The Journal of EcclesiasticalHistoryhttp://journals.cambridge.org/ECH

Additional services for The Journal ofEcclesiastical History:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

How Catholic was Augustine? ConfessionalPatristics and the Survival of Erasmus in theCounter-Reformation

ARNOUD VISSER

The Journal of Ecclesiastical History / Volume 61 / Issue 01 / January 2010, pp 86 - 106DOI: 10.1017/S0022046909991412, Published online: 02 December 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022046909991412

How to cite this article:ARNOUD VISSER (2010). How Catholic was Augustine? Confessional Patristicsand the Survival of Erasmus in the Counter-Reformation. The Journal ofEcclesiastical History, 61, pp 86-106 doi:10.1017/S0022046909991412

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ECH, IP address: 131.211.208.19 on 24 Apr 2014

How Catholic was Augustine ?Confessional Patristics and the Survivalof Erasmus in the Counter-Reformation

by ARNOUD VISSERUniversity of Leiden

E-mail : a.s.q.visser@hum.leidenuniv.nl

This article explores the impact of Catholic confessionalism on humanist scholarship by focusing on theedition of Augustine of Hippo’s collected works produced by the Leuven theologians in 1577–8. Thisedition replaced Erasmus’ controversial version and claimed to provide an authoritative, Catholic text. Yetan analysis of the paratextual presentation shows that the result was a neutralised Augustine, rather than aparagon of Tridentine Catholicism. The editors avoid controversial theology, while silently copyingsubstantial parts of Erasmus’ censurae and marginal notes. Local politics and publishing interestsexplain the intriguing survival of Erasmus and exemplify the disparate implementation of Trent inCatholic Europe.

H ow could the works of Augustine, one of the most prominentauthorities in western Christendom, become forbidden reading inmany Catholic areas in the second half of the sixteenth century?

This unlikely situation was created by the first papal Index of forbidden books,issued under Pope Paul IV in 1559, which included a general ban on the worksof Erasmus of Rotterdam, covering ‘all his comments, annotations, glosses,dialogues, letters, judgements, translations, books and writings, even if theycontain absolutely nothing against or about religion’.1 Since Erasmus was themost recent editor of Augustine’s collected works (Basle 1528–9), an edition

This article is part of a larger, collaborative project ‘After Augustine : a survey of his receptionfrom 430 to 2000’ (University of St Andrews), funded by the Leverhulme Trust. The RoyalSociety of Edinburgh generously enabled me to carry out much of the research at theKatholieke Universiteit Leuven. I am grateful to Simon Ditchfield, Geert Janssen and seminaraudiences at Emory, Leuven and Oxford, for helpful comments on parts of the argument.

1 J. M. de Bujanda and others (eds), Index de Rome: 1557, 1559, 1564 : les premiers index romains etl’index du Concile de Trente : index des livres interdits, viii, Sherbrooke 1990, 429–30, quotation atp. 760. For an overview of the censorship of Augustinian works see J. M. de Bujanda and

Jnl of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 61, No. 1, January 2010. f Cambridge University Press 2010 86doi:10.1017/S0022046909991412

he proudly advertised as ‘ the rebirth of this great doctor of the Church’, theban ended, it would seem, the short life of the Erasmian Augustine.2 This wasclearly a confusing outcome, which baffled even the Jesuits. It prompted alocal leader of the Society in Loreto, for instance, to inquire of his superiorwhether he was really supposed to hand Augustine over to the inquisitor.3

This article explores the confessionalisation of Augustine in ReformationEurope. More specifically, it focuses upon the edition of his complete worksprepared by a team of Catholic theologians from the University of Leuven, atext now often regarded as ‘ the Saint Augustine of the seventeenth century’.4

This monumental new edition was meant to replace that of Erasmus, whoseanticlerical perspective and critical approach had caused so muchcontroversy in Catholic circles. It was first published in ten folio volumes byChristopher Plantin in Antwerp in 1576–7, entitled Opera D. Aurelii AugustiniHipponensis episcopi et doctoris praecipui, tomis decem comprehensa : per theologoslovanienses ex manuscriptis codicibus multo labore emendata, et ab innumeris erroribusvindicata : illustrata praeterea eruditis censuris, et locupletata multis homiliis et aliquotepistolis eiusdem B. Augustini, antea non editis : cum indice tripartito (The works of thebishop and eminent scholar St Aurelius Augustine of Hippo, incorporated in ten volumes :corrected with much effort from manuscripts by the theologians from Leuven and restoredfrom countless errors, furthermore elucidated and enriched with many sermons and someletters hitherto unpublished : with an index in three parts). This edition has been hailedby modern scholars as an important advance in philological standards inAugustine scholarship, and for good reason. Its statistics are impressive, bothin terms of production and dissemination. According to Plantin, sixty-fourtheologians had collated over 160 manuscripts, supervised by ten editors.

others (eds), Thesaurus de la litterature interdite au xvie siecle : auteurs, ouvrages, editions : index des livresinterdits, x, Sherbrooke 1996, esp. p. 170.

2 Aurelii Augustini hipponensis episcopi, Omnium operum primus [-Decimus] tomus, summa vigilantiarepurgatorum a mendis innumeris, per Des. Erasmum Roterodamum, ut optimo iure tantus ecclesiae doctorrenatus videri possit : inspice lector, & fateberis hanc non vanam esse pollicitationem: quod si gratus etiam essevoles, non patieris tantum laboris, tantumque impensarum frustra sumptum esse, Basle : in officina Io. Frobenii,1528–9. Erasmus’ autograph draft of the title page is preserved in the Universitatsbibliothek,Basle, MS Frey-Gryn. II.9.133, fo. 10v. For a detailed description of its contents see VivianeMellinghoff-Bourgerie, ‘Erasme editeur et interprete de Saint Augustin ’, in Dominique deCourcelles and Kurt Flasch (eds), Augustinus in der Neuzeit, Turnhout 1998, 53–81 at pp. 75–81 ;for reprints see Pierre Petitmengin, ‘Editions princeps et Opera omnia de saint Augustin ’, inCourcelles and Flasch, Augustinus in der Neuzeit, 33–51 at p. 43. See also Silvana Seidel Menchi,‘Whether to remove Erasmus from the Index of prohibited books: debates in the RomanCuria, 1570–1610’, Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook xx (2000), 19–33.

3 Bujanda, Index de Rome, 42–3.4 Lucien Ceyssens, ‘Le ‘‘Saint Augustin ’’ du xvii siecle : l ’edition de Louvain’, XVII siecle

xxxiv (1982), 103–20; Leon Voet, The Plantin press (1555–1589) : a bibliography of the works printed andpublished by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp and Leiden, Amsterdam 1980, i, no. 604 at pp. 205–18.For a rightly more dynamic picture of the ongoing canonisation of Augustine’s works in theseventeenth century see Jean-Louis Quantin, ‘L’Augustin du XVIIe siecle? Questions decorpus et de canon’, in Laurence Devillairs (ed.), Augustin au XVIIe siecle, Florence 2007, 3–77.

THE SURV IVAL OF ERASMUS IN THE COUNTER-REFORMAT ION 87

It was reprinted more than ten times, and was not superseded until thebeginning of the eighteenth century, by the work of the Benedictine monks ofSt Maur (1679–1700).5

Yet the aim of this article is not just to assess the influential presentation ofAugustine in this edition, but in so doing to show how confessional divisionsconditioned the development of textual scholarship and interacted witheditorial practices in the second half of the sixteenth century. In this period,countering the Protestant threat was a prime concern for the CatholicChurch, with the new, centralised reform programme of the Council ofTrent (1563) as one of its most important instruments. Modern studies of itsimplementation, however, have revealed a rich regional diversity, dependenton specific political and social circumstances.6 The Leuven theologiansprepared their new Augustine in the wake of Trent, amid increasingly violentreligious polarisation. On a scholarly level, they combined a rich tradition ofAugustinian scholarship with a special relationship with Erasmus, who hadbriefly been a member of their theology faculty, but who had also repeatedlyclashed with it.7 Apart from such intellectual battles (and internal quarrels),the Leuven theologians witnessed iconoclasm and wars of religion.Simultaneously, as clerical authorities, they were supposed to be the agentsof Tridentine reform. Indeed, it was this same faculty that was involved in thecensorship of Erasmus’ works.8 How then did all this affect their presentationof Augustine?

