Skip to main content
Log in

Hellenism in the Context of Oriental Studies: The Case of Johann Gottfried Lakemacher (1695–1736)

  • Article
  • Published:
International Journal of the Classical Tradition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. J. J. Reiske, Prodidagmata ad Hagji Chalifae librum memorabilem rerum a muhammedanis gestarum exhibentia introductionem generalem in historiam sic dictam orientalem (1747) printed in id., Abulfedae Tabula Syriae cum excerpto geographico ex Ibn Ol Wardii geographia et historia naturali, Leipzig, 1766, pp. 215–40. See also J. Loop, ‘Kontroverse Bemühungen um den Orient. Johann Jacob Reiske (1716–1774) und die Orientalistik seiner Zeit’, in Johann Jacob Reiske–Leben und Wirkung. Ein Leipziger Byzantinist und Begründer der Orientalistik im 18. Jh., ed. H.-G. Ebert and T. Hanstein, Leipzig, 2005, pp. 45–85.

  2. The young Reiske did, however, use his command of Arabic for a philological scrutiny of the Book of Job and of Proverbs (1749) which was published posthumously, in accordance with his wishes, by his wife Ernestine Christine Reiske: Coniecturae in Jobum et Proverbia Salomonis, Leipzig, 1779.

  3. See Reiske’s posthumously published autobiography: D. Johann Jacob Reiskens von ihm selbst aufgesetzte Lebensbeschreibung, Leipzig, 1783, p. 70.

  4. C. Bursian, Geschichte der classischen Philologie in Deutschland von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, Munich and Leipzig, 1883, pp. 407–16; U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Geschichte der Philologie, Leipzig, 1927, pp. 42–3; J. E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship, III: The Eighteenth Century in Germany and the Nineteenth Century in Europe and the United States, Cambridge, 1908, pp. 14–18; R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, II: From 1300–1850, Oxford, 1976, p. 172.

  5. J. Fück, Die arabischen Studien in Europa bis in den Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts, Leipzig, 1955, pp. 108–24.

  6. For von Revitzky’s translation of Hafez, see Specimen poeseos persicae. Sive Muhammedis Schems-Eddini notioris agnomine Haphyzi Ghazalae, sive Odae sexdecim ex initio Divani depromptae, Vienna, 1771. The title-page, in fact, cites the boastful lines from Horace’s Ode III.1: ‘carmina non prius / audita, … / virginibus puerisque canto’. Revizky modestly omits Horace’s claim to be the ‘musarum sacerdos’. For Reiske’s negative judgement of this work, see his undated letter to Lessing in Johann Jacob Reiske, Briefwechsel, ed. R. Foerster, Leipzig, 1897, pp. 845–9 (no. 423). Reiske’s translation of Mutanabbi is in Proben der arabischen Dichtkunst in verliebten und traurigen Gedichten, aus dem Motanabbi, Leipzig, 1765. According to Katharina Mommsen, it was probably this slim volume which introduced the young Goethe, as a newly arrived nineteen-year-old student in Leipzig, to Mutanabbi. See K. Mommsen, Goethe and the Poets of Arabia, transl. M. M. Metzger, Rochester NY, 2014, p. 240. For his translations of Demosthenes and Aeschines, see Demosthenis und Aeschenis Reden, 2 vols, Lemgo, 1764–5.

  7. On Reimarus’s scholarship, see U. Groetsch, Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768): Classicist, Hebraist, Enlightenment Radical in Disguise, Leiden, 2015; on Reimarus’s work on Cassius Dio, see esp. pp. 177–223.

  8. For an introduction to this tradition, see J. A. Steiger, Philologia Sacra. Zur Exegese der Heiligen Schrift im Protestantismus des 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2011, and H. Graf Reventlow, History of Biblical Interpretation, III: Renaissance, Reformation, Humanism, transl. J. O. Duke, Atlanta GA, 2010, pp. 199–232.

