Latin Translation in the Renaissance: The Theory and Practice of Leonardo Bruni, Giannozzo Manetti, and Desiderius Erasmus.

(Book review)
Article from: Seventeenth-Century News Article date: September 22, 2006 Author: Morrish, Jennifer Latin Translation in the Renaissance. The Theory and Practice of Leonardo Bruni, Giannozzo Manetti, Erasmus. By Paul Botley. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. x + 207 pp. $70. In this erudite and absorbing book, Paul Botley provides a context for some of the seminal translations from Greek into Latin which were made in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. As his title indicates, the three humanists on whose work he focuses are Leonardo Bruni (ca. 1370-1444), Giannozzo Manetti (1396-1459), and Desiderius Erasmus (1466/9-1536). In examining their output, Botley is specifically concerned to document what they thought about the translations made by their predecessors and how their views in this regard influenced the versions which they produced themselves. The general aim of Botley's study is thus to shed light on the compelling question of "the ways Renaissance scholars thought about the transmission of the ancient works" (1). Leonardo Bruni, Chancellor of Florence (1410/11, 1427-44), was one of the first humanists in the West to achieve fluency in Greek. Born in Arezzo, where he learned Latin, he had gone to the University of Florence in the early 1390's with the intention of studying law. (For some details on Bruni not mentioned by Botley, I have relied on James Hankins's article in Encyclopedia of the Renaissance, ed. Paul F. Grendler, 6 vols. (New York, 1999), 1:301-6.) But he became acquainted with Coluccio Salutati, who suggested that he study Greek with Manuel Chrysoloras, the learned Byzantine diplomat whom Coluccio brought to Florence in 1397. So began Bruni's productive and, at times, controversial career as a Latin translator of Greek classics. One of the first texts he translated was St. Basil's De studiis secularibus (1403), which he dedicated to Coluccio, who cited it as persuasive evidence that pagan authors should be studied. Plutarch's Parallel Lives also attracted Bruni's attention early; between 1405 and 1412, he translated eight biographies from Plutarch, including the Life of Demosthenes, whose Philippics (1405-12), Pro Diopithe (1406), and De corona (1407) he also put into Latin. Bruni was interested in Demosthenes not just as an orator but also as a statesman who saw the threat which Philip of Macedon posed to Athens's independence, for in the opposition of Philip and Athens, Bruni observed a disturbing likeness to the enmity between Giangaleazzo Visconti (of Milan) and Florence. Plutarch had paired his Life of Demosthenes with the biography of Cicero, a text translated into Latin in 1401 by Jacopo Angeli. Bruni, unhappy with Angeli's version, began a translation of his own but, in the course of things, became dissatisfied with Plutarch himself, who, he felt, showed preference to Demosthenes, partly because the literary format of the Lives forced him to omit details which favored Cicero. Bruni's critical awareness of Plutarch's limitations led him to produce his own biography, Cicero novus (141213), which he encouraged readers to compare with Plutarch's Life and with the biographies of future writers whose efforts, he hoped, would surpass his own; for Bruni, a new version did not so much supplant a previous source as compete with and enhance it. The critical perspective which Bruni brought to his assessment of Plutarch is also evident in the view he takes of his historical and philosophical sources. Bruni was a distinguished historian in his own right and wrote the celebrated Historiarum 1

Florentini populi libri xii (1415-44); thus it is not surprising that he was also keen to supplement ancient Latin historiography from Greek sources. He produced three texts derived from Greek historians: Commentaria primi belli Punici (1419), an epitome of Polybius's early books; Commentarium rerum Graecarum (1439), taken from Xenophon's Hellenica; and De bello Italico adversus Gothos gesto libri IV (1441), based on Procopius's account of the Gothic Wars. Bruni's assessment of Procopius as a writer of history was bleak: in a letter to Giovanni Tortelli (1442), he wrote that he had produced his own Gothic Wars, non ut interpres sed ut genitor et auctor; Procopius, he claimed, was useful only as a witness to the facts but Cetera illius sunt spernenda (cited by Botley, p. 34). Bruni's translations of Aristotle included the Nicomachean Ethics (1416) and the Politics (1437); he also produced a Latin version of the pseudo-Aristotelian Economics (1420). All of these translations "were retranslations of texts available in medieval versions" (41). Bruni castigated the medieval sources as infelicitous and incapable of doing justice to Aristotle, whom he regarded as eloquent. His own translations, whose language was classicizing, failed to impress such scholars as Alfonso, Bishop of Burgos, who, in an essay of 1430, defended the medieval translations and opined that eloquence, whose aim was persuasion, differed from philosophy, whose object was truth. Bruni's justification for his approach to translating appeared in his De interpretatione recta (1424-26), "the first treatise on translation produced in western Europe since antiquity" (42). Copies of most of Bruni's works, including De interpretatione recta, found their way into the library of Giannozzo Manetti, Bruni's younger contemporary at Florence, whose exile from that city, first at Rome (1453-55) and then at Naples (1455/6-59), is explained and dated by Botley (64-70). Manetti translated three works by Aristotle in his final years at Naples: the Nicomachean Ethics, the Eudemian Ethics, and the Magna Moralia. None of these was published until 1473, and their influence on the evolution of Aristotelian scholarship was not significant. But the reasons why Manetti produced these translations are worth noting. His Nicomachean Ethics was evidently made in answer to Bruni's version; following Bruni, Manetti seems to have regarded the medieval translations of Aristotle as inadequate, but he also thought that Bruni was too free in his translation of the Nicomachean Ethics. Thus his own version was an attempt to steer a middle course between the asperitas of Grosseteste's thirteenth-century translation and Bruni's nimia licentia (cited by Botley, p. 80). Although Gregorio Tifernas, whose work Manetti probably knew at Rome, had recently translated the Magna Moralia (1454-55) and the Eudemian Ethics with which it circulated, Manetti's versions seem to have been occasioned by the interest of his patron at Naples, King Alfonso of Aragon, in moral philosophy. Manetti's translation of the New Testament was "the first Latin version made from Greek since Jerome's day" (85). It was even less known to his contemporaries than his Aristotelian translations, and only two manuscripts of it survive: Vatican Library Pal. lat. 45 and Vatican Library Urb. lat. 6. Manetti probably did not contemplate making this translation until his move to Rome, where he had the support of Pope Nicolas V. Botley argues that it is virtually impossible to establish whether or not Manetti's New Testament was influenced by Lorenzo Valla's contemporary Annotations on the text. Although Manetti had intended to translate the whole of the Bible, only his Psalter survives from his work on the Old Testament, and this he dedicated to King Alfonso; Vatican Library Pal. lat. 41, the dedication copy which was probably made under Manetti's supervision, also transmits his treatise on Biblical translations, the Apologeticus, a work influenced by Bruni's De interpretatione recta. Botley provides an edition of Manetti's Preface to his Psalter in an appendix (178-81). In 1505, Desiderius Erasmus found a copy of Lorenzo Valla's Annotations on the New Testament at Park Abbey, just south of Leuven. Erasmus, who published an edition of Valla's Annotations, wrote in his preface to that text that Valla was a homo grammaticus and that totum hoc, divinas vertere scripturas, grammatici videlicet partes sunt (cited by Botley, p. 133). Erasmus's own criticisms of the text of the New Testament as transmitted in the Vulgate focused upon what he took to be its lack of grammatical correctness or elegantia, a term made fundamental by Valla in another work, his De elegantiis linguae Latinae (1471), of which Erasmus published an epitome in 1529. The Vulgate's lack 2