5 Christopher Plantin to Alan Cope, 31 Jan. 1573, in Correspondance de Christophe Plantin, ed.M. Rooses and M. van Durme, repr. Nendeln 1968, iii, no. 461 at pp. 305–6; Petitmengin,‘Editions princeps ’, 33–51.

6 The terms ‘Counter-Reformation’ and ‘Catholicisation’ are used from this specificperspective : John O’Malley, Trent and all that : renaming Catholicism in the early modern era,Cambridge, MA–London 2000, esp. pp. 126–30. See furthermore Simon Ditchfield, ‘Ondancing cardinals and mestizo Madonnas : reconfiguring the history of Roman Catholicism inthe early modern period’, Journal of Modern History viii (2004), 386–408; Marc R. Foster,Catholic revival in the age of the baroque, Cambridge 2001, and Catholic Germany from the Reformation tothe Enlightenment, London 2007; Howard Louthan, Converting Bohemia : force and persuasion in theCatholic Reformation, Cambridge 2009; and Michael A. Mullett, The Catholic Reformation,London–New York 1999, esp. ch. v.

7 M. Lamberigts (ed.), L’Augustinianisme a l’ancienne faculte de theologie de Louvain, Leuven 1994;Edmond J. M. van Eijl, ‘De theologische faculteit te Leuven in de XVe en XVIe eeuw:organisatie en opleiding’, in Edmond J. M. van Eijl (ed.), Facultas s. theologiae lovaniensis,1432–1797, Leuven 1977, 69–153 (Erasmus’ elected membership of the collegium strictum at p. 82n. 46). See also the seminal study of H. de Jongh, L’Ancienne Faculte de theologie de Louvain aupremier siecle de son existence (1432–1540), Leuven 1911, esp. pp. 104–47, 187–268; Erika Rummel,Erasmus and his Catholic critics, I : 1515–1522, Nieuwkoop 1989; and M. Nauwelaerts, ‘ Erasme aLouvain: ephemerides d’un sejour de 1517 a 1521 ’, in J. Coppens (ed.), Scrinium Erasmianum:melanges historiques publies sous le patronage de l’universite de Louvain a l’occasion du cinquieme centenaire dela naissance d’Erasme, Leiden 1969, 3–24.

8 R. Crahay, ‘Les Censeurs Louvanistes d’Erasme’, and G. Van Calster, ‘La CensureLouvaniste du Nouveau Testament ’, in Coppens, Scrinium Erasmianum, 221–49, 379–436.

88 ARNOUD V I S SER

To answer this question, it is necessary to examine the editorial strategyof the Leuven theologians, investigating in particular how they frame the textand attempt to direct its interpretation. The focus will therefore be on theparatexts surrounding Augustine’s works, both those accompanying the maintext (peritexts), such as prefaces and annotations, as well as commentsrelating to the edition which are physically separate (epitexts), such asrelevant correspondence.9 An analysis of these will show that the increasingconfessional pressure had a neutralising, rather than a polarising impact onthe textual presentation, and allowed for a surprising survival of theErasmian Augustine. On a more general level, this examination thus seeks tofurther understanding of the use of humanist scholarship in a confession-alising world. For it was the renaissance of Augustine, more than that ofCicero and Virgil, or even Plato and Aristotle, that lies at the heart of theReformation.

Augustine’s contested authority in the Reformation

Historians of the Reformation have long acknowledged the central role ofAugustine.10 If it was ‘ the explosive power of an idea’ that sparked thereligious revolution of the sixteenth century, as Diarmaid MacCullochrecently put it, then this idea was in fact ‘a new statement of Augustine’sideas on salvation’.11 However, Luther’s opponents were equally informed byAugustinian thought, appealing in particular to his anti-Donatist ideas aboutobedience to the Church and the sacraments. Thus, over fifty years ago, B. B.Warfield could famously summarise the Reformation as the ‘ultimatetriumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s doctrine of theChurch’.12

The theological prominence of the church Father is reflected in thedissemination of his works. Significantly, Augustine towers over all the otherFathers in the patristic anthologies, which appeared in hundreds of editionsduring the sixteenth-century. More than 60 per cent of the quotationscollected in these books refer to him, or to texts attributed to him.13 Such

9 Gerard Genette, Paratexts : thresholds of interpretation, Cambridge 1997, 1–15. For a similarapproach to the case of Jerome see Hilmar M. Pabel, ‘Peter Canisius as a Catholic editor of aCatholic St Jerome’, Archive for Reformation History xcvi (2005), 171–97.

10 An overview can be found in Alister E. McGrath, The intellectual origins of the EuropeanReformation, 2nd edn, Oxford 2004, 168–82. See also Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation :Europe’s house divided, London 2003, 107–14. 11 MacCulloch, Reformation, 110.

12 B. B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, Philadelphia 1956, 332, quoted in MacCulloch,Reformation, 111 ; McGrath, The intellectual origins, 171–2.

13 The percentage is based on anthologies up to 1566: Anthony N. S. Lane, ‘ Justification insixteenth-century patristic anthologies ’, in Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler and Markus Wriedt(eds), Auctoritas patrum: contributions on the reception of the church Fathers in the fifteenth and sixteenth

THE SURV IVAL OF ERASMUS IN THE COUNTER-REFORMAT ION 89

anthologies were often produced from a confessional perspective, claimingthe church Father’s authority for specific doctrinal positions. The market forcomprehensive, scholarly editions of Augustine’s works also increasedconsiderably. In all, twenty-two opera omnia editions were published beforethe Maurist edition at the end of the seventeenth century, which derivedfrom three separate editorial projects (Amerbach, Erasmus and the Leuventheologians), representing more than 20,000 copies.14 Considering the cost ofthese multi-volume editions these print runs offer a tantalising glimpse of thedemand for Augustine in the sixteenth century.

Compared to the highly focused anthologies, the opera omnia editions wouldseem less polemically charged. Yet the censorship of Erasmus’ edition showsthe extent to which Augustine’s works had become contested terrain.Although Erasmus himself had claimed that he merely assumed ‘aschoolmaster’s part ’, and that he would leave ‘no personal trace’ in theedition, the prefaces, marginal notes and particularly the critical assessmentsof individual works had caused controversy ever since the publication of theedition by Froben.15 Still, the practical implications of the ban should not beoverrated. The ten folio volumes of Augustine’s works were expensive books,which users would simply not easily discard. Moreover, the implementationof the various censorship policies was erratic. The Pauline index met withfierce resistance, after which the rules were softened and extensive privilegesgranted to the Jesuits. The subsequent Tridentine index (1564) limited theban on Erasmus and ordered his religious works to be expurgated bytheologians of the universities of Paris and Leuven. Some Italian inquisitors,however, still enforced the Pauline index and burned any work of Erasmusthat they managed to find.16 Meanwhile, the Erasmian Augustine had been

centuries, Mainz 1993, 69–95. For an example see Pabel, ‘Peter Canisius ’ ; for Augustinianpseudepigraphy see Marijn de Kroon, ‘Pseudo-Augustin im Mittelalter : Entwurf einesForschungsberichts ’, Augustiniana xxii (1972), 511–30, and J. Machielsen, Clavis patristicapseudepigraphorum medii aevi, Turnhout 1990–.

14 Petitmengin, ‘Editions princeps et Opera omnia’, 43–4. This estimation is based on anaverage print run for these works of 1,000 copies (although Amerbach is known to haveprinted his edition in 2,200 copies), and the fact that some of the reprints may be new titleeditions only : Georges Folliet, ‘Le Chiffre de tirage des grandes editions de Saint Augustin ’, inMemoriam sanctorum venerantes : miscellanea in onore di Monsignor Victor Saxer, Vatican City 1992,425–41. See also the seminal study of J. de Ghellinck, Patristique et moyen age : etudes d’histoirelitteraire et doctrinale, III : Complement a l’etude de la patristique, Gembloux 1948, 366–411. For a fulllist of sixteenth-century editions of Augustine see Index aureliensis : catalogus librorum sedecimosaeculo impressorum, Baden-Baden 1966, I/1, 397–445.

