references to giulio camillo in samuel quicchelberg's "inscriptiones vel tituli theatri amplissimi"...

8/12/2019 References to Giulio Camillo in Samuel Quicchelberg's "inscriptiones vel tituli theatri amplissimi" (1963) Elizabeth

1/6

REFERENCES TO GIULIO CAMILLO IN SAMUEL QUICCHELBERG'S "INSCRIPTIONES VEL TITULITHEATRI AMPLISSIMI"Author(s): Elizabeth M. HajsSource: Bibliothque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, T. 25, No. 1 (1963), pp. 207-211Published by: Librairie DrozStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20674452 .Accessed: 01/06/2014 01:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Librairie Droz is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bibliothqued'Humanisme et Renaissance.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128 .250.144.144 on Sun, 1 Jun 20 14 01:59:46 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=libdrozhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20674452?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20674452?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=libdroz


2/6

REFERENCESTO GIULIO CAMILLO IN SAMUEL QUICCHELBERG'S" INSCRIPTIONES VEL TITULI THEATRI AMPLISSIMI " *

Samuel Quicchelberg's Inscriptiones vel Titilli Theatri amplissimi,Munich, 1565 1, a small quarto primarily known as a valuable contri

bution to the history of museology in the second half of the sixteenth century, covers theoretical as well as practical aspects ofcollecting ; it offers a classification system for the organization of the"

universal theatre,"

i. e. an ideal museum of encyclopedic scopedestined to promote

"cognito rerum omnium,

"and also contains

a brief survey of collections and libraries in Bavaria, Swabia, andFranconia, incl. owners' names and their special interests and achievements. However, less known is the fact that the book's informative value is not limited to museological problems but also consistsof many references to miscellaneous contemporary matters of historical interest which are to be found in the text.

The ensuing notes concern Quicchelberg's three references toGiulio Gamillo 2which, as far as could be ascertained, have not been

* I am indebted to Dr. F. Geldner, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, whokindly made available to me a photostatic copy of Quicchelberg's quarto, and suggestedthe appropriate form of the author's name as established by that library.

1 Inscriptiones vel Tituli Theatri amplissimi, complectentis rerum universitatissingulas materias et imagines eximias, ut idem rect? quoque dici possit: Promptuariumarti ficiosarum miraculosarumque rerum, ac omnia rari thesauri et pretiosae supellectilis,structurae atque picturae, quae hie simul in theatro conquiri consuluntur, ut eorumfrequenti inspectione tractat?oneque, singularis aliqua rerum cognit?o et prudent?a admiranda, cit?, facile ac tuto comparari possit, autore Samuele ? Quiccheberg Belga. Monachii.Ex Officina Adami Berg typographi. Anno MDLXV. Gum gratia et privilegio Gaesareo.

Samuel Quicchelberg (1529-1567) was born in Antwerp and educated, i. a., atthe universities of Basel and Ingolstadt. He received a medical degree but laterdevoted himself chiefly to bibliological and museological matters. He was employed,successively, by Johann Jakob Fugger in Augsburg and Duke Albrecht V of Bavariain Munich. While in the latter's service he participated in the foundation of the ducallibrary and acted as adviser in the collections. He traveled in Italy buying art

works, rarities, books and manuscripts for the Duke. His Inscriptiones...?the fruit

of years of research and devotion to his subject?is believed to represent the onlyprinted part of a larger project ; his early death prevented him from completing it.Cf., e. g., Heinrich Pantaleon, Prosographiae heroum atque illustrium virorum totiusGermaniae, Basel, 1565 ; Biographie nationale de Belgique, Brussels, XVIII, 1905 ;Otto Hartig, Die Gr?ndung der M?nchener Hofbibliothek durch Albrecht V und JohannJakob Fugger, Abhandlungen d. K. bayerischen Akad. d. Wissenschaften, philos.philolog. u. hist. KL, XXVIII, 3, Munich, 1917; Rudolf Berliner, Zur ?lteren

Museumlehre in Deutschland, M?nchner Jahrb. d. bild. K?nste, n. F., V, 1928,pp. 327 ff. Gf. also the present writer's article, The Concept of an Engravings Collection in the Year 1565, Art Bulletin, XL, 1958, no. 2, pp. 151 if,with selected bibliography and a list of erroneous bibliographical references to Quicchelberg.

