Introduction

The Introduction summarises the origins of Scotland’s patriotic historiography, highlighting the importance of medieval chronicles and the Renaissance histories of Hector Boece and George Buchanan in laying the foundations of early modern Scottish national identity. In particular, it identifies the long-held belief that Scotland was one of the few places to have successfully resisted Roman conquest. As well as looking at the importance of classical literature and authors such as Cicero and Livy in the development of Scottish scholarship, it also outlines eighteenth-century Scottish attitudes towards ancient Rome, its culture and its imperial ambitions, and explores the importance of the Grand Tour in the formation of early modern interpretations of the classical past.

George Buchanan

Although his name is now virtually unknown beyond academia, George Buchanan (b. 1506–d. 1582) was one of the foremost humanists and Neo-Latinists of the 16th century. His work as a writer, polemicist, and educator had a Europe-wide impact in his own lifetime, and a cultural afterlife so great that it resulted in a large obelisk being erected in his memory in his hometown of Killearn, Scotland, and year-long public celebrations of the four-hundredth anniversary of his birth at the Universities of Glasgow and St. Andrews in 1906. Buchanan is best known to early modern historians as the polemicist for the revolutionary party that forced Mary Stuart to abdicate from the throne of Scotland in 1567 in favor of her infant son, James. It was in this context that he produced a scurrilous account of her reign (the De Maria Regina Scotorum, published in English as the Detectioun), an explosive treatise on the nature of Scottish kingship and the right to resist and kill tyrants (the De Iure Regni apud Scotos Dialogus), and a history of Scotland (Rerum Scoticarum Historia) that acted as a “proof text” of sorts for his theories on monarchy. Buchanan was also tutor to Mary’s son, who as James VI and I would become arguably the most literary British monarch ever to sit on the throne. To scholars of the French Renaissance, Buchanan is more famous—and has been studied in comparatively much greater depth—as the author of Neo-Latin works across an impressive range of genres, many of which strongly influenced early French vernacular literature. These included religious tragedies and translations of ancient Greek plays (Jephthes, Baptistes, Alcestis, Medea), and secular and anti-clerical poetry (the Franciscanus, written in Scotland for James V around 1537, being the most famous example). His crowning poetic achievement, the Latin versification and paraphrasing of the complete Hebrew Psalter, was begun while he was imprisoned by the Inquisition in Portugal, where he had been one of the first teachers at the newly established University of Coimbra. Once safely back in France and then Scotland, the complete collection was published in stages, and it enjoyed exceptional critical acclaim and international dissemination. The psalm paraphrases would see Buchanan receive the epithet (at least according to his publisher) of “easily the prince of poets of our age” (poetarum nostri saeculi facile princeps). He died in 1582, but his works and ideas circulated among poets, intellectuals, and revolutionary parties alike for centuries after.

The Construction of Humanism

This chapter starts with a very concise discussion of how the different approaches to classical literature debated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries can be traced back to the ancient world and the Middle Ages. The rest of the chapter demonstrates how scholars in the early eighteenth century reflected on the work of their predecessors from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries based on their own scholarly concerns. The first example is Pieter Burman (1668–1741) and his Sylloge epistolarum (1724–7), the edition of unpublished writings by the French critic Henri Valois (1603–76; edition published in 1740), and the edition of George Buchanan (1506–82), published in 1725. In the Sylloge, for example, Burman focuses on letters that show how eminent scholars thought about the correct reading of classical texts, while a ‘popularizer’ like Justus Lipsius (1547–1606) is criticized. Valois’s work was used as a starting point to reflect on what Burman and his nephew Pieter Burman the Younger (1713–78) saw as the downfall of French textual criticism. Finally, Burman’s own interest in the stylistic and rhetorical aspects of texts also allowed him to avoid involvement in politically sensitive matters, as was the case for Buchanan’s views in contemporary Scotland. The final example discussed in this chapter is the prefatory material written by Jean Le Clerc (1657–1736) for the edition of Erasmus’ Opera omnia (1703–6), in which Le Clerc dwells on the relationship between the study of ancient literature and other academic disciplines such as philosophy and theology.