  9. Programma in funere viri celeberrimi atque excellentissimi Joh. Gothofredi Lakemacheri Philos. D. Graecae nec non Oriental. Linguarum Professoris et Philosphicae Facultatis Decani meritissimi A. MDCXCV. D. XVII. Novembr. nati, A. MDCCXXXVI. D. XVI. Mart. denati. In Academia Julia, Helmstedt, 1736. Though Frobese did not publish the oration under his name, he was identified as its author by Johann Georg Meusel in Lexicon der vom Jahr 1750 bis 1800 verstorbenen teutschen Schriftsteller, III, Leipzig, 1804, p. 537.

  10. Frobese, Programma in funere (n. 9 above), sig. B3r.

  11. Ibid., sig. A3v.

  12. For his handbook of Greek festivities, see J. G. Lakemacher, Antiquitates Graecorum sacrae, Helmstedt, 1734. Favourable references to his works are in, e.g., Theophilus Christoph Harless (Harlesius), De vitis philologorum nostra aetate clarissimorum, IV, Bremen, 1772, pp. 1–31, and Christoph Saxe, Onomasticon Literarium sive Nomenclator Historico-Criticus, VI, Utrecht, 1788, pp. 300–301.

  13. C. Siegfried, ‘Lakemacher, Johann Gottfried’, in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, XVII, Leipzig, 1883, pp. 528–9: ‘Er hatte eine für seine Zeit ausgebreitete Gelehrsamkeit und Belesenheit besonders auch in den klassischen Schriftstellern, auf deren Nutzen für die Erklärung des Alten Testaments er auch einmal in einer akademischen Rede hinwies im vierten Theile S. 300 ff. der „Observationes philologicae quibus varia praecipue s. codicis loca ex antiquitatibus illustrantur“ …. Dieses Sammelwerk, welches überhaupt den Ertrag seiner Studien enthält, zeigt aber neben den eben gerühmten Vorzügen auch einen großen Mangel an Kritik und Methode, durch welchen jene Gelehrsamkeit sehr oft zu einer unfruchtbaren wird und jenen Ballast vergrößert, mit welchem noch heutzutage die Commentare bei der Darlegung der Verschiedenen Auslegungsversuche vollgestopft zu werden pflegen.’

  14. J. G. Lakemacher, Elementa linguae arabicae, Helmstedt, 1718.

  15. On many points Lakemacher’s Arabic grammar followed Thomas Erpenius’s grammar of 1613.

  16. For a brief consideration of this dissertation in its broader context, see my ‘The Academic Study of Arabic in Seventeenth- and Early Eighteenth-Century Protestant Germany: A Preliminary Sketch’, History of Universities, 28, 2015, pp. 93–135 (108–18).

  17. J. G. Lakemacher, Ex historia philosophica orientali de Alkendi arabum philosopho celeberrimo, Helmstedt, 1719.

  18. J. G. Lakemacher, Alcoranus Muhammedis Abdallae filii universus cujus textum arabicum ex optimis codicibus Msc. juxta ac impressis recensuit, accurata versione latina adornavit, et adnotationibus brevibus ac luculentis illustravit Joh. Gottfr. Lakemacher, Helmstedt, 1721. Despite the ambitious title, this slender volume, comprising fourteen verses, is extant, to the best of my knowledge, in a sole exemplar held at the Bodleian Library, shelf-mark Arab. e.240 (1). Lakemacher intimated his intentions to Cornelius Dietrich Koch in August 1721. The ensuing correspondence between the two on the nature and contested desirability of such an undertaking was published by Koch in his Annales Academiae Iuliae semestre II, Helmstedt, 1722, pp. 94–104.

