Cajetan's Biblical Commentaries (St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History) [XVI, 286 Pp. ed.] 9004325069, 9789004325067

Table of contents :
‎Contents
‎Abbreviations
‎Acknowledgements
‎Chronology of Selected Works
‎Introduction
‎Part 1. Biblical Reform from Principle to Project
‎Chapter 1. Friar, Professor, Papal Courtier (1469–1512)
‎Chapter 2. Prelate, Diplomat, Biblical Scholar (1513–1534)
‎Part 2. Motive
‎Chapter 3. The Bible and Reform
‎Chapter 4. Error, Schism, and Heresy
‎Part 3. Method
‎Chapter 5. Correcting the Latin Text
‎Chapter 6. Cajetan’s Literal Sense: Words, Context, Style
‎Chapter 7. Cajetan’s Literal Sense: The Harmony and Sufficiency of Scripture
‎Chapter 8. ‘Applauded Neither by Heretics Nor by Catholics’
‎Conclusion
‎Bibliography
‎Index of Bible References
‎Index

Citation preview

Cajetan’s Biblical Commentaries

St Andrews Studies in Reformation History Lead Editor Andrew Pettegree (University of St Andrews)

Editorial Board Amy Burnett (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) Euan Cameron (Columbia University) Bruce Gordon (Yale University) Kaspar von Greyerz (Universitä t Basel) Felicity Heal ( Jesus College, Oxford) Bridget Heal (University of St Andrews) Karin Maag (Calvin College, Grand Rapids) Roger Mason (University of St Andrews) Alec Ryrie (Durham University) Jonathan Willis (University of Birmingham)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/sasrh

Cajetan’s Biblical Commentaries Motive and Method

By

Michael O’Connor

leiden | boston

Cover illustration: Mark Langham, “Cajetan and His Assistants” (2016), Private collection. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: O’Connor, Michael, 1963- author. Title: Cajetan’s biblical commentaries : motive and method / by Michael O’Connor. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2017] | Series: St. Andrews studies in Reformation history, issn 2468-4317 | Includes bibliographical references and indexes. Identifiers: lccn 2016041234 (print) | lccn 2016054070 (ebook) | isbn 9789004325067 (hardback : acid-free paper) | isbn 9789004325098 (e-book) Subjects: lcsh: Cajetan, Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534. | Bible–Commentaries. | Bible–Hermeneutics. Classification: lcc b785.c154 o26 2017 (print) | lcc b785.c154 (ebook) | ddc 220.6092–dc23 lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016041234

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 2468-4317 isbn 978-90-04-32506-7 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-32509-8 (e-book) Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

For my mother and in memory of my father

∵

Ego iam senex non novitatis sed veritatis solius amore allectus, opus hoc aggredior in holocaustum omnipotenti Deo ad accendendum aliorum mentes erga sacras scripturas. Det dominus Iesus Christus ut assequar intentum. Preface to Pentateuch, i, facing 1

Now an old man, not attracted by the love of novelty, but by the love of the truth alone, I undertake this work as a burnt offering to Almighty God to enkindle the minds of others towards the holy scriptures. May the Lord Jesus Christ grant that I achieve my intention.

∵

Contents Abbreviations ix Acknowledgements xi Chronology of Selected Works Introduction

xiii

1

part 1 Biblical Reform from Principle to Project 1 Friar, Professor, Papal Courtier (1469–1512)

11

2 Prelate, Diplomat, Biblical Scholar (1513–1534)

31

part 2 Motive 3 The Bible and Reform

63

4 Error, Schism, and Heresy

103

part 3 Method 5 Correcting the Latin Text

129

6 Cajetan’s Literal Sense: Words, Context, Style

167

7 Cajetan’s Literal Sense: The Harmony and Sufficiency of Scripture 196 8 ‘Applauded Neither by Heretics Nor by Catholics’ Conclusion

250

238

viii Bibliography 259 Index of Bible References Index 295

contents

287

Abbreviations afp ahp arg Blackfriars Cajetan Responds

ccsl ct

cwe, Contemps

dbi ee Ientacula

lb Leonine moph ix

Opuscula

pl Quétif-Echard Reeve

Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum Archivum Historiae Pontificiae Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, ed. and trans. T. Gilby et al. (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1963–1975). Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy, ed. and trans. Jared Wicks (Washington dc: Catholic University of America, 1978). Corpus Christianorum Series Latini (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954–) Concilium Tridentinum: diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova collectio, Societas Gorresiana (13 vols., Freiburg: Herder, 1901–1938, reprinted 1963–1967). Cited by volume and page. Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, ed. Peter G. Bietenholz (3 vols., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985–1987). Cited by volume and page. Dizionario Biographico degli Italiani (Rome: Encyclopedia Italiana, 1960–). Cited by volume and page. Erasmi Epistolae, ed. P.S. Allen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906–1958). Cited by volume and letter number. Tommaso de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan, Ientacula Novi Testamenti, literalis expositio. Cited, from the Lyons 1639 opera omnia, by Ientaculum and question. Opera omnia Erasmi, ed. J. LeClerc (Lugdunum Batavorum, 1703– 1706). Cited by volume and page. Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis xiii P. M. edita (Rome, 1882–). Cited by volume and page. Monumenta Ordinis Praedicatorum Historiae, vol. 9 = Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, vol. 4, 1501–1553, ed. Benedict Maria Reichert (Rome, 1901). Tommaso de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan, Opuscula omnia (3 vols., Lyons: Giunta, 1587; facsimile reprinted in one volume, Hildesheim: Olms, 1995). Cited by original volume and folio. Patrologiae cursus completus (Series Latina), J. Migne, ed. (Paris, 1857–1879). Cited by volume and column. J. Quétif and J. Échard, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum (Paris, 1719–1721). Cited by volume and page. Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: Facsimile of the Final

x

Responsiones

st Tanner wa

abbreviations Latin Text (1535) with All Earlier Variants (1516, 1519, 1522 and 1527), Anne Reeve, ed., Introduction by M.A. Screech, 3 vols. (vol. 1, London: Duckworth, 1986; vols. 2 and 3, Leiden: Brill, 1990–1993). Cited by volume and page. Tommaso de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan, Responsiones ad censuras xvi articulorum sub nomine theologorum Parisiensium editas, Magistro Ioanni regenti Moguntini missa. Dated 30 December 1534. Cited from the Lyons 1639 opera omnia, by volume and page. Thomas Aquinas, Summa teologiae. Cited by part, question, and article (and response to objections where appropriate). Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (2 vols., Sheed and Ward: London, 1990). Martin Luther, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883–).

Cajetan’s commentaries on scripture are cited according to the complete edition in five volumes, edited by the Dominicans of Alcalá: Opera Omnia quotquot in sacrae scripturae expositionem reperiuntur (Lyons: Iacobus et Petrus Prost, 1639). References are given to scripture verse, volume, page, and column; for example, ‘On Rom 11.34, v, 68b’ refers to Cajetan’s comments on Rom 11.34, on page 68, right hand column, of volume 5. References are given to Cajetan’s prefaces and introductions (e.g., to a particular psalm) in the same way, e.g., ‘On Ps 45, Intro, iii, 88b’. The Ientacula and Responsiones, included in the Lyons edition, are cited by volume, page, and column. Cajetan uses the Vulgate titles for books of the Bible, hence 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2Kings are referred to as 1–4Kings; 1 and 2 Chronicles are known as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon. Otherwise, abbreviations for books of the Bible follow those of the Revised Standard Version (rsv). The Psalms are cited according to the Hebrew numbering used by Cajetan in his commentary. The versification of scripture is, in some cases, approximate. Where the 1639 edition has references to verses, these have been preserved in the citation. (There is no versification in the first editions.) Otherwise, references follow the versification of the rsv. Cajetan’s commentary on Aquinas’s Summa theologiae is cited by part, question, and article, with the paragraph of Cajetan’s commentary (according to the Leonine edition) in square brackets, thus, ‘On st iii, 46, 3, [ii]’ refers to the second paragraph of Cajetan’s commentary on article 3, question 46, of the Tertia pars. In transcription, scribal or typographical abbreviations have been expanded; u and v, j and i, ſ and s have been interchanged; punctuation and capitalisation have been adjusted; inconsistencies in spelling (e.g., immo/imo, author/auctor) have been retained.

Acknowledgements Some of the material in this book has appeared in an earlier form as follows: ‘A Neglected Facet of Cardinal Cajetan: Biblical Reform in High Renaissance Rome’, in Richard Griffiths, ed., The Bible in the Renaissance, St Andrews Studies in Reformation History (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), pp. 71–94; ‘Rhetoric and the Literary Sense: The Sacred Author’s Performance in Cajetan’s Exegesis of Scripture’, in Trevor Hart and Steven Guthrie, eds., Faithful Performances: Enacting Christian Tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 109–122; and ‘Cajetan on Paul’, in R. Ward Holder, ed., A Companion to Paul in the Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 337–362. I am grateful to the publishers for permission to use this material in this book. On the journey that has led to the completion of this book, I have incurred many debts; it is a pleasant duty to acknowledge them and give thanks. My research began at Oxford. I thank my supervisor James McConica csb for his insight, kindness, and unflagging good humour—experienced afresh now that we once again share the same campus, though on a different continent. For the initial impetus and support for this project, I thank the late Archbishop Derek Worlock and Archbishop Patrick Kelly. The final push came during research leave generously supported by the University of St. Michael’s College. I have been blessed with wonderful friends and colleagues, among whom, for their warm support, I thank Andrew Beards, Sarah Jane Boss, David Bulmer, Dan Donovan, Emmanuel Gribben, Jennifer Harris, Guy Nicholls co, Patrick Nold, Valeria Pugiotto, Giulio Silano, and Joanne Woolway Grenfell. Reid Locklin’s writing group in Toronto continues to provide matchless solidarity and motivation—I cannot thank you enough: Reid, Caitriona Brennan, Ella Johnson, Jenna Sunkenberg, Natalie Wigg-Stevenson, and Terezia Zoric. Other colleagues and peers, past and present, have offered welcome feedback on various portions of the project: James Farge csb, Trevor Hart, Paul F. Grendler, Richard Griffiths, Steven Guthrie, R. Ward Holder, Michael Sharratt, and Domenico Pietropaolo. As I studied the thought of a Dominican master, I benefitted greatly from the wise guidance and practical help of several of his brethren: A.F. von Gunten op, Peter Hunter op, Herbert McCabe op, Robert Ombres op, Michael Tavuzzi op, and Allan White op. I have enjoyed generous hospitality (religious, social, and intellectual) among the Dominicans in Oxford and Toronto, which has given me an insight into Dominican life I could not have acquired from books; thank you to the respective superiors John Farrell op and Darren Dias op and their communities.

xii

acknowledgements

I am delighted that Mark Langham agreed to paint ‘Cajetan and his Assistants’, reproduced on the front cover; it is a notable enlargement of Cajetan iconography. I am enormously grateful to a number of librarians for their helpfulness and resourcefulness: at Oriel College, Blackfriars, and the Bodleian in Oxford, Ushaw College in Durham, the Venerable English College in Rome, and the John M. Kelly Library at St. Michael’s in Toronto. John W. O’Malley sj was an inspiration and personal encouragement at the start and my debt to his scholarship is clear on almost every page. Charles Morerod op kindly read the manuscript at an early stage and confirmed my sense that Cajetan’s exegesis deserved careful attention. Joseph Goering provided generous and constructive criticism of almost every page and got me to the finish line. Jared Wicks sj taught me as an undergraduate and modelled careful, responsible, ecumenically-minded scholarship; his continuing encouragement of my research, and his thorough reading of the final manuscript, brought to this book the benefit of his unequalled knowledge of Cajetan and saved me from a number of errors. For the St Andrews Studies in Reformation History, Bruce Gordon steered this volume with great patience and acuity, and Andrew Pettegree brought it safely into the harbour. Francis Knikker at Brill has been a pleasure to work with. The errors that remain are, of course, my own. Most of all, I thank my wife, Megan, who is a blessing and a gift—for her intelligence and grace, her good faith and humour, and her unwavering support (not to mention her eagle eye). And our children too, Matthew and Hannah, who have grown up faster than this book. With love, I should like to dedicate this book to my mother and to the memory of my father.

Chronology of Selected Works The following chronology includes all of Cajetan’s biblical commentaries and a selection of other works mentioned in the text. At the end of his works, Cajetan customarily provided the date and place of completion. The Summula peccatorum was completed in Hungary (present day Bratislava, in Slovakia). The Ientacula was completed in Austria (Villach); the New Testament commentaries (Matthew to Jude) were completed in Gaeta; all other works were completed in Rome. Summula peccatorum Ientacula Novi Testamenti Instructio nuntii […] de cena Domini Psalms Matthew Mark Luke John Romans 1Corinthians 2Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1Thessalonians 2Thessalonians 1Timothy 2Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James

1 2 3 4

‘[…] in solemnitate paschali’. ‘[…] in die sancti Britii’. ‘[…] in die sancti Xysti’ (see below). ‘[…] aetatis autem propriae sexagesimoprimo’.