Editorial Note

We are pleased to offer you the third issue of JOLCEL, a journal devoted to the study of Latin literature from a European and diachronic perspective. Thus far, we have published two thematic issues. In the first issue, we put a spotlight on the often neglected role of Latin education in the production of literature that is regarded as culturally central. Conversely, in the second issue, we looked at contexts where Latin literature occurs as a marginal phenomenon. In these contexts, Latin literature owes its presence to the enduring centrality of Latin education. In this third issue, thematically entitled “Schools and Authority,” we delve deeper into the mediating role that school authorities---teachers, authors, and commentators---played in the reception of classical authorities. The school curriculum institutionalised during Antiquity bequeathed to the later history of Latin education a number of authorities who were read as models and as handbooks. Thus, not only were texts from Roman and Greek Antiquity a constant presence in the creation of literary texts, they were also an essential part of school curricula. To take this element into account is to gain an enhanced view on the literary reception of classical texts. The interaction between school and literature is not just a matter of transmission, but also of evaluation, negotiation, and transformation. The goals of Latin education were much broader than teaching how to read and write literature. As Rita Copeland states it in her response to the articles gathered in this issue, Latin education “was the foundation on which reception could be built,” but it “encompassed far more than classicism: theology, the production of new literature, new scientific and philosophical thought, and networks of civil bureaucracy and ecclesiastical administration.” It therefore offers a broader frame from which to study the reception of classical literature in European literary history. The three articles in this issue exemplify this approach. First, Chrysanthi Demetriou (Open University of Cyprus) looks at the presence of the school author Terence in the plays by the tenth-century playwright Hrotswitha. She opens up a new perspective on this relation by reading through the lens of Donatus’ hugely influential Commentaries on Terence. In particular, she discusses Hrotswitha’s treatment of rape scenes and links it to Donatus’ use of them as an ideal instance for moral instruction. Second, Brian M. Jensen (Stockholm University) discusses the first book ever printed in Sweden, the Dialogus creaturarum moralizatus. With particular reference to fables attributed to Aesop, he shows how the presentation of these fables depends on pedagogical considerations. In the third and last article of this issue, Lucy Jackson (Durham University) studies the Latin school play Medea, a translation of Euripides’ play by the sixteenth-century humanist George Buchanan. In Buchanan’s version, Medea becomes more of a rhetorician than a sorceress, thereby holding up a model of Latinity to the schoolboys performing the play. Finally, Rita Copeland (University of Pennsylvania) brings these three papers together in a critical response piece.

The Fall of the Ancient Monarchy

This chapter recovers the first major assault on Scotland’s humanist history, its myth of an Ancient Monarchy in the 1680s and the subsequent, increasingly probing challenges which were directed against it in the wake of revolution. The authority of historians such as Hector Boece and George Buchanan was no longer sufficient to protect them from challenges based upon new and more sophisticated interpretations of medieval texts. In particular, Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh’s high-profile dispute with English and Irish scholars such as William Lloyd, Edward Stillingfleet, and Roderick O’Flaherty is identified as a turning point in the development of Scottish historiographical practice.

Milton, Buchanan, and King Arthur

Arthur appears in a range of Milton’s works, including the late poetry, though his attitude to Arthur shifted drastically in the course of his career, from a heroic subject suitable for an epic in Epitaphium Damonis (1640) to a figure tainted by tyranny in Paradise Regained (1671). This shift is not simply the consequence of Milton coming to doubt the veracity of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae. Rather, his understanding of Arthur was shaped by an engagement with the works of humanist George Buchanan. Buchanan’s Rerum Scotiarum historiae, one of Milton’s sources for the History of Britain, was among a number of hostile rewritings of Arthur as illegitimate by Scottish historians and chroniclers to resist English claims of suzerainty over Scotland. Sympathetic to Buchanan’s theories of popular sovereignty and tyrannicide, Milton had to contend with his anti-Galfridian attacks while not wholly embracing a Scottish perspective. Milton’s reception of Buchanan is part of a longstanding Anglo-Scottish debate over Arthur.

Koncepcje suwerenności i prawa do oporu w De iure regni apud Scotos („O władzy królewskiej wśród Szkotów”) George’a Buchanana

The aim of the article is to analyze the concept of sovereignty and the right of revolution laid down by the Scottish humanist George Buchanan in his dialogue “De jure regni apud Scotos” (“A dialogue, concerning the due privilege of government in the kingdom of Scotland”) in 1567. These concepts were grounded in the context of both philosophical and anthropological views of Buchanan himself. The paper presents Buchanan’s views pertaining to human nature and natural law. Moreover, it shows how deeply these notions influenced the shape of his concepts of authority, community, law as well as of their mutualinterdependence. The article also highlights the ambiguous character of the institutional dimension of the Scotsman’s theory and, at the same time, it emphasizes the coherence of his political and legal philosophy.