  19. Three years later (24 September 1724), Johann Lorenz Mosheim, the eminent Helmstedt theologian, and in some respects Lakemacher’s academic patron, mentioned his ongoing labours on this project: ‘apud nos in locum Oldermanni suffectus est Iohann Gottfr. Lakemacher, vir eruditus et linguarum Graecae et orientalium peritissimus, qui in versione nova Corani cum notis brevibus edenda diu elaboravit’. Mosheim’s letter to Maturin Veyssière La Croze was printed in Thesauri epistolici Croziani tomus I, ed. J. L. Uhl, Leipzig, 1742, p. 308. It should be noted that in the same letter, Mosheim also mentions Lakemacher’s work on an edition of Porphyry’s De abstinentia of which no trace remains. The letter is quoted in C. F. von Schnurrer, Bibliotheca Arabica, aucta nunc atque integra, Halle, 1811, p. 416. Schnurrer’s contemporary, the former Helmstedt professor Paul Jakob Bruns, writing immediately after the university’s closure, claims that Lakemacher’s edition was almost complete but no publisher was willing to undertake its publication: P. J. Bruns, Verdienste der Professoren zu Helmstädt um die Wissenschaft, Halle, 1810, p. 35. It is also worth noting that Lakemacher’s timing was not coincidental. The second edition of Ludovico Marracci’s milestone Latin Quran translation, first printed in Padua in 1698, appeared in Leipzig in 1721. The Leipzig edition did not include the Arabic original. For Protestant attempts to outdo Marracci’s Quran, see A. Hamilton, ‘A Lutheran Translator for the Quran: A Late Seventeenth Century Quest’, in The Republic of Letters and the Levant, ed. A. Hamilton, M. H. van den Boogert and B. Westerweel, Leiden, 2005, pp. 197–221.

  20. Both appointments, signed by the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel are extant in Niedersächsisches Staatsarchiv Wolfenbüttel, Alt 37 482, vol. 1, fols 38r–40v. The appointment was also celebrated in several epigrams in his honour: Epigrammata Viro Celeberrimo IOANNE GODDEFREDO LAKEMACHERO Professionem Linguae Graecae Ordinariam in Regio Ducali Iulia die XIV. Septembr. MDCCXXIV. suscipienti Dicata ab intus Nominatis, Helmstedt, 1724. For the appointment to the chair of Oriental languages, see Niedersächsisches Staatsarchiv Wolfenbüttel, Alt. 37 482, vol. 2, fol. 16. On these appointments and their broader institutional context, see J. Bruning, Innovation in Forschung und Lehre. Die philosophische Fakultät der Universität Helmstedt in der Frühaufklärung 1680–1740, Wiesbaden, 2012, pp. 108–10; Bruning identifies the 1720s and 30s as a period of striking innovation in the philosophical faculty at Helmstedt, pp. 136–45.

  21. Bruns, Verdienste der Professoren (n. 19 above), p. 34.

  22. Le Clerc is also frequently quoted with admiration in Lakemacher’s works. On Le Clerc, see H.-J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Forschung des Alten Testaments, Duisburg, 1956, pp. 64–6; M. C. Pitassi, Entre croire et savoir. Le problème de la méthode critique chez Jean Le Clerc, Leiden, 1987; H. Graf Reventlow, ‘Bibelexegese als Aufklärung. Die Bibel im Denken des Johannes Clericus (1657–1736)’, in Historische Kritik und biblischer Kanon in der deutschen Aufklärung, ed. H. Graf Reventlow, W. Sparn and J. Woodbridge, Wiesbaden, 1988, pp. 1–19.

  23. J. Israel, The Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650–1750, Oxford, 2001, pp. 449–53.

  24. On Hermann von der Hardt’s unorthodox exegetics, see H. Möller’s unpublished Habilitationsschrift, entitled Hermann von der Hardt (1660–1746) als Alttestamentler, Leipzig, 1963; R. Häfner, ‘“Denn wie das buch ist, muß der leser seyn.” Allegorese und Mythopoiesis in den Hohen und hellen Sinnbildern Jonae des Helmstedter Gelehrten Hermann von der Hardt’, in Die europäische Gelehrtenrepublik im Zeitalter des Konfessionalismus, ed. H. Jaumann, Wiesbaden, 2001, pp. 183–201; M. Mulsow, ‘Sintflut und Gedächtnis. Hermann von der Hardt und Nicolas-Antoine Boulanger’, in Sintflut und Gedächtnis. Erinnern und Vergessen des Ursprungs, ed. M. Mulsow and J. Assmann, Munich, 2006, pp. 131–61; and my own brief account in the context of Hebrew studies in Helmstedt, ‘Helmstedter Hebraisten’, in Das Athen der Welfen. Die Reformuniversität Helmstedt 1576–1810, ed. ed. J. Bruning and U. Gleixner, Wiesbaden, 2010, pp. 224–31.

