Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:28:03.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Terms “Loci Communes” and “Loci” in Melanchthon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Quirinus Breen
Quirinus Breen
Affiliation:
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Philip Melanchthon was the author of the first book of Protestant theology, which he called Loci communes rerum theologicarum seu hypotyposes theologicae (Wittenberg, 1521). As a first it is worth some study, for firsts are likely to be models for later things of their kind. Moreover, while Melanchthon is by some considered to depart from early Protestant thought (cf. Philippism), Luther gave unqualified and almost extravagant praise to his young collaborator's first work. This justifies putting at least the 1521 edition in the fundamental canon of Protestantism. Finally, if suth is its importance Melanchthon's method deserves examination.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 1947 , pp. 197 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Corpus Reformatorum (hereafter C. R.) XXI, 59–230.Google Scholar

2 C. R., XXI, 78.Google Scholar

3 For information on Aristotle's Topica I have found useful Grote, George's Aristotle, 2 vols., London, 1872Google Scholar; Ross, W. D., Aristotle, London, 1930Google Scholar; von Prantl, Carl, Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande, Dritter Band, Leipzig, 1927Google Scholar; and of course the Topica itself. Quintilian undoubtedly knew the Rhetoric (Inst. Orat., III, i, 14).Google Scholar

4 Faust, August, “Die Dialektik Rudolf Agricolas. Ein Beitrag zur Charakteristik des deutschen Humanismus,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie. XXXIV Band, Neue Folge. XXVII Band, (Berlin, 1922), 120–1.Google Scholar

5 Grote, Aristotle, chapter II, “The Aristotelian Canon,” discusses the problem at length. Opinions differ, some saying that Cicero knew none of Aristotle 's works as we know them; others allow of the Rhetoric as well as the Topica. That Cicero had the Topica in his library is evident from his own Topica.

6 Academica, I, 4, 3–46Google Scholar; II, 7, 8; and passim. Cf. also Introduction of Reid, James S. to M. Tulli Ciceronis Academica, (London, 1885), 11 f., 55 f.Google Scholar

7 The orations of Isocrates (B. C. 436–338) are the best introduction to his views and methods. I recommend especially the Antidosis, Panathenaicus, Panegyricus, and Against the Sophists. George Norlin's Introduction, pp IX-LI, to his translation of Isocrates for the Loeb Classics (1928) is very useful, particularly for his careful references to the text. See also Jebb, , Attic Orators (London, 1893), IIGoogle Scholar; and “Isokrates” in Pauly-Wissowa (1916). Burgess, Theodor Chalon, “Epideictie Literature,” University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philology (Chicago, 1902), III, 89–261Google Scholar, is rich in material and suggestion. A good study is Burk, August, Die Pädagogik des Isokrates als Grundlegung des humanistischen Bildungsideals (Würzburg, 1923).Google Scholar

8 Cicero, , De Oratore, II, 94Google Scholar, calls Isocrates “magister rhetorum omnium,” and “from his school as from a Trojan horse went forth leaders only.” Quintilian calls him “clarissimus ille praeceptor” (Inst. Orat., II, viii, 11); he reports Aristotle 's snide remark (III, 1, 14); in XII, x, 22 he says the school of Isocrates produced “principes oratorum.” The thesis of Burk's book (cf. note 7) is that the concept of education associated with the name of Isocrates has been widely celebrated, but in terms of study and advocacy of Cicero and especially Quintiian. The vigor of the schoolish tradition in which Cicero and Quintilian worked can be even better felt from a reading of Isocrates than the Romans.

9 One should not be unmindful of men like Dio Chrysostom (c. A. D. 40–120) when putting a higher estimate on Neoplatonism. For the latter and St. Augustine, cf. the latter's Confessions, Book VII, also his Contra Acadeinicos; Boyer, C., L'Idée de Vérité dans la philosophie de Saint Augustin (Paris, 1920), 17ff.Google Scholar; Reid, James S., Academica, 168.Google Scholar

10 Faust, , Die Dialektik Agricolas, 120Google Scholar, makes the distinction clear between Cicero's and Aristotle's topic or locus. Some do not sharply enough differentiate, or do not differentiate at all; see below note 26.

11 Clerval, A., Leg 'Ecoles de Chartres au Moyen Age, du V and XVI siècle (Paris, 1899)Google Scholar, is still unsurpassed. Ch.Plister, , De Fulberti Cartonensis episcopi Vita et Operibus (Nancy, 1885)Google Scholar, records Fulbert's “Bithmus de distantia Dialectice et Rhetorice,” with comment, pp. 6, 33f.