15 Collected works of Erasmus, trans. R. A. B. Mynors, anno. J. M. Estes, ix, Toronto 1989, 171 ;Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, ed. P. S. Allen, H. M. Allen and H. W. Garrod, vii,Oxford 1928, 502.

16 Seidel Menchi, ‘Whether to remove Erasmus’, and Gigliola Fragnito, ‘The central andperipheral organisation of censorship ’, in Seidel Menchi (ed.), Church, censorship and culture inearly modern Italy, Cambridge 2001, 13–49; Bujanda, Index de Rome, 44–99.

90 ARNOUD V I S SER

reprinted five more times, in Paris and Lyon (1561–3 and 1573), Basle (1569)and Venice (1570, 1584).Most research so far has focused on the Protestant reception of

Augustine.17 Especially influential is the work of Heiko Oberman, who triedto trace the origins of the Reformation by studying Luther’s connections withan ‘Augustinian renaissance’ in the fourteenth century.18 It suffices to notehere that the concept of Augustinianism is geared primarily to hisappropriation in early Reformation thought, especially on soteriology.Recent research, however, has revealed the limits of this Augustinianparadigm: Irena Backus and John Monfasani each demonstrated thatAugustine does not appear to have held a central position in the areas ofecclesiology or humanist rhetoric, respectively.19 It is increasingly clear,therefore, that Augustine was an important presence in the early modernworld, but not a consistent, monolithic, so-called Augustinian, influence.20

From this perspective, how did this, the first officially Catholic opera omniaedition, present Augustine?

Catholic claims in context

At first sight, the new Augustine may not appear strikingly different. Thestructure of the work closely followed that of its predecessor. It was dividedinto ten volumes and retained the distribution of works unchanged.

17 For Luther, seminal studies are Hans-Ulrich Delius, Augustin als Quelle Luthers : eineMaterialsammlung, Berlin 1984, and Adolf Hamel, Der junge Luther und Augustin : ihre Beziehungen inder Rechfertigungslehre nach Luthers ersten Vorlesungen, 1509–1518 untersucht, Gutersloh 1934–5, repr.Hildesheim–New York 1980. See also the recent survey by P. D. Krey, ‘Luther ’ in A. D.Fitzgerald (ed.), Augustine through the ages : an encyclopedia, Grand Rapids 1999, s.v. ForMelanchthon see Peter Fraenkel, Testimonia patrum: the function of the patristic argument in thetheology of Philip Melanchthon, Geneva 1961. For Calvin see J. M. J. Lange van Ravenswaay,Augustinus totus noster : das Augustinverstandnis bei Johannes Calvin, Gottingen 1990, and A. N. S.Lane, John Calvin : student of the church Fathers, Edinburgh 1999.

18 H. A. Oberman, Werden und Wertung der Reformation : vom Wegestreit zum Glaubenskampf,Tubingen 1977, and The dawn of the Reformation : essays in late medieval and early Reformation thought,Edinburgh 1986.

19 Irena Backus, Historical method and confessional identity in the era of the Reformation (1378–1615),Leiden 2003, 6–62; John Monfasani, ‘The De doctrina christiana and Renaissance rhetoric ’, inEdward D. English (ed.), Reading and wisdom: the De doctrina christiana of Augustine, Notre Dame1995, 172–88.

20 Seminal for this inclusive approach is William Bouwsma, ‘The two faces of humanism:Stoicism and Augustinianism in Renaissance thought ’, in H. A. Oberman and Thomas Brady(eds), Itinerarium italicum: the profile of the Italian Renaissance in the mirror of its European transformations,Leiden 1975, 3–60. Recent studies from this perspective are Ake Bergvall, Augustinian perspectivesin the Renaissance, Stockholm 2001, and Meredith J. Gill, Augustine in the Italian Renaissance : art andphilosophy from Petrarch to Michelangelo, Cambridge 2005.

THE SURV IVAL OF ERASMUS IN THE COUNTER-REFORMAT ION 91

It contained the traditional paratexts, including preliminaries (title pages,prefatory material and tables of contents), more than eighty censurae (criticalassessments of individual works), marginal notes, and extensive indices.Compared to its predecessor, the number of censurae is approximately thesame, but more consistently restricted to spurious works. Again like inErasmus’ work, they vary in form and length from a few words (for example‘Non videtur Augustini ’), to a substantial assessment. Yet apart fromthese similarities two important philological improvements can be noticed.The first was the relegation of spurious works to an appendix at the end ofeach volume, printed in smaller type. The second was the introduction of asection of castigationes, listing, per volume, all the manuscripts used for each ofthe works, and the available textual variants.

Moreover, the edition advertises itself as something different. In a ‘generalcensura ’, printed before the title-page in the first volume, the royal censor andprofessor of theology Joannes Molanus (1533–85), who was also the chiefeditor of the edition, explains why readers should prefer this new edition ofAugustine to ‘all previous ones ’. First, because the editors worked from theoldest manuscripts and so purged the œuvre of ‘countless errors ’. Second,because all ‘unqualified material ’ of previous editions, such as censurae andannotations ‘ to say nothing more’, was removed. Third, because the workswere preceded by Augustine’s own evaluation from the Retractationes, or elseby that of ‘many theologians’, while spurious works were expertly assessed bya team of Leuven theologians.21 Especially on the last two claims, Molanussent out a clear confessional message: this is the authorised Augustine, freednot just of grammatical errors, but of heretical influences too.

In a subsequent introduction Molanus presents the scholars behind theedition, stressing their theological credentials. He first pays respect to theinstigator of the project, the theology professor Thomas Gozaeus, who diedin 1571, and then lists the ten editors who co-ordinated the collation of themanuscripts for each of the volumes by a group of, in total, sixty-fouradvanced students.22 Most of the ten were young academics, in their late

21 Leuven edition, vol. i, sig. [*2v] ; the censura is dated 1 September 1571, which suggests thatit was composed before the editorial work was completed.

22 Vol. i : Martinus Baccius (#1609), then priest in Alost, later canon and archpriest inYpres ; vol. ii : Jacobus Baius (1545–1614), president of the College of Savoie, nephew of MichelBaius, and from 1586 professor of theology himself ; vol. iii : Henricus Cuyckius (1546–1609),professor in ethics at Leuven in 1572, created bishop of Roermond in 1596; vol. iv : EmbertusEveraerts, priest and from 1588 professor of theology in Leuven; vol. v : Petrus Coretus (c.1550–1602), priest in Crespin and later in Tournai ; vol. vi : Christophorus Broide, by 1576dean at Aire ; vol. vii : Henricus Gravius (1536–91), regius professor of catechism at Leuven;vol. viii : Claudius Porta (?), baccalaureus, priest and canon at Binche; vol. ix : Willem Estius(1542–1613), later professor in Douai ; vol. x : the canons of the monastery of Sint Maartensdalin Leuven (previously Martin Lipsius [#1555], and later Johannes Costerius [1515–59] andJohannes Vlimmerius [c. 1520–1612] had worked on Augustine from here).