of elegantia obscured the meaning of passages which were clear and unambiguous in the original Greek text, thereby giving readers an imperfect sense of the meaning of Scripture. To remedy this, Erasmus edited the Greek text and made his own Latin translation from it. Between 1516 and 1535, his New Testament went through five editions, each of which contained his Greek text and Latin translation, printed alongside one another, and followed by his Annotations "discussing or defending both the Greek and the Latin" (115). Although the Annotations take the Vulgate as their point of reference, the text of the Vulgate was included only in the fourth edition of 1527, where it stood on the page in a column on the far right next to Erasmus's Latin translation in the middle column and the Greek text on the far left so that readers could compare versions ipsis oculis. The emphasis which Erasmus placed on the need to compare translations is also manifest in his Annotations, where he shows the reader a whole range of possible renderings for a given word or locution, usually choosing the clearest and the briefest. Thus, while Erasmus's Latin translation "attempts to communicate what it is like to read the Greek New Testament," his Annotations "attempt to show what it is like to translate it" (131). Erasmus's sense of a plurality of versions is reminiscent of Bruni's view of competing translations. Paul Botley's Latin Translation in the Renaissance is a work of positivistic scholarship in which primary and secondary sources, including manuscripts and early printed books, are examined with meticulous care; readers come away with a wealth of detailed information about how Latin translators in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries acquired texts and regarded their Greek, medieval Latin, and contemporary sources. The book also reminds us that the Latin tradition is an unbroken continuum from Antiquity through the Middle Ages to the neo-Latin period. The editors of the Cambridge Classical Studies are to be given credit for recognizing the relevance of Botley's valuable research to their area of publication. (Jennifer Morrish, University of Kentucky) Cite this article: M. "Latin Translation in the Renaissance: The Theory and Practice of Leonardo Bruni, Giannozzo Manetti, and Desiderius Erasmus.(Book review)." Seventeenth-Century News. Texas A&M University, Department of English. 2006. HighBeam Research. 3 Feb. 2010 <http://www.highbeam.com>. COPYRIGHT 2006 Texas A&M University, Department of English. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. For permission to reuse this article, contact Copyright Clearance Center.

Erasmus, Desiderius (ca. 14661536)

A scholar, theologian, and linguist of the Netherlands, whose ideas on the Bible and the Catholic Church attempted to reconcile the skepticism of humanists, the rebellion of Protestants, and the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Born in Rotterdam, he was the illegitimate son of Roger Gerard, a priest, and the daughter of a physician. He was educated in a religious community known as the Brethren of the Common Life. After the death of his parents during a plague epidemic in 1483 he entered a monastery, but found the strict vows and poverty of a monk's life not to his liking. His ability as a scholar and linguist spread his name in the Low Countries, and he won an appointment as a secretary to the bishop of Cambrai, who sent Erasmus to study at the College de Montague in Paris. Erasmus was ordained as a priest in 1492 but spent the rest of his life writing, publishing, and in intellectual debate with hundreds of scholars, humanists, and princes throughout Europe. After completing his studies, Erasmus traveled to England in 1499 to gain the friendship of scholars such as Sir Thomas More and churchmen such as the archbishop of Canterbury. His book Adages, 3