12 Generalizations about the Renaissance era should be made with great caution. Everyone inclined to generalize about it should read ProfessorKristeller, P. O., “Humanism and Scholasticism in the Italian Renaissance,” Byzantion, XVII (1944–1945), 346–374.Google Scholar

13 Cf. Joachimsen, Paul, “Loci Communes; Eine Untersuchung zur Geistesgeschichte des Humanismus und der Reformation, Luther-Jahrbuch (Berlin, 1926) 27–97Google Scholar; it is a study of the loci of both Agricola and Erasmus with bearing upon Melanchthon; Faust, Die Dialektik Agricolas. See alsoMestwerdt, P., Die Anfänge des Erasmus (Leipzig, 1917), 157 fGoogle Scholar. Dolfen, Christian, Die Stellung des Erasmus von Rotterdam zur scholastisehen Methode (Osnabrück, 1936)Google Scholar. von Bezold, F., Rudolf Agricola, ein deutscher Vertreter der italienischen Renaissance (München, 1884)Google Scholar. van der Velden, H. E. J. M., Rodolphus Agricola (Roelof Huusman), een Nederlandsch humanist der vÿftiende eeuw (Leiden, n. d.)Google Scholar. Lindeboom, , Het bÿbelsch humanisme in Nederand (Leiden, 1913), 58fGoogle Scholar., 58f., 112 f. Hartfelder, K., Melanchthon als Praeceptor Gerinaniae (Berlin, 1899), 12fGoogle Scholar. Melanchthon's, “Declamatio de vita Agricolae,” C. R., XI, 438Google Scholar f. is a valuable source. His “Oratio de Erasmo Roterodamo,” C. R., XII, 264Google Scholar f. merely recommends parts of Erasmus for his style.

14 Quintilian, , Institutio oratoria, translated by Butler, H. E. (Loeb Classics, 1922, Book IX, ii, 40.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., IV, ii, 3. The meaning is an unembellished statement of facts. Cf. Cicero, , De oratore, III, liii, 202.Google Scholar

16 Bindseil's lists of editions of the three periods are in C. R., XXI.

17 C. R., XXI, 84.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., 254 f.

19 Ibid., 230.

20 Ibid., 561 f., 603 ff.

21 Ibid., XIII, 650 f.

22 Ibid., XX, 693 f.

23 Ibid., XIII, 451–454.

24 Ibid., XIII, 641–752.

25 Ibid., XIII, 641.

26 Petersen, Peter, “Aristotelisches in der Theologie Melanchthons,” Zeitschrft für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik (Leipzig, 1927), Band 164, pp. 149–158Google Scholar. See also von Waltershausen, Bodo Sartorius, “Melanchthon und das spekulative Denken,” Deutsche Vierteljahrschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte (Halle a. Saale, 1927), Heft 4, pp. 644–678Google Scholar; Maier, H., “Philipp Melanchthon als Philosoph,” An der Grenze der Philosophie (Tübingen, 1909).Google Scholar

27 C. R., XIII, 659.Google Scholar

28 Letter to Pico (1558), C. R., IX, 687–703Google Scholar. Pico's letter to Barbaro (1485) is in C. R. IX, 678–687Google Scholar. In Barbaro 's reply to Pico, Aristotle is praised along with Plato as a master of rhetorical style. This letter is in Branca, V., Ermolao Barbaro: Epistolae, Orationes et Carmina, I, 101–109.Google Scholar

29 Hartfelder, K., Melanchthon, 39Google Scholar. C. R., XII, 20Google Scholar tells the story in Melanehthon's oration on education in 1518.

30 C. R., XIII, 530–531.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., XIII, 647–658.

32 Ibid., XIII, 657–658. His argument is against the New Academy: “Tradidit autem Deus Arithmeticam, Geometricam …. ac vult harum doctrinarum firmam et immotam esse certitudinem.”

33 “The Twofold-Truth Theory in Melanchthon,” Review of Religion (January, 1945), 115–136.Google Scholar

34 Melanchthon caught Luther's predilection for St. Paul, particularly for the letter to the Romans. The main topics of it were seen to be law and gospel, sin and grace. Thus the soteriological element puts every other interest in a subordinate place. C. R., XXI, 3–59Google Scholar, contains two of Melanchthon's writings (which he did not publish) prior to the Loci Communes of 1521. They bear the title of “Adumbrationes locorum theologicorum.” The first is “Lucubratiuneula” (3–49); the second, “Theologica institutio in episto1am Pauli ad Romanos” (50–59). They clearly foreshadow the Loci Communes in that they are essays on the Roman epistle and identify as the supremi loci law and gospel, sin and grace. For all Melanchthon's later interest in other loci (Unity of God, Trinity, etc.), these four are considered throughout his life as the basic ones.

35 A word should be said in defense of Melanchthon's loci as a method of research. He makes much of this. It is especially prominent in his letter to Pico (cf. note 28). It is indeed a fruitful method, just as it is fruitful to look at history by considering the loci of centuries, biography, etc. But while the topical method leads to increase of learning, it cannot by itself give a clue to a true summa; neither can it, by itself, lead to understanding.