92 ARNOUD V I S SER

twenties when they embarked on the project, including three currentprofessors at Leuven: Henricus Cuyckius (1546–1609), professor of ethics andalso active as editor of Cassian (Antwerp 1578), was responsible for volume iiicontaining Augustine’s didactic works. Henricus Gravius (1536–91), at thetime professor regius of catechism, was in charge of the edition of the polemical,mostly anti-Pelagian works in volume vii. As general editor Molanus himselftook on the final responsibility for judgements about authenticity. All othereditors, Molanus emphasises, have degrees from the Leuven faculty oftheology.23 Surely these credentials should be enough to reassure the readerof the orthodox nature of the edition?Yet the new version of Augustine does not seem to have satisfied everyone

within the Catholic Church. The pope, for one, deemed yet another editiondesirable and within fifteen years of the publication of the Leuven edition setup a project to replace it.24 Due to poor organisation this edition nevermaterialised, but the mere plan for it is remarkable. Why could Rome havewished for a new Augustine? In other words, how specifically Catholic is thescholarship of the Leuven theologians?To answer this question the edition needs to be placed in the context of

Catholic reform. The decrees of Trent offer two relevant parameters for theCatholicisation of patristic scholarship. First, the council confirmed theauthority of the ecclesiastical tradition, which it judged as equal inimportance to Scripture itself. Second, it emphasised the need for clericaleducation, and introduced the idea of seminaries for the preparatory trainingof priests. Here, pupils of ‘at least twelve years old’ were to receive athorough education, based on humanist principles :

[T]hey shall learn grammar, singing, ecclesiastical computation, and the otherliberal arts ; they shall be instructed in sacred Scripture ; ecclesiastical works ; thehomilies of the saints ; the manner of administering the sacraments, especially thosethings which shall seem adapted to enable them to hear confessions ; and the forms ofthe rites and ceremonies.25

23 Molanus to the reader, Leuven edition, i, sig. [*4v]. For Gravius see Michiel Verweij,‘Onbekend Leuvens patrimonium in Rome: het graf van Henricus Gravius ’, in Arca lovaniensisartis atque historiae reserans documenta xxv (1996), 71–9.

24 The first documents about the new project date from 1593, under Pope Clement VIII, butit is likely that the plan originated with Sixtus v: Pierre Petitmengin, ‘ A Propos des editionspatristiques de la Contre-Reforme: le ‘‘ saint Augustin ’’ de la Typographie Vaticane’,Recherches augustiniennes iv (1966), 199–251, esp. p. 215.

25 The authority of the ecclesiastical tradition was discussed at the 4th session at Trent(1546) ; the education of priests at the 23rd (1563), ch. 18: The canons and decrees of the sacred andoecumenical Council of Trent, trans J. Waterworth, London 1848, 187–8. For a survey of thedevelopments at Trent see Mullett, Catholic Reformation, 29–68; for a full account see HubertJedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, Freiburg 1949–75.

THE SURV IVAL OF ERASMUS IN THE COUNTER-REFORMAT ION 93

These ingredients of the Tridentine programme both stimulated andconditioned new patristic editions. The seminaries, for example, gave anew impulse to the market for learned books, as is exemplified in a recentstudy of the libraries of the parish clergy in an Italian diocese.26

Apart from official measures for reform, however, the polarisationbetween the religious parties had long created an awareness of theconfessional profile of patristic scholarship. In the eyes of many traditionalCatholics the Basle editions, for example, and indeed Erasmus himself, hadbecome suspect.27 This is reflected in local attempts to suppress scholarlyworks through the indices of forbidden books. Yet, paradoxically, censorshipalso stimulated new scholarship. In Rome itself the increased demand fordoctrinally sound patristic editions prompted several plans for a centralinstitution to produce them. Perhaps the most famous of these was thefoundation of a Typographia Vaticana in 1588 by Pope Sixtus V (himself theeditor of a much criticised edition of Ambrose published in 1579). For Sixtuspatristic scholarship served a militant purpose : to fight the heretics and theirdisastrous influence over sacred texts. Or, as an inscription at the entrance tothe offices of the Typographica put it, ‘ to restore the works of the holy fathersand to spread the Catholic faith over the entire world’.28

This more aggressive patristic policy could leave a clear mark on theeditorial presentation of individual authors. For example, in his edition ofJerome (1565), Mariano Vittori mounted a frontal attack on Erasmus,accusing him of philological laxity and heretical ideas. On the title-page itselfVittori claims to improve Erasmus’ text in more than a thousand places andto correct the biography of his ‘deceitful ’ predecessor.29 Erasmus’ edition ofAugustine received only slightly milder criticism from the Jesuit HieronymusTorrensis, whose anthology Confessio Augustiniana (1567) was meant to claimthe church Father for the Catholic faith in response to similar actions byevangelical parties. According to Torrensis, Erasmus was an arrogant manwith little respect for sacred texts and a rash judgement. This had led him tomake serious mistakes in his edition. Torrensis provides a catalogue ofexamples (mostly concerning attributions), primarily, he claims, to warn those

26 Thomas B. Deutscher, ‘From Cicero to Tasso: humanism and the education of theNovarese parish clergy (1565–1663) ’, Renaissance Quarterly lv (2002), 1005–27.

27 Petitmengin, ‘ A Propos des editions patristiques ’, 200–1.28 Ibid. esp. pp. 200–14, inscription quoted at p. 206.29 Epistolae D. Hieronymi Stridonensis, et libri contra haereticos, ex antiquissimis exemplaribus mille et

amplius mendis ex Erasmi correctione sublatis, nunc primum opera ac studio Mariani Victorii Reatini emendatieiusdemque argumentis et scholiis, illustrati : adiecta est operis initio vita D. Hieronymi, olim falso ab Erasmo,aliisque relata, quam idem Marianus ex eius scriptis collectam primus edidit, Rome: P. Manutius, 1564–5.See Hilmar M. Pabel, ‘Sixteenth-century Catholic criticism of Erasmus’ edition of St Jerome’,Renaissance and Reformation Review vi (2004), 257–60, and Eugene Rice, Saint Jerome in theRenaissance, Baltimore 1985, 154–6.

94 ARNOUD V I S SER

who follow Erasmus’ critical judgement ‘as a strict rule ’, which had madethem ‘overly critical ’ of Augustine’s works.30

The neutralising impact of confessionalism

Compared to the militant Catholicism of Vittori and Torrensis, the Leuvenedition is remarkably restrained. Although Augustine was gratefully used incontroversial theology by the various Protestant parties, the Leuventheologians do not seek to counter such appropriations.31 For a start, thetone in the preliminaries is generally unpolemical, despite the stress onCatholic credentials. A case in point is Plantin’s dedicatory letter to CardinalsChristophorus and Ludovicus Madruzzo (uncle and nephew), prince-bishopsof Trent, who had together hosted the council.32 Yet, without alluding to thisevent, Plantin’s letter deals with the question of how to promote peace. Onlytwo things can end the religious controversy, he believes, ‘ the weight andauthority of the Holy Scripture’ and ‘ its reliable interpretation by the holyFathers ’. Having successfully furthered the former (with the publication ofthe Polyglot Bible in 1568–73), Plantin’s business now aimed to concentrateon the Fathers.33 This argument neatly confirms the official Tridentine lineon the importance of the theological tradition, which the dedicatees wouldsurely have recognised. Yet it does so in an unemphatic fashion, withoutexpressing an exclusively Catholic identity or criticising Protestant posi-tions.34

30 H. Torrensis, Confessio Augustiniana in libros quatuor distributa, et certis capitibus locorumtheologicorum, qui sunt hodie scitu dignissimi, comprehensa : nunc primum ex omnibus B. Aurelii Augustinilibris in unum opus bona fide ac studio singulari redacta, Dillingen: S. Mayer, 1567, sigs g3v-h1r. Seealso Pabel, ‘Peter Canisius ’, 193–4.

31 For Lutheran anthologies of Augustine see Erasmus Sarcerius (ed.), Augustinus, praecipuiSacrae Scripturae communes loci, a doctissimo et sanctissimo doctore Augustino tractati, et […] in concinnammethodi formam contracti […], Frankfurt : C. Egenolphus, 1539; Ludwig Rabus, Conciliationeslocorum s. scripturae in specie pugnantium. Ex libris D. Aurelii Augustini episcopi Hipponensis […] fidelidiligentia, nec non diligenti fidelitate conscriptae et editae […], Nuremberg: J. Montanus andU. Neuberus, 1561, and the polemical anthology against the Sacramentarians by JoachimWestphal, Collectanea sententiarum divi Aurelii Augustini episcopi Hipponensis de coena Domini. Addita estconfutatio vindicans a corruptelis plerosque locos, quos pro se ex Augustino falso citant Sacramentarii,Regensburg : J. Carbo, 1555. A Calvinist selection provides Lambert Daneau, Paratitla in […]Augustini tomos duos praecipuos, [Geneva] : n.p. 1578.

32 Christophorus Madruzzo in particular had played a prominent role ; Ludovicus hadreplaced him in 1561 : Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, i. 450–6 and passim.