published in 1500, collected classical writings and proverbs, while he also published translations from ancient Greek sources including the plays of Euripides and the short biographies of Plutarch. Under the influence of English humanists, Erasmus wrote Handbook of the Militant Christian in 1503, calling for Christian believers to return to the simple piety of the apostles and followers of Christ. As a young man Erasmus also made several voyages to Italy, where he was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Turin and where he worked as an editor for a Venetian printing house. Dismayed by the wars Pope Julius II was carrying out to conquer cities for the Papacy in northern Italy, Erasmus also wrote (anonymously) Julius Exclusus, in which the pope, greedy for treasure and worldly renown, is barred from the gates of heaven. Erasmus returned to England in 1509, taking a position as a lecturer in divinity at the University of Cambridge. Hoping for an invitation to the court of King Henry VIII, who had just come to power, he was to be disappointed in his ambition and soon returned to the continent. In 1511 Erasmus published In Praise of Folly, a book that soon had an audience throughout Europe. In this work, which he dedicated to Sir Thomas More, Erasmus uses satire to hold the Catholic Church at fault for its worldliness and corruption, and offered his support to the gathering movement for reform of the church and a return to its roots. Instead of a hierarchy of bishops, cardinals, popes, and other privileged officials, Erasmus saw true Christianity as lying in the simple faith of the believer. His fame as a writer assured, Erasmus was appointed as an adviser for Prince Charles, heir to the Holy Roman Empire, and for the prince wrote The Education of a Christian Prince in 1516, advising Charles that the best way to rule was to win the trust and respect of his subjects. Erasmus counseled the prince to find peaceful solutions to the religious and civil conflicts then brewing in Europe, and repeated these opinions in two works, War Is Sweet to Inexperienced Men and The Complaint of Peace. In his study of the Bible and of the classical authors, Erasmus strove to reconcile the humanist movement with the traditional doctrines of the church. He translated long sections of the Bible as well as the writings of the early church fathers, including Saint Augustine, Origen, and Saint Jerome. In his translations he attempted to convey the original meaning of the texts, but in doing so offended church leaders who held his scholarship to be blasphemous and heretical. Undeterred, he brought out an edition of the New Testament, in which Greek text and Latin translation was printed side by side. First published in 1516, this Novum Instrumentum contained annotations, or explanations of the original meaning of the text. He changed and expanded his work in five more editions, one of which would later be used as the basis for the King James version of the Bible. In his preface to the work, Erasmus urged Pope Leo X to undertake a sweeping reform of the church and to disseminate the Bible among the common people. His work, however, ran counter to the idea that a single, fundamental meaning must be given to the words of the Bible, which as the original word of God could not be amended or annotated by scholars or other ordinary believers. In effect, Erasmus was proposing an alternative view of Christianity, and the wide popularity of his works and translations reflected the flowering of new doctrines brought about by the Protestant Reformation. Erasmus favored reform of the church, however, not the establishment of an entirely new one, and accepted the final authority of the pope on matters of doctrine. He fled the city of Basel after it joined the ranks of the Protestants, and he debated with Martin Luther in his essay On the Freedom of the Will, which countered Luther's ideas on salvation and justification by personal faith. The church, however, saw him as an opponent, and after his death placed his books on its Index, a list of books that were prohibited to its members. Cite this article: "Erasmus, Desiderius (ca. 14661536)." The Renaissance. Greenhaven. 2008. HighBeam Research. 3 Feb. 2010 <http://www.highbeam.com>. 4

Translations and Editions

Article from: Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World Author: DANIELL, DAVID More results for: Desiderius Erasmus translation of the Bible

TRANSLATIONS AND EDITIONS

The New Testament was written in Greek. The Hebrew Bible (to Christians, the Old Testament) also reached the earliest known world in Greek, in a translation known as the Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, 'seventy', because it was traditionally thought to be the work of seventy-two Jewish scholars). The spread of the power of Rome led to the circulation in the Roman Empire of various translations into Latin of the Greek of both Testaments. St. Jerome's fourth-century Latin version (with the Old Testament translated from the original Hebrew) over time became the common one and was eventually christened the Vulgate (from the Latin vulgata, 'popular'). That it was not the original Bible text was, over the next thousand years, generally forgotten. In sixteenth-century Europe, translations of classical texts into the chief European vernaculars, the result of the new humanist scholarship, were printed, and editions of the Greek and Hebrew originals of the Bible became newly available. Soon fresh translations from these were printed, often in large numbers. Cities such as Florence in northern Italy and Worms in Germany were centers of Hebrew scholarship, and Greek was taught in universities throughout Europe. The remarkable Complutensian Polyglott from Alcal (Latin "Complutum") in Spain, published in 1522 under the aegis of Cardinal Francisco Ximnez de Cisneros of Toledo, printed the Old Testament in Hebrew (with commentary), Greek, and Latin and the New Testament in Greek and Latin. Desiderius Erasmus (1466?1536) published the first printed Greek New Testament with his new Latin translation in 1516. As a young monk, he had been inspired by reading Lorenzo Valla's Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum (c. 1450), where he found the new humanist philology that clarified the ancient text. Erasmus intended with his translation to correct the many inaccuracies in the Vulgate. His text was based on what Greek manuscripts he could lay his hands on and was, by modern standards, far from good. In places (for example, the last verses of the Apocalypse, also known as Revelation) he found the Greek missing, and made it up from the Latin. Nevertheless, by an accident of nomenclature (by the printer Robert Stephanus in a Geneva edition of 1550), Erasmus's Greek text became the revered textus receptus (received text). His translation was seized upon by scholars across Europe, was revised several times during his lifetime, and was unchallengeable for several centuries. Martin Luther (14831546) believed that putting the Bible into the hands of the laity was the key to reform of the church. His Septembertestament of 1522, a German translation from the Greek with prologues, marginal notes, and fine woodcuts, had a wide readership that was a factor in unifying the language and thus the nation. Luther's work influenced William Tyndale (c. 14941536), an Oxford scholar with fine Greek who was forbidden to translate and print in England. He worked in Germany and in Worms in 1526 printed the first English New Testament translated from the Greek. Smuggled into England, with copies pirated in Antwerp, it was immediately bought in large numbersand not only banned, but publicly burned, the owners being hunted down and punished. The ban on Bibles in English, set up by the church after the spread of the manuscripts of the English Bible made by followers 5

