Perlegi cupide tuum libellum,[1]
Leporis, salis, eruditionis
Plenum, quem toties videre avebam.
Ex hoc ingenii libens acumen
5
Amplexus, numeros iocosque dulces
Transcurri; neque ⌊Pegasum⌋ volantem,
Quem clarum tibi stemma iussit esse
⌊Caesar⌋, praeterii, nec hoc, amicis
Quidquid ⌊Pierides⌋ tuae dicarunt.
10
Dignas hinc tibi gratias referre
Deberem siquidem, sed est supellex,
Scis, quam curta mihi, sub hac palaestra
Iam pridem qui ⌊Heliconidas⌋ reliqui.
Ingratus tamen esse nolo totus:
15
Si
⌊⌋[2] non placebit,
Quam mitto, veniam dabis; placere
Quod possit tibi forte, deinde mittam.
At patrocinio tuo tuisque
Doctis hendecasyllabis, Sabine,
20
Indignus fuit ille sordidatus,
Pro quo tot precibus simul profusis
Exposcis veniam, licet sit usto
Dignus stigmate, contumax ⌊Iopas⌋,[3]
Qui tangens fidibus chelyn malignis
25
Infames voluit meos fideles
Cives reddere, dixerat fidem quos
Infregisse; docere quod nequibat.
Poenas ferre graves calumniator
Coram iudicio, quod ergo fugit,
30
Leges quas statuere, debuisset.
Quod porro quereris, gemis dolesque
Mortem ⌊coniugis⌋ optimique ⌊Bembi⌋,
Tecum condolui, piis utrisque,
Orans, Manibus ut quies beata
35
Detur cum superis; et hanc utrisque
Nobis, quando vocabimur, petamus!
Nulli cedere nam solet propinquans
Cunctis terminus a Deo locatus.
[1 ] Most probably, Dantiscus received the collected works of ⌊Georg Sabinus⌋ (⌊⌋). This is the only book by the author from roughly that period that corresponds to the description of its contents in the poetic letter, in which, among other things, “ioci dulces” are mentioned. The 1544 collection contains works of a playful character, including epigrams. This makes it possible to exclude the interpretation that Dantiscus is referring to the slender poem devoted to the deaths of ⌊Sabinus’ wife⌋ and his friend ⌊Pietro Bembo⌋ (⌊⌋, incipit: Ut fato miserabili), which probably reached him at the same time as the book in question and which, in early printed editions, is followed by a short dedicatory note accompanying the gift of the book (⌊⌋, incipit: Parvum suscipe)
[2 ] It may be assumed that Dantiscus offered Georg Sabinus a printed edition of his De duabus Lucretiis. ⌊⌋ has argued that such an edition, dated 1531, did indeed exist, even though no extant copy is known today
[3 ] Dantiscus probably concealed his adversary ⌊Alexander von Suchten⌋ under the figure of ⌊Iopas⌋. ⌊Suchten⌋ was accused of heresy and, in 1545, sentenced to the loss of his property and of his Ermland canonry, which was subsequently taken over by ⌊Kaspar Hannau⌋, the nephew of Dantiscus. After this, Suchten eventually found refuge in ⌊Königsberg⌋ at the court of Duke ⌊Albrecht von Hohenzollern⌋, where he established close relations with ⌊Georg Sabinus⌋, who was then residing there as rector of the local university (⌊⌋, p. 337).
In August 1547, under the auspices of the university (as indicated on the title page), Suchten published the poem Vandalus on the legendary Polish ruler Wanda (⌊⌋). The book included a laudatory poem in praise of the ⌊author⌋ by ⌊Sabinus⌋, who extolled Suchten as a poet, stylizing him as an ancient bard playing a harp made of tortoise shell, i.e. chelys (f. E2v).
It appears that both the poem and the book were known to Dantiscus. He not only tactfully reminded ⌊Sabinus⌋ of his role in granting shelter to ⌊Suchten⌋ while he was fleeing justice, but also alluded to Sabinus’ poetic praise of him. Dantiscus ironically refers to ⌊Suchten⌋ as the bard at the court of ⌊Dido⌋, repeating the imagery of the harp (chelys), while at the same time castigating him for the improper use of the instrument to defame his fellow citizens. This may refer either to the ⌊inhabitants of Gdańsk⌋, from which both Dantiscus and ⌊Suchten⌋ originated, or more broadly to ⌊the inhabitants of Prussia⌋.
The choice of ⌊Iopas⌋ may also be explained by the character of his song in the Aeneid, which was traditionally interpreted as an exposition of natural philosophy, focusing on astronomy and meteorological phenomena. In his later years, Suchten devoted himself to medicine and alchemy (on Suchten’s works in this field, see ⌊⌋, p. 338–348, and the earlier literature cited there); this literary allusion may therefore echo contemporary opinions circulating about his intellectual interests