DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.56869#0029
xxiii
and there, no doubt, through the introduction of his patron
Reuchlin, was admitted to the free use of the late bishop’s
library, which probably still remained at Heidelberg.
It will be observed, that the manuscript notes in the early
editions of the classics, and other fine books in the following
Catalogue, which may have formed part of that collection,
are not so copious, but more neatly written than in those
books which appear to have been Melancthon’s own pro-
perty : he seems, indeed, in the former to have confined his
pen to mere marginal references, which he has executed with
neatness, and in most instances in imitation of the type in
which the volumes were printed : for instance see No. 2006.
Finally, with regard to the books which formed Melanc-
thon’s own library, such as the great bulk of the classics,
grammatical works, and his own manuscripts : these seem,
at his death, to have fallen into the hands of his son-in-law
Peucer, who collected together and edited his theological
writings. In the year 1575, Peucer was thrown into prison
on the suspicion of being the author of an obnoxious publica-
tion, and was kept in close confinement, without any commu-
nication with his friends, for the period of eleven years. On
regaining his liberty, he learned that his wife had died of
grief, and that all his property had been dispersed; but into
whose hands it had fallen no mention is made. This cir-
cumstance, in an historical point of view, is fully sufficient to
account not only for the obscurity in which Melancthon’s
books have remained up to the present period, but also for
the frequent erasure of names and identifying circumstances
which appear to have been made in them.
It has been a subject of frequent remark, that the published
works of Melancthon are almost entirely confined to reli-
gious subjects, which, considering his known classical acquire-
ments, is somewhat extraordinary. It is probable that his
son-in-law, Peucer, who edited his theological works, would,
in like manner, have brought to light his various classical la-
bours but for the reverses in his circumstances, and for the
dispersion of that property which might have enabled him to
do so.
Feb. 28t/i, 1835.
S. L. S.
and there, no doubt, through the introduction of his patron
Reuchlin, was admitted to the free use of the late bishop’s
library, which probably still remained at Heidelberg.
It will be observed, that the manuscript notes in the early
editions of the classics, and other fine books in the following
Catalogue, which may have formed part of that collection,
are not so copious, but more neatly written than in those
books which appear to have been Melancthon’s own pro-
perty : he seems, indeed, in the former to have confined his
pen to mere marginal references, which he has executed with
neatness, and in most instances in imitation of the type in
which the volumes were printed : for instance see No. 2006.
Finally, with regard to the books which formed Melanc-
thon’s own library, such as the great bulk of the classics,
grammatical works, and his own manuscripts : these seem,
at his death, to have fallen into the hands of his son-in-law
Peucer, who collected together and edited his theological
writings. In the year 1575, Peucer was thrown into prison
on the suspicion of being the author of an obnoxious publica-
tion, and was kept in close confinement, without any commu-
nication with his friends, for the period of eleven years. On
regaining his liberty, he learned that his wife had died of
grief, and that all his property had been dispersed; but into
whose hands it had fallen no mention is made. This cir-
cumstance, in an historical point of view, is fully sufficient to
account not only for the obscurity in which Melancthon’s
books have remained up to the present period, but also for
the frequent erasure of names and identifying circumstances
which appear to have been made in them.
It has been a subject of frequent remark, that the published
works of Melancthon are almost entirely confined to reli-
gious subjects, which, considering his known classical acquire-
ments, is somewhat extraordinary. It is probable that his
son-in-law, Peucer, who edited his theological works, would,
in like manner, have brought to light his various classical la-
bours but for the reverses in his circumstances, and for the
dispersion of that property which might have enabled him to
do so.
Feb. 28t/i, 1835.
S. L. S.