of the Oxford scholar John Wycliffe in the 1380s, was still in force in the 1530s. The church authorized only the Latin Vulgate, to be expounded only by the learned and by priests. The church maintained that if the common people had access to a whole Bible, they would seriously misunderstand it. Tyndale's text gave to English speakers many common phrases, but above all a Bible language that has remained close to Christian hearts. It was the basis of all the sixteenth-century versions that followed (and indeed, the several thousand translations until the twenty-first century), and it provided over 80 percent of the King James Version of 1611. In Germany, Tyndale learned Hebrew, virtually the first Englishman to do so. His 1530 Pentateuch, from Antwerp, resounded with new phrases: instead of Fiat lux, et lux erat, his readers and hearers found "Let there be light: and there was light." Tyndale revised his New Testament in 1534. Another Englishman, Miles Coverdale (14881569), who had been in Antwerp at the same time, printed the first complete English Bible, again in Antwerp, in 1535, with notes revealing his pastoral intent. As he made clear, he worked from modern versions, not the originals, relying heavily on Tyndale and also using the Vulgate and Luther's, as well as other, translations. Tyndale was executed as a heretic outside Brussels in October 1536. His work, by then including the Old Testament historical books, was edited and published by John Rogers in Antwerp in 1537, from where it was exported to England. This was the pseudonymous Matthew's Bible, with a license from King Henry VIII (ruled 15091547). Coverdale edited his own version, with silent use of Tyndale's work, as the king's gift to the nation (the only Bible ever authorized), the Great Bible of 1539: a copy was to be placed in every one of the nearly nine thousand parish churches in England. In France, the great French Bible of Pierre-Robert Olivtan (c. 15061538), translated from the original languages and published in 1535, became standard. In the Netherlands, Jacob van Liesvelt's first complete Dutch Bible of 1526 was followed in 1528 by Willem Vorsterman's lavish revision and others. A Danish New Testament was first printed in 1524, again followed by others. In Germany, Luther's complete Bible of 1522 was steadily reprinted throughout the sixteenth century, virtually without rivals. It is striking that more Bible translations, of the whole or parts, usually from the original texts, were made in English than in any other European language. In 1560, the Protestant English scholars who had been exiled to Geneva by the persecutions of Queen Mary Tudor (ruled 15531559) produced the first, and remarkable, Geneva English Bible. This finely made volume revised Tyndale and contained elucidatory marginal notes, prologues, commentaries, maps, pictures, concordances, and three versions of the Psalms, all intended to support study. The second half of the Old Testament, consisting of difficult Hebrew poetry, was there translated into English for the first time by a handful of men now almost unknown, although their work was outstanding, anditendured.TheGenevaNewTestament was revised in 1576, and again in 1599. The Geneva Bible was enormously popular among the populaceat least a million copies were bought. The official Bishops' Bible of 1568 with few notes, although pressed on the country, translated Hebrew badly and never attained the popularity of the Geneva Bible. The Catholic English version of the New Testament from Reims in 1582, often silently using the "heretic" Tyndale, and rarely reprinted, was followed by the Douay Old Testament in 16091610. Under the influence of the third session (1562 1563) of the Council of Trent, the Latin Vulgate began to be revised. On the accession of James I in 1603, the dominance of Geneva Bibles was halted for political reasons. The so-called King James Version was a revision of the Bishops' Bible made by three panels of fiftyfour scholars, and published in 1611. It was largely disliked for having no notes, which crippled understanding of the Hebrew. Influential in the English Civil War, the Geneva versions suffered commercial maneuverings, and were defeated by "King James" by 1660. With the return of the English monarchy in 1660 after the Civil War, the myth was fostered that the King James Version at its 6

appearance in 1611 had been royally authorized. No evidence for such an act has ever been found. As the "Authorized Version," this 1611 English Bible gained exalted status in the late eighteenth century. This version, either as "AV" or as "KJV," has had enormous influence among English speakers throughout the world. See also Church of England ; Erasmus, Desiderius ; Luther, Martin ; Printing and Publishing ; Reformation, Protestant.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arblaster, Paul, Gergely Juhasz, and Guido Latre, eds. Tyndale's Testament. Turnhout, Belgium, 2002. Detailed information on all early modern Bible translations. Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 2, The West, from the Fathers to the Reformation. Edited by G. W. H. Lampe. Cambridge, U.K., 1969. Vol. 3, The West, from the Reformation to the Present Day. Edited by S. L. Greenslade. Cambridge, U.K., 1963. Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven and London, 2003. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Reformation of the Bible: The Bible of the Reformation. New Haven and London, 1996. David Daniell Cite: D. "Translations and Editions." Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World. The Gale Group Inc. 2004. HighBeam Research. 3 Feb. 2010 <http://www.highbeam.com>.

ERASMUS'S CONTROVERSIES
Article from: The Catholic Historical Review Article date: January 1, 2009 Author: Heesakkers, Chris L More results for: Desiderius Erasmus translation works ERASMUS'S CONTROVERSIES Controversies: Responsio ad epistolam paraeneticam Alberti Pii. Apologia adversus rhapsodias Alberti Pii. Brevissima scholia. By Desiderius Erasmus. Edited by Nelson H. Minnich; translated by Daniel J. Sheerin; annotated by Nelson H. Minnich and Daniel J. Sheerin. [Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 84.] (Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2005. Pp. cxlviii, 483. $184.00. ISBN 978-0-802-04397-6.) The last volume of the English translation of Erasmus's controversies is an impressive historical and philological achievement. It contains Erasmus's complete contribution to the controversy - that is, the three works mentioned in the title, Responsio, Apologia, and Scholia - and also, in the introduction (pp. xliv-xlvii), Erasmus's letter of October 10, 1525 (Allen, Epist. 1634), which had elicited the controversy, instead of stopping the criticism on Erasmus that Pio was ventilating in the circles of the 7