22 Nov 15 Jun

1523 1524 1525 [21 Apr] 15271 [13 Nov] 15272 02 Dec 1527 25 Jan 1528 16 May 1528 [06 Aug] 15283 Oct 1528 Dec 1528 24 Jan 1529 09 Feb 1529 19 Feb 1529 05 Mar 1529 12 Mar 1529 17 Mar 1529 31 Mar 1529 29 Apr 1529 05 May 1529 07 May 1529 01 Jun 1529 03 Jun 15294

xiv

chronology of selected works

Acts 1Peter 2Peter 1John 2 and 3John Jude De coniugio regis Angliae cum relicta fratris sui Pentateuch De missae sacrificio et ritu adversus Lutheranos Joshua Judges Ruth De communione, &c., adversus Lutheranos 1 and 2Kings 3Kings [1Samuel] 4Kings [2Samuel] 1 Paralipomenon [1Chronicles] 2 Paralipomenon [2Chronicles] Ezra De fide et operibus adversus Lutheranos Nehemia Esther Job Responsiones Ad serenissimum Angliae regem Proverbs Ecclesiastes Isaiah (unfinished, chapters 1–3 only)

5 6 7 8

[29 Jun] 15 Jul 20 Jul 13 Aug no date 17 Aug 13 Mar no date 03 May 24 Jun 13 Jul Jul 25 Aug 07 Oct 11 Nov 16 Dec 17 Jan 05 Mar 19 Apr 15 May 19 Jul 31 Mar 30 Dec 21 Jan 06 Apr 23 Jun

15295 1529 1529 1529 1529 1530 1531 1531 1531 1531 1531 1531 1531 1531 1532 1532 15326 1532 1532 1532 1533 15347 1534 15348 1534 1534

‘[…] in die sacro Apostolorum Petri et Pauli’. ‘[…] die decimonono Aprilis inter aegritudinem longam’. = 30 December 1533: in Roman usage, the new year began on Christmas Day. ‘[…] inter tot aegritudines’.

chronology of selected works

xv

Note on the Date of the Romans Commentary Having completed his commentaries on the gospels in May 1528, Cajetan then went on to Paul, beginning with Romans.9 Cajetan’s commentaries on the New Testament epistles, including Romans, were first published in Venice in 1531. In this edition, the Romans commentary ends with ‘Caietae in die sancti xysti, anno domini.m.d.xxviii’ (‘At Gaeta, on the feast day of St. Sixtus, 1528’). In 1532, new editions of Cajetan’s commentaries appeared in Paris. A printing error in the Parisian edition gives the year of completion for the Romans commentary as 1532. When Cajetan’s biblical commentaries were collected in the five-volume edition of 1639 (which remains the most easily accessible edition of Cajetan’s commentaries), the error of the Paris edition was repeated: ‘Caietae in die sancti Xysti, anno Domini, m.d.xxxii’ (‘At Gaeta, on feast day of St. Sixtus, 1532’). Writing the first modern overview of Cajetan’s biblical exegesis in 1934, Jacques-Marie Vosté accepts this date, and hesitantly identifies Sixtus as Pope St. Sixtus i, whose feast day is 3 April. He therefore concludes that Cajetan probably worked on Romans, with interruptions, between May 1528 and (perhaps) 3 April 1532. Cajetan’s commentaries on all other biblical books appear to have been completed in a single stretch. The uncharacteristic procrastination was, according to Vosté, on account of the momentous doctrine of grace contained in Romans.10 According to Vosté’s conjectural chronology, Cajetan would only have completed his commentary on Romans after he had read, and begun a sequence of replies to, the Augsburg Confession; furthermore, it brings the date of completion of the commentary on Romans very close to that of the treatise, De fide et operibus adversus Lutheranos, written in response to Melanchthon’s Apologia for the Augsburg Confession (15 May 1532). It would not be unreasonable to expect to find echoes of these treatises in the commentary.

9 10

‘Exposito textu quattuor evangelistarum, occurrunt epistulae Pauli, et in primis ad Romanos’. On Rom 1.1, v, 1a. ‘Inter epistulas paulinas, nullo otio interposito, celerrima (revera tamen celerior) est successio: a die 16 Maii 1528 ad diem 1 Iunii 1529; ergo spatio unius anni et quindecim dierum. At epistulae ad Romanos, momentosae valde pro doctrina evangelica gratiae, ultimam manum non posuit nisi anno 1532’. Jacques-Marie Vosté, ‘Cardinalis Cajetanus Sacrae Scripturae interpres’, Angelicum 11 (1934): pp. 446–513, at p. 449. This article, together with a second, ‘Cardinalis Cajetanus in v.t., praecipuae in Hexameron’, Angelicum 12 (1935): pp. 305–332, was reprinted as Thomas de Vio op, Cardinalis Cajetanus, Sacrae Paginae Magister (Rome, 1935).

xvi

chronology of selected works

If the year is easily corrected, the rest of the date must be surmised. There are three Saints Sixtus in the Roman calendar; while Vosté plumps for the first of these, it is the second who has a particular significance for Cajetan: Sixtus ii was the patron of the Dominican church of which Cajetan was titular cardinal; Cajetan is often described as ‘the cardinal of San Sisto’. If Pope St. Sixtus ii is intended, as seems most plausible, then Cajetan completed the Romans commentary on his feast day, 6 August 1528.11 According to this dating, the commentary on John took about three and a half months to complete, and Romans about two and a half months. Although greater care was taken revising the Latin texts of John and Romans because of their theological importance, Cajetan’s steady work-rate throughout this period does not seem to have been substantially altered.12 The most likely dating places the Romans commentary entirely within the period of Cajetan’s Gaeta retreat which followed the Sack of Rome; it was begun and completed not as an isolated project but as part of a sequence of commentaries on all but one of the books of the New Testament. It was completed before Cajetan saw any of the Augsburg documents. 11

12

V. Koudelka, ‘Le “Monasterium Tempuli” et la fondation dominicaine de San Sisto’, afp, 31 (1961): pp. 5–81; Leonard Boyle, San Clemente Miscellany i: The Community of San Sisto e San Clemente in Rome, 1677–1977 (Rome: S. Clemente, 1977), p. 1. ‘[…] nisi apud Ioannis evangelium et epistolam ad Romanos; propter arduam enim utriusque materiam exactius studuimus correctioni literae’. On Mt, Intro, iv, 1b.

Introduction Tommaso de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534) is best known as the Roman official who failed to keep Martin Luther in the Catholic fold in October 1518. He is less well known for proposing radical concessions to the Lutherans in 1531, including clerical marriage and vernacular liturgy.1 Indeed, he is a multifaceted figure whose significance extends beyond those three difficult days in Augsburg and their aftermath. As a young friar, he taught Thomism in the wake of Scotus; he met and debated with Pico della Mirandola. He came to Rome and worked in the Vatican at the same time as Josquin des Pres, Michelangelo, and Raphael. He read Erasmus’s biblical scholarship with appreciation. He is one of the chief representatives of early modern scholasticism, and the author of an extensive commentary on Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, yet he surprises his readers by the extent of his debt to Renaissance humanism. Had he retired at the age of fifty-five, he could have looked back with pride on a productive life and a distinguished reputation as a philosopher, theologian, and Church leader. But rather than lay down his pen, this diminutive Italian cardinal embarked on a labour of biblical commentary that was to occupy the final decade of his life and to remain unfinished at his death in August 1534—producing over a million words of translation and commentary on most of the biblical text. The aim of this book is to offer an overview of this abundant, sophisticated, and at times arresting body of work. I will argue that Cajetan’s motive is the reform of the Church, and that his method is heavily inflected by Renaissance humanism. In both method and motive, Cajetan exemplifies the clerical embodiment of humanist-scholastic culture that prevailed at the papal court. I suggest that Cajetan’s commentaries are more a work of ‘Catholic Reform’ than ‘CounterReformation’. Or, to use another pair of controverted terms, there is at least as much ‘Renaissance’ as there is ‘Reformation’ in Cajetan’s choice to become a biblical scholar. Three things can be said at the outset: First, Cajetan’s approach to the biblical text is bold and fresh. He undertakes to purify the Vulgate of its accumulated errors and produce a translation as faithful as possible to the Hebrew and Greek truth. He brings a rich theological formation to his commentary, but also a vivid visual imagination and subtle psychological insight. He makes concerted use of the philological tools of the humanists, sometimes to buttress traditional interpretations, sometimes to challenge them. He is aware of the traditions of

1 English translation in Cajetan Responds, pp. 201–203, 287–289.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325098_002

2

introduction

patristic and medieval exegesis, and is very happy to draw on them, but he is also prepared to venture his own views—even when they take a different tack entirely from the whole tradition. For example, he argues that the ‘bread of life’ discourse in John’s gospel is not about the Eucharist, and he interprets the formation of Eve from Adam’s rib as an elaborate metaphor or parable. For John Thompson, Cajetan ‘follows his own muse’;2 for Allen K. Jenkins and Patrick Preston, Cajetan is ‘startling’ in his determination to return to the sources, and in his freedom vis-a-vis ecclesial tradition.3 Second, Cajetan achieves his results by an almost exclusive attention to the literal sense of the biblical text, understood to include figures of speech such as irony, metaphor, and hyperbole. He eschews mystical or allegorical interpretations and is cautious when he sees them occur within scripture itself. His literal sense is not a shallow ‘literalism’, but rather an attention to the many dimensions of meaning in a literary text: author, text, context, language. He expects to find what might be called a literary richness in the text. Third, my reading of the commentaries leads to a reappraisal of the conventional understanding of Cajetan’s motive in undertaking his exegetical project. It has been assumed that Cajetan became a biblical commentator for polemical reasons, to engage the reformers in battle on their chosen territory of scripture. According to T.H.L. Parker, ‘It had to be shown that the Bible was on the side of the Roman Church and not of the Lutherans, who had made it the sole platform of their authority. [Cajetan] therefore set out on this remarkable programme of expounding the Catholic Scriptures’.4 In other words, they are a work of ‘Counter-Reformation’. This view was clearly articulated as early as Richard Simon (1638–1712), the French biblical scholar and historian of biblical criticism.5 In Cajetan’s own lifetime, there may have been writers who approached

2 John L. Thompson, Writing the Wrongs: Women of the Old Testament among Biblical Commentators from Philo through the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 206. 3 Allen K. Jenkins and Patrick Preston, Biblical Scholarship and the Church: A Sixteenth-Century Crisis of Authority (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), p. 155. 4 T.H.L. Parker, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans 1532–1542 (Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1986), p. 8. For a sample of similar opinions, see M.-J. Lagrange, ‘La Critique Texuelle avant le Concile de Trente’, Revue Thomiste (1934–1935): pp. 400–409, at pp. 406–407; J.F. Groner, Kardinal Cajetan, Eine Gestalt aus der Reformazionszeit (Fribourg: Société Philosophique, 1951), pp. 24–25; Thomas A. Collins, ‘Cardinal Cajetan’s Fundamental Biblical Principles’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955): pp. 363–378, at p. 368; G. Hennig, Cajetan und Luther: ein historischer Beitrag zur Begegnung von Thomismus und Reformation (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1966), p. 119; Denis R. Janz, Luther and Late-Medieval Thomism (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier, 1983). 5 ‘Il était persuadé qu’ on ne pouvait réfuter solidement les nouvelles hérésies, sans une con-

introduction

3

scriptural exegesis with precisely this aim in mind. Indeed, there is some justification for including Cajetan among them; it was clearly expected of him in some quarters.6 Cajetan himself appears to provide just this explanation in one of his polemical works: his 1531 controversial treatise De sacrificio missae et ritu adversus Lutheranos (On the sacrifice and rite of the mass against the Lutherans). Here he explains that the gospels show Christ refuting the Sadducees by arguing solely from the books of Moses, the only books of scripture they recognised (Mt 22.23–33).7 Heretics likewise, Cajetan argues, must be countered with arguments from the authorities to which they themselves appeal. For this reason, Cajetan declares that he will present the case in support of the sacrifice of the mass exclusively from scripture.8 The ‘Counter-Reformation’ view assumes that this was the rationale behind all of Cajetan’s biblical exegesis. There have been dissenters from this view from the start—perhaps beginning with Luther himself, who is said to have joked that, at the end, Cajetan had himself become a Lutheran.9 More recently, two Dominican scholars have shown a subtler appreciation of Cajetan’s motive: Charles Morerod notes that the biblical commentaries of Cajetan and Luther, despite their differences, show a degree of common intellectual ancestry;10 and André-François von Gunten asserts that, in setting about the work of biblical commentary, Cajetan was simply trying to

6

7 8

9 10

naisance exacte du sens littéral de l’ Ecriture’, Simon, Richard (1638–1712), Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam, 1693), pp. 538–539. ‘Quis autem adversus Lutheri pestem aut verius scribere potuit, aut doctius, aut etiam confidentius?’, Epistola theologorum Parisiensium ad Cardinalem Coetanum [sic] reprehensoria (Wittenberg: Nicolaus Schirlentz, 1534), cited in M.-H. Laurent, ‘Quelques documents des archives Vaticanes (1517–1534)’, Revue Thomiste xvii (1934–1935): pp. 50–148, at p. 116, n. 17. See Aquinas, Catena aurea in quatuor evangelia (Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1953), vol. 1, p. 324b. ‘Unicus magister omnium Dominus Iesus Sadducaeos (qui ex sacris libris solos libros Moysi recepiebant) confutando ex libris Moysi, docuit nos, ut adversus haereticos abstineamus a testimoniis quae non recipiunt, sed illis utamus sacris testibus quos non refutant. Quocirca adversus haereticos qui Lutherani vocantur, innitentes solis testimoniis sacrarum scripturarum, scripturus de sacrificio missae ex solis sacris scripturis disputationem doctrinamque omnem perficere intendo’. Opuscula, iii, 285b. See also De communione sub utraque specie, de integritate confessionis, de satisfactione, de invocatione sanctorum, adversus Lutheranos (1531), ‘[…] invitat me ad scribendum de his non absolute, sed quatenus pendet ex sacra scriptura, quoniam ipsi solius sacrae scripturae authoritatem suscipiunt et profitentur se illi inniti’, Opuscula, iii, 292b. See chapter 8. ‘Si les commentaires bibliques de Cajetan ne sont pas des fils ou des frères ennemis de ceux de Luther, ils en sont des cousins. Ils sont donc le signe que le mouvement intellectuel auquel appartenait Luther recueillait a bien égards l’adhésion de Cajetan’.

