristine splendour, Camerarius’ teaching and editing career has been an excellent exception. Whilst he adjusted his vast knowledge of Altertumswissenschaft – forgive my conscious anachronism in favour of expression – to his liberal theological view and Humanistic methods of pedagogy, he left behind him more than an admonition of science and research.54 Only a few could then be aware of his innovative genious in Greek studies; the Wechsel’s house refusal to publish his Greek letters in 1577 is an indication of the lack of highly competent Hellenists in the republic of letters.55 To conclude with, Camerarius is a conspicuous figure in the Revival of Letters and the Reformation in Germany;56 perhaps its suitable avatar.