33 Plantin to C. and L. Madruzzo, Leuven edition, i, sig. *3r.34 On the text of the dedication Plantin had consulted Benito Arias Montano who had

recommended the Cardinals Madruzzo, and advised him to keep it brief and to make thededication in his own name: Plantin to Benito Arias Montano, 17–27 Dec. 1575, Plantin,Correspondance, v, no. 687, at pp. 96–7; Plantin to Arias Montano, 7 Jan.1576, v, no. 692, at

THE SURV IVAL OF ERASMUS IN THE COUNTER-REFORMAT ION 95

Similarly, the rest of the preliminaries offer pragmatic information, ratherthan the spirited justifications typical of many patristic editions of the time.35

There is no further reference to the ‘unqualified’ annotations of previouseditions, mentioned in the general censura, nor any warnings againstheterodox appropriations of Augustine. While in his other works Molanusshows himself an effective hagiographer and teacher of the Tridentinerules about sacred images (Leuven 1570), here he does not dwell onAugustine’s importance for the Catholic Church.36 Moreover, the editiondoes not include an introductory biography of the holy church Father, whichwould have given ample opportunity to celebrate the saint’s Catholiccredentials. As in the edition of Erasmus, the Vita of Possidius has to performthe task.

Apart from the preliminaries, the critical apparatus shows a similarmoderation. In the censurae, for which Molanus claimed final responsibility,the most pervasive feature of Catholicisation is the priority given to theauthority of ecclesiastical tradition over stylistic analysis.37 For example, indefending the authenticity of De continentia, which Erasmus had wronglydeclared spurious on stylistic grounds, the editors simply rely on the authorityof the early Christian writers Bede and Eugyppius. Similarly, where Erasmusin his analysis of the Regula had conducted a stylistic and historical analysis,the Leuven theologians (who arrive at the same conclusion) highlight theattestations of the work by Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugh of St Victor.38

Sporadically the reader is furthermore warned against heretical tendenciesin some spurious works. The censura to De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, for example,signals some passages ‘ for which the reader should watch out ’. Marginalnotes subsequently flag the places where ‘ something Pelagian seems to

p. 108; and Plantin to Arias Montano, 1–4 Sept. 1576, v, no. 738, at p. 198. For the phrasingPlantin asked Marc-Antoine Muret for assistance: Plantin to Marc-Antoine Muret, [July]1576, ibid. v, no. 730, at pp. 182–3, and 24 Aug. 1576, ix, S132, at p. 157.

35 Cf. the prefaces to contemporary patristic editions published in Leuven, such as that ofJohannes Costerius, prior of the monastery of Sint Maartensdal, to his edition of Vincent ofLerins, Vincentii Lirinensis Galli pro Catholicae fidei antiquitate et veritate, adversus prophanas omniumhaereseon novationes […], Leuven: J. Bogardus, 1556, or that of Cunerus Petri, professor oftheology at Leuven and future bishop of Leeuwarden, in his edition of Augustine’s De utilitatecredendi, Leuven: H. Wellaeus, 1566. Both explicitly encourage the reader to apply the works tocontemporary heresies.

36 See the introduction to Francois Boespflug, Olivier Christin and Benoıt Tassel (eds),Molanus : Traite des saintes images, Paris 1996, and David Freedberg, ‘ Johannes Molanus onprovocative paintings : De historia sanctarum imaginum, book II, chapter 42 ’, Journal of the Warburgand Courtauld Institutes xxxiv (1971), 229–45.

37 Molanus to the reader, Leuven edition, i, sig. [*4v.]. Generally the works are headed bythe appropriate paragraph from the Retractationes. Works not mentioned here (such as spuria)received censurae.

38 Censura to De continentia, Leuven edition, iv. 308; for the Regula see i. 363.

96 ARNOUD V I S SER

hide’.39 Yet these scarce references are never explicitly directed at theProtestant threat. Pelagianism was in fact hardly an accusation that could belevelled against Lutherans or Calvinists.An exception to this implicit form of Catholicisation, however, is Henricus

Gravius’ commentary on the anti-Donatist and anti-Pelagian works in theseventh volume. Gravius was the only editor who added his own annotationesto the text. Although he justified this by pointing to the complexity of thetextual problems in these works, his notes also allowed him to help the readerwith other matters, for instance by commenting on ‘dangerous ’ passages, orby indicating those where Augustine provides arguments ‘against today’sheresies ’.40 Indeed, the 300 densely-printed folio columns occasionallyhighlight material that could be used against Lutherans, Calvinists,Sacramentarians and Anabaptists.41 Here the edition becomes an instrumentto fight Protestant doctrine, deploying the Augustinian resources in the battleagainst the heretics. But it is a by-product of the principal aim of thiscommentary and an exception within the edition as a whole. This becomesespecially clear when the presentational choices of the Leuven theologiansare compared to those of Erasmus.

The survival of Erasmus

Molanus’ remark about the deletion of ‘unqualified’ censurae clearly referredto Erasmus. Although the total ban on his works in the Pauline index wassoon lifted, his works were still subject to systematic censorship in many partsof Europe. The 1569 and 1570 Antwerp indices of forbidden books, forexample, included the editorial apparatus of his Augustine.42 What exactlycould have troubled the authorities in Erasmus’ edition? Quite a number ofthings, as recent studies have suggested. The paratexts in his editioncombined strong criticism of Augustine’s style of writing and reasoning with

39 Censura to De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, ibid. iv. 380; marginal notes, for example on 384C,‘videtur Pelagianum aliquid latere ’ ; ‘ sentire videtur cum Pelagio’. There are further examplesof doctrinal warnings in censura to De spiritu et anima, iii. 410.

40 Gravius to the reader, ibid. vii, sig. [aa1v].41 This occurs in the notes on anti-Donatist works, for example against Luther and

Anabaptists : De baptismo contra donatistas IV.xxiii.39B; against Sacramentarians : ibid.V.viii.40B;against Protestants minimising the authority of the church Fathers : De unitate ecclesiae librumiii.81C–D; in notes to anti-Pelagian works : against Luther’s conception of faith: De peccatorummeritis et remissione I.xvii.188B–C; against the Protestant denial of the efficacy of works : De gratiaet libero arbitrio I.vii, 292A; against Calvin on double predestination: De correptione et gratia vii.298A; and against Calvin on justification ibid ix.298C.

42 J. M. de Bujanda and others (eds), Index d’Anvers : 1569, 1570, 1571 : index des livres interdits, vii,Sherbrooke 1988, 189 (for the index), 409–10 (for the annotationes). For the Italian reception andrepression of Erasmus’ works see Silvana Seidel Menchi, Erasmus als Ketzer : Reformation undInquisition im Italien des 16. Jahrhunderts, Leiden 1993.

THE SURV IVAL OF ERASMUS IN THE COUNTER-REFORMAT ION 97

warm praise for the bishop’s pastoral talents, frequently contrasted tocontemporary practices. Such criticism clearly went beyond a purelygrammatical approach, and reflected Erasmus’ theological perspective.43

This is confirmed by the Index expurgatorius of 1571 which provides a list of allthe prefatory remarks, marginal notes, censurae and index headings that wereto be censored.44 These reveal that Erasmus’ anticlerical observations werefound especially offensive. The controversial censura of the Regula, forexample, was to be censored completely. Here Erasmus had suggested thatthe text had been written for women, rather than men, while furthermorearguing that Augustine had never considered himself a monk.45 The listfurthermore includes marginal notes of Erasmus that criticise Augustine’sargument or draw a subversive parallel to contemporary practices.46

This censorial review is closely connected to the project for a new edition.It was carried out by the Leuven faculty of theology, when Thomas Gozaeus,Molanus’ predecessor, was professor and royal censor. Gozaeus came upwith the plan for a new edition at precisely this period.47 The Index itself waspublished by Christopher Plantin, who as royal typographer also had tomonitor the confessional soundness of the publications in his region. In viewof the timing of the new edition, it seems likely that the machinery ofcensorship, set up as part of the implementation of Trent, provided thedecisive incentive to produce an altogether new edition.48

43 Viviane Mellinghoff-Bourgerie, ‘Erasme editeur et interprete de Saint Augustin ’, in DeCourcelles and Flasch, Augustinus in der Neuzeit, 53–8; Arnoud Visser, ‘Reading Augustinethrough Erasmus’ eyes : humanist scholarship and paratextual guidance in the wake of theReformation’, Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook xxviii (2008), 67–90.

