Christian Gottlob Heyne and the changing fortunes of the commentary in the age of Altertumswissenschaft Book or Report Section Accepted Version Harloe, K. (2015) Christian Gottlob Heyne and the changing fortunes of the commentary in the age of Altertumswissenschaft. In: Kraus, C. S. and Stray, C. (eds.) Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a scholarly genre. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 435-456. ISBN 9780199688982 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/39805/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . Publisher: Oxford University Press All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online Christian Gottlob Heyne and the Changing Fortunes of the Commentary in the Age of Altertumswissenschaft Katherine Harloe This chapter seeks to explore issues raised by the major commentaries on Tibullus, Virgil and the Iliad that came from the pen of Christian Gottlob Heyne (1729–1812). For a long time Heyne was neglected within classical scholars’ understanding of their own history, yet in his own age he was something of a European intellectual celebrity, and even at the end of the nineteenth century Friedrich Paulsen could identify him as ‘indisputably the leader in the field of classical studies in Germany during the second half of the eighteenth century’ (1885: 441). Heyne’s claim to significance stems from the power he exercised over classical education and appointments during his half-century long tenure of the chair of Eloquence and Poetry at the Georgia Augusta (the University of Göttingen) and directorship of its famous Philological Seminar; from his influence on literary and cultural figures such as Goethe, the brothers Schlegel and Wilhelm von Humboldt; and from his important work in the fields of ancient history, myth and ancient art. These areas of his scholarship have received attention from scholars in recent decades (see for example Leventhal 1986, 1994; Graf 1987; Vöhler 2002; Fornaro 2004; Clark 2006; Heidenreich 2006; Legaspi 2008, 2010, 53–78; Harloe 2013); yet, with relatively few exceptions (Atherton 2006: 74–88; Heidenreich 2006, Chapter 2; Haynes 2010: 425–6), his editions and commentaries on ancient authors have been less discussed.1 This is surprising, as Heyne’s commentaries were a central part of his intellectual 1 An exception is his Pindar edition of 1798, discussion of which would merit an article of its own. See Wilson in this volume for a discussion of eighteenth-century Pindar scholarship. The state of scholarship is reflected in Grafton’s recent encyclopaedia article on Heyne (2010 KCH: Is this OK endeavours, and were responsible above all for securing his reputation among his contemporaries. Although he did produce occasional editions of prose authors (Epictetus, pseudo- Apollodorus, Proclus), Heyne focused in the main on Greek and Latin poets—and on the very authors, such as Pindar, Virgil and Homer, who had come to play a central role in the classical education and aesthetic debates of his own day. This is characteristic of his scholarship, for as Grafton and others have emphasised, Heyne was an innovator, who sought—and largely succeeded—in adapting traditional humanistic education to the demands of a modern and practical academic institution, an Enlightened era, and a developing conception of classical studies as the multidisciplinary and comprehensive study of antiquity (‘Altertumswissenschaft’). At the same time, his work remains in some respects a product of ‘the skills – and the encyclopaedic knowledge of Baroque scholarship’ (Grafton 2010: 436). This characterisation of Heyne as in certain ways a transitional figure is crucial to appreciating his efforts to update the commentary format to the demands and preoccupations of his age. Scholarly formation and predecessors: Ernesti and Gesner It is impossible to understand the principles and ambitions that motivated Heyne’s commentaries without relating them to the strand of reforming, new-humanistic pedagogy to which he was exposed during his student years in Leipzig. Two older scholars, Johann Matthias Gesner (1691–1761) and Johann August Ernesti (1707–1781), are often grouped now? Would it avoid ambiguity to say ‘Grafton’s 2010 encyclopaedia article on Heyne’? Otherwise people might read as a reference to Heyne 2010?), which allows only half a sentence to his ‘innovative editions’. together with Heyne as precursors of that neo-Hellenic neo-humanism formulated towards the end of the century by Goethe, Humboldt and Wolf. They had strong connections with each other and with Leipzig: Gesner worked from 1730 to 1734 as Rector of the city’s famous and historic Thomasschule, where Ernesti served as his deputy from 1731. When Gesner departed to take up the chair of Eloquence and Poetry at the newly founded University of Göttingen, Ernesti inherited the school’s direction. In 1742 he was appointed extraordinary professor of Philology at the university, from which he proceeded to the chairs of Eloquence (1756) and Theology (1759).2 Heyne studied in Leipzig between 1748 and 1752, where he is known to have attended Ernesti’s lectures and to have been admitted to his fee-paying class on Cicero. He was eventually to succeed Gesner at Göttingen, where he would extend and transform the philological seminar his predecessor had