4

introduction

give the Bible its rightful place in the Church, and to use the best tools available to help its readers to understand it.11 I will argue that Cajetan’s motive is somewhat diffuse and inclusive: to make use of the textual critical tools provided by humanist scholars to contribute to a widespread renewal of Christian living. This book is in three sections. The first section (chapters 1 and 2) provides the framework of Cajetan’s public and intellectual life. It is not an exhaustive biography but the necessary context for what follows. It highlights Cajetan’s concern for religious reform at all levels and his commitment to the Bible—and especially the connections he draws between these two principles: the scriptural principle and the reform principle. Throughout a long and active career as professor, papal courtier, cardinal, and diplomat, he remained a scholar and a friar: studying and teaching the sacred page in the tradition of his own Dominican order. Even before he met Luther in 1518, Cajetan was clear that scripture should serve as the chief inspiration of Christian intellectual life and mission. When he set out on his programme of biblical exegesis in 1523, he may have gathered some brand new tools, but his basic aim had already been adumbrated in previous decades. The second section (chapters 3 and 4) focuses on the question of motive as conveyed in the commentaries themselves. Building on the insights of Morerod and von Gunten, I propose a revised reading of Cajetan’s motive: that the biblical commentaries are part of a broader movement of education and renewal aimed at all levels. Within this broad concern, we certainly do find elements of ‘Counter-Reformation’. For the Dominican order, the care of souls included the correction of error as the occasion demanded (had not St. Dominic sat up all night trying to persuade the Albigensian innkeeper of the error of his ways?). For Cajetan, the Church is not as it should be; it is in need of healing and correction, and some of the ills it suffers are doctrinal errors traceable to Luther and Zwingli. But these are not the only items on the reform agenda in the 1520s and 1530s. The Christian community also longs for peace and harmony among Christian princes, for a higher moral standard among all people (not least those vowed to religious life), for security against the threat of the Turks from the

11

Charles Morerod, Cajetan et Luther en 1518. Édition, traduction et commentaire des opuscules d’Augsbourg de Cajetan (2 vols., Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 1994), vol. 1, p. 78; see also vol. 2, pp. 528–530. ‘En abordant son oeuvre exegétique il pensait simplement donner à l’Ecriture la place qu’elle méritait dans l’ Eglise et, grâce aux moyens les plus adéquats, aider ceux qui la lisaient à en pénétrer le contenu’. A.F. von Gunten, ‘La contribution des “Hébreux” à l’oeuvre exégétique de Cajétan’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 46–83, at p. 58.

introduction

5

East, and for the elimination of corruption among Church officials. Cajetan is not oblivious to the risk of a Lutheran schism, but he does not see it as the sole threat facing the Church in his day. As a humanist-inspired Thomist, Cajetan saw the scriptures as a primary source for the renewal of the Church—to be mined not only in the defence against heresy but also in search of the renewal of Christian life among princes and prelates, popes and priests, laity and religious. So we should expect to find in the commentaries occasions when the scriptural text prompts him to argue on behalf of the Catholic faith against the teaching of heretics, ancient and modern. But we should also expect to find occasions when the scriptural text prompts him to argue against the abuse of money by clergy, or the unjust use of violence and arms, or idolatry, and to stress the importance of prayer and works of charity. In this, he drew on a long-standing tradition that reached back to the New Testament itself: ‘All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness’ (2 Tim 3.16). But he was also inspired by the zeal of the Renaissance grammarians who wanted to rouse a languorous Church by means of a refurbished Word of God. To use shorthand, I will demonstrate that Cajetan remained a Dominican and a Thomist while becoming also an Erasmian. As for motive, so for method: Cajetan is led by the moderns as much as by the ancients. The book’s third section begins in chapter 5 by observing how Cajetan establishes the authentic biblical text. He proceeds line by line, sometimes even word by word, correcting the Vulgate according to the original language sources, seeking out the most accurate translation, however inelegant. Where necessary he refers to rabbinical readings or the translations of moderni (which often means Erasmus and Lefèvre d’Etaples). Though this task begins with single words and short phrases, it soon throws up larger questions of authorship and the biblical canon. Here Cajetan takes Jerome as a sure guide. Cajetan expresses a strong preference for the smaller Old Testament canon, consistent with the Hebrew Bible; and he muses that the uncertain authorship of some New Testament books (especially the letter to the Hebrews) has consequences for the role such texts can be allowed to play in determining Church teaching. His treatment of these issues shows his sense of intellectual freedom as well as his remarkable and liberating esteem for Jerome. Having corrected the text, he then gives the meaning. Chapter 6 and chapter 7 show his approach to the literal sense. In the course of his commentaries, Cajetan repeatedly asserts that the literal sense is his only concern: those who pray the psalms daily are best served by a clear literal exposition of their meaning; those who preach the scriptures need to understand the literal meaning of the words and deeds recounted, especially where these are ambiguous or

6

introduction

obscure. Cajetan’s approach is consistent; he appeals only rarely to mystical interpretations, and then only as a last resort. By stressing the literal sense, he was offering a corrective to the capricious allegories and earnest prophecies that featured in so many of the sermons he heard. By contrast, he aims to stay close to the author’s intention, expressed through choices of word, material, and genre. He emphasises again and again that texts have to read as units, each part related to the other parts and to the whole; context is often crucial in determining the meaning of a word. He discerns artfulness in the historical narratives of Moses and the evangelists and in the oratory of Paul. All of this is the fruit of literal interpretation. For Cajetan sensus literalis is no mere surface literalism; it is thick and multi-dimensional: a literary sense. Attention to the human authors highlights the variety in the Bible: it is made of many hands, across many years. At the same time, Christian tradition confesses one divine author writing through and in the human authors. There is therefore an underlying harmony in the biblical text—every part must be fundamentally in agreement with every other part and contradictions can only be apparent. Chapter 7 shows how this principle is worked out in the very practical matter of harmonising the four gospels and harmonising the Old and New Testaments. For Cajetan, scripture is the best interpreter of scripture. He accepts the solemn teaching of popes and councils and allows them to influence his exegesis (for example, concerning the incarnation or the divinity of the Son) but otherwise he does not rush to seek ‘outside’ help. The contribution of philosophical reasoning is handled with caution—it is useful but limited and must defer to divine revelation. Ecclesiastical traditions might exercise a guiding role in interpretation (for example, the practice of not giving communion to infants has exegetical consequences), but often philological evidence exercises a solvent effect on such traditions (for example, eliminating conventional proof texts on the sacraments). While he had frequent recourse to rabbinic and other ancient sources for historical and geographic information, he gave a wide berth to cabalistic, mystical, and prophetic material. Some of Cajetan’s readers feared that this scriptural minimalism left him without a sure doctrinal foundation. But Cajetan’s was not a sola scriptura position. He submitted all of his exegetical works to the judgment of the pope, the legitimate and necessary arbiter of scriptural and doctrinal interpretation. Chapter 8 is an epilogue to the third section, surveying some of the reactions to Cajetan’s biblical exegesis. The loudest voices were those of his critics. The strident reactions from the Dominicans Ambrosius Catharinus and Melchior Cano and from the Faculty of Theology in Paris demonstrate their intense disappointment: if Cajetan had meant his biblical exegesis as a sword to slay the

introduction

7

Protestants, then he had failed—he had forged an unbalanced weapon, bluntedged and more hazardous to the one actually wielding it. Cajetan’s views on canonicity were discussed, and rejected, at the Council of Trent, and his works subject to careful scrutiny and official censorship thereafter. All the same, Cajetan’s biblical commentaries did not go unread or unappreciated: they were published in an opera omnia edition in 1639 (almost unexpurgated), and given a largely sympathetic appraisal by Richard Simon, the so-called ‘father of biblical criticism’. The reception history of Cajetan’s biblical scholarship awaits a more thorough telling. Cajetan sought to do justice to two callings: the scholar’s and the preacher’s. The first was a calling to use all of his native wit and all of the technical means at his disposal to penetrate the mysteries of scripture. The second was a calling to put all of that learning at the service of the Church—as one Dominican motto has it, contemplata aliis tradere, to hand on to others the fruits of contemplation. His biblical humanism resists a polarisation between scholarship and preaching. Instead, Cajetan pursues a method of biblical commentary that strives for textual authenticity, demonstrates the need for adequate strategies of interpretation, and seeks to help members of the Church flourish in living the Christian life.

part 1 Biblical Reform from Principle to Project

∵

chapter 1

Friar, Professor, Papal Courtier (1469–1512) The final decade of Cajetan’s life was dedicated to a project of biblical translation and commentary. Before then, two threads can be detected in the tapestry of Cajetan’s life and writings. First, his attention to the Bible as the primary source of theological reflection. Second, his concern for reform and renewal at all levels in the Church. Most interesting from the point of view of this book are the times when those two threads are intertwined, where the Bible is seen as a preeminent instrument of ecclesial renewal. Cajetan’s systematic biblical project is not so inevitable that we can speak of a ‘journey towards biblical scholarship’ or of the ‘emergence of a biblical scholar’. But nor did it appear by chance or on a whim. Across his entire career as scholar and preacher, the idea of biblical reform is a recurring principle; in the final decade of his life he became captivated by that idea in an extraordinarily productive way; it became his final systematic scholarly project. When he took up new tools and began to work with new collaborators, he was doing so in pursuit of a passion that was by no means new to him.

Early Influences Giacomo de Vio was born in February 1469 in Gaeta in the Kingdom of Naples, just 30 miles from the birthplace of local saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274).1 He was to spend the whole of his life under the inspiration of this brightest of intellectual stars, and of the order to which he belonged: the Order of Preachers, or Dominicans. As a teenager, entering the Dominican order in 1484, he took the name Tommaso. Henceforth he was known as Tommaso de Vio, il Gaetano (from Gaeta, Caieta, hence Caietanus, Cajetan).

1 Biographical material has been collated chiefly from E. Stöve, ‘De Vio, Tommaso’, dbi 39, pp. 567–578; G. Hennig, Cajetan und Luther: ein historischer Beitrag zur Begegnung von Thomismus und Reformation (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1966); Jared Wicks, ‘Cajetan: A Biographical Essay’, in Cajetan Responds, pp. 3–42; Wicks, ‘Roman Reactions to Luther: The First Year (1518)’, Catholic Historical Review 69 (1983), pp. 521–562; Wicks, Cajetan und die Anfänge der Reformation (Münster: Aschendorff, 1983); cwe Contemps, 1, pp. 239–242; Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias: The Life and Works of Silvestro Mazzolini Da Prierio 1456–1527 (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1997).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325098_003

12

chapter 1

Most of Cajetan’s early years in the order were spent in the north of Italy, interrupted by bouts of illness and convalescence probably spent back home in Gaeta. He studied in Naples, Bologna (arriving shortly after Friar Girolamo Savonarola had been assigned elsewhere), and Padua. From 1493, he was assigned to teaching positions in Padua, Pavia, and Milan, more than once as a temporary stop-gap—somewhat ahead of his proper rank—while a permanent appointment was awaited. In Milan he was stationed at the Dominican priory of Santa Maria delle Grazie where the refectory wall was graced by Leonardo da Vinci’s recently completed fresco of the Last Supper (1498). He also may have spent shorter periods in Verona, Bressanone, Bergamo, Brescia, and Mantua. Cajetan thus had direct experience of the diversity of political life in the Italian peninsula: Naples to the South, the Papal States in central Italy, and the patchwork of city states in the North. In the fifteenth century, the balance of power was maintained through shifting alliances and enmities between these states and smaller powers. That changed in August 1494 when Charles viii of France descended into Italy, presenting himself as a second Charlemagne with a sacred mission to conquer Italy for France, reform Rome, convert the infidel, and reduce the world to a single flock under one shepherd. War— and the preparation for it and recovery from it—became a way of life for more than six decades. In 1514, Pope Leo x, addressing the Fifth Lateran Council, spoke of ‘the fierce madness of armed conflicts’. What do they accomplish? For as a result of them, Italy has been almost wiped out by internecine slaughter, cities and territories have been disfigured, partly overturned and partly levelled, provinces and kingdoms have been stricken, and people cease not to act with madness and to welter in christian blood.2 One consequence of the so-called ‘Italian Wars’ (1494–1559) was that the ‘fate of Italian states would be decided by the diplomatic and dynastic arrangements of the kings of Spain and France and the emperor for centuries to come’.3 For the young Cajetan, the unrest was not only political and military. This was also a time of considerable internal tension for the Dominican order.

2 Tanner, p. 610. 3 Michael Mallett and Christine Shaw, The Italian Wars 1494–1559 (Harlow: Pearson, 2012), p. 297.

friar, professor, papal courtier (1469–1512)

13

Though it never formally split, by the late fifteenth century it was in effect run as two separate groups. The majority of communities were conventual, with an easy-going attitude to fasting and liturgical observance, a ‘privileged class of Masters of Theology’, and a good deal of private life—known paradoxically as vita communis. A smaller but growing number of communities were observant, making a genuine attempt at apostolic poverty and following the small print of monastic life.4 Michael Tavuzzi has shown that Cajetan’s origins and sympathies did not lie with the observants, as has been assumed; he was ‘a perfect example of a conventual friar’; he was once in trouble for non-payment of a debt and, when elected Master General, one of his first acts was to convey to a relative a cell he had built at his own expense in the grounds of the convent in Gaeta.5 From the beginning of his career, Cajetan enjoyed the patronage of the Neapolitan Cardinal Protector of the Dominican order, Oliviero Carafa (1430– 1511, uncle of Gian Pietro Carafa, the future pope Paul iv), and he rapidly ascended the ladder within the order.6 During the General chapter of 1494, in Ferrara, the twenty-five-year-old Cajetan successfully debated with the celebrated Pico della Mirandola and was acclaimed there and then as a Master of Theology.7 Such honours were not unknown, but the practice was usually a way of recognizing senior friars for a lifetime of hard work and apostolic dedication, rather than a means of accelerating someone already destined for scholarship. Most commentators have viewed this as proof of the young friar’s precocious talents; Tavuzzi, however, has suggested that it may be an early manifestation of Cardinal Carafa’s ongoing promotion of Cajetan; Tavuzzi points out, further4 Benedict Ashley, The Dominicans (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1990), chapter 4. 5 Tavuzzi, Prierias, p. 5. 6 For the relationship between Cajetan and Carafa see John W. O’Malley, ‘The Feast of Thomas Aquinas in Rome: A Neglected Document and Its Import’, Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 35 (1981): pp. 1–27; Gail L. Geiger, Filippino Lippi’s Carafa Chapel: Renaissance Art in Rome, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 5 (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal, 1986); Romeo de Maio, ‘Savonarola, Oliviero Carafa, Tommaso de Vio e la Disputa di Raffaello’, in afp 38 (1968): pp. 149–165; F. Petrucci, ‘Oliviero Carafa’, in dbi 29 (1976): pp. 588–596; Diana Norman, ‘Cardinal of Naples and Cardinal in Rome: The Patronage of Oliviero Carafa’, in Mary Hollingsworth and Carol M. Richardson (eds.), The Possessions of a Cardinal: Politics, Piety, and Art, 1450–1700 (University Park, pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009), pp. 77– 91. 7 This kind of intervention was typical, not only under Carafa, whose tenure marked the zenith of the cardinal protector’s role, but also under future cardinals protector, too, such as Cardinal Cajetan himself; see Stephen L. Forte, The Cardinal Protector of the Dominican Order (Rome: Dominican Historical Institute, 1959), pp. 24–28 for Carafa, pp. 31–33 for Cajetan.

