In 2017, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, numerous exhibitions dedicated to Martin Luther and his works were held in Berlin, the Wartburg and Wittenberg among other places. Visitors were able to find out how important humanism was for the Reformation – and thus, indirectly, how pivotal the culture of classical antiquity was in Luther's reforms. Several academic conferences held to mark the anniversary in Germany, the rest of Europe and North America repeatedly emphasised the humanist foundations of Protestant rebellion against the papacy. This observation frequently went hand in hand with convincing illustrations of how Luther himself in particular had created something new, even though his way of thinking remained intrinsically that of a medieval monk.
Strikingly, these explanations and suggestions were rarely followed up by concrete investigations into which non-Christian ancient literature Luther was actually familiar with. Accordingly, S.’s study on the reception of Cicero since the Reformation and in Lutheranism fills a clear gap in the research. S. has published numerous essays on this context, which form the basis of some of the chapters. However, it is the sum of individual insights found in this volume as a whole that promises to capture the full complexity of Cicero's reception in the Reformation.
In the introduction S. reminds us of Cicero's importance for the development of eloquence and rhetoric in Late Antiquity. His elaborations on this topic are particularly convincing as he not only shows which church fathers read the Roman rhetor and in which way they did so, but also considers the extent to which Cicero's stylistic ideals correspond to the style of the Bible. Against this backdrop, S. then provides insights into the Ciceronianism debate that most European humanists responded to from the late Middle Ages onwards, if only by the stylistic choices made in their texts. Accordingly, S.’s book illuminates not only the history of Cicero's reception in the Reformation, but also the continuance of the Ciceronianism debate in the sixteenth century, which research on the topic often tends to ignore.
The second chapter is titled ‘The Real German Cicero’. This quote by the reformer and fabulist Erasmus Alberus, who died in 1553, shifts our attention to Luther's talent for rhetoric, which led contemporaries to compare the Wittenberg theologian to Cicero. This comparison seems apt, given that Cicero's name occurs over 300 times in Luther's works – even more frequently than the reformer's favourite poet, Virgil. However, this quantitative observation should not lead us to assume that Luther's relationship to Cicero was comparable to his relation to the author of the Aeneid. Unsurprisingly, Luther often uses Cicero's name as synonymous with rhetoric and good speech. Furthermore, S. is able to show that Luther is familiar with some of Cicero's speeches in that he quotes them regularly. In stylistic terms, Luther follows Cicero's efforts to achieve clarity (claritas). S. observes concerning the syntax of Luther's Latin texts: ‘Luther's style here is certainly closer to the hypotactic, periodic style of Cicero's prose than to the clipped sentences and paratactic diction of the Vulgate with which he was so familiar’ (p. 72). At the same time, Luther was a master of code-switching, effortlessly adapting his style to his addressees. However, we should bear in mind that Latin always formed the starting point and benchmark for Luther's writings (and not German, even though this continues to be asserted to this day). B. Stolt (Martin Luthers Rhetorik des Herzens [2000], pp. 27–38) already demonstrated this superbly, and S. confirms it once again in his study.
Once we are aware that Luther's language had this Latin foundation, his many, multifaceted references to Cicero hardly come as a surprise. But Cicero also plays yet another, complementary role in Luther's intellectual world, namely as a philosopher. Luther held Cicero's moral stances in particularly high esteem. Here, the reformer clearly followed a tradition that was both medieval and humanist, which assessed ancient philosophy as ‘applied knowledge’ (p. 89) and evaluated its fitness for (Christian) everyday life. S. brings the book's Luther-focused second chapter to a convincing conclusion by relating Luther's reception of Cicero to the concepts of parrhesia and licentia, demonstrating that Luther's writing and speaking are significantly influenced by confessio (pp. 89–100).
The third chapter forms an ideal complement to the second, devoting itself to the historico-cultural context. It enquires specifically into Cicero's status in the academic reforms introduced by Philipp Melanchthon in particular following the Reformation. S. also examines Melanchthon's style, analysing his dependence on Cicero. However, the chapter focuses mainly on explaining specific matters, such as the curriculum at the University of Wittenberg. Here S. is able to build in part on excellent studies such as those by D.K. Shuger (Sacred Rhetoric [1988]). Much the same goes for Chapter 4. Here, S. draws on L.W. Spitz and B.S. Tinsley's Johann Sturm on Education (1995), which focuses on the example of Strasbourg, to show how the reformatory reception of Cicero spread from Wittenberg over the following decades. The section on Johann Sebastian Bach's reception of Cicero is particularly convincing. Chapter 4 ends with a somewhat abrupt leap into the nineteenth century and the present. Here S. gives a few examples of Cicero's enduring presence in American culture from the nineteenth century to today (reminding us that President Obama was called ‘the American Cicero’, for example, p. 178).
The fifth and last chapter provides a complementary glance at the history of anti-Ciceronianism, linking back to the beginning of the book. This chapter (like the preceding one) is particularly strong when dealing with specific historical circumstances, as shown clearly by the section on Flaccius's and Bengel's anti-Ciceronian stance. Its subsequent forays into the nineteenth century, for example, appear somewhat eclectic by comparison. Thus S. reminds us of Theodor Mommsen's anti-Ciceronianism, but it remains unclear whether (and if so, how) Mommsen's position stands in a specifically Lutheran tradition that contrasts recognisably with a pre-Reformation one.
S.’s study is most convincing when it focuses on historically precise analysis. In doing so, it draws authoritatively on studies written not only in English, but particularly in German. Thus the volume enables connections to a wide-ranging, international body of scholarship. At the same time, quite a few sub-chapters cover their respective topics rather loosely, which gives the impression that S.’s book would have benefited from adopting a more systematic historical approach. The humanist Ciceronianism debate had two levels. One develops its arguments primarily within the field of rhetoric, while the other argues in terms of moral philosophy against the background of the tension between eloquentia and philosophia. While S.’s study repeatedly touches upon these two levels, it never separates them systematically, which is why his observations – many of which are truly excellent – often stand somewhat disjointedly side by side.