established and through it exercise a decisive influence over the formation and appointment of classical teachers in schools and universities to the close of the century. Gesner and Ernesti were pedagogical innovators, united by dissatisfaction with conventional approaches to instruction in classical languages and a shared vision of an alternative. Gesner (who was the senior and in many ways the more important of the two) outlined his programme in a series of writings from both the Leipzig and Göttingen stages of 2 On Gesner see Bursian 1883: 387–93, Schindel 1964, Sandys 1908: 5–9, Friedrich 1991, Legaspi 2010: 61–8. On Ernesti see Blaschke and Lau 1959, Bursian 1883: 400–3, Paulsen 1885: 434–40, Sandys 1908: 11–14; Pfeiffer 1976: 171. Ernesti paints a memorial portrait of Gesner in an open letter addressed to David Ruhnken (1762: 307–42). The most rewarding discussion of both is still Paulsen’s chapter on ‘Die Universität Göttingen und die neuhumanistische Philologie und Gymnasialpädagogik’ (1885: 424–51). Pfeiffer is scant on Ernesti and utterly inadequate on Gesner, whom Sandys 1908: 5 calls ‘one of the greatest scholars in the eighteenth century’. his career.3 Perhaps the clearest statement of intent is contained in his Preface to an edition of Livy, first published in 1735 and reprinted a decade later in his Opuscula minora. Here, Gesner inveighed against the practice of the schools of his day, where, rather than opening students’ eyes to the literary beauties and historical meanings of classical works, masters spun out tedious hours dissecting sentences, parsing individual words and phrases and directing their charges to copy them out over again. The result was a class of young men who hungered for the latest instalment of the adventures of a Telemachus, Crusoe or Gulliver but shrank from Homer, Virgil, Suetonius and Curtius, authors Gesner judged ‘non minus iucundos’ and in many cases more instructive than their modern counterparts (1745: 292–5). In place of this deadening mode of instruction, which he termed ‘lectio stataria’, Gesner recommended ‘lectio cursoria’, a method which he claimed to have tried out to good effect in the Thomasschule. Its aim was to enable students to read canonical authors in their entirety and to awaken them to their works’ distinctive beauties (Legaspi 2010: 64–6, Atherton 2006: 79–80). Rather than being detained by discussion of hard grammatical problems and obscure vocabulary, Gesner’s class deferred such questions to later discussion, focusing instead on fluent reading of the work as a whole: Legitur autem ita, vt diligenter quidem attendatur ad vocum tum simplicium significatus, tum coniunctaturum, vt non negligatur, si quid eleganter, si quid proprie, si quid concinne, si quid splendide dictum videatur; vt ipsae figurae quoque orationis demittantur ad animum, et familiares tractatione et cogitatione reddantur. (Gesner 1745: 299–300) 3 See for example his school ordinances for Electoral Hanover (Gesner 1738) and the various prefaces and essays collected in Gesner 1756. Cursory reading allowed room for historical as well as literary interpretation, as is revealed by Gesner’s list of questions and topics to be addressed by the commentator.4 The result, so he enthused, would be a form of classical learning which would not only be useful, in that it would augment the mind by good counsel and equip it for the conduct of both public and private business, but which would also increase the reader’s ‘voluptas’ by awakening him to the literary and aesthetic merits of ancient authors. Gesner’s edition of Claudian, which has sometimes been identified as the model for Heyne’s Virgil, provides a good example of the kind of commentary generated by such an approach.5 Although Gesner declared that part of his purpose was the provision of a thoroughly revised text, he saw its main value as lying in the ‘adnotatione perpetua . . . quo intelligi, & ad vitae aliquem usum transferri etiam a mediocriter doctis vel occupatis, sine multo labore aut discursu ad alios libros, possint’ (1759: x–xi). Gesner’s text for the most part followed the first edition of Nikolaas Heinze [Nicolaus Heinsius] (1650), adopting the readings of Heinze’s second edition, of earlier published versions and other scholars’ conjectures eclectically. Heinze’s philological notes were abbreviated and relegated to an apparatus, and instead Gesner concentrated upon explicating ‘quae vel ab historia vel ab alia 4 ‘In historia autem vel vera vel conficta studiose obseruatur, quis, quid, quo tempore, quo consilio praesertim, egerit, quibus adiumentis et quasi instrumentis sit usus, quae impedimenta et quomodo remouerit, quid effecerit denique, quemque facti sui fructum tulerit? quomodo superiora his quae sequuntur cohaereant, et haec ex illis quasi orta sint? videaturne ea narrare scriptor, quae sic fieri potuerint, et aliorum etiam fide nitantur; an dicat, quae conciliari, vel inter se, vel cum aliis rebus, de quibus certo nobis constat, non possint? In poëtis praeter haec modo dicta, artis etiam vestigia, et picturas rerum, ingeniorum, morumque et perturbationum descriptiones, persequitur’ (1745: 300). 