14

chapter 1

more, that the ‘moribund’ Pico, just a few months from death, would hardly have been a demanding opponent.8 Polemic and disputation were a regular part of life for the young professor. In Padua, Cajetan found himself in the Dominican and Thomist corner of a three-cornered intellectual boxing ring. In the second corner were the Scotists, represented by the veteran Franciscan Antonio Trombetta. Among the banner doctrines that distinguished the Scotists from the Thomists, we can count the primacy of the will (rather than the intellect), the postulation of an incarnation even without a fall, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The third corner was occupied by the Averroists-Aristotelians, represented by Nicoletto Vernia and Pietro Pomponazzi. In the pursuit of strictly philosophical understanding, the Averroists set to one side the data of revealed religion, including such notions as creation, divine providence, and the immortality of the soul. On such issues, the more theologically-oriented Scotists and Thomists joined forces to attack the Averroists. At times, the academic debates were judged too antagonistic and scandalous for public view; they were banned in 1489 by Bishop Barozzi of Padua.9 During this time Cajetan produced commentaries on Aristotle and Aquinas, other works of metaphysics and moral theology, and perhaps also a commentary on the Sententiae of Peter Lombard.10 It is also at this time that he began his commentary on the Summa theologiae of Aquinas, in which he situates each article within the structure of the work as a whole, describes the arguments employed by Aquinas, corrects erroneous interpretations, and makes connections to contemporary developments.11 All of these works are ‘scholastic’, bringing together faith and reason, scripture and Aristotle, in the tradition common to Lombard, Aquinas, and Scotus.

8 9 10

11

Tavuzzi, Prierias, p. 21. Paul F. Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), pp. 283–285. A full listing of Cajetan’s works is given in J.F. Groner, Kardinal Cajetan, Eine Gestalt aus der Reformazionszeit (Fribourg: Société Philosophique, 1951), pp. 66–73. On the questionable authenticity of the commentary on the Sentences, see Stefan N. Bosshard, Zwingli, Erasmus and Cajetan. Die Eucharistie als Zeichen der Einheit (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978), p. 109. Cajetan’s commentary on the Summa theologiae was completed and published as follows: on st i, 1507 (Venice, 1508); on st i-ii, 29 December 1511 (Venice, 1514); on st ii-ii, 26 February 1517 (Venice, 1518); on st iii, inc. complementary Quaestiones, 19 December 1520 (Venice, 1523). Cajetan’s complete commentary is published with Aquinas’s text in Leonine, vols. 4–12.

friar, professor, papal courtier (1469–1512)

15

Intellectual combat with the Scotists and the Averroists did not leave Cajetan unmarked. Some among his own Dominican confreres judged him to have failed to uphold Aquinas’s interpretations of Aristotle and to have given too much ground to his opponents, or simply to have been too free with his own opinions; perhaps some envied his family connections and curial patronage. The list of his opponents includes many of the key Dominicans in Italy at the time: Sylvester Prierias, Valentino da Camerino (who had taught Cajetan in Padua), Francesco Silvestri, Crisostomo Iavelli, Bartolomeo Spina, and Gaspare da Perugia.12 Their chief targets included Cajetan’s early treatise on analogy, De nominum analogia (1498), but also the first part of the Summa commentary. Quite possibly, Cajetan fired the first published shots in a treatise of 1499 and in the first part of his Summa commentary (published 1507) where Sylvester Prierias seems to be criticised. Prierias’s response was sustained and extensive. His major anthology of Thomist thought (the Conflatum ex S. Thoma) was begun precisely around 1507 and its main antagonist is not Scotus or Plato, but erring Thomists; though named only once, Cajetan is the author of the many explicit citations criticised. This antagonism may have been aggravated by institutional affiliations: Prierias was an observant, Cajetan was not. The feuding was to last for decades and may have hampered the Roman responses to Luther.13 After the death of Prierias, opposition to Cajetan remained fiercest within his own order (Ambrosius Catharinus, Melchior Cano). Cajetan’s teaching on analogy continues to fascinate (and divide) modern philosophers.14 In the 1490s, Padua was a major centre of scholastic intellectual life, and Cajetan, who would be known as a major contributor to a second great age of scholasticism, received a thorough training there.15 But it was also a place where Cajetan was exposed to the growing traditions of the Renaissance humanists.

12

13 14 15

As well as Michael Tavuzzi’s Prierias, see also his articles on Cajetan’s opponents, ‘Chrysostomus Javelli o.p. (ca.1470–1538), part i’, Angelicum 67 (1990): pp. 457–482; ‘Valentino da Camerino o.p. (1438–1515): Teacher and Critic of Cajetan’, Traditio 49 (1994): pp. 287–316; ‘Gaspare di Baldassare da Perugia, o.p. (1465–1531): A Little-Known Adversary of Cajetan’, The Thomist 60 (1996): pp. 595–615; ‘Capreolus dans les écrits de Silvestro da Prierio, o. p. (1456–1527)’, Memoire Dominicaine. Numéro spécial No. 1, Jean Capreolus et son temps 1380–1444 (Paris: Cerf, 1997): pp. 239–258. See Tavuzzi, Prierias, pp. 91–96. See Joshua P. Hochschild, The Semantics of Analogy: Rereading Cajetan’s De Nominum Analogia (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010). Carlo Giacon, La Seconda Scolastica, vol. 1: I Grandi Commentatori Di San Tommaso: Il Gaetano, Il Ferrarese, Il Vitoria (Milan: Fratelli Bocca, 1944).

16

chapter 1

Renaissance humanism was a movement of educational reform that sought wisdom from classical Greece and Rome. The movement had a lasting influence on the intellectual and political culture of Europe. The studia humanitatis were placed at the centre of the curriculum: rhetoric, grammar, poetry, history, and ethics. The humanists called for a return to the sources (ad fontes) and developed the necessary skills of textual, philological, and historical criticism. They believed that this kind of education fostered the development of sound moral character. Though the humanists were not typically revolutionary in their politics, their methods applied an intellectual solvent to old certainties and assumptions, whether scholastic, medieval, or ecclesiastical. The influence of the Venetian humanist Ermolao Barbaro was felt among the scholars in Padua. He recognised the futility of debates that were grounded on defective editions of Aristotle and insisted on the need to return to the Greek sources and to produce accurate new translations; he himself commenced this work.16 The Paduan arts faculty implicitly recognised the value of Barbaro’s work in 1497, with the creation of a new chair for the exposition of Aristotle according to the Greek text. Cajetan was aware of these developments: in his later commentary on Aristotle’s De anima (1509), he made use of new Latin translations; and although not expert in Greek, he consulted the Greek text, availing himself of the skilled assistance of humanist colleagues.17 At the same time, the Dominican scholar Pietro Maldura da Bergamo was spearheading a return to the sources of Aquinas, using the tools of textual criticism to edit texts and determine authenticity in the canon of Aquinas’s works. Pietro was based in the house of studies in Bologna where Cajetan had been a student briefly in 1488.18 These facts are significant not only for Cajetan’s early works relating to Aristotle and Aquinas, but also as an indication of his likely evaluation of the scriptural textual criticism of Erasmus and Valla. Cajetan’s first years as a teacher and scholar had initiated him into the latemedieval world of scholastic commentary and disputation, whose ultimate authority was scripture. This was the establishment, with its traditional practices and axioms. But in Italy at least, the theological establishment was having to acknowledge and come to terms with the new approaches of humanist 16

17

18

Vittore Branca, ‘Ermolao Barbaro and late Quattrocento Venetian humanism’, in John R. Hale (ed.), Renaissance Venice (London: Faber and Faber, 1973), pp. 218–243; cwe Contemps, 1, pp. 91–92. M.-H. Laurent, ‘Le Commentaire de Cajétan sur le De Anima’, Introduction to I. Coquelle (ed.), Thomas De Vio Cardinal Caietanus (1469–1534) Scripta Philosophica. Commentaria in De Anima Aristotelis (2 vols., Rome: Angelicum, 1938–1939), vol. 1, p. xxxi. Tavuzzi, Prierias, p. 12.

friar, professor, papal courtier (1469–1512)

17

textual scholarship. While some felt that such skills were irrelevant (or even harmful) to scholastic tradition, Cajetan showed himself to be a willing disciple.

Roman Intellectual Culture In June 1501, at the instigation of Cardinal Carafa, Cajetan was called to Rome: he was to take up the post of Procurator General, the order’s representative in its dealings with the papacy and the Roman curia. He was also to teach theology and philosophy at Rome’s university, the Studium Urbis (commonly known as the Sapienza from the 1560s on). Cajetan had joined the papal court.19 When Pope Martin v (1417–1431) returned the papacy to Rome in 1420, after years of exile in Avignon and the Great Schism during which multiple popes contended for the position, the city was in ruins. In more ways than one, Rome needed to be rebuilt. The fifteenth-century popes began a programme of civic and sacred reconstruction, aimed at re-establishing Rome as a worthy home for the vicar of Christ.20 Nicholas v (1447–1455) set out the rationale for this programme as follows: A popular faith, sustained only on doctrines, will never be anything but feeble and vacillating. But if the authority of the Holy See were visibly displayed in majestic buildings, imperishable memorials and witnesses seemingly planted by the hand of God himself, belief would grow and strengthen like a tradition from one generation to another, and all the world would accept and revere it.21 The rebuilding of Rome, including the establishment of the Vatican library, was thus conceived as an evangelical priority, enabling the papacy to be more effective in the role entrusted to it by Christ. Nicholas’s vision was taken forward by successive popes, especially Sixtus iv (Francesco della Rovere, 1471–1484), builder of the Sistine Chapel, and his nephew Julius ii (Giuliano della Rovere, 19

20 21

On the style and functioning of the papal court, see Jennifer Mara DeSilva, ‘Senators or Courtiers: Negotiating Models for the College of Cardinals under Julius ii and Leo x’, Renaissance Studies 22 (2008): pp. 154–173. Elizabeth M. McCahill, Reviving the Eternal City: Rome and the Papal Court, 1420–1447 (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2013). Cited in Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (3rd edn., New Haven ct: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 181.

18

chapter 1

1503–1513).22 Julius was a man of the Church, of genuine devotion, burning with zeal for the Holy See. He was also a ferocious warrior, an imperious general, riding at the head of his troops in silver armour, nicknamed Il Terribile. He pursued the twin aims of restoring lost territories to the Papal States and expelling the Spanish and French from Italian soil. Julius’s policy was to consolidate the papacy’s temporal power in order to ensure its religious freedom. This is a foundational policy of all the Renaissance popes—Julius was simply the most bellicose in pursuing it. Taking advantage of the near-monopoly in alum enjoyed by the papacy, he was able to build up revenues significantly, leaving the papal coffers full at his death. (Alum was an essential ingredient in the wool trade and the only known mine in the West was in Tolfa, in the Papal States.) Within Rome, Julius energetically continued his uncle’s work of urban and artistic renewal, drawing the best out of those artists he commissioned, including Raphael (School of Athens, 1511), Michelangelo (Sistine Chapel Ceiling, 1508–1512) and Bramante (the new St. Peter’s Basilica, of which the foundation stone was laid in 1506). In the judgment of John O’Malley, Julius’s ‘genius as patron matched theirs as artists’.23 One of the chief myth-makers of Julius’s pontificate was the Augustinian Hermit, Giles (Egidio) of Viterbo (1469–1532). An exact contemporary of Cajetan’s and occasional collaborator, Giles was in many ways Cajetan’s intellectual opposite: an emotional and prolix preacher, a Platonist, an Augustinian, fascinated by mystical prophecies, allegory, and numerology.24 By the time of Cajetan’s arrival in Rome, the city had grown into a foremost centre of cultural life. The curia was a magnet for artists, builders, and the new literati, all of whose skills were harnessed by the papacy to create an image of learning, beauty, and wisdom. As in Padua, the intellectual life of Renaissance Rome was a cocktail of scholastic and humanist elements. But here the mix was different. Theology in Renaissance Rome reflected the unique character of the city. Whereas Padua was part of the Venetian empire and was answerable to the Rialto, the Roman ruling class was clerical and the head of state was a bishop. Important civic occasions were liturgical celebrations and the predominant expression of public oratory was the sermon. Humanists who came to Rome in search of a career adapted themselves to the theocratic 22 23 24

Nicholas Temple, Renovatio Urbis: Architecture, Urbanism and Ceremony in the Rome of Julius ii (London: Routledge, 2011). John W. O’Malley, ‘The Renaissance Papacy, 1420–1565’, in Paul Johnson and Michael Walsh (eds.), The Papacy (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1997), pp. 104–141, at p. 129. John W. O’Malley, Giles of Viterbo on Church and Reform (Leiden: Brill, 1968); O’Malley, Rome and the Renaissance: Studies in Culture and Religion (Variorum: Aldershot, 1981).

friar, professor, papal courtier (1469–1512)

19

demands of Roman society, including the formal acceptance of celibacy. They addressed serious issues in theology and turned their attention to the Christian as well as the pagan past of the city. Meanwhile, members of supposedly typical scholastic professions, religious friars, contributed to the establishment of Ciceronian Latin as the norm for public oratory. One result of this adaptation was a tendency to blur the contrasts between scholasticism and humanism. The methods and styles of both find expression within single works. Scholars have generally identified four distinctive elements in the religious culture of Renaissance Rome in the first decades of the sixteenth century; although these elements were not unique to Rome, they combined in a way that produced a theological style (if not a ‘school’) that was quite different from anything emerging elsewhere at the same time.25 The first distinctive feature is Roman preaching. The humanists were inspired by the classical connection of virtue and good literature: the pursuit of eloquence was a moral pursuit. This brought about a radical reorientation of sermon style as the preachers at the papal court embraced classical rhetoric as an alternative to scholastic preaching styles. Dialectic, the driving discipline of scholasticism, generated questions, distinctions, refinement of argument, and proof. The humanists’ rhetorical style, on the other hand, was content to rest with a few foundational truths, elaborating on these in a manner that sought to affect sentiment and behaviour. The themes chosen were the comprehensive themes of the creed: creation (especially humanity), incarnation, redemption. The social virtues of generosity and hospitality were stressed, caritas being celebrated as the expression of humanitas. The incarnation was envisaged as the image of human potential; the resurrection and ascension the image of human fulfilment. Rhetoric exploited the power of narrative, concrete vocabulary, and historical example to persuade and to move the emotions. Listeners were urged

25

For this section on Renaissance Roman theology, see especially, John W. O’Malley, ‘The Religious and Theological Culture of Michelangelo’s Rome, 1508–1512’, in Edgar Wind, The Religious Symbolism of Michelangelo: The Sistine Ceiling (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. xli–lii. I have made slight adjustments to O’Malley’s organization of these four strands. See also John F. D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983); John W. O’Malley, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: Rhetoric, Doctrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, ca.1450– 1521 (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1979); O’Malley, ‘Grammar and Rhetoric in the pietas of Erasmus’, Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988): pp. 81–98; Charles Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome (2nd edn., Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1998), pp. 140–155; Charles Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Renaissance Thought (2 vols., London: Constable, 1970).