papal Curia. An extensive and well-documented introduction precedes this corpus of Erasmus's texts and offers new viewpoints on some aspects of Pio's intellectual education and his studies (pp. xvii-xxv), which Erasmus seems to have underestimated. (Pio's later defender Juan Gins de Seplveda will explicitly blame Erasmus for his depreciation of Pio's studies in the last years of his life; cf. his Antapologia, chaps. 13-14). After reading the description of the close link between Erasmus's adversary and the Franciscan order that counted Pio's brother and sister among its members (p. xvii), the reader will wonder whether Erasmus had ever been aware of the real importance of Pio's relationship with the Franciscans. This puts Pio's connections with the Franciscans in Paris and his burial in their church in another light. The section on Pio's diplomatic career (pp. xxv-xxxvi) makes clear that Pio's relations with the Vatican were also closer than Erasmus assumed. The prestige Pio already had during the pontificate of Julius II (pp. xxv-xxvi) was enhanced during that of the Medici Pope Leo X, when Pio married Cecilia Orsini and entered, in that way, into the mighty Roman Orsini family, which at that moment counted four cardinals (p. xxxiii). After the short intermezzo of Pope Adrian VI - closely related to his former pupil, the Emperor Charles V - another Medici cardinal mounted the papal throne as Clement VII, a former patron of Erasmus's deeply mistrusted former friend Girolamo Aleander. Erasmus maintained an ambiguous relationship with those two Italian ecclesiastical dignitaries. Other interesting sections of the introduction are devoted to a French translation of Pio's Responsio, dedicated to the nobleman Guillaume de Montmorency, and an adaptation of it, dedicated by Montmorency to King Francis I, both extant in manuscript only (pp. lx-lxiii, cxi-cxv, cxxxiii-cxxxiv), and to the Spanish translation of Pio's Tres et viginti libri, published in Alcal de Henares in the year of Erasmus's death, f 536 (pp. cxv-cxix). Since Pio's last book included the preceding documents of the controversy, from Erasmus's letter of October f 0, f 525, onward, the Spanish translation includes Erasmus's letter and his Responsio, with Pio's extensive marginal notes. The suppression of this book as a whole had already been described by Marcel Bataillon. The French translation of Pio's Responsio is illustrative for the high social status of the author in Paris. The frontispiece of the copy devoted to Francis I (reproduced in black and white, p. cxii) shows Montmorency "presenting Pio in a teaching pose to the enthroned king." The critical edition of Pio's Responsio by Fabio Forner (Firenze, 2002, p. xxxiv) does not mention this copy of the French translation. The section "Pio's Death and Funeral and Erasmus' Mockery of Them" (pp. lxxxviii-xcviii) offers most interesting details and is very useful as background information for Erasmus's colloquy Exequiae Seraphicae. Part of those details stem from Pio's last will. The editors emphasize the exceptional value of this document by generously adding a complete annotated English translation of it, accompanied by two illustrations (pp. 387-404). Some readers may find themselves wishing for a bilingual edition, although length may have been a concern for the editor. Considering the continuous flood of books and articles on Erasmus and his works, it is perfectly understandable that the introduction to the English edition of Erasmus's part of the controversy does not focus on the author of the texts that are published, but on his adversary. The result of this choice is a most important and in many respects original contribution to our knowledge of Pio's life, his character, his view on the religious debate of that period, and his motives in criticizing Erasmus's attitude toward it. It makes clear that Pio had been a more worthy and more serious opponent than Erasmus believed. The high scholarly standard that characterizes this substantial part of the volume, written with obvious respect and sympathy for Erasmus's Italian opponent, is maintained in the translation and extensive annotation of the Erasmian texts.The translation combines fidelity to the original text with transparency and readability. The annotation is abundant and includes 2338 notes, of which some are rather extensive: note 16 of the introduction covers practically two pages (pp. xxix-xxx). Very rarely a note 8

balances on the edge of redundancy, such as that about the rather common phrase ipsius Marte, with a not very relevant reference to Henry VIII and his epithet Mars (p. 115n37). Although the book has great qualities, there are some points to note, which are outlined below. P. lxvi n. 69: The comments on Erasmus's statement that he had written his Responsio in six days, evokes the question: Was Erasmus's claim "merely a literary allusion to God's creation of the world in six days"? This seems rather far-fetched. Erasmus was always inclined to minimize the time he needed to write his works to a few days. His Cato took him hardly a day (Ep. 421,91: dieculam absumpsi), his Gaza two days (Ep. 428,50-52: bidui laborem), his Ciceronianus a few days (Ep. 2046,52: paucorum dierum opellam), his Moria no more than seven days (ASD 11,3, p. 156, 1. 594-95: non plus septem dierum), and the reading of Hutten's Expostulatio together with the writing of his own reply Spongia to it six days (ASD LX1I, p. 210, 141: totos sex dies perdidi), just like the Responsio to Pio. Moreover, Erasmus mentions different amounts of the days he had needed to write the Responsio (Ep. 2118, 1. 25: quinque dierum opera). P. cxliii: The editors point to the variations between the first editions of the two apologies (Responsio 1529 and Apologia 1531) and Clericus's edition, called LB. However, LB, in most cases, follows the Basel edition of 1540, called BAS, and the BAS editors may have used desk copies annotated by Erasmus himself. The editors count nineteen differences in the Responsio and consider the LB version superior in three of those (p. 74, 83, 93), in which, however, LB simply follows 45.As for the Apologia, the editors count thirty-three differences and consider LB to be superior in ten cases. Here again, Clericus followed BAS. But there is more: the unnumbered backside of the last page of the edition 1531 (285) contains a short list of Errata. Those Errata already offer the readings of LB indicated in pp. 124n86, 130nl22, 132nl43, and 135nl60. Four other readings of 1531 are corrected in the Errata and included in LB, but not included in the notes to the translation. This is the case on pp. 142 [narrant>enarrant], 143 [atque>Atqui], 155 [pertractum>pertractatum], and 183 [vidimus>videmus] . A special case is p. 151n249, "utique 1531 ubique LB," which means that the reading of 1531, utique, is regarded as superior. However, the Errata of 1531 tell us that we should read ubique, which therefore has been correctly accepted by BAS and LB. This implies that the translation should not be "certainly" (utique), but "everywhere" (ubique). P. 89n44l: It may not be necessary to change the traditional punctuation of both the edition 1529 and LB, where we find quod . . .faciendum scribis, et . . .pie scribis. This edition reads: quod . . .faciendum. Scribis, et . . .pie scribis and is translated accordingly. This weakens the irony of Erasmus's remark: Pio blamed Erasmus for being a spectator of the Lutheran tragedy, whereas it was his duty to be an opponent: sed te spectatorem praebuisti, qui oppugnator esse debebas. Erasmus agreed with Pio-that it could be a duty to write against Luther, even if dangerous-but he flung the accusation at Pio himself, who had been more obliged to do so than Erasmus, because he was in a more powerful position, and he could have done so without peril of life, living far away from the religious turmoil in Germany. Actually, Erasmus accused Pio of cowardice, since he had not dared to attack Luther in the beginning of the tumult, but only after many years, and moreover that he had not dared to publish his booklet in Rome, but only in less dangerous Paris. P. 123: The translation has: He (that is, Pio) should at least have imitated the frank modesty of lying Aeschines and added so far as I know.' "The added note (81) refers to Erasmus's familiarity with the work of the Greek orator Aeschines, but has its doubt about the precise text Erasmus had in mind. The Latin has "Saltern Aeschini mentientis ingenuum pudorem imitatus addere debebat quod sciam," and there is no reason for any doubt:The genitive mentientis would ask for a genitive of Aeschines, the genitive of which is Aeschinis, and not Aeschini, which is the dative. However,^ eschini can also be a genitive of Aeschinus. This is a name of a character in Terence's play Adelphi. In the lines Ad. 638-43, 9

