Homer in Wittenberg: Rhetoric, Scholarship, Prayer by William P. Weaver (review)

Reviewed by: Homer in Wittenberg: Rhetoric, Scholarship, Prayer by William P. Weaver Carl P. E. Springer Homer in Wittenberg: Rhetoric, Scholarship, Prayer. By William P. Weaver. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. 228 pp. Since the publication in the 1980s of Helmar Junghans's groundbreaking study, Der junge Luther und die Humanisten, scholarly interest in the relationship between the Wittenberg Reformation movement and the languages and literatures of the ancient Greeks and Romans has increased considerably. In recent years numerous monographs and articles devoted to the subject have been published in Europe and the United States. Starting in 2010 a conference devoted to the subject of "Lutheranism and the Classics" has been convening every two years. It would appear that the once popular notion that Luther was at irreversible odds with the classical tradition or Renaissance humanism has begun to be successfully challenged. Nor are there many today who would suggest that the study of the classics at Luther's university or Johann Sturm's gymnasium in Strasbourg was somehow flawed or deficient because Lutheran pedagogues produced graduates who were not only talented philologists but also personally committed to the ideals of pietas litterata. Upon his arrival at the University of Wittenberg in 1518, the young prodigy, Philip Melanchthon, announced his intention to introduce his students to two foundational Greek texts: Homer and Paul's epistle to Titus (49). The announcement must have thrilled humanistically inclined students and professors in attendance, even as it probably disconcerted others used to teaching and learning from scholastic texts such as the Sentences of Peter Lombard. What was it about Homer that made Melanchthon so interested in teaching the epic poetry of this pagan author to his young Christian charges, many of them studying to become Lutheran pastors? Drawing on primary sources (manuscripts and printed materials), William Weaver offers fresh perspectives on the importance of Homer as a "textual authority" at the University of Wittenberg, especially when it came to the instruction of grammar, eloquence, and prudence (first three chapters). Homer's works are filled not only with descriptions of martial prowess and physical endurance but also with exemplary passages useful for instruction in rhetoric End Page 87 and morality. They are not so different in this respect from the epistle to Titus, which is also replete with idealized character descriptions (bishops, aged men, women, and others). In a letter to Georg Spalatin, Melanchthon praised the epistle as being not only "elegant," but also "appropriate for the purification of manners" (56). Throughout the course of Melanchthon's career, the professor returned to Homer repeatedly. In his "Preface to the Homer of Vitus Winshemius" of 1538 (analyzed in chapter four), Melanchthon declares his high regard for "Homer's poem." It was "supreme for its eloquence and wisdom, excepting Holy Scripture" (114). Interestingly enough, Melanchthon considered the Iliad and the Odyssey to be one unified poem. The two works, therefore, should be studied together as a whole and not separately, just as the Old and New Testaments were to be read as a unity "comprised of heterogenous parts" (114). In the final chapter, Weaver considers theological implications, suggesting that by learning to hear distinctly in Homer "multiple voices" speaking "within a single, coherent text" (20), Melanchthon's students were being prepared indirectly to discern "between the voices of law and gospel" in scripture (190). In an epilogue, Weaver even suggests that prayers found in Homer might have influenced the vota included in declamations delivered in academic assemblies held at the University in the 1540s (204–11). In short, by focusing on Homer, Melanchthon, and rhetoric, this volume represents an original contribution to the burgeoning field of studies outlined in the first paragraph of this review. It has been thoroughly proofread and contains few errors of fact. One exception is Weaver's suggestion (4) that Nicolas of Lyra was an allegorist guilty of "fanciful interpretations" of the scriptures. In fact, Nicolas was known for his emphasis on the literal understanding of the Bible, and his exegetical works were appreciated by none other than Luther himself. End Page 88 Carl P. E. Springer University of Tennessee Chattanooga, Tennessee Copyright © 2024 Johns Hopkins University Press and Lutheran Quarterly, Inc.