20

chapter 1

to look, to behold the marvellous deeds of God. The events of the Old Testament tended to be expounded literally and historically, for their inherent narrative drama and capacity to inspire, rather than for any allegorical correspondence to Christian mysteries. A joyful panegyric style became the means whereby the deeds of God could be not only explained but celebrated. This ‘rhetorical theology’ is the freshest and most original of the features of Renaissance Roman theology and constitutes its most public face. As Procurator General of the Dominicans, Cajetan was required to preach at the solemn papal mass on the first Sunday of Lent and the first Sunday of Advent. Five of these sermons, given before Alexander vi and Julius ii, are conserved in Cajetan’s Opuscula: sermons on the incarnation, the power of prayer, the immortality of the soul, the cause of evil, and the punishment by fire after death in the case of lost souls. The choice of conventional scholastic themes indicates that he is not entirely at home in the modish style. And Cajetan’s Latin is hardly Ciceronian. Nevertheless, there is in these sermons a real, if rather self-conscious, attempt to meet the requirements of the genre.26 Aside from the Latin style, the influence of rhetorical theology on scriptural exegesis would be seen in a keen attention to narrative, a sense of the visual and dramatic, and a preference for the literal, historical sense over the allegorical— all characteristics of Cajetan’s later biblical commentaries. A second feature of Roman theology was the fascination with ancient texts and artefacts. The discovery of the statue of Laocoön in 1506 was the most celebrated case in a period of almost constant discovery. The statue, known from Pliny the Elder’s enthusiastic description, depicts the punishment by the goddess Athena of the Trojan priest Laocoön and his sons for cautioning against the admission of the Trojan horse (Virgil had given him the lines: ‘I fear Greeks bearing gifts’). It was hardly out of the ground before the artists had gathered to make sketches. For the young poet Jacopo Sadoleto, it symbolised the return of a Golden Age, linking the time of the popes to the times of the Caesars.27

26

27

Opuscula, 181a–189b. Discussed in Jared Wicks, ‘Thomism between Renaissance and Reformation: The Case of Cajetan’, arg 68 (1977) pp. 9–33. See also O’Malley, Praise and Blame, pp. 108–110. An English translation of one of the sermons, ‘Oratio de immortalitate animarum’, Opuscula, iii, 186a–188a, is available as, ‘On the Immortality of Minds’, trans. J. Sheridan, in L. Kennedy (ed.), Renaissance Philosophy (The Hague: Mouton, 1973), pp. 41–54. Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, p. 276. The connection between Sadoleto and Cajetan merits further scholarly attention. The two came to Rome around the same time and Sadoleto joined the household of Cardinal Oliviero Carafa, Cajetan’s patron; see D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome, p. 34.

friar, professor, papal courtier (1469–1512)

21

The discoveries of and renewed access to ancient texts were no less exciting. Humanists sought to develop the philological skills necessary in order to authenticate ancient texts, to free them from scribal errors, to date them correctly, and to prepare editions for the printing press. The pioneer in this field was Lorenzo Valla and his heir was Erasmus. The Roman humanists contributed significantly to the application of these ‘grammatical’ techniques to biblical and patristic studies.28 Building on the work of their predecessors, Cajetan’s contemporaries—Cardinal Castellesi, Zenobi Acciuoli (the Dominican papal librarian), and Raffaele Maffei—produced patristic editions or anthologies; Giles of Viterbo, a hebraicist of the highest calibre, sought the hebraica veritas as diligently as any Christian of his generation. Cajetan’s use of new translations of Aristotle based on better, more authentic Greek texts indicates that, long before he became a biblical exegete, he had appreciated the principles of ‘grammatical theology’ and would be favourably inclined to their use in biblical study. The model for a third feature of Roman theology was the interpretation of poetry. For the practitioners of ‘poetic theology’, texts mean more than they say; there are levels of truth hidden below the surface to which only the enlightened can penetrate.29 This applies to scripture but also to non-biblical ancient texts, in the belief that divine revelation was not confined to the Bible or the Christian Church. Taking up hints in Augustine and Justin, and using the allegorical techniques of Philo and Origen, Christians sought traces of doctrine in the Old Testament but also in the pagan classics (especially Virgil), in hermetic literature, in Plato and Neoplatonism, and in the sibylline oracles. Michelangelo’s alternating portraits of prophets and sibyls in the Sistine Chapel (1508–1512) sit very comfortably within this outlook.30 A favourite tool for exegesis was the cabala, a body of medieval Jewish speculation thought by many to have come down in an oral tradition ultimately from Moses. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Johannes Reuchlin popularised the cabala. As a method of exegesis it found an enthusiastic reception among religious orders

28

29

30

Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, pp. 166–170, 287; John F. D’Amico, ‘Humanism and Pre-Reformation Theology’, in Albert Rabil (ed.), Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms and Legacy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), vol. 3, pp. 349– 379. For the term ‘poetic theology’, see Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness, vol. 2, pp. 683–721; William A. Dyrness, Poetic Theology: God and the Poetics of Everyday Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), pp. 37–50. See, for example, Heinrich W. Pfeiffer, The Sistine Chapel: A New Vision (New York: Abbeville, 2007).

22

chapter 1

and distinguished churchmen.31 With the blessing of Clement vii, and assisted by Jewish associates, Giles of Viterbo became the most accomplished Christian cabalist of his day.32 In marked contrast to Giles, Cajetan entirely eschewed the principles and aims of ‘poetic theology’. As we shall see, he made no use of the cabala and was extremely cautious about contemporary prophecy; his use of the allegorical interpretation of scripture was rare and always in conformity with traditional models. The three elements discussed so far (rhetorical theology, grammatical theology, and poetic theology) indicate the influence of the classical tradition, as revived by humanists, on the practice of theology and preaching in Renaissance Rome. The fourth element instances the enduring presence of scholasticism and, in particular, of the Dominican Thomas Aquinas. Certain elements of Aquinas’s teaching were well-suited to the intellectual culture in Renaissance Rome: in general, his sense of order and beauty, wisdom and harmony in God’s works; and more particularly, the way this sense of orderly providence could be articulated in terms of the papacy’s monarchical role at the Church’s centre.33 Aquinas not only was prominent but was the single strongest theological influence in Renaissance Rome.34 Both in the manner of the celebration of his feast day and in the assiduous study of his writings, no other non-biblical saint or scholar was held in comparable esteem. Under Nicholas v, the Vatican library possessed more volumes of Aquinas than of any other author; in Nicholas’s private chapel, Aquinas is depicted alongside the Greek and Latin doctors of the early Church in frescoes painted by the Dominican Fra Angelico. On his feast day, the papal entourage attended the solemn liturgy in unprecedented cere31

32

33 34

Robert J. Wilkinson, Orientalism, Aramaic, and Kabbalah in the Catholic Reformation: The First Printing of the Syriac New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2007); François Secret, Les Kabbalistes chrétiens de la Renaissance (Rome: Centro Internazionale di studi Umanistici, 1964; revised edition, Milan, 1985); Secret, ‘Les Dominicains et la Kabbale chrétienne à la Renaissance’, afp 27 (1957): pp. 319–336. Brian Copenhaver and Daniel Stein Kokin, ‘Egidio da Viterbo’s Book on Hebrew Letters: Christian Kabbalah in Papal Rome’, Renaissance Quarterly 67 (2014): pp. 1–42; John W. O’Malley, Giles of Viterbo on Church and Reform (Leiden: Brill, 1968), pp. 67–99. Stinger, The Renaissance In Rome, p. 143. In addition to the items mentioned in n. 25 above, see Paul Oskar Kristeller, Medieval Aspects of Renaissance Learning (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974; re-issued with new preface, 1992), originally published, with appended texts, as Le Thomisme et la pensée italienne de la Renaissance (Montreal: Inst. d’Études Médiévales, 1967); John Monfasani, ‘Aristotelians, Platonists, and the Missing Ockhamists: Philosophical Liberty in Pre-Reformation Italy’, Renaissance Quarterly 46 (1993): pp. 247–276.

friar, professor, papal courtier (1469–1512)

23

mony at the Dominican church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva. During the mass, the singing of the creed indicated an honour reserved at that time to doctors of the Church. Oliviero Carafa, the Cardinal Protector of the Dominican order, constantly sought to bring to Rome scholars of the highest repute who would promote the study of Aquinas and extend his influence. Cajetan’s arrival in Rome in 1501 was the result of a deliberate policy and carried with it specific expectations. Cajetan’s commentary on the first part of the Summa was completed in 1507. It is marked by an emphasis on God’s wisdom, providence, and gentle marshalling of the whole of creation—themes in Aquinas that were favoured by the Roman humanists. Though not as recognizable as Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel Ceiling, Cajetan’s commentary on Aquinas is no less ‘typical’ a monument of the Roman High Renaissance. Reviewing Cajetan’s output at this stage, there is little evidence of a future biblical specialist taking shape. Many of his treatises are on philosophical and canonical issues, and much of the first part of Aquinas’s Summa is concerned with somewhat philosophical reflections on the divine nature and on the angels; and although, according to Brian Davies, the Summa theologiae of Aquinas ‘can be justly described as a sophisticated and systematic commentary on the Bible’,35 here, scripture is usually a source of authority in argumentation, rather than the direct object of exegesis. Aquinas’s own first principles (st i, 1), which set out the central place of scripture in the theological enterprise, will be considered in chapter 6. The one place where scriptural material does come to the fore, in Aquinas’s consideration of the six days of creation (st i, 67– 74), draws minimal exegetical comment from Cajetan. Nevertheless, as we have seen in his approach to Aristotle, Cajetan had already conceded the usefulness of historical criticism in the establishment of accurate texts. In due course, these two interests—historical critical scholarship and biblical theology—will come together.

Defender of the Papacy In August 1507, Cajetan was nominated Vicar General of the order, once again thanks to the influence of Cardinal Carafa. This nomination anticipated the General Chapter called for Pentecost 1508, to be held in Rome, during which a

35

Brian Davies, Aquinas, Outstanding Christian Thinkers (London and New York: Continuum, 2002), p. 12.

24

chapter 1

new Master General was to be elected. The Cardinal Protector ensured that any opposition to Cajetan’s candidacy was suppressed; on 10 June 1508, Cajetan was elected Master General.36 During his tenure, he was frequently called upon to advise the pope on a variety of matters, theological and administrative; in the best-known case, the problem was rebellion. On 16 May 1511, a handful of cardinals and bishops came out in open rebellion against Pope Julius and called a council for 1 September in Pisa. They had the backing of Louis xii of France and Emperor Maximilian i, who imagined himself crowned pope as well as emperor. They had grown impatient with Julius, who had failed to deliver on election promises to convene a council to reform the Church, in head and members. If the pope was going to behave like a king and lead his army into battle, then the kings would behave like a pope and convene a council of the Church.37 They were drawing on a tradition of thought that saw the Church’s supreme authority vested in the community as a whole and represented by the bishops gathered in general council; as a consequence, the pope was no absolute monarch but the elected delegate of the Christian community. If he failed to lead worthily, he could be overruled and even deposed by a general council. This ‘conciliarist’ view was voiced in the councils of Constance (1414–1418) and Basel (1431–1437) and endured into the sixteenth century.38 Within living memory, the Dominican Savonarola had appealed to the sovereigns of the Europe to convene a council to depose Alexander vi (Alexander Borgia) and begin reforming the Church. Pope Julius was unprepared; he was in Ravenna, shoring up the papal territories and planning an attack on Ferrara. He hastened back to Rome where his advisers, including Cajetan, urged him to reply to the rebel council by calling a council of his own, to meet the following April (1512). This was to be the Fifth Lateran Council. Cajetan wrote to his friars at this time forbidding them from participating at Pisa (though they were being tempted by promises of the canonization of Savonarola) and he sent friars to Pisa to mobilise opposition. He laid out his reasons in a treatise entitled Tractatus de auctoritate papae or De comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii (completed 12 October 1511). The French reaction was unequivocal. King Louis xii had Cajetan’s 1511 treatise burned and directed the University of Paris to censure it; the young professor Jacques Almain was commissioned to pen a rebuttal. His Libellus reached Rome by the spring of 1512. By 19 November 1512, Cajetan had completed his reply 36 37 38

Stöve, dbi 39, p. 568. Mallett and Shaw, The Italian Wars 1494–1559, p. 101. Francis Oakley, The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300– 1870 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). Chapter 3 discusses Cajetan and Pisa.

friar, professor, papal courtier (1469–1512)

25

to Almain’s treatise, his Apologia de comparata auctoritate papae et concilii (published in 1513).39 Cajetan’s two treatises dwell at length on the obvious scriptural passages concerning the leadership of Peter, especially in relation to the other apostles (Matthew 16.19, 18.17–18, Luke 22.32, John 21.17, Acts 8.14). He draws on the fathers of the Church, more recent theologians (Juan de Torquemada and especially Aquinas), and canon law to establish the best interpretation of each passage. Even allowing for the different lengths of their treatises, Cajetan draws more widely and more frequently on scripture than does Almain;40 he clearly sees the scriptural foundations as crucial to his case and spells out clearly the relevant hierarchy. As ministers in the Church, the twelve apostles (including Peter) have successors, the bishops. But as authors of the New Testament, the apostles have no successors; the role is unique and inspired. Cajetan takes pains to establish the correct hierarchy: even though the final determination of a truth of faith is in the hands of the pope, the pope makes this determination based on the higher authority of scripture, whose author is the Holy Spirit. Whether composed by Paul or John or Matthew or Peter, scripture always trumps the pope. In other words, the papal authority of Peter’s successor is always subordinate to the scriptural authority of Peter and the other apostles; but Peter’s papal successor is always superior to the episcopal successors of the other apostles as regards jurisdiction in the Church.41 Cajetan accuses his opponents of twisting the scriptures to their own erroneous ends, as the heretics do, to try to establish the credentials of a council called in defiance of the pope. While acknowledging that scripture can at times be difficult to interpret, he recommends the literal interpretation (or the ‘plain

39

40 41

De comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus, ed. V.M.J. Pollet, Scripta Theologica (Rome: Angelicum, 1936). Cajetan’s and Almain’s texts are available in English in J.H. Burns and Thomas M. Izbicki (eds.), Conciliarism and Papalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Studies include Olivier de la Brosse, Le pape et le concile: la comparaison de leur pouvoirs à la vielle de la Reformation (Paris: Cerf, 1965); Anton Bodem, Das Wesen der Kirche nach Kardinal Cajetan (Trier: Paulinus, 1971); Ulrich Horst, Zwischen Konziliarismus und Reformation. Studien zur Ekklesiologie im Dominikanerorden (Rome: Istituto Storico Domenicano, 1985); Katherine Elliot van Liere, ‘Vitoria, Cajetan, and the Conciliarists’, Journal of the History of Ideas 58 (1997): pp. 597– 616; A. Dominguez Asensio, ‘Infallibilidad y potestad magisterial en la polémica anticonciliarista de Cayetano’, Communio (Sevilla) 14 (1981): pp. 3–50, 205–226. See Olivier de la Brosse, Le pape et le concile, chapter 8, pp. 207–236. Burns and Izbicki, Conciliarism and Papalism, p. 248 (Apologia, concerning chapter 9, reply to the fifth point).