44 Facsimile reproduction in Bujanda, Index d’Anvers, 727–30. For its genesis see Van Calster,‘La Censure Louvaniste ’, 386–91. The index was followed by the Spanish inquisition in their1584 index: J. M. de Bujanda and others (eds), Index de l’inquisition espagnole, 1583, 1584 : index deslivres interdits, vi, Sherbrooke 1993, 787–8. 45 Erasmus edition, i. 591.

46 Criticism of Augustine, for example in ep. iii (Leuven edn, ii. 4 ‘Eximiae cuiusdamhumanitatis in Augustino, quod superiorem epistolam responso dignatus est, phrasi ineptam,sensu parum Christianam.’ [underlined passage was to be censored] ; contemporary parallelsfor example in ep. x (vol. ii. 28) where Augustine thanks Jerome for his biblical scholarship:‘Unde si quispiam veteri falsitati contentiosius faverit, prolatis collatisque codicibus veldocetur facillime, vel refellitur. Etsi quaedam rarissima merito movent, quis tam durus est, quilabori tam utili non facile ignoscat, cui vicem laudis referre non sufficit? ’ : ‘Nunc nonignoscunt ’.

47 F. Willocx, L’Introduction des decrets du concile de Trente dans les Pays-Bas et dans la principaute deLiege, Leuven 1929, 145–6. According to Plantin, Gozaeus had expressed his wish to undertakea ‘repurgation’ of the church Fathers and asked him to become the publisher : Plantin toMaximilian Morillon, 3 May 1570, Plantin, Correspondance, iii, no. 226, at pp. 135–6.

48 Earlier Joannes Hessels already seems to have made preparations for a new edition: amanuscript transcript of his detailed assessment of Erasmus’ 1528–9 edition is preserved in theUniversity Archive at Leuven (housed in the University Library). Hessels here questionsErasmus’ judgement about the authenticity of several works : Ferdinandus Claeys-Bouuaert,‘ Inventaire de documents relatifs a l’ancienne Universite de Louvain (Faculte de Theologie)

98 ARNOUD V I S SER

Yet although the censorship regulations seem to have stimulated the newedition project, they also threatened to compromise scholarly standards,especially when Catholic scholarship was built on the work of a forbiddenauthor. The case of Franciscus Lucas (1548/9–1619), one of the editors of theLeuven Bible and author of a collection of Notationes in sacra biblia (Antwerp1580), illustrates how confessional pressure could easily lead to self-censorship. A Vatican librarian had warned him that several cardinals wereunhappy with references to Erasmus in his annotations. But what else was heto do, Lucas wondered? If he ignored Erasmus’ contribution, the text couldseem unsubstantiated. If, however, he included Erasmus’ findings without hisname, he could be accused of foul play.49

The editors of Augustine had to face similar confessional pressures. In viewof Erasmus’ intervention in the Augustinian canon, it was impossible for theLeuven theologians simply to ignore him. Molanus therefore acknowledgesthat Erasmus will appear ‘a number of times’ in the assessment of spuriousworks, but, he hastens to add, ‘more often the Indiculus of Possidius andreferences to Beda’. A subsequent acknowledgment of the importantcontribution of two other Augustinian scholars in Leuven further minimisesthe significance of Erasmus: manuscript notes by the theology professorJoannes Hessels (1522–66) on the first nine of the volumes, and of Erasmus’old friend and editorial assistant Martin Lipsius (#1555) on Augustine’sSermons in volume x.50 At first sight the censurae to individual works confirmthis idea. Throughout the edition Erasmus is mentioned only four times:twice to refute or correct him, and twice to agree with his judgement.51

On closer inspection, however, Erasmus turns out to be much more of apresence. A comparison of both editions reveals that a substantial number ofthe censurae in the new edition are silently copied from those of Erasmus.Disregarding the single-line censurae, this is the case in at least twenty-seven ofthe more substantial assessments. Consequently, the motivation for declaringspurious certain works, such as De mirabilibus sacrae scripturae, De benedictionibusfiliorum Iacob patriarchae, or De trinitate et unitate dei comes straight from Erasmus.Unsurprisingly, in copying the editors removed Erasmian flippancies and

conserves au Grand Seminaire de Gand’, in Leon van der Essen (ed.), L’Universite de Louvain atravers cinq siecles : etudes historiques, Brussels 1927, 279, no. 31, fos 63r–68r. I am grateful toProfessor Jan Roegiers, archivist of the University of Leuven, for bringing these manuscripts tomy attention. For the censorship of Erasmus see Van Calster, ‘La Censure Louvaniste ’, andR. Crahay, ‘Les Censeurs Louvanistes d’Erasme’, in Coppens, Scrinium Erasmianum, 221–49.

49 Fransciscus Lucas to Balthasar Ansidei, 23 Nov. 1576, Plantin, Correspondance, ix, no. S134,at pp. 159–60. 50 Molanus to the reader, Leuven edition, i, sig. [*4v].

51 All three occur in vol. ii, containing the letters. The censurae to ep. xxxviii (p. 53) and ep. clv(p. 59) both correct Erasmus’ judgement that the letter did not agree with Augustine’s style. Ina censura to the letter which Amerbach had included as ep. cxi, the Leuven theologians approveof Erasmus’ decision to move the letter (p. 196). In the censura at ep. clxxxi (p. 307), the editorsmention Erasmus for having replaced ep. iii with ep. clxxxxviii.

THE SURV IVAL OF ERASMUS IN THE COUNTER-REFORMAT ION 99

controversial remarks, but they reproduced large parts intact, frequentlyeven preserving Erasmus’ first person narrative. The censura to the spuriousViginti unius sententiarum liber 1 may serve as an example (see table 1).

The changes made by the Leuven theologians fall into three categories.First, and most prominent, they neutralised the critical language. Erasmuswas prone to express his personal taste, in the case of Augustinian worksespecially in the negative. His strong reservations about Augustine’s style,which he deems verbose, sometimes obscure and frequently unsophisticated,are automatically excluded from the new edition since the Leuventheologians mainly use the Retractationes, rather than separate censurae tointroduce authentic works.52 Thus, in the case of spurious works the aestheticlanguage has to be edited, resulting in the disappearance of lively Erasmianqualifications such as ‘a dull little preface ’ (‘ insulsa praefatiuncula’), ‘ time-waster ’ (‘ociosus ’) or ‘pious chatter ’ (‘pia loquacitas ’).53 To this category alsobelong expressions of appreciation for particular works, or complaintsabout the practice of pseudepigraphy in general.54 Second, in some cases atentative attribution is left out, while the rest of the censura remains the same.55

Third, the Leuven theologians do not copy Erasmus’ references to individualcritical independence. Where Erasmus is keen to suggest that his judgementis not meant to ‘ impede anyone to benefit from his own’, the Lovaniensesmore often make the opposite point, by relying on testimonia of Catholicauthorities.56

The silent use of Erasmus’ edition was not limited to the censurae, butextended to the marginal notes, which were systematically copied. Again,controversial notes were removed. This could concern matters of taste suchas Erasmus’ repeated use of the Greek skleron (harsh), or psychron (cold) whenhe found Augustine’s argument too severe, or, in a case where he did notappreciate a highly rhetorical enumeration, the scathing observation (againin Greek) ‘Look how he is playing’. Occasionally, however, the Lovaniensesedited out a more fundamental difference in scholarly perspective. Anexample of this can be found in De doctrina christiana, when Augustinedefends the authority of the Septuagint by referring to the belief that itexpresses a divinely inspired coherence. Here Erasmus’ marginal note voiced

52 Mellinghoff-Bourgerie, ‘Erasme editeur et interprete de Saint Augustin ’, 53–81.53 Resp. censurae of Quaestionum lxv dialogus, Erasmus edition, iv, 480, Leuven edition, iv, 420;

ep. clxxxi, Erasmus edition, ii. 518, Leuven edition, ii. 307 ; De salutaribus documentis, Erasmusedition, iv. 750, Leuven edition, iv. 518.