5 Anon. 1767: 249; Sandys 1908: 6; Heidenreich 2006: 123. parte eruditionis repetita praesto esse debent intellecturo poëtam, doctum sane & nihil temere dicentem, quod non vel eruditum lectorem postulet, vel faciat’ (xiv). Typical of Gesner’s approach is his commentary on the opening lines of Claudian’s epithalamion for Honorius and Maria: Hauserat insolitos promissae virginis ignes Augustus, pronoque rudis flagrauerat aestu. (Claud. Nupt. Hon. et Mar. 1–2) On these lines, Heinze confines himself to citing authorities and adducing parallels from Horace and Ovid in order to justify his reading of ‘pronoque’ against the vulgate ‘primoque’.6 His second edition, to which Cornelis Schrevel had added the notes of earlier commentators, adds three more interpretative comments on line 1 from the earlier seventeenth-century edition of Caspar von Barth: 1. Hauserat] ex Maronis illo adumbratum: At regina, graui jamdudum saucia cura, Vulnus alit venis, &c. Promissae] Est fictio Stilichonem adulantis: Siquidem aliis artibus hoc matrimonum constructum Ignes] Amorem, qui igni comparatur 6 2. Augustus, pronoque rudis] Sic Lucensis & caeteri plerique cum primis editionibus. neque aliter prim. Vatican. & Oiselianus pro diversa lectione. quod minime explodi à Barthio debuit. apud Horatium: Lycus in asperam Declinat Pholoen. & apud Nasonem: Paulatim declinat amor. unde liquet, cur noster pronum aestum dixerit. Vulgati primoque (Heinze--Schrevel 1665: ad loc.). Gesner reduces Heinze’s textual notes to a line of the apparatus (‘primoque vulg. pronoque ex libris optimis Heins’), and dispenses with Barth’s rather pedestrian observations. His comment – Hauserat ex conspectu, oculis, gestu, virginis, amoris ignes. Rudis novitatem affectus indicat; pronus subita incrementa, & impetum vehementem, qualis est rerum gravium, dum labuntur singulis momentis novos impulsus ex aucta geometrica ratione pondera accipientium. (1759: 133) – demonstrates his concern for sensitivity to the flow of language and to its literary and aesthetic qualities, the priorities set out for ‘lectio cursoria’ in his Preface to Livy. Elsewhere, Gesner did see fit to engage in more extensive antiquarian and scholarly observations. These are particularly frequent in the case of De Raptu Proserpinae, where the poem’s mythological, astrological, linguistic, geographic and literary allusions invited wider- ranging commentary. They are not, however, confined to De Raptu, as Gesner’s note on De consulatu Stilichonis III.135 shows. Heinze had seen no need to comment on the transmitted line (‘[Roma] Quae septem scopulis zonas imitatur Olympi’); the 1665 variorum edition nonetheless includes notes of Barth (‘Tot numero zonas statuunt nonnulli, alii quinque solas’) and Étienne de St Clavière (‘Fuit etiam Romae septizonium, index forte septem planetarum’). In place of these, Gesner points out the contradiction between the seven zones or regions of the world mentioned here and the five Proserpina embroiders on her tapestry (Rapt. Pros. I.258) and launches into a longer discussion, citing various Greek sources, of the relation of this to Orphic belief (Gesner 1759: 384). The digression reflects Gesner’s own scholarly interests, for he was at the time working on an edition of the Orphic texts. It nevertheless maintains relevance to the passage at hand and is both more informative than Barth and more relevant than Clavière. Characteristically, Gesner ends by drawing general conclusions about his author’s character and style: ‘Doctum esse poëtam nostrum, Alexandrinum, Cosmica doctrina imbutum, & πολυμαθίας ostentatorem, constat.’ Ernesti’s programmatic writings as well as his classical criticism reveal him to have been a partisan of Gesnerian methods.7 He placed somewhat more emphasis upon textual scholarship than Gesner: in his Tacitus of 1752 he boasted of having consulted more manuscripts and early printed editions than anyone since Lipsius and included a fairly lengthy preface with descriptions of each (1801 [1773]: vii–lxxvi). It is largely on account of the Tacitus that Ernesti is cited by both Timpanaro (2005: 73–4) and Kenney (1974: 97) as an example of eighteenth-century recognition of the importance of a genealogical approach to the sources. Heyne, too, praises him in these terms in the Preface to his Homer, ‘Atque hoc est inter Ernestii, immortalis viri, merita praecipua, quod criticorum studia ad saniorem rationem et diiudicationem reuocauit, cum in tota opera, scriptoribus classicis adhibenda, tum in codicum et editionum auctoritate, dignitate et usu expendendo’ (1802 [1]: xxxiv–xxxv). In his own day, however, Ernesti was known primarily for his superlative Latinity, as well as for his editions and commentaries on canonical authors such as Homer and, especially, Cicero. By his own admission a follower of Gesner, Ernesti did not fare as well in the assessments of later scholars. Sandys’ verdict is typical: ‘Superficial as a writer, but intelligent as an expositor, Ernesti has long been over-rated’ (1908: 13). Heyne’s Tibullus (1755) 7 See for example Ernesti’s polemical 1738 Prolusio, qua demonstratur maius utiliusue esse latinos auctores intelligere, quam probabiliter latine scribere, et plerumque illud non posse, qui hoc possit (1794: 306–21), with Heidenreich’s discussion (2006: 40–1), and the generous acknowledgment of Gesner’s inspiration in the Preface to his Cicero (1737). After his elevation to the chair of Theology in 1759, the centre of gravity of Ernesti’s output moved away from pagan authors.