2Giulio Camillo (c. 1480-1544), best known as the creator of a curious contraption,often described as a wooden machine in the shape of a theatre, which he had workedon for many years and had erected under the patronage of Francis I in France. Thisintricately conceived

" theatre " equipped with various exhibits and explanatorytexts, appears as a conglomeration of classical, medieval, astrological and cabalisticdoctrines ; as an entity, it was intended to represent the concept of the universe andto serve as an aid for the memory. Although destroyed after Camillo's death, thegeneral program of the work is preserved in his posthumously printed book, L'ideadel teatro, Florence, 1550. Of the extensive bibliography on Gamillo it should sufficeto mention, e. g., Girolamo Tiraboschi, Storia della letteratura italiana, Florence,1812, vol. VII, part IV, pp. 1513-1525 (Book III, chapters 13-16) ;Julius Schlosser,La Letteratura Artistica, Florence, 1956, pp. 244-245, and p. 248 ; R. Bernheimer,Theatrum Mundi, Art Bulletin, XXXVIII, 1956, no. 4, pp. 225 fi. Gf. also, e. g., the

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/6

208 NOTES ET DOCUMENTS

published before. All three concern Camillo's" theatre " and Qui

cchelberg's reactions to it and doubtless are of interest in respect toboth men ; first of all because, printed about two decades afterCamillo's death, they indicate that his memory was still alive at thattime ; further, certain peculiarities of CamiUVs work induced Quicchelberg to speculate about them, even to the extent of using themto clarify his own ideas in respect to the concept of the

" universaltheatre " ; finally, it seems as if Quicchelberg had wished to implythat, in his opinion, Camillo's work had already become somewhatobsolete.

The first reference appears 1 in a discourse about the proper use

of the term"

theatre"

as applied to collections and museums, whichQuicchelberg finds justified by the shape of certain structures. Afterdescribing various types of buildings, he names the

" Bavaricumtheatrum artif?ciosarum rerum

" 2 as a good example of an amphitheatre. Elaborating further on the subject, he mentions

" IuliiCamilli museum semic?rculo suo, rect? quoque theatrum dici potuisse. " 3He then points to the frequent

"metaphorie?

" use of the

respective references in Konrad Gesner's Bibliotheca Universalis, Z?rich, 1545, p. 470verso; Pandectarum sive Partitionum universalis..., Z?rich, 1549, p. 6; and Bibliothecainstitu?a et collecta..., Z?rich, 1583, p. 525. Cf. furthermore D. G. Morhof, Poly

histor, L?beck, 1747 (4th ed.), pp. 372-374 ; G. G. Jocher, Gelehrten-Lexicon, Leipzig,1750-1751 ; J. H. Zedler, Grosses vollst?nd. Univ. Lexicon aller Wiss. u. K?nste,Leipzig-Halle, 1733-1764.

1Quicchelberg, op. cit., Fols. Diiib? Diva.

"Theatri etiam nomen hic assumitur non impropri?, sed ver? pro structura grandi, vei arcuata, vei ovali, vei ad

form?m ambulacri, cuius generis in basilicis, aut coenobiis circuitus ab, ipsis, incolisvocantur, ad quatuor latera altis contignationibus extructum, in quorum medio hortusaut cavedia sit relicta (ita enim Bavaricum theatrum artificiosarum rerum spectatur)ut quatuor maximae aulae, ad quatuor coeli regiones, latissim? pateant, unde etaccomodari aliquo modo amphitheatri nomen ipsi posset. Monere hoc oportet IuliiGamilli museum semic?rculo suo, rect? quoque theatrum dici potuisse : alii vero hocnomine usi sunt metaphoric? ut Christopherus Mylaeus, Gonradus Lycosthenes, Theodorus Zwingger, Guilelmus de la Perri?re et fort? etiam alii, quando sic conditionesvitae humanae et scribendae hist?ri?? doctrinam et caeteras res tractandi et memorandi, non autem spectandi aedificii, et rei, quae in eo agatur, aut proponatur amplitudinem, libros quosdam pulchr? tarnen, inscripserunt ".

2This building has long been identified with the old Bavarian" Kunstkammer ",and the importance of this passage for the early history of the ducal collections hasbeen duly noted. We find references to it in numerous studies dealing with theMunich collections. In the present context, however, attention should be called tothe curious fact that, as far as could be ascertained, the quotations stop short beforeGamillo's name, or simply omit the respective part of the reference See OttoHartig, op. cit., p. 63, note 3 ; also, Rudolf Berliner, op. cit., p. 329.