54 For example, Quaestionum lxv dialogus, Erasmus edition, iv. 480, Leuven edition, iv. 420; Detrinitate et unitate Dei, Erasmus edn, iv. 673, Leuven edition, iv. 497. For Erasmus’ most elaboratedigression on pseudepigraphy see Quaestiones veteri et novi testamenti, Erasmus edition, iv. 495–6.

55 For example, in De benedictionibus filiorum Iacob patriarchae, where Erasmus thinks of Beda(iii. 739; removed by the Lovanienses at iii. 427), or De fide rerum invisibilium, where he suggestsHugo of St Victor iv. 695, removed by the Lovanienses at iv. 507).

56 For example, De incarnatione verbi libri ii, Erasmus edition, iv. 660; Leuven edition, iv. 492.

100 ARNOUD V I S SER

Table 1 Copying Erasmus : the censura to ‘Viginti unius sententiarum liber 1 ’

Passages taken from Erasmus’ censura are underlined; Leuven additions are initalics.

Erasmus Version Leuven theologians Translation

Constat hunc librum astudioso quopiam ex variisautoribus temere nulloqueordine congestum, velutaegri somnia vana.Secundum caput finitcarmine nihil adpropositum faciente. Extertio si superis placet facitepistolam, verbulis aliquotin initio ac fine attextis.Decimumsextum caputtotum constat carmineSotadico, quod ipse nondissimulat quum ait,Referam ut valeo, numerus[sic] tu benignus audi. Idquum comperissemusconfusissimum simul acdepravatissimum,digessimus et correximus utpotuimus. Nonnulla bisreferuntur in tam exiguolibello. Nec absunt insignessoloecismi, Quod genus, utquam citius ac breviternoris, et commemorarelitteris, procommonefacere. Utomittam quod in sententiadecimatertia, tribuit angelisauditum et sensum,quemadmodum hominibusac caeteris animantibus.Hoc est vere ludere incelebrium virorumlucubrationibus.

Constat hunc librum astudioso quopiam ex varisauctorib. nullo ordinecongestum. Secundumcaput finit carmine, nihil adpropositum faciente. Extertio facit epistolam,verbulis aliquot in initio acfine attextis.Decimumsextum caputtotum constat carmineSotadico, quod ipse nondissimulat, cum ait ;Referam ut valeo, numerostu benignus audi. Nonnullabis referuntur in tam exiguolibello. Nec absuntsoloecismi: Quod genus, ut,Quam citius ac breviternoris, et Commemorarelitteris, proCommonefacere. Utomittam quod in sententiadecimatertia indoctam faciatdistinctionem.

Clearly some scholarcompiled this book from several authors, carelesslyand without any structure,like ‘ the empty dreams of asick person. ’ The secondchapter ends with a poemwhich does not serve anypurpose. From the third hemakes a letter, if you please,by adding some words tothe beginning and the end.The sixteenth chapterentirely consists of a poemin Sotadic verse, which hehimself openly admits,when he says : ‘ I shallreport [it] as good as I can,you kindly listen to theverses. ’ When we found outthat the poem was mostdistorted and corrupted, westructured and corrected itbest as we could. Sometopics are mentioned twicein this slim book. And thereare obvious grammaticalmistakes as well, of thiskind, such as : ‘You willknow as shortly and brieflyas possible ’, and ‘To recallby letter ’ instead of ‘ toremind’. Not to mentionthat in the thirteenthSententia he attributes toangels hearing and sense, asto men and other livingbeings. This is truly foolingaround with the nocturnallabours of famous men[Leuven theologians : ‘hemakes an inappropriatedistinction ’].

THE SURV IVAL OF ERASMUS IN THE COUNTER-REFORMAT ION 101

disagreement : ‘Others put this down as nonsense ’.57 In view of theTridentine confirmation of the holy status of the Vulgate, it is unsurprisingthat the Leuven editors removed Erasmus’ observation.

Although filtered, the text of the Leuven theologians is largely framed bythe marginal notes of Erasmus’ edition. The notes that were retained consistof brief summaries of the argument, references to (mostly biblical) sourcesand occasional explanations and comments. Although the source referencesmay not bear an indication of their Erasmian origin, the summaries andevaluations can provide decidedly humanistic guidance. In the Soliloquies, forexample, a work that Erasmus, according to his censura, found surprisinglynaive and tiresome to read, the Leuven theologians have removed the censura,but left the marginal comments where Augustine is criticised for hissophistry.58 In De doctrina christiana the notes straightforwardly confirmcontemporary humanistic values, such as ‘Greek and Hebrew are necessaryfor knowledge of the Scriptures ’, ‘ If Pagans expressed something well, itshould not be rejected’, and similarly ‘If heretics expressed something well,they should be read, but carefully. ’ Although these notes do not misrepresentAugustine’s argument, they could have been phrased differently, especiallyconsidering their potentially subversive message for post-Tridentine Catholictheology.59

The relative importance of the Erasmian guidance is increased by the factthat the Leuven theologians did not use the critical apparatus as aninstrument to promote a more Catholic reading, let alone an anti-Reformedone. Their editorial approach to Erasmus’ notes and censurae provides oneexample of this. Another indication is the absence of further commentaries orsummaries (argumenta) of the texts. Apart from Gravius’ notes on the anti-Pelagian works, the only exception is De civitate dei, where the reader is offeredthe learned commentary of Juan Luis Vives, originally prepared for Erasmus’edition, and now censored, as is reassuringly added on the title page, by theLeuven theologians.

On the whole, then, it would be inadequate to describe the Leuven editionas a specifically Catholic version of Augustine. This is not to say that thepreliminary markers are incorrect : the text is purged of assumed hereticalinfluences and the censurae are conscientiously in line with the ecclesiasticaltradition. Paradoxically, however, the edition that was meant to replaceErasmus’ reproduces large parts of the Erasmian paratext, even if in a

57 For ‘ skleron ’ see, for example, Erasmus edition, ep. xix (ii. 45) ; ep. l (ii. 141) ; De consensuevangelistarum bk 3 (iv. 342) ; for ‘psychron ’ (iv. 341 ; i. 360) (Soliloquiorum libri ii, i.2). The commenton Augustine’s enumeration (‘hoos paizei ’) appears in ep. xlii (ii. 97). The passage in De doctrinachristiana concerns ii.15.22 (iii. 20).

58 Soliloquiorum libri ii, ii.2 (Erasmus edition, i. 358 [censura], 369) : ‘hoos sophisteuei ’ (bk ii. 2),‘ sophistica inductio ’ and ‘sophisticatur et hic de vero ac falso’ (bk ii.3). The Lovanienses keptthe last two qualifications (i. 226). 59 Leuven edition, iii. 12, 14, 41 respectively.

102 ARNOUD V I S SER

censored version. With the exception of some notes in Gravius’ commentaryto volume vii, the edition as a whole does not place Augustine in a distinctlyCatholic context.