this Aeschinus is telling a lie, but he tries to make it less serious by adding quod sciam, "so fas as I know"; however, he betrays himself by his blush. In short, Erasmus's remark is not relevant for his familiarity with the Greek orator, but it is so for his familiarity with the Latin comedy writer. P. 145: The translation has: "But," says he, "they do this after indicating the words of Scripture." Erasmus often uses such fictitious objections of his adversary, as if he starts a dialogue with him. I think that this implies that the next sentence is Erasmus's reply to the objection: "By indicating ... I do the same thing" (Idem facio notatis in margine locis), and that the period in the Latin edition should be maintained in the translation. What folio ws after the period is to be understood as Pio's second objection: "They give quotations at intervals" (IUi faciunt ex intervallo). After this follows Erasmus's reply to this second objection: "Even in a paraphrase one may make breaks" (Licet et in paraphrasi interquiescere) . P. 150: The translation also seems to postulate here a fictitious objection by Pio: "'It was rejected by the philosophers.' But not by all. . . ."Yet the Latin does not have a period after philosophers, but a comma: Explodebatur a philosophis, at non ab omnibus. Therefore, it is logical to think that Erasmus resumes the view of Pio - that the philosophers proved that Luther's opinion was wrong, but added that not all philosophers accepted this conclusion. P. 160: The translation is rendered as "though I establish that its genre is burlesque ."The Latin has quum illius genus ridicule describam; the word ridicule is an adverb, not an adjective belonging to genus, for that would suppose the form ridiculum; and therefore, genus does not indicate the genre of the book Moria, but the origin, descent of lady Moria; so the translation would be "though I describe her descent in a burlesque way" or "though I give a burlesque description of. . . ." P. 185n462: After Pio had quoted a passage from Erasmus's annotation to Matt 11:28, he gave a second quote, to be found ibidem. Since this quote is not exactly found in that annotation, the note suggests that it "may be a paraphrase" of another portion of that annotation. However, the precise quote is found in another New Testament annotation, viz. on Rom 14:1, LB VI, 638F:At hodie videmus inter Christianos prope plus esse superstitionis in delectu ciborum quamfuerit apud Iudaeos. So ibidem does not mean "in the remark on Matt 11:28," but "in the annotations on the New Testament." P. 197: The translation is rendered as "Adam, who lived as a solitary in paradise in chastity, under the rule of God as abbot, and suffered the same punishment as the original Carthusians." The edition of 1531 has not only a period after dei abbatis [God as abbot] but also starts a new section with an indented line: Eadem erat poena priscis Cartusianis. If this punctuation is maintained, the -word poena refers not to the punishment of Adam (which is not mentioned), but to the preceding extrema poena in the rule of Augustine: "the ultimate punishment" of a monk is to be thrown out of his monastery. This way of reading makes the extensive note 542 about Adam and the Carthusians superfluous. P. 218: The translation is rendered as "These are the words of his unreliable source, not mine" (non mea). This sentence might deserve a note. After Pio had quoted a text, introduced with vt Mud in Annotationibus, he added a second quote (here translated as "It is more holy . . . bits of chant"), introducing it with et Mud. It is understandable that Erasmus assumed that this second illud should be mentally supplied with in Annotationibus. There, inibi, he found a text that had some similarity with Pio's quote. However, Pio did not steal this text from the Annotationes, but he had quoted another text, found in Erasmus's De interdicto esu earn., ASD IX,1, p. 24, 11. 151-53: aliquoties sanctius esset opera manuaria prospicere liberis et vxori fame periclitantibus quam audire cantiunculas sacerdotum in templo non intellectas. This would imply that Pio's quote was not a " [misleading citation" (as note 665 suggests) and that Erasmus was wrong in concluding that the words that Pio ascribed to him were not his own, non mea. 1