3 It is worth noticing that in this context Quicchelberg seems to apply the term" theatre " primarily to buildings he regards as most suitable for the housing ofcollections. Hence the example of the Bavarian

" theatrum artificiosarum rerum."However, it also seems as if he used the terms

" theatre " and " museum " interchangeably because immediately afterwards he calls Camillo's work a

" museum "

(which, because of its particular shape, could also be regarded as a" theatre ").

However, to clarify these distinctions, it should suffice to point out Quicchelberg'sown terminology which can be traced throughout his book. Accordingly, he firstapplies

" theatre " to his own concept of the" universal theater " and uses " museum "

and/or"

promptuary" in reference to various special collections which are included

in it. Or, in other words, the" universal theatre " is the great overall scheme which,

in its organization (as devised in Quicchelberg's classification system), unifies a numberof particular entities.

Subsequently, the term" theatre " appears in reference to collections of a

?more or less?universal type while" museum " and " promptuary

"designate

specific collections, regardless of whether they are parts of a larger scheme, or areentities in themselves. Therefore, in view of Quicchelberg's distinctive application ofthese terms, it should be safe to say that he called Gamillo's work a

" museum "

because he regarded it, in the first place, as some kind of a special collection. (Fromthe practical museologist's point of view it represented an accumulation of relatedobjects which were displayed in a structure shaped as an amphitheatre.) For the mani



4/6

NOTES ET DOCUMENTS 209

term in book titles and lists the names of several authors of such"theatri.

" 1

With respect to Camillo, the main interest of this passage lies inQuicchelberg's unequivocal description of Camillo's work asa" semicircular museum. " Considering, however, that although it has beenassumed that such was its shape but that Camillo himself had not sospecified in his book,2 Quiechelberg's pertinent reference representsone of the rare near-contemporary statements on the subject.3 Offurther interest, Quicchelberg stresses the visual

? visually perceptible ? character of Camillo's theatre and does not mention itsessentially symbolic quality. This seems to suggest that herein he

wished to distinguish between CamiLlo's peculiar work and thelearned authors' efforts, their quite different treatment of worthysubjects in their respective books.

The second reference 4 is found in a passage inwhich Quicchelbergoutlines certain principles relevant to his universal theatre. In thecourse of his eleborations, in a casual reference, he rejects the planetary order of things, as observed by Vitruvius and Camillo. Hisexplanations emphasize the necessity of assembling, displaying andpreserving all objects of a collection according to their

" natural "and more easily perceptible categories. 5

fold applications and meanings of the word'*theatrum " cf., i. a., Ambrogio Calepino,

Linguae Latin?? Dictionarium..., Basel, 1555; Du Gange, Glossarium Latinitatis;Sir James Murray, New English Dictionary on Historical Principles.1Conrad Lycosthenes (Wolfhart, 1518-1561), probably better known for his

Prodigiorum ac ostentorum chronicon, Basel, 1557, than for his Theatrum vitae humanae,Basel, 1565, still unfinished at the time of his death and completed by his stepsonTheodor Zwinger (1533-1588). The latter also left an unpublished ms. entitledTheatrum inscriptionum atque epitaphiorum. Guillaume de la Perri?re's Le Th??tredes bons Engins..., Paris, 1539, is an emblem book, which, according to R. Freeman(English Emblem Books, London, 1948), was translated into English in 1593. Christopher

Mylaeus (fl. 1548, Florence) owes his fame to his Scribenda universitatis rerum historia...which, edited by J. G. M?ller, appeared under the title Hermetis Academici in Jena,1624. Cf., i. a., C. G. Jocher, Allgem. Gelehrten-Lexicon, M. N. Bouillet, Dictionnaire Universel, and M. Praz, A Bibliography of Emblem Books, London, 1947.

2 Cf., e. g., Bernheimer, op. cit., p. 227 : "... he omitted to mention the overallshape, which is likely to have been semicircular..."

3For an earlier reference see Konrad Gesner, Pandectarum..., Z?rich, 1549,p. 6: "Amphitheatrum Iulii Camilli

" as listed under "Libri et compendia in omnesartes liberales vei totam philosophiam ". Cf. also p. 208, Note 2.