  25. T. C. Harless, De vitis philologorum nostra aetate clarissimorum, IV, Bremen, 1772, p. 3.

  26. H. von der Hardt, Arabicae linguae cultoribus, in J. G. Lakemacher, Elementa linguae arabicae, Helmstedt, 1718, fols 2r–4v.

  27. See, e.g., D. Droixhe, La linguistique et l’appel de l’histoire (1600–1800), Geneva, 1978, pp. 86–98. For the [Celto-]Scythian theory in Germanic linguistics, see, e.g., K. Dekker, The Origins of Germanic Studies in the Low Countries, Leiden, 1999; on two early exponents of the Scythian hypothesis, see J. Considine, ‘Why was Claude de Saumaise interested in the Scythian Hypothesis?’, Language & History, 53, 2010, pp. 81–96, and T. Van Hal, ‘On “the Scythian Theory”: Reconstructing the Outlines of Johannes Elichmann’s (1601/1602–1639) Planned Archaeologia Harmonica’, ibid., pp. 70–80.

  28. How he reached this conclusion will be explained elsewhere. On von der Hardt’s Old Testament scholarship the most detailed study is Möller’s unpublished Habilitationsschrift (n. 24 above).

  29. H. von der Hardt, Syria Graeca, Helmstedt, 1715.

  30. See, e.g., H. von der Hardt, Lumen Graecum in analysi Hebraica primo Genesios libello, pro recta ad fontes via, ordine justo, radicibus vulgaribus repudiatis, ad veras vocum origines clare spectandas accensa luce, lexici Hebraici Graecia illustrati nuncio aperto, Helmstedt, 1726.

  31. Claude de Saumaise, De hellenistica commentarius, controversiam de lingua hellenistica decidens, & plenissime pertractans originem et dialectos Graecae linguae, Leiden, 1643. On Saumaise, see Pfeiffer, History (n. 4 above), p. 122. On his dispute with Heinsius, see J. Considine, ‘Claudius Salmasius and the Deadness of Neo-Latin’, in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Upsaliensis: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies (Uppsala 2009), ed. A. Steiner-Weber et al., I, Leiden, 2012, pp. 295–305, esp. 296–8.

  32. Z. Bogan, Homerus ἑβραίζων sive, comparatio Homeri cum Scripturis Sacris quoad normam loquendi, Oxford, 1658.

  33. C. B. Michaelis, Dissertatio philologica, qua celeberrimi cuiusdam viri hypothesis etymologica de Hebraea et adfinibus orientis linguis a Graeca derivandis, Halle, 1726, and id., Commentatio apologetica qua falso adserta origo linguae Hebraeae ex Graeca convellitur … adversus nuperas cl. philologi Helmstadiensis ΦΛΥΑΡΙΑΣ historico-philologico-hermeneuticas, Halle, 1727.

  34. J. G. Lakemacher, De fatis studiorum apud arabes, Helmstedt, 1719, esp. pp. 10–12. In addition to E. Dickinson, Delphi phoenicizantes, Frankfurt, 1669, see id., Physica vetus et vera, sive Tractatus de naturali veritate hexaëmeri mosaici, London, 1703. See also Bernd Roling’s contribution in this volume.

  35. Lakemacher, De ratione optima linguam Hebraicam discendi ac docendi programma, Helmstedt, 1728, p. 27–8.

  36. Ibid., p. 7.

  37. J. G. Lakemacher, Crethim. Quorum Ezechiel et Zephanias scriptoresque sacri alii meminerunt ope auctorum veterum Graecorum imprimis detecti, Helmstedt, 1723.

  38. Lakemacher does so by identifying Caphtor with the Aegean island Karpathos, colonized by the Cretans at an early stage. The Cretans who colonized portions of the Canaanite coast were therefore descendants of Cretan colonizers arriving ‘in earliest antiquity’ from Karpathos. The Philistine’s mastery of the bow and arrow is for him further proof of their descent from the technologically superior Crete. Lakemacher, of course, does not distinguish Minoan Cretan and the civilization of later Greeks.

  39. E.g., Lakemacher’s identification of Caphtor with the Aegean island rather than Carpathia (Samuel Bochart) or with an island in the Nile estuary (Adriaan Reland).