26

chapter 1

sense’) of the Bible as the foundation for theological argumentation. And this must be measured against the tradition of the Church: Perhaps there is no scripture so clear in faith that a distorted exposition could not drag it over to their side of the argument; but, when the plain sense of scripture is sought, according to the consensus of the saints, then the truth is discovered.42 Cajetan then deals directly with the issue raised by Pisa: the scriptures prove that the pope, as successor of Peter, is the supreme authority in the Church and that the papal office was divinely instituted by Christ when he promised the keys to Peter. The other bishops, successors of the other apostles, do indeed share in ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but always as derived from or delegated by the pope. Even when gathered in a general council, the body of bishops cannot act alone or against the pope. Without the pope, the bishops are headless and powerless. So far, so papalist; Julius would have been content. But Cajetan does not stop here. All of the above assumes that the office of pope is held uncontentiously by one who is worthy of the office. But Cajetan knows well enough that there have been contested elections, multiple popes, popes in prison, to say nothing of plainly wicked popes. The hardest case is where the pope himself becomes ‘a kind of non-Christian’, through heresy; in this case alone, Cajetan allows for an utterly exceptional ‘headless’ general council. The pope must be given a fair hearing and this must be the sole business of such an emergency council. If the pope is judged to be in heresy, then the council can take action. This council could never act over the pope—which is a theological impossibility for Cajetan (as well as a political inconvenience). It could however act to sever the bond connecting this particular man to the office of the pope. In Cajetan’s terms, the council never has authoritative power over the pope, but it does have ministerial power in these exceptional circumstances. Since human beings joined a man to the office (by electing him pope), then humans can dissolve that conjunction. This action having been taken, the next step would be to call a conclave to elect a new pope; there is no question of such an emergency council having any further legitimate agenda.43 Cajetan has dwelt on this one case; he insists that there is every difference between a heretical pope and a wicked pope: the

42 43

Burns and Izbicki, Conciliarism and Papalism, p. 30 (De comparatione, end of chapter 7). Burns and Izbicki, Conciliarism and Papalism, pp. 82–93 (De comparatione, chapters 20 and 21).

friar, professor, papal courtier (1469–1512)

27

first is a kind of non-Christian, the other a bad Christian. Deposition is fitting only in the former case; in all other cases, other means must be employed. He singles out two other means for special mention. The first requires vigilance and courage: Cajetan urges his readers to resist to his face the pope who is treating the Church as something to be bought and sold; he berates the secular princes and the prelates of the Church who doze while the Church is being torn apart and then complain that they cannot depose the pope. He is convinced that if they accused and rebuked a failing pope, there would be far less abuse.44 The second is the most powerful remedy of all: not human providence but divine providence, to be implored through intercessory prayer. If it is necessary for the good of the Church that a corrupt pope be deposed, God will do this in answer to prayer. And if it is not, then ‘God will not allow you to be tested beyond your limits’ (1 Cor 10.13).45 Cajetan backs this up with a number of examples of prayer answered, taken from the Bible and from Church history (including papal history). He is astonished, in this day, that such an extraordinary God-given capacity is held as nothing, and he is scathing about the level of prayerfulness he sees around him. God does not even receive lipservice ‘since nothing is said less intelligibly than the divine office, nothing performed more swiftly than the mass’. The chore of regular prayer is passed with business dealings and amusements.46 This is no mere pious exhortation, but a careful theological exposition of the power of prayer as a God-given means of secondary causality. Cajetan had chosen to address this issue before the papal court a decade earlier in a sermon preached before Alexander vi on the First Sunday of Advent, 1501.47 The two treatises on papal authority were not Cajetan’s only response to the Pisan council. He was one of several leading figures called upon to address the Lateran Council itself. The Fifth Lateran Council opened on 3 May 1512. The first session was addressed by the Prior General of the Augustinian Hermits, Giles of Viterbo. Giles’s programme was fundamentally conservative: we do not need to produce new laws or structures, but rather we must simply observe faithfully

44 45 46 47

Burns and Izbicki, Conciliarism and Papalism, p. 122 (De comparatione, chapter 27). Burns and Izbicki, Conciliarism and Papalism, p. 127 (De comparatione, chapter 27). Burns and Izbicki, Conciliarism and Papalism, p. 126 (De comparatione, chapter 27). Wicks, ‘Thomism Between Renaissance and Reformation’, especially pp. 20–21. Cajetan’s thought on secondary causality is considered in the context of contemporary ecumenical dialogue in Charles Morerod, Ecumenism and Philosophy: Philosophical Questions for a Renewal of Dialogue (Ann Arbor, mi: Catholic University of America Press, 2006), pp. 59– 81.

28

chapter 1

what we have received from the apostles, returning to the source, bringing the old back to life. This view is encapsulated in his basic reform principle, ‘Men must be changed by religion, not religion by men’ (1512).48 According to the papal master of ceremonies, all who heard were ‘moved to tears, or left in wonder, at such learning, eloquence and piety’.49 Cajetan addressed the second session, 17 May 1512.50 His address lacked the rhetorical impact of Giles’s (‘After Egidio’s fireworks, de Vio’s clarion call must have sounded a bit soporific’);51 nevertheless, while Giles’s discourse was weak on the practicalities of reform,52 Cajetan’s is distinguished by a much clearer intent to analyse the crisis and to propose responses on a strictly religious and theological plane.53 Cajetan’s discourse is built around an allegorical interpretation of one phrase from the book of Revelation: ‘I saw the holy city, the New Jerusalem, descending from heaven’ (Rev 21.2; I will comment on the text and the method shortly). Each word, taken in turn, enables him to reflect on the qualities of the Church: it is a city, a holy city, unlike any other (because new), a city of peace (from the etymology of Jerusalem), and it comes from God. This heavenly model allows him to test the two councils then in session, ‘our Church’ and the ‘Pisan Church’, to determine which is the faithful imitator and which the impostor. He determines that the Pisan synod (dismissed as a conciliabulum) cannot represent the true Church since it is divisive and born of division; it manifests an errant novelty and disorder rather than the peaceful order and newness of God’s kingdom. But Cajetan does not end there. Words do not suffice: the fathers of the council must demonstrate that theirs is the true council by deeds that foster 48

49 50

51 52 53

See John W. O’Malley, Giles of Viterbo on Church and Reform, pp. 127–129, 142. A critical edition of the text is included in Claire O’Reilly, ‘ “Without Councils we cannot be saved …”: Giles of Viterbo Addresses the Fifth Lateran Council’, Augustiniana xxvii (1977): pp. 166– 214. An English translation may be found in John C. Olin, Catholic Reform: From Cardinal Ximenes to the Council of Trent, 1495–1563 (New York: Fordham University Press, 1990), pp. 47–60. See also Nelson Minnich, ‘Concepts of Reform Proposed at the Fifth Lateran Council’, ahp 7 (1969): pp. 163–251; reprinted, with new appendices, in Minnich, The Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517) (Variorum: Aldershot, 1993), pp. iv, 163–251, 252*–253*. Cited in O’Reilly, ‘Without Councils’, p. 169. De ecclesia et synodorum differentia oratio, Opuscula iii, 189b–192a. For an edition of the earliest printed text, with introduction and French translation, see Charles Morerod, ‘Le discours de Cajetan au ve Concile de Latran’, in Revue Thomiste 105 (2005): pp. 595–638. Ingrid D. Rowland, The Culture of the High Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 195. Minnich, ‘Concepts of Reform’, p. 173. Morerod, ‘Le discours’, pp. 598–599.

friar, professor, papal courtier (1469–1512)

29

the peace and unity and good of the Church, and in this much is needed and expected: the reform of the Church, the restitution of declining morals, the crushing of schism, the conversion of infidels, the calling back of heretics, and the strengthening of laws and sanctions that lead to the health of all Christians. Most of all, since this is the area of greatest depravity and deformity, he urges that positions of rank in the Church be given only to those who deserve them, that virtue be rewarded and vice punished.54 In Bedouelle’s summary, ‘using the same strategies as he did in reforming the Dominicans at the same time, Cajetan proposed a strengthening of the rule of law and a better way of choosing men to carry out that task’.55 Turning directly to the pope, without whose will and efforts the council would fail, Cajetan begs him to prepare himself for action—in the words of the psalmist, to gird his sword upon his thigh (Ps 45.3). He immediately notes that, as pope, Julius has two swords, one that is common to all princes (the temporal sword) and one that is unique to himself (the spiritual). It is this latter sword that Cajetan wants him to take up: to combat error, heresy, dissension, even the gates of hell. Julius is urged to imitate the one from whom his authority derives—who is the king of kings, the prince of peace, lord of lords—in particular by showing himself merciful.56 Cajetan could not have sent a clearer message to the pope, who apparently joked with Michelangelo that, since he couldn’t read, he should be portrayed holding a sword instead of the usual book.57 We should note the urgency with which Cajetan sought to persuade the pope to enact necessary reforms, even while defending the pope’s own council against the pseudo-council of Pisa. His view of the papacy was Catholic, certainly, and Roman, but not uncritical. Cajetan’s different responses to the challenge of conciliarism all reach the same conclusions: the Pisan gathering is a fraud, while that of the pope is authentic, since he alone has adequate authority; but this authority does not come without profound responsibilities, and reform is necessary. Nevertheless, the works discussed here do not reach their conclusions by the same means: while the two treatises against the Pisan ‘conciliabulum’ present a measured theological analysis of relevant passages of scripture, understood according to the literal sense, the conciliar discourse is a freer allegorical interpretation of a 54 55 56 57

Morerod, ‘Le discours’, p. 630. Guy Bedouelle, The Reform of Catholicism, 1480–1620, trans. James K. Farge (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2008), pp. 20–21. Morerod, ‘Le discours’, p. 630. Giorgio Vasari, The Lives of the Artists, trans. Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 438.

30

chapter 1

prophetic vision from the Book of Revelation. Cajetan will later confess that he does not know how to give the literal interpretation of Revelation (or the Song of Songs either). While it might be tempting to see here a change of mind, or an inconsistency, Cajetan’s practice is consistent with his medieval inheritance: the literal sense alone can be used to establish theological truths (as in the treatises); the allegorical sense may be used for edification, persuasion, encouragement (as in the discourse). While the treatises are systematically setting out a case for the Roman understanding of the papal office, the discourse takes that understanding for granted and seeks to inspire a fitting response from the gathered prelates. Pope Julius died in February 1513. Cardinal Giovanni de’ Medici was elected to succeed him. Taking the name Leo x, he presented himself as a man of culture and the arts. His secretaries Pietro Bembo and Jacopo Sadoleto set about establishing the myth of Leo’s reign as a new Golden Age, and his papacy began in a style of celebration and sumptuousness unseen under Julius. Leo reconvened the Council but at the same time pursued his own solution to the political tensions with France that lay behind the rebel council. By October the French crown was persuaded to switch allegiance to the Lateran council, and the conciliabulum of Pisa ceased to be relevant. The latter sessions of the Lateran council were dedicated to building peace among Christian rulers and pursuing reform of the Church. During Leo’s papacy, Cajetan was to retain his reputation for theological acuity and reliable counsel; he was to be a full participant in the proceedings.

chapter 2

Prelate, Diplomat, Biblical Scholar (1513–1534) At the same time as he was involved in affairs on a larger stage, Cajetan continued to lead and guide the work of his own order. Other Catholic reformers established new institutions to promote ecclesial and personal reform. These included the Oratory of Divine Love, founded in Rome in 1517 (whose membership included Gian Pietro Carafa, the future Pope Paul iv); the Theatines, founded in 1524 by Cajetan’s namesake, Cajetan of Thiene (1480–1547), again with Carafa’s involvement; the Capuchins (1525), the Ursulines (1535), and eventually the Society of Jesus (1540). Cajetan’s own approach offered few if any structural innovations, but called for fidelity to the governing traditions of the order and careful choice of the men who would lead it.