4 Quicchelberg, op. cit., Fol. Div a. " Porro quod ad totum ordinem attinetspero eum satis plausibilem iudicatum iri : nec enim hie philosophis res naturalesomnes ad amussim, cum ipsa natura partimur sed principibus, in quosdam nondifficiles ordines, res plerasque asservatu iucundas segregamus. Nec enim iam etiamlicuit secundum VII Planetas singula distribuere, ut facer? potuissent Vitruvium etCamillum imitando, cum ordo facilior secundam formas rerum debuerit exhiberi..."

5Berliner (op. cit., pp. 330-331), who discusses this passage, does so withoutnoting Quicchelberg's mention of Camillo. (Cf. Note 4 above.) In Berliner's opinionQuicchelberg, by rejecting the

" outmoded " astrological system and by declaringthat he himself follows the " formas rerum ", proved beyond doubt that he was

more concerned with practical museology than with ideological speculations. Itshould be worth noticing, however, that in spite of his progressive attitude, Quicchelbergstill did not free himself completely from planetary associations. On the reverse sideof his title page we find the sign of Mercury followed by the explanatory note :

" Hacnota Mercurii, cui interpretis munus assignatum est, utimur, ubi inscriptionibus hiscesuccinctis designatae sunt in altera commentarioli parte explicationes aut digressiones.Qu are autem ita succinctae sunt ipsae inscriptiones, partim initio, partim in finedigressionum indicatur ". Indeed, we find the sign of Mercury printed after eachInscription (or category) of his classification system to which further explanations areadded in the " Digressiones...". To all appearences, these crucial parts of the bookseem to have been placed under the protection, or guidance, of Mercury. Further

more, in another context, we find a reference to the" seven planets ". Discoursing

about suitable furnishings for collections, Quicchelberg proposes, i.a., cabinets to be



5/6

210 NOTES ET DOCUMENTS

It is worth noticing that in this context Vitruvius and Camilloare mentioned together, apparently as the representatives of an out

moded astrological system no longer acceptable to Quicchelberg,whose chief concern by now is the establishment of a system bestsuited for the organization, operation and maintenance of collections.

He probably regarded this as more"

up to date" than the intricate

ideological systems of his predecessors, ? the practical museologist'sattitude " versus " the intellectual of a bygone era.

The third reference1 to Camillo is surprisingly included inQuicchelberg's laudatory appraisal of Sebastian Reisacher, whomhe hails as the author of an " inauditum philosophiae theatrum,"

adding"

quod long? aliud exurgit quam Iulii Camilli quondam, quodper productas capsulas consarcire oportuit, in libris iam inspiciendum. " He also credits Reisacher with the " invention of the 'primaphilosophia

'of Europe."

2

This passage is worthy of attention chiefly for introducing to usthe little known Reisacher, and for the comparison of the latter's

made in the shape of the marvels of the world, or other notable architectural creations,adding to each the names of the planetary divinities who determine their operation.(Quicchelberg, op. cit.. Fol. Fiib : "Deinde sunt in praesenti inscriptione nominataarmariola, ad formam arcuum triumphalium, et turricolorum, et pyramidum... Eaquidem orbis miracula... obiter ad septem Planetas stringendo, quaevis occurrentiaindubitat? tarnen pro eis agnita referemus. Itaque sub Saturno, sunt : pyramides

Aegyptii, Mausolea quaecunque ; sub love : templum Dianae, simulacrum Iovis etregia Gyri ; sub Marte :muri Babylonis ", etc.)

1Quicchelberg, op. cit.. Fol. Giiia. "Est et modis omnibus commendandumSebastiani Reisacheri, I. G. et philosophi, Bavaricique apud Burgusium conciliariiinauditum philosophiae theatrum (iam enim ita voco) quod long? aliud exurgit quamIulii Camilli quondam, quod per productas capsulas consacrire oportuit, in libris iaminscipiendum : quod san? inventum primae philosophiae, quam ipse sic vocat, novumuniversae Europae debeo declarare, quemadmodum id, quod in disciplinarum omniumcertitudine, et perfectissimus methodis, tanquam sapientiae portis aperiendis, summamliteris utilitatem et perspicuitatem plan? divinam attulisse videatur." This passageis quoted by Hartig (op. cit., p. 63, note 3) who, however, omitted

"quod long? aliud

exurgit quam Iulii Camilli quondam Cf. also p. 208, Note 2 and p. 209, Note 5.2For information on Sebastian Reisacher see his biography in Heinrich

Pantaleon, op. cit., p. 512 ; in a German ed. of 1578, the biography appears on p. 487(Teutscher Nation Heldenbuch, Basel), and is signed by Quicchelberg. Presumably,however, he was the author of both versions.