  40. Acts 13:5–8: ‘And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister. [6] And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-Jesus: [7] Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. [8] But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.’ (King James Version)

  41. J. G. Lakemacher, De Judaeorum magis horumque arte, speciatim de Elyma mago. Ad Act. XIII, 8, in his Observationes philologicae … Pars II. et III., Helmstedt, 1727, pp. 126–66 (126–31).

  42. The unfortunate rabbi hastened his downfall at his interrogation by declaring his cabbalistic practices. See S. Haense, Geschichte der Juden im ehemaligen Fürstenthum Ansbach, Ansbach, 1867, pp. 83–5. Fränkel’s undoing was closely tied to that of his brother, Elkana Fränkel, who had been Court Jew at Ansbach until his downfall in 1712. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment. Elkana Fränkel died in prison in 1720 and his brother 24 years later (i.e., after Lakemacher’s dissertation). See S. Stern, The Court Jew: A Contribution to the History of Absolutism in Europe, transl. R. Weiman, Philadelphia, 1950, pp. 256–7, and Isak Nethanël Gath, Der Hexenmeister von Schwabach. Der Prozess gegen den Ansbachischen Landesrabbiner Hirsch Fränkel, Ansbach, 2011, translated from Hebrew by Dafna Mach.

  43. Lakemacher, ‘De Judaeorum magis’ (n. 41 above), pp. 143–50.

  44. Ibid., pp. 161–6.

  45. It was republished the following year, in slightly extended version, in the first volume of his Observationes philologicae, Helmstedt, 1725, pp. 17–78. References here are to the version printed in the Observationes philologicae.

  46. Ibid., p. 18: ‘Praebuit autem mutandi consilii occasionem tabernaculorum solennitas, nuper admodum Judaeis celebrata. Huic enim cum in vico quodam vicino cum amicis aliquot, spectandi causa, interessem, nonnullasque synagogae caeremonias paulo curiosius considerarem, recordari contigit illius PLVTHARCHI loci, quo solennia illa judaica cum Bacchi sacris congruere, imo Baccho nuncupata esse, non haesitanter affirmavit scriptor omnium, quotquot e Graecis superstites nobis est, facile princeps.’

  47. On the depiction by Plutarch and other Graeco-Roman authors of Jews as Bacchics, see M. Stern, Greek and Roman Authors on Jews and Judaism, I, Jerusalem, 1976, p. 560. The cult of Dionysius was introduced to Jerusalem in 167 BC, under Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Maccabees VI.7). According to Stern, this cult disappeared after the restoration of Jewish life in Jerusalem and did not leave its mark on subsequent Jewish worship.

  48. Lakemacher, Programma de ritibus, in his Observationes (n. 45 above), p. 21: ‘Quem locum ubi domum reversus illico inspexissem, vehementer initio indignabar, quod tam parum aequum Judaeis sese praebuerit Plutarchus, ut festo a tabernaculis nomen sortito Bacchica sacra ab iis fieri, Bacchumque coli, dicere non sit veritus, cum in Mosis quidem de solennitate istac lege nihil extare nossem, quod vel levissimum eius rei suspicionem iniicere possit. Quae enim quaeso habitationi sub tentoriis, quem praecipuum eius festi ritum esse legislator voluit, cum Bacchanalibus intercedit cognatio?’

  49. A. Reland, De religione Mohammedica libri duo, Utrecht, 1705.

  50. Ibid., sig.*4v.

  51. Lakemacher, Programma de ritibus, in his Observationes (n. 45 above), p. 23.

  52. E.g., J. G. Lakemacher, De studio rabbinico a recentiorum quorundam criminationibus vindicato oratio, Helmstedt, 1728.

  53. Lakemacher, Programma in his Observationes (n. 45 above), p. 36.

  54. Ibid., pp. 38–9.

  55. Ibid., pp. 40–47. See Leviticus 23:40.

  56. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XIII.13.5, where the lulavs are referred to as θύρσοι.

  57. The actual observation of Jewish customs was a well-established practice in his day. See, e.g., Y. Deutsch, Judaism in Christian Eyes: Ethnographic Descriptions of Jews and Judaism in Early Modern Europe, Oxford, 2012.