Dominican Principles As Master General of the Dominicans, his vision of reform included a serious consideration of scripture. Key texts in revealing Cajetan’s approach to scripture are the encyclical letters he wrote as Master General to his fellow Dominicans on the occasion of a General Chapter. Already in 1508, following the Chapter held in Rome during which he was elected Master General, he wrote briefly but firmly of the need to adhere to the order’s traditions of poverty and study.1 The legislation of the Chapter includes a significant remark concerning the provision and adequate preparation of priests, confessors and preachers: it is better to have few who are well-prepared than to have many who, instead of leading others to life, lead them to death.2 The more expansive encyclical that followed the General Chapter of 1513 (Genoa), reinforces these concerns. (This Chapter would have been held sev-

1 ‘[…] praesertim si paupertati ac litterarum studiis omnes simul insisterimus’. moph ix, p. 83. Michael Tavuzzi hints that Cajetan’s remarks on poverty and the common life should be read with caution, ‘Valentino da Camerino o.p. (1438–1515): Teacher and Critic of Cajetan’, Traditio 49 (1994): pp. 287–316, at p. 295. 2 ‘Aggravamus conscientias praesidentium circa promovendos sacerdotes, exponendosque praedicatores ac confessores. Volentes potius paucos et sufficientes, quam tot fratres in illis officiis, unde cultus divinus despiciatur, excaecataeque animae ad mortem potius ducantur quam ad vitam’. moph ix, p. 85.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325098_004

32

chapter 2

eral years earlier, had Pope Julius not demanded Cajetan’s full participation at the Lateran Council.) As if waking from sleep, the friars must gird themselves for the reform (reformatio) of the order. They must hold all things in common, giving to each as need requires. They must faithfully observe the rule and constitutions in which they were professed, trusting in the one who cares for the lilies of the field and the birds of the air (Mt 6.26–30). This is the root of religious life, the key to reform (clavis reformationis), without which no reform is worthy of the name.3 Turning to study, reading, and preaching, and taking his cue from Psalm 48, Cajetan urges the brethren to go up on high and proclaim divine doctrina from the towers of Sion by their exemplary lives and teaching, rather than squander it in the ditches of ignorance, hypocrisy, and scandal.4 The letter goes on to give detailed indications of the distribution of studies that should be found among the friars: grammar, logic, philosophy, cases of conscience, speculative theology, and scripture. In this way, the order will be provided with the necessary range of skilled practitioners: confessors, preachers, lectors, teachers, and pastors.5 Using again the image of Sion as the Church, Cajetan identifies ‘those who hate Sion’ (Ps 129.5) as those who usurp the name of teacher or preacher, those who wish neither to learn for themselves nor to

3 ‘Hora igitur cum sit a somno surgendi, obsecro vos omnes per viscera misericordiae domini nostri Iesu Christi, ut ad reformationem ordinis parati sic sitis, ut sint vobis omnia communia, et distribuatur unicuique vestrum, sicut cuique opus fuerit. Nulla vos sollicitudo opportunae subventionis deficiendae teneat, dum quod ex vobis est, facitis: absque peccato siquidem et iniuria divinae providentiae sollicitudo haec non est. Facitis autem procul dubio, quod est ex vobis, cum secundum regulam et constitutiones professionis vestrae vivetis, et omnem sollicitudinem vestram sic viventes in eum proiicietis, cui est cura de vobis, qui lilia agri vestit et aves pascit. Haec siquidem est religionis radix, haec reformationis clavis, absque hac omnis reformatio reformationis nomine indigna est’. moph ix, p. 94. 4 ‘Non involvatis silentio doctrinam, qui complexi illam estis, sed verbo lectionis et praedicationis narrate in eius turribus exemplaria vitae et doctrinae, non in fossis ignorantiae, hypocrisis, aut scandali’. moph ix, p. 94. 5 ‘Ponite siquidem non voces tantum, sed corda vestra in eius virtute expulsiva vitiorum, genitrice virtutum, duceque certissima ad caelestem patriam, et distribuite domos eius, ut quasi in quibusdam habitaculis distributi, alii grammaticae, alii logicae, alii philosophiae, alii casibus conscientiae, alii subtilibus theologiae quaestionibus, alii sacrae bibliae lectioni, studii sui praecipuas partes impendendo discant, ut in distributis domibus confessorum, praedicatorum, lectorum, doctorum, pastorumque praeesse et prodesse possint’. moph ix, p. 94. The legislation of this Chapter now includes the regulation of examinations for preachers and confessors, moph ix, pp. 102–103.

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

33

see others learn. Let other religious orders, he concludes, glory in their prerogatives; if the Order of Preachers is not commended by its sacra doctrina, it is finished.6 Following the Chapter of May 1515 (Naples), Cajetan again writes of the two things most urgently needed for the reform of the order: common life and study. The former touches the salvation of the friars themselves, while the latter concerns the salvation of their neighbours. While community is the ‘nerve’ of religious life, the study of sacred letters illuminates, inflames, and saves the souls of others.7 After exhorting the brethren to renew their commitment to a genuine style of common life, Cajetan reminds them that they are bound by their constitutions to nourish the people by example and word. He puts the focus squarely on scripture, stressing the vital importance of the study of sacred letters (‘sacrarum studia litterarum’).8 Once again, he expects this kind of work to be seen as typical of Dominican life: for other orders it is a bonus if they are able to put forward learned preachers and teachers; the Order of Preachers, however, whose calling is to study and evangelise, has no choice. Together with a genuine common life, study will accomplish a much-needed reform of the order and its work.9

6 ‘Confundantur autem et convertantur retrorsum omnes qui oderunt Sion [Ps 129.5], humilienter, puniantur, et deiiciantur omnes, qui nec ipsi scire, nec alios scire volunt; qui nomen sibi doctorum aut praedicatorum usurpant, doctrina autem carent, qui seipsos amantes saluti animarum, literarioque profectui fratrum recusant incumbere. Gaudeant alii, fratres charissimi, suis praerogativis, nos nisi sacra doctrina commendet, de nostro ordine actum est’. moph ix, p. 94. In his Psalms commentary, Cajetan will argue that, according to the literal interpretation, Ps 48 is a parable about the Church, on Ps 48, Intro, iii, 172a. 7 ‘Profitemur quippe inter cetera duo, quorum alterum nostra, alterum proximorum salus est. In rerum communitate religionis nervus consistit, sacrarum litterarum studium proximorum animos illustrat, accendit, salvat’. moph ix, p. 124. 8 Mortier’s translation of this phrase, ‘l’ étude des sciences sacrées’, is inexact. R.P. Mortier, Histoire des Maitres Généraux de L’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs, vol. 5, 1487–1589 (Paris: Picard, 1911), p. 149. For the scriptural focus of ‘sacrae litterae’, see, for example, Cornelis Augustijn, Erasmus, His Life, Works, and Influence, trans. J.C. Grayson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), pp. 104–106. 9 ‘Iungite, quaeso, communitati sacrarum studia litterarum, ut exemplo et verbo pascere populos, ut tenemini constitutione ordinis, possitis. Aliarum siquidem religionum professores quidquid impendunt doctrinae gratis erogant, nobis autem vix imminet, nisi studeamus ut evangelizemus. Haec duo sunt, quibus servatis, ordo noster facile reformabitur’. moph ix, p. 125. See G.M. Lohr, ‘De Caietano Reformatore Ordinis Praedicatorum’, Angelicum 11 (1934): pp. 593–602.

34

chapter 2

As Master General, then, Cajetan strongly exhorted his confrères to study. In 1508, this general requirement is linked to effective pastoral ministry, especially confession and preaching. In 1513, a variety of studies, culminating in the reading of scripture, is linked to the variety of ministries exercised within the order. In 1515, the link between study and mission is clearer still: without the study of sacred letters, there is no evangelisation. In other words, those who do not study the gospel cannot proclaim the gospel in their words and deeds. Nearly ten years before he embarked on his own exegetical project, and three years before he met Luther, Cajetan had declared scripture to be the centre of the intellectual life, reform, and mission of the order to which he belonged.

Biblical Humanism in the Early Sixteenth Century In an important sense, there is nothing novel in Cajetan’s stress on the Bible in his Dominican epistles. By any measure, the Bible occupies a privileged place in Christian theology. Furthermore, as a Dominican and a disciple of Aquinas, Cajetan would not have surprised anyone by making scriptural studies a central feature of the life of his order, since ‘Aquinas spent much of his professional life expounding and commenting on the Bible.’10 As Denis Janz remarks of Cajetan’s later exegetical output, ‘In this respect at least, it can be said that Cajetan was more true to the spirit of St. Thomas than his predecessors in the Thomist school’.11 At the turn of the fifteenth century, Giovanni Dominici op had declared to his Florentine congregation: What does God want? Only that you shall know the sacred Scriptures […]. Those who know how to read should be taught the books of the sacred Scriptures and should guard against those books that could make them fall into error and sin.12 And in 1441, the Dominican archbishop of Florence, Antoninus, had given the following instruction on scriptural meditation to Ginevra Cavalcanti: 10 11 12

Brian Davies, Aquinas (London and New York: Continuum, 2002), p. 11. Denis R. Janz, Luther and Late-Medieval Thomism (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1983), pp. 141–142. Cited in Sabrina Corbellini, ‘Instructing the Soul, Feeding the Spirit and Awakening the Passion: Holy Writ and Lay Readers in Late Medieval Europe’, in Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean (eds.), Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and Their Readers in the Sixteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 15–39, at p. 22.

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

35

Open your mind to wisdom, tasting the sweet flavour of heavenly things in devout prayers and meditations. Flee from ignorance, which can find a route into your soul through boredom and sadness and is the source of displeasure for heavenly things, and makes your mind arid and infertile without any devotion. Open your mind and read not only the ‘outer bark’ of the Scripture, but look for the marrow, sweeter than honey.13 This spirit was by no means an exclusive Dominican tradition; other influences too led Cajetan to dedicate his later years to biblical commentary. To appreciate this, we need to step back for a moment and look more widely at approaches to the Bible in this period of Cajetan’s life. In the first two decades of the sixteenth century, remarkable developments took place that were greatly to influence approaches to the text, the translation, and the interpretation of the Bible. The textual skills developed by the humanists, and hitherto used mainly to retrieve and understand the texts of classical authors, were now applied to the Bible.14 The call for a return ad fontes, when applied to the sources of Christian theology, bore remarkable fruit during these years in a ‘series of publishing milestones’ in scripture studies, as well as patristic theology, Church history, and canon law.15 These were certainly not the first works of their type but, with them, the trickle of the previous century’s endeavours became a torrent. In the field of biblical texts and languages, any list must include at least the following: Johannes Reuchlin’s pioneering manual of the Hebrew language (1506) together with his appropriation of the cabala (1517);16 Erasmus’s publication of Lorenzo Valla’s Adnotationes on the New 13 14 15

16

Cited in ibid., p. 26. Euan Cameron, The European Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 141. Cameron, The European Reformation, p. 68. In addition to specific studies noted below, see Marvin W. Anderson, The Battle for the Gospel: The Bible and the Reformation, 1444–1589 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978); Jerry Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983); Guy Bedouelle and Bernard Roussel (eds.), Le Temps des Réformes et la Bible (Paris: Beauchesne, 1989); Erika Rummel, The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1995); Alistair Hamilton, ‘Humanists and the Bible’, in Jill Kraye (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 100–117; Erika Rummel (ed.), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus (Leiden: Brill, 2008); Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean (eds.), Shaping the Bible. Johannes Reuchlin (1455–1522), De rudimentis hebraicis (Pforzheim: Anshelm, 1506); De arte cabalistica (Hagenau: Anshelm, 1517). The De rudimentis, heavily influenced by the work of medieval rabbis, e.g., David Kimchi (c. 1160–1235), is probably the first Latin work to be printed in Hebrew fashion, namely from right to left. The supposed title

36

chapter 2

Testament (1506) and his own edition of the Greek New Testament with a new and annotated Latin translation (1516);17 Lefèvre d’ Etaples’s edition of five different Latin versions of the Psalter (1508) and his commentaries on, and new Latin translation of, the epistles of St. Paul (1512);18 the compilation, under the patronage of Cardinal Francisco Ximénes de Cisneros, of the polyglot Bible at the Spanish university of Alcalá (1514–1517, published 1521– 1522)—this is known as the Complutensian Polyglot (Alcalá is Complutum in Latin);19 the new translation of the Psalter (1515) by Felix de Prato (a former

17

18

19

page bears the rubric: ‘Finis libri. Canon: Non est liber legendus hic ceu caeteri. Faciem sinistra dextera dorsum tene, et de sinistra paginas ad dexteram quascumque verte. Quae latina videris legito latine, hebraea si sint insita, a dextera legenda sunt sinistrorum’. Quoted in Gerald Hobbs, ‘Hebraica Veritas and Traditio Apostolica. Saint Paul and the Interpretation of the Psalms in the Sixteenth Century’, in David Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham nc: Duke University Press, 1990), pp. 83–99, at p. 226, n. 6. Reuchlin’s case gives an extreme illustration of anti-semitism and anti-humanism combined. In 1509, Johann Pfefferkorn, a former Jew turned anti-semite, sought imperial approval for a proposal to burn the books of Jews. When Reuchlin publicly opposed this move he was accused of Judaizing; the Dominican inquisitor of Mainz, Jacob von Hochstraten, attempted to have him silenced. The case came to Rome where Reuchlin enjoyed the support, among others, of Giles of Viterbo and Adriano Castellesi, while Hochstraten’s backers included Adrian of Utrecht (future Adrian vi). Though Hochstraten probably discussed this matter with Cajetan, his Master General, in Rome, Wicks can find no evidence of any specific contribution to this matter on Cajetan’s part (Cajetan Responds, p. 8). Pope Leo employed delaying tactics for reasons that are not entirely clear, and the whole matter dragged on until June 1520, becoming entangled with that of Luther, until a final settlement went against Reuchlin. See Erika Rummel, The Case against Johann Reuchlin: Social and Religious Controversy in Sixteenth-Century Germany (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002). Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457), Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum, ed. Desiderius Erasmus (Paris: Bade Ascensius, 1505); Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1469–1536), Novum instrumentum omne (Basel: Froben, 1516). See Erika Rummel, Erasmus’s Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986). Jacques Lefèvre d’ Etaples (c. 1460–1536), Quincuplex Psalterium (Paris: Estienne, 1509; second edition, Paris: Estienne, 1513). The second edition is reprinted in Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 170 (Geneva: Droz, 1979); Commentarii D. Pauli epistolarum (Paris: Estienne, 1512; second edition, Paris: Estienne, 1515). On Lefèvre, see Guy Bedouelle, Lefèvre d’Étaples et l’ Intelligence des Ecritures (Geneva: Droz, 1976); Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Lefèvre: Pioneer of Ecclesiastical Renewal in France (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984); Irena Backus, ‘Jacques Lefèvre d’ Étaples: A Humanist or a Reformist View of Paul in His Theology?’, in R. Ward Holder (ed.), A Companion to Paul in the Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 61–90. Diego López Zuñiga et al. (eds.), Biblia Polyglotta (6 vols., Alcalá: Arnao Guillén de Brocar,