Explanations for confessional neutrality

How, then, can this neutral presentation be explained? Why does an editionso conspicuously produced by Catholic theologians not employ its humanisttechniques to address specifically Catholic needs? Two factors can bedistinguished. First, the influence of the publisher stimulated brevity,efficiency and confessional moderation. To realise the project ChristopherPlantin had assumed considerable financial risks. He had entered into anagreement with another publisher, Arnold Mylius from Cologne, who wouldshare the costs in exchange for half of the print run.60 All this took place in anextremely unstable economic climate. In 1576, when six volumes of theedition had been printed, the Spanish Fury caused havoc in Antwerp andnearly destroyed Plantin’s entire business. He only just averted the danger bypaying a sum of money that almost equalled the entire investment in theAugustine project.61 It is understandable, therefore, that he was keen to finishthe project and make it cost-effective.Plantin catered to the confessionally mixed markets of England, France,

the Low Countries and Germany.62 He had produced exclusively Catholicworks (for example, missals and breviaries) for the Spanish clergy, but by theend of the 1570s an aggressively Catholic Augustine could only limit itsmarket potential. Although there is no proof that he exerted pressure on theeditors to adapt the content of their work, there is an interesting parallel inthe softening of Catholic criticism of Erasmus in Plantin’s reprint of Vittori’sJerome (1578–9).63 Moreover, we know that he urged the editors to finish thejob as quickly as possible. Henricus Gravius, for instance, compared the rashpublication of his notes to an abortion, and a decade later he again pointedthe finger at Plantin to explain the many errors in the final result.64

But the interests of the publisher alone cannot explain the silence overheretical appropriations of Augustine. For this the editors themselveswere responsible too. Considering Molanus’ background as royal censor,confessional timidity hardly seems a plausible motive. Rather, it is probable

60 Plantin to Mylius, 20 Jan.1575, Plantin, Correspondance, iv, no. 604, at pp. 235–6.61 Abraham Ortelius speaks of a ransom of 10,000 florins in a letter to Crato, 22 Nov. 1576,

Plantin, Correspondance, ix (Supplement), no. S133, at p. 158.62 Leon Voet, The golden compasses : the history of the house of Plantin-Moretus, ii, Amsterdam 1972,

392–417. 63 Pabel, ‘Sixteenth-century Catholic criticism’, 261–2.64 Gravius to the reader, Leuven edition, vii, sig. [aa1v] ; Gravius to Baronius, 17 June 1588,

cited in Ceyssens, ‘Le ‘‘Saint Augustin ’’ du xvii siecle ’, 116, nn. 75–6.

THE SURV IVAL OF ERASMUS IN THE COUNTER-REFORMAT ION 103

that avoiding open theological debate was part of a conscious editorialstrategy. In this respect, the edition agrees with the moderate response of theCatholics in the Low Countries to Protestant provocations during the 1560sand 1570s. Recently, Judith Pollmann compared this ‘passive attitude’ to theviolent actions of the French Catholics, suggesting that the behaviour ofthe clergy provides an important key to explain the contrasting responses.65

She points out that many within the top rank of the Netherlandish clergywere reluctant to involve the population in theological discussions, whichthey saw as an undesirable concession to the Protestant agenda. The moreradical Jesuits were not in a position to help galvanise a stronger, militantCatholic mentality since their movements in the Netherlands had long beencurbed by the political authorities.

In this situation, the Latin edition of Augustine, obviously meant toeducate the clergy in the orthodox Catholic tradition, could be largely silentabout contemporary religious debates. The editors’ unacknowledged use ofErasmus confirms this impression. In contrast to their Italian colleagues atthis time, the Leuven theologians shunned an explicitly anti-Erasmianlanguage. Molanus pursues this policy quite openly in his censorial state-ment in Plantin’s edition of Vittori’s Jerome. In fact, even among militantclergymen a pragmatic attitude to Erasmus can be noticed. CorneliusJansenius (1510–74), professor at Leuven, delegate at Trent and bishop ofGhent, composed several polemical treatises in the vernacular. Still, his LatinConcordia, extremely influential in New Testament scholarship, makespervasive use of Erasmus without explicitly mentioning him. The bookreceived warm praise from Molanus in his censorial approbation of 1576.66

Apart from a moderate Catholic culture, local politics seems to haveaffected the editorial strategy. Clerics who favoured an active, more militant,response to the Reformation were associated with a highly unpopular schemefor episcopal reform, enforced by the equally unpopular duke of Alva. Thereorganisation of the bishoprics would affect local privileges and thus metwith much resistance from ruling bishops and monasteries. Finally, in 1576,when the Leuven editors were finishing their project, developments in theDutch revolt led Catholic authorities to modify their policies againstProtestants. The so-called Pacification of Ghent united the Netherlandishprovinces against the presence of Spanish troops, while pragmatically

65 Judith Pollmann, ‘Countering the Reformation in France and the Netherlands : clericalleadership and Catholic violence, 1560–1585’, Past and Present cxc (Feb. 2006), 84–120.

66 Pabel, ‘Sixteenth-century Catholic criticism’, 261–2; M. A. Screech, ‘Christian folly andCatholic orthodoxy’, in Jean-Pierre Massaut (ed.), Colloque Erasmien de Liege, Paris 1987,297–307, and ‘The diffusion of Erasmus’s theology and New Testament scholarship in RomanCatholic circles despite the Tridentine index’, in Irena Backus and Francis Higman (eds),Theorie et pratique de l’exegese, Geneva 1990, 343–53; Pollmann, ‘Countering the Reformation’,108–9.

104 ARNOUD V I S SER

negotiating the religious differences. All this seriously delayed the implemen-tation of the Tridentine reform programme.67

Several of the Leuven editors were actively involved in these develop-ments. As dean, Joannes Molanus, for example, was a driving force behind asecret letter from the theology faculty to Philip II, asking him to replace Alva(1573). The letter was also signed by his colleague Henricus Gravius.Furthermore, Molanus and Gravius supported the Pacification of Ghent in adeclaration issued by the faculty in December 1576.68 Although these politicaldevelopments provide no direct evidence for a specific editorial strategy onthe part of the Leuven theologians for their Augustine, it does place itsconfessional profile in a helpful perspective. At this time, it seems, theCatholic theologians at Leuven had more important enemies to fight thanthe Protestants.

Recent studies of the impact of confessionalism on sixteenth-centuryhumanism have pointed in different directions. Focusing on ReformationGermany, Erika Rummel concludes that by the second half of the sixteenthcentury, humanist ideals and techniques had come to serve confessionalneeds. The consequences were clear : ‘Now piety was classified andknowledge came in Catholic and Protestant hues. ’69 In her study of earlymodern patristics Irena Backus, however, argues that scholarship did notmerely serve a confessional agenda. Indeed, a confessional drive often wenttogether with a ‘genuine wish … to produce the best possible text ’.70

Investigation into editions of Augustine has confirmed that confessionalsympathies indeed influenced textual scholarship, but in a different way,leading in fact to a more neutral result.While the post-Tridentine Leuven theologians claim to offer an

authoritatively Catholic version of Augustine, in practice their paratextualpresentation is less ideologically charged than that of Erasmus. True, theeditors stress the importance of the ecclesiastical tradition in their assessmentof the authenticity of individual works and a few times warn the readeragainst ‘dangerous ’ passages in spurious texts. Yet the correction of hereticalappropriations of Augustine is not one of their central aims. Meanwhile, thetheologians from the very faculty that was responsible for the censorship listsof Erasmus’ works silently copy the marginal annotations from hiscontroversial edition as well as many of his censurae. From this perspective,the edition of the Leuven theologians in fact seems thoroughly Erasmian.Partly the interests of the publisher may explain the lack of more explicit

67 See also Willocx, L’Introduction des decrets du concile de Trente, esp. pp. 291–302.68 P. F. X. de Ram (ed.), Joannes Molanus, Historiae Lovaniensium libri XIV, Brussels 1861,

pp. xv–xxi.69 Erika Rummel, The confessionalization of humanism in Reformation Germany, Oxford 2000, 49;

cf. 8, 150–2. 70 Backus, Historical method, 194.

THE SURV IVAL OF ERASMUS IN THE COUNTER-REFORMAT ION 105

confessional guidance, but partly this seems to have been a consciousdecision of theologians who were reluctant to let Protestant doctrine dictatethe Catholic agenda.

What, finally, does this investigation reveal of the interaction betweenhumanist scholarship and the Reformation? One thing is unsurprising:confessionalisation was to some degree a repressive mechanism for theproduction of scholarship. It could curtail curiosity, hinder innovation andinduce self-censorship. As such it had a conservative impact, promotingcontinuity in the organisation of the editions and prompting scholars to avoidcontroversial issues. Less expected, perhaps, is the constructive impulse thatconfessional pressure gave. Authorities ordered new, safe editions to bemade, and competition with heretical colleagues encouraged fresh criticalscrutiny. This less straightforward, more dynamic picture of the confession-alisation of humanist scholarship can serve as a starting-point for newinvestigations into the consumption of these works by individual readers.

106 ARNOUD V I S SER