  58. See F. Koldewey, Geschichte der klassischen Philologie auf der Universität Helmstedt, Brunswick, 1895, p. 115.

  59. J. G. Lakemacher, Oratio, in his Observationes philologicae … Pars II. et III., Helmstedt, 1727, pp. 300–380.

  60. Ibid., pp. 320–23: ‘Est praesertim ea linguae Hebraicae ratio, ut magna ei cum Graeca intercedat affinitas, lucemque hinc accipiat egregiam. Non lubet nunc in istius convenientiae rationes curiosius inquirere, nec eam in praesenti ingredi placet disputationem, qua disquiritur, utri ex duabus istis linguis majoris vetustatis Gloria attribuenda sit. Vidit aetas nostra magni nominis philologos, qui rationibus haudquaquam levibus fulti jactatam illam linguam Hebraicae antiquitatem, et sit venia verbo, primaevitatem fictam esse docuerunt. Vidit vero etiam, qui, Magistrorum Judaicorum auctoritati nimium confisi, acerrime pro illa propugnarunt. [footnote reference to Christian Benedict Michaelis, among others] Sed superet antiquitate linguam Graecam Hebraica, id nihilominus affirmare licebit, Graeci sermonis notitiam multum omnino conferre ad Hebraicum plenius intelligendum. Nam ut lingua una alterius vocibus phrasibusque illustrandis inservire possit, haudquaquam necessarium esse arbitror, ut antiquior ea sit. Id solum meo quidem judicio requiritur, ut apertior sit in ea, a qua facem petimus, quam in altera illa significandi ratio.’

  61. Ibid., pp. 323–4.

  62. J. G. Lakemacher, Atticismorum cum formulis Hebraicis comparatorum specimen, in his Observationes philologicaePars IV. V. et VI., Helmstedt, 1730, pp. 425–32.

  63. Lakemacher, Programma de ritibus, in his Observationes (n. 45 above), p. 77.

  64. Lakemacher, Antiquitates (n. 15 above), fols 5v–6r. Both works are divided into four sections on (1) holy places, (2) holy persons, (3) holy objects and rites and (4) consecrated dates (De temporibus sacris).

  65. E.g., Johannes Oldermann, Dissertatio philologica de fluvio פרת in limite terrae promissionis septentrionali ad illustrandum locum Gen. XV.18, Helmstedt, 1712, and id., Dissertatio philologica de regione אופיר sententias aliorum potissimum examinans, Helmstedt, 1714. On the broader intellectual context and significance of Geographia sacra, see Z. Shalev, Sacred Words and Worlds: Geography, Religion and Scholarship (1550–1700), Leiden, 2012.

  66. On Ritmeier, see S. Ahrens, Die Lehrkräfte der Universität Helmstedt (1576–1810), Helmstedt, 2004, s.v.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asaph Ben-Tov.

Additional information

A note on terminology: what defined most early modern Orientalists was primarily the study of Oriental languages (for most Protestant academics these were usually languages which at the end of the eighteenth century would be defined as Semitic). The subject of this article, Johann Gottfried Lakemacher, was a cultor linguarum orientalium, and the scholarly pursuits derived from his perusal of ancient texts in these languages were broadly defined as studia orientalia. For him (and most of his academic contemporaries), the Orient was not primarily a geographical term, to be objectively marked on a world map, but a linguistic and cultural one. It resists translation as Near East, since it included North Africa and, in some cases, extended into South-East Asia and cannot be rendered as Islamic Studies, since considerable aspects of these Oriental studies were concerned with non-Muslim phenomena such as biblical antiquity, the Eastern Churches, ancient Egypt and even contemporary Jews. Thus, Lakemacher’s great contemporary Adriaan Reland was an authority on Islam and on Jewish ceremonies – both scholarly pursuits understood by contemporaries to fall under the same expertise: Oriental studies. The Orient and Oriental in early modern scholarship were neither neutral nor objective (nor were they meant to be), but laden with cultural meaning in distinctly pre-modern ways and often embedded in intellectual and cultural contexts which have become alien to us.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ben-Tov, A. Hellenism in the Context of Oriental Studies: The Case of Johann Gottfried Lakemacher (1695–1736). Int class trad 25, 297–314 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12138-018-0472-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12138-018-0472-z

Navigation