According to these biographical sketches, Reisacher was b. in Oettingen in 1531,went to the University of Ingolstadt in 1548, and distinguished himself in severaldisciplines. Subsequently, he became professor of Greek and philosophy at Ingol

stadt ; in 1557, he was elected to the chair vacated by the death of Vitus Amerbach.Further, he devoted himself to jurisprudence and received his Jur. D. in 1562.Appointed Government Councilor by the Duke of Bavaria in 1567, he moved toBurghausen where he remained until his death in 1571.

Concerning his multitudinous scholarly interests and achievements :" Illustre

autem eius inventum est... quod primam philosophiam vocat, et Ingolstadii public?proposuit, in qua de principiis et causis universae humanae cognitionis utilia, admiranda et inaudita multa explicat. Cuius etiam adiutus praeceptionibus varia conscripsit,vel adornavit saltern opuscula, in Iure, Medicina, Philosophia, ubi admirabili et raroquodam artif?cio, cum ad mem?ri?m, tum ad intelligentiam et iudicium, ususque

mult?plices accommodatissim?, ac brevitate incredibili, una pagina, distinct? tarnenet dilucid?, tantum complectitur, quantum alii vix quinqu? aut sex paginis. Atqueita videmus Reisacherum Bavarum novam eruere Philosophiam, inque disciplinarumomnium (quas longum iam esset referre) certitudine tanquam sapientiae amplissimasportas, aliter quam fit in arte Cabalistica Reuchlini, aperire ".

Referring to the time of his councilorship when he still pursued his manifoldresearches: "...wann er weil bekommen (hat er) sich wieder zu seinen B?cherngewendet, damit er dieses, so erfunden, heiterer ausstreichen und besser erleuteren

m?chte : dann daselben wirt ein Weg zu allen K?nsten viel gew?sser, dann inReuchlini Caballistica angezeiget. Dergestalt faret er zu Burghaussen f?r, und hatbei den geleerten durch sein hohen verstand ein grossen nammen erlanget ".

See also A. M. Kobolt, Bayerisches Gelehrten-Lexikon, Landshut, 1795, p. 552("... Philosoph und Rechtsgelehrter... wurde 1557... ?ffentlicher Lehrer der Weltweisheit..."), and Hartig, op. cit., p. 63 and Appendix Xc, pp. 314-315.



6/6

notes et documents 211

" theatre " with CamihVs. Quicchelberg's exaggerated praise ofReisacher as the creator of certain newfangled systems seems to casta shadow upon Gamillo and to relegate to the past whatever meritshe might have had. On the other hand, however, it also seems as ifQuicchelberg

? in spite of his admiration for Reisacher? did not

cease to be intrigued by Camillo's memory.Still, one cannot help wondering why Quicchelberg refers to

Camillo in this particular context, especially when realizing the totallydisparate work of these two men. Reisacher's activities as an authorshould doubtless place his work in the category of ?mataphoric?

"

theatres, whereas Camillo's creation,? his

"semicircular museum,

"

?represented the concept of an actual building.In concluding this brief summary, however, itmay be pointed out

that some affinity does exist between Reisacher and Camillo; andalthough Quicchelberg does not refer to it, it still could have beenin his mind when he brought them together in this passage. BothCamillo and Reisacher were exponents of cabalistic doctrines ;both,in their quest for wisdom, had been attracted to the study of Orientallanguages ; finally, both were occupied with the problems of mne

monics. Camillo's respective ideas, embodied in his theatre, aresummed up in his book, and although we know that his reputationranged from genius to charlatan, his scholarship is still undisputed as

well as the acceptance of his"

theatre"

as a mnenomic device 1.

Concerning Reisacher, our chief source of information is his biogra

phy accordingto

whichhe even

surpassedReuchlin in "

openingthe

gates to all wisdom " and his many merits also included the masteryof the art of memory.

New York Elizabeth M. Haj?s.

1Cf. p. 207, Note 2.


references to giulio camillo in samuel quicchelberg's "inscriptiones vel tituli theatri amplissimi"...

Documents