P. 220n677: The "inexplicable" reading found in the edition 1531 and in LB is not montent lapso, as the note suggests, but in monte lapso.The suggestion to read instead in ovem lapso is not satisfactory; the accusative ovem would require the form lapsam. However, if we combine the source, Matt 12:11, which does contain the word ovem indeed, with its parallel Luke 14:5, where we find asinus aut bos, a more acceptable conjecture seems to be possible: asinus and bos are both pack animals; the Latin for pack animal is iumentum. Actually, Erasmus's paraphrase of Luke 14:5 refers to asinus and bos twice with iumentum (LB VII, 400C-D: Si ...Asinus, aut Bos decidisset in puteum ... statim eodem die extraheret iumentum suum ne perirei;. ..plus est operis in extrahendo iumento). As every reader of sixteenthcentury texts knows, a shift from u to w is a frequently found compositor's error. This would imply that a compositor without much knowledge of Latin could easily read an inexplicable in monte lapso, where Erasmus had written a perfectly understandable iumento lapso. An anonymous reader of the copy of Erasmus's Opera of 1540 belonging to the University of Leiden library wrote the conjecture iumento in the margin. P. 226n713: after Pio's quote 2 Sam. 7:5, the note states: Erasmus changes numquid to non and omits the question mark," but it is probably better to say: whereas Pio quoted 2 Sam 7:5, Erasmus quoted 1 Kings 8:19: (verumtamen tu) non aedificabis mihi domum. P. 228n732: the quote Omni petenti te tribue is rather a reference to Luke 6:30 (omitting autem), than to Matt 5:42, which has: Qui petit a te, da ei. P. 259n909: the quote from Erasmus's Annotations on the New Testament the editors looked for in vain, is found in LB VI, 944D, commenting 1 Tim. 6:4, where Erasmus quoted a Greek text of Theophylactus, and translated it as follows: Paradiatribae, id est, scholae supervacaneae: nam mos est scholas vocare diatribas siue quod sicut scabiosae oues dum affricant sese morbo implent et sanas, ita isti quoque dum aliis affricant se, corrumpunt alios . . . corrumpunt eos (instead of eos, Pio had alios). P. 277n1014: Referring to Pio's criticism, Erasmus paraphrases: "But, says he, why are you pointing this out, unless you desire a return of the Arian heresy?" Erasmus may have had in mind Pio's remark, quoted by the editors in note 1014 (fol. 182v), but it is more probable that he referred to Pio's fol. 185r, where Pio wrote: Qua sententia quis tarn caecus mentisue expers est qui non videat te nihil aliud his verbis optare quam vt Arrianorum error reuiuiscat? P. 280nl022: The editors correctly observe that the phrase quod sciam is not found in Erasmus's preface to the Works of Hilary; still, it is found in another passage on "the reticence of the ancients" (such as St. Hilary, p. 278), that is, in Mod. orandi Deum, ASD Y,l, p. 146, 11. 856-60:"Eadem religione fuit sanctus Hilarius, qui post diuturnum silentium, duodecim libris instantissime contendit, vt Filium doceat verum Deum, quum solus Pater dictus sit in euangelio verus Deus, Spiritum Sanctum nusquam, quod sciam, audet pronunciare Deum, nee adorandum profitetur, sed promerendum." P. 289nl072: To the translation All the pious," the note comments: "Of course, this also means 'all the Pios. " Such an intended ambiguity is possible indeed, but it should be added that omnes pii was already found in a similar context, written in 1527, that is, before the controversy with Pio had really started, see Apolog. adv. monach. hisp., LB IX, 1035A: "Quod si quoties in Scripturis duo dicuntur vnum, toties intelligitur eadem indiuidua essentia, omnes pii ex eodem loco Ioannis sunt vnum cum Christo." P. 292, argument number 3/: It might be useful to add that Erasmus's remark is his reply to Pio's fol. 186v: InAnnotationibus autem . . . suum officium" and to fol. 188r:"Ad id igitur . . . suum officium." P. 298nf 08: It might be useful to add that Erasmus's remark refers to Pio, fol. 186v:"Praeterea in eisdem alio loco. O supellectilem . . . libet" and Pio's paraphrase, fol. 193v. 1

P. 298nf f 09: It might be useful to add that Erasmus's remark refers to Pio, fol. 186v"Item in eiusdem . . . digladiari." P. 311n1194: Erasmus refers to Pio's quote, fol. 206v: "Et in Supputationibus, Multae rationes sunt, quae vix ferunt videri probabile Constitutionen! Romanae sedis congruere cum aequitate naturali." Erasmus supposed it was garbled, because he could not find it in his work, and the note adds, "nor can we" and then referred to some criticism in LB IX, 552E-F and 64lD.Yet Pio's quote, "Multae . . . naturali," is an exact transcription of a sentence in Supputat, calumn. Nat. Bedae, LB IX, 572D, be it that it is preceded by the words Ad haec." P. 34l:"A real theologian's citation": the Latin has Theologica vero citatio. Since vero is not the same as vera or vere, but is a conjunction, the remark is even more sarcastic than the translation implies: the suggestion is, that a theological quotation is, by definition, a vague quotation, because theologians like vague quotes. P. 352n1431:It is correct that "the text referred to is Juvenal Satires 6.122." But there is more and the reason why Erasmus mentioned Virgil as his source is interesting, for Juvenal's phrase is an echo of Virgil, Aeneid I2,784:faciem mutata Metisci. That explains Erasmus's change of Juvenal's titulum into Virgil's faciem. Therefore, it seems incorrect to say that "Erasmus has garbled his reference." P. 381n127:To Scholion 99, stating that good works do not deserve eternal salvation, Erasmus replies: "Nol Bda maintains the opposite. Note the agreement of the censors" (Contrarium docuit Natalis Beda. Vide censorum concordiam). The editors refer to several places in Erasmus's Declarationes ad censuras Lutetiae vulgatas, which would suggest, that Erasmus's ironical remark hints at the agreement of the censors, that is, Bda and the Parisian Faculty of Theology, whereas I think, that Erasmus is sarcastically mocking the contradictory views of Bda and Pio (or the author of the Scholia). P. 382, Reply to Scholion 100: "Certain characters in the colloquies." The Latin has: Quidam in Colloquiis notat; the singular notat includes that one specific character is meant. Actually, Erasmus refers to Menedemus, in the colloquy Peregrinano religionis ergo, ASD 1,3, p. 489, 11. 708-11. P. 382nl31: The editors consider it not clear to which colloquy Erasmus is referring, when he mentions "some Epicurean" (Epicureus quispiam). However, a censure of the Parisian theologians and Erasmus's reply to it, make it very probable that he is referring to the colloquy Conuiuium prophanum, and that the "Epicureus" is precisely the character Augustinus; cf. Declarat, ad cens. Lutet., LB IX, 933DE: Praeclare vero mecum ageretur, si cuneta, quae illic nugatur Augustinus, mihi impingentur. Laudai vitam Epicuream, hortatur ad voluptates: sed Uli contradicitur. Cum Augustinus ait se magno corporis incommodo abstinere a carnibus, respondetur ei: Caritas omnia suffert. These few critical remarks and suggestions, about how a few details in the introduction and annotations or in the translation could be refined and made more precise, do not diminish my admiration for the constant high level of this learned and abundantly documented publication. The volume is a most valuable contribution to the immense project to make the complete works of Erasmus more easily accessible for scholars, students, and other readers who are interested in the works of the Dutch humanist and the religious controversies and other historical topics of the sixteenth century. The editor and translator deserve our gratitude and congratulations. [Author Affiliation] BY CHRIS L. HEESAKKERS* * Dr. Heesakkers is an emeritus professor at the University of Amsterdam and the University of Leiden. 1

Cite this article: H. "ERASMUS'S CONTROVERSIES." The Catholic Historical Review. The Catholic University of America Press. 2009. HighBeam Research. 3 Feb. 2010 <http://www.highbeam.com>.

Luther, Martin (14831546)

A German monk, scholar, and writer, and leader of the Reformation that brought about a new Protestant church. Luther was born in Eisleben, in the kingdom of Saxony. His father was a mine operator who sought to make a lawyer of his son. Luther's days at the University of Erfurt, however, were shadowed by doubt and guilt over his sinfulness and his worthiness in the eyes of God. On passing through a forest in a thunderstorm, Luther vowed to follow a life of devotion should he survive. He decided to drop his study of the law to become a monk, much to his father's dismay, and entered the Augustinian monastery of Erfurt. He led a strict life of confession, fasting, and prayer, which did little to relieve his self-doubt and uncertainty. Luther was ordained as a priest in 1507 and studied for a doctorate in theology at the University of Wittenberg. After winning his doctorate in 1512, he was appointed to a teaching position at the university that he held throughout his life. In the meantime, the questions of worthiness plagued him; he came to the conclusion that only a relationship with God based on personal faith could bring redemption and grace. This idea provided the foundation of his revolution against the Catholic Church hierarchy that had long been plagued by greed, corruption, and bureaucratic struggles for power. The church judged Christians by their charitable works, their obedience to the pope, and their purchase of indulgencesa system that Luther saw as the artificial and unholy creation of unworthy men. In 1517, a monk named Johann Tetzel arrived in Wittenberg on a mission to sell indulgences for the archbishop of Mainz, who would use the money to pay off loans he had used to pay bribes. This inspired Luther to write the founding document of the Reformation, known as the Ninety-five Theses. By tradition, he posted this bold challenge to the papacy on the door of the castle church in Wittenberg. Only God could grant remission of sin, in Luther's opinion, and only God can judge souls worthy of release from purgatory and salvation from hell. The Ninety-five Theses were soon printed and circulated throughout Europe, touching off a controversy that permanently divided the Christian community. Over the next few years, Luther debated his ideas with leading religious men in Germany. He denied the infallibility and primacy of the pope; he defied the pronouncements of the Papacy and of the church councils; he condemned the sale of indulgences; he appealed for a return to the scriptures in all questions of faith and doctrine. Luther set out his ideas in two important books, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church and The Freedom of a Christian Man. His stand earned him excommunication from the church by Pope Leo X in 1521; Luther had defied the papal bull challenging him by publicly burning it. He was now at risk for arrest and execution on a charge of heresy. Emperor Charles V, who reigned supreme in the Holy Roman Empire, ordered Luther to appear before the Diet of Worms and state his case. Guaranteed safe passage, Luther arrived at Worms and refused to recant his writings. He then rode in disguise to Wartburg Castle, where he lived under the protection of Frederick the Wise, the elector of Saxony. Luther grew a beard and took the name of Knight George while Charles V declared him an outlaw subject to immediate arrest. At Wartburg Luther completed a German translation of the New Testament, which was published in 1522 and which helped to spread his ideas and influence among the common people of Germany. In 1524, however, a bloody Peasants' Revolt broke out in Germany, in which the old social order was threatened by mobs proclaiming adherence to Luther's ideas. Appalled by the violence, Luther 1

condemned the revolt in his pamphlet Against the Murdering, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, which he urged that revolting peasants be struck down like dogs. After the Peasant's Revolt, Luther found himself embroiled in controversy within the Reformation movement. He broke with Desiderius Erasmus, the leading humanist of his time; but Lutheranism was enthusiastically taken up by German princes who saw it as a way to escape the authority of the emperor and his ally, the pope. In the meantime, Luther completed a German translation of the Old Testament in 1534; he wrote many treatises on the Bible as well as instruction on the Mass, several hymns, and pamphlets and essays on matters of personal faith. In 1543 he completed On the Jews and Their Lies, in which he condemned in the strongest terms the freedom of Jews to follow their faith and advocated their homes and places of work be burned to the ground. In the meantime, the Protestant Reformation was taken up in Scandinavia, England, the Low Countries, and in France, where the struggle between Catholic and Protestant would turn into a virtual civil war. Cite this article: "Luther, Martin (14831546)." The Renaissance. Greenhaven. 2008. HighBeam Research. 3 Feb. 2010 <http://www.highbeam.com>.