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

37

rabbi who became a Christian and then an Augustinian hermit) and his celebrated polyglot Hebrew Bible and collation of rabbinic commentaries and glosses known as the Biblia Rabbinica (c. 1516–1517),20 produced in Venice by the pioneering printer Daniel Bomberg (who had moved from Antwerp to Venice in 1515 and developed an ambitious and widely imitated Hebrew printing style).21 In the mid-fifteenth century, Valla had found New Testament scholarship dominated by those who used faulty translations, knew no Greek, and relied heavily on the hermeneutical framework provided by scholastic versions of Aristotle’s logic. In order to disencumber the sacred text from so much that obscured its meaning, Valla proposed a change of direction that turned on a few basic prescriptions: read the New Testament in Greek, study philology, learn from history.22 For Ximenes, the best translator can only capture a part of the sublime truth of scripture; the whole cannot be understood in any language other than the original.23 For Erasmus, the purpose of all his meticulous scholarship is reform and renewal: the best hope for the restoration and rebuilding of Christianity is for those who profess the Christian faith to absorb the principles laid down by Christ in the New Testament. Christ, the Word of God incarnate, lives and breathes and acts and speaks in the New Testament, and with more immediacy than in any other medium. Furthermore, the teaching

20

21

22 23

printed 1514–1517, published 1521–1522). Although the New Testament was printed by 1514 and the Old Testament by 1517, papal permission to publish was not finally obtained until 1521–1522. Erika Rummel, Jiménez de Cisneros: on the Threshold of Spain’s Golden Age (Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1999). Felix de Prato, Psalterium ex Hebraeo diligentissime ad verbum fere traslatum (Venice: Bomberg, 1515). Biblia sacra hebraea cum utraque Masora et Targum item cum commenatriis rabbinorum, or Biblia Rabbinica (Venice: Bomberg, c. 1516–1517). On Felix de Prato, see cwe, Contemps, 2, p. 15; Paul F. Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism and the Papacy, 1515– 1535’, in Erika Rummel (ed.), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 227–276, at 228–233; Stephen G. Burnett, ‘The Strange Career of the Biblia Rabbinica among Christian Hebraists, 1517–1620’, in Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean (eds.), Shaping the Bible, pp. 63–84. For Bomberg, see Jerome Friedman, The Most Ancient Testimony: Sixteenth-Century Christian-Hebraica in the Age of Renaissance Nostalgia (Athens, oh: Ohio University Press, 1983), pp. 36–38. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ, p. 68. ‘[…] quae nequeant aliunde quam ex ipso archetypae linguae fonte cognosci’, Dedicatory Prologue to Biblia Polyglotta, vol. 1, fol. *3r. An English translation of this prologue is included in John C. Olin (ed.), Catholic Reform from Cardinal Ximenes to the Council of Trent 1495–1563 (New York: Fordham University Press, 1990), pp. 61–64.

38

chapter 2

that leads to salvation is at its purest and most life-giving at the fountain-head of the original language sources.24 ‘Trilingual’ colleges or university faculties, institutionalising the teaching of Greek and Hebrew alongside Latin, were established across Europe: at Alcalá (1508), Wittenberg (1518), and Louvain (the eponymous Collegium Trilingue, 1518).25 By the 1520s, these principles had been embraced by many, and heatedly rejected by others.26 A striking feature of works mentioned above is the number of them dedicated to Pope Leo x (who succeeded Julius ii in 1513 and reigned until 1521): Reuchlin’s introduction to the cabala, Erasmus’s New Testament, the Complutensian Polyglot, Felix de Prato’s Psalter (as well as works by Pagnini and Giustiniani, to be considered below). This fact testifies both to the anxieties of scholars, who sought the highest approval for work they knew might be contested, and to the willingness of the Medici Pope to promote such scholarship. Leo consistently supported such work; for example, in 1513 he established a Greek ‘gymnasium’ in Rome and he boosted the provision for Greek teaching at Rome’s university.27 The Pope was not the only patron of biblical studies. Giles of Viterbo was an exhaustive student of the Word of God in scripture. His was a highly esoteric and sometimes syncretistic method of exegesis, drawing not only on the scriptures but also on Plato, the cabala, and other arcane philosophies.28 In 1515 Giles welcomed the Jewish scholar Elias Levita (1469–1549) into his household, trading hospitality and Greek lessons for lessons in Hebrew. During this time, Levita taught and published works on Hebrew grammar, until he was forced to leave the city (and his library) when Rome was sacked in May 1527. Levita went to Venice, assisting Bomberg with further editions of the Biblia Rabbinica and editions of the works of Kimchi.29

24 25

26 27 28 29

Dedicatory letter to Leo x, in ee, ii, p. 185. Basil Hall, ‘The Trilingual College of San Ildefonso and the Making of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible’, in G.J. Cuming (ed.), The Church and Academic Learning, Studies in Church History 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1969), pp. 114–146. Erika Rummel, The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge, ma: Harvard, 1995), pp. 96–125. See Charles Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome (2nd edn., Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1998), p. 187. See for example, his Scechina e Libellus de litteris Hebraicis, ed. F. Secret (2 vols., Rome: Centro di Studi Umanistici: 1959). On Levita, see Deena Aranoff, ‘Elijah Levita: A Jewish Hebraist’, Jewish History 23 (2009): pp. 17–40; Robert J. Wilkinson, Orientalism, Aramaic, and Kabbalah in the Catholic Ref-

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

39

Gian Matteo Giberti corresponded with Giles in 1517 about his Libellus de litteris Hebraicis; he employed and encouraged Hebrew scholarship, Jewish and Christian alike.30 In 1515, Agacio Guidacerio (c. 1477–1540) dedicated his work on the Psalter to Giberti.31 The dedication alludes to an intended revision of the Vulgate by a team of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew experts, Christian and Jewish, a project seemingly of Giberti’s instigation.32 Little is known of Guidacerio; he taught at the Sapienza, wrote a Hebrew grammar which was dedicated to Leo x, and taught Hebrew to John Eck. His commentary on the Song of Songs, published in Rome in 1524, was dedicated to Clement vii. In 1527, losing his library in the Sack, he fled to Sadoleto in Avignon and thereafter to Paris. In later life, Giberti would stress the importance of scripture for the life of the Church, praising those who devote their studies to explaining scripture.33 As the reforming bishop of Verona, he described the kind of priests he would like to work in his diocese, saying that they will be more acceptable to him the more they have a grasp of Greek, Latin, style, and a ‘non-disputatious’ (presumably, non-scholastic) knowledge of sacred letters.34 Two Dominican scholars are of considerable significance in the field of the new biblical studies. The Genoese Agostino Giustiniani (1470–1536) edited

30 31

32

33

34

ormation: The First Printing of the Syriac New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 48–53; G. Weil, Elie Levita: Humaniste et massorete (1469–1549) (Leiden: Brill, 1963); cwe, Contemps, 2, 328–329. Adriano Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma: G.M. Giberti (1495–1543) (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1969), p. 103. Agacio Guidacerio, In Omnes Davidicos Psalmos Argumentum et in primum interpretatio (Rome: Bladus, 1515). See Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma, p. 103; H. Galliner, ‘Agathius Guidacerius 1477?–1540: An Early Hebrew Grammarian in Rome and Paris’, Historia Judaica 2 (1940): pp. 85–101; cwe, Contemps, 2, 149–150; Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism’, pp. 247–251; Cesare Mulè, Agazio Guidacerio: Un Umanista Catanzarese a Parigi (Roma: Gangemi, 1990). ‘[…] ac veterem ecclesiaticam translationem, quae, ut ingenue fatear, tum interpretis, tum dormitantium librariorum incuria, in multis perquam depravata est, cum ipsis archetypis hebraicis, graecisque exemplaribus conferendam, ac recognoscendam, e plerisque trium linguarum peritissimis viris Christianis, et hebrais […] summopere procuras’. In Omnes Davidicos Psalmos, c. A. iir, quoted in Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma, pp. 103– 104, n. 24. ‘[…] a discacciar le tenebre che occupano la più bella parte della sacra scrittura’. Letter to Sadoleto, Lodi 8 November 1524, quoted in Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma, p. 106. ‘L’altra [conditione] che quanto più buone lettere havesseno, e greche, e latine, e stilo, e cognitione di letere sacre, et non disputative, tanto più mi aggradariano’. Letter to Romolo Amaseo, Verona, 13 Aug 1528, quoted in Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma, p. 93.

40

chapter 2

an ambitious eight-language polyglot Psalter which was published in October 1516.35 The work includes ancient texts in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, and Aramaic, and Giustiniani’s several translations into Latin and Arabic, together with his commentary in a final column. The commentary draws on Jewish sources (Targum, Midrash, Cabala, and ancient and medieval commentators), as well as early Christian writers. This work, he says, was done at the urging of princes and prelates. In the dedicatory preface, he tells Leo x that his purpose is to help priests with the essential task of understanding and interpreting scripture;36 and he saw the Psalter as the first instalment of a project that would encompass the whole Bible and for which he hoped to have the Pope’s support.37 Although never assigned to any of his order’s houses in Rome, as Bishop of Nebbio (in Corsica) Giustiniani attended sessions of the Fifth Lateran Council just weeks after his Psalter was published. Between 1517 and 1522, he taught Hebrew in Paris; he made a visit to England, where he met John Fisher and perhaps Thomas More. Santi Pagnini (1470–1536) was a Florentine and a disciple of Savonarola and a scholar of Hebrew and Greek. Appointed to Rome in 1516, he taught Greek and Hebrew (one of his pupils was John Eck) and he planned a new translation and commentary on the Psalter, seemingly on the promise of financial assistance from Pope Leo.38 That money never materialised (possibly as a result of the Reuchlin affair) and the work halts abruptly before the last verse of Psalm 29. The published text includes Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts with Latin translations of each, followed by a catena of commentaries drawn from Jewish and Christian authors. Pagnini also produced a new translation of both the Old and New Testaments from Hebrew and Greek. The influence of Erasmus on Pagnini is evident both in the use of the title Instrumen-

35

36

37 38

Agostino Giustiniani, Psalterium Hebraeum, Graecum, Arabicum, et Chaldaeum, cum tribus latinis interpretationibus et glossis (Genoa: Porro, 1516). On Giustiniani, see Aurelio Cevolotto, Agostino Giustiniani: Un Umanista tra Bibbia e Cabala (Genoa: ecig, 1992); Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism’, pp. 233–240. Jaroslav Pelikan reproduces the title page, noting also the ‘pride of the Genoans for a native son’: at Ps 19.4, ‘et in fines mundi verba eorum’, there is what amounts to the first biography of Christopher Columbus (1451– 1506), in Pelikan, The Reformation of the Bible: The Bible of the Reformation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), pp. 112–113. ‘Nihil enim aeque sacerdoti convenit, quam sacrarum literarum expositio & interpretatio,’ Preface dedicated to Leo x, in Giustiniani, Psalterium Hebraeum, sig. Aii recto, quoted in Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism,’ p. 235. Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism’, pp. 237–238. Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism’, p. 242.

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

41

tum and in the translation of the opening words of John’s gospel, ‘In principio erat sermo ille’.39 It was also the first Bible to be printed with numbered verses. These are not isolated occurrences. The city’s university, the Sapienza, which had provided teaching in Greek and Hebrew sporadically since the 1480s, began to make more regular provision for both.40 One distinctive and extreme voice within Renaissance Roman humanism is that of Adriano Castellesi, Vice Cardinal Protector of the Order of Preachers (c. 1507–1517).41 His position, which has been described as ‘scriptural skepticism’,42 is marked by a general denigration of all philosophy and secular learning. Sharing with others an interest in Hebrew and the cabala, he used the Latin Fathers, selectively, to show that all non-scriptural learning is to be shunned. The only source of truth and light is scripture. Castellesi was an unusual, but not a peripheral figure in Renaissance Rome. His views were expressed chiefly in De Vera Philosophia (1507). A letter in support of these views, written by a Spanish Dominican, Cyprianus Benetus 39

40

41

42

Santi Pagnini, Psalterium nuper translatum ex Hebraeo, Chaldaeo et Graeco cum commentariis Hebraeorum translatis, et scholiis cum orthodoxa atque catholica expositione (Rome, 1520); Biblia. Habes in hoc libro prudens lector utriusque instrumenti novam tranlationem (Lyons: Ry, 1527–1528). On Pagnini, see T.M. Centi, ‘L’attività letteraria di Santi Pagnini (1470–1536) nel campo delle scienze bibliche’, afp (1945): pp. 5–51; Anna Morisi Guerra, ‘Santi Pagnini traducteur de la Bible’, in Irena Backus and Francis Higman (eds.), Théorie et pratique de l’ exégèse. Études de Philosophie et d’Histoire 43 (Geneva: Droz, 1990), pp. 191–198; Morisi Guerra, ‘Incontri ebraico-cristiani: il Salterio poliglotta di Santi Pagnini’, Itinerari ebraico-cristiani (Fasano: Schena, 1987), pp. 11–37; Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism’, pp. 240–247. See David S. Chambers, ‘Studium Urbis and gabella studii: The University of Rome in the Fifteenth Century’, in Cecil H. Clough (ed.), Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance: Essays in Honour of Paul Oskar Kristeller (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976), pp. 68–110. Teachers included Pietro Colonna, known also as Galatino, who taught Greek, and Guidacerio who taught Hebrew (see n. 31 above). Galatino was an observant Franciscan who lived in Rome for many years, serving as papal penitentiary to Leo x and Adrian vi. He belonged to the Hebrew circle of Giles of Viterbo and his works show an enduring interest in Hebrew, Joachimism, the mystical metaphysics of Bonaventure, and the cabala; see John F. D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), p. 219. On Castellesi, see D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome, pp. 16–19, 169–188; Stephen L. Forte, The Cardinal Protector of the Dominican Order (Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1959), p. 67; dbi 21 (1978): pp. 565–571; cwe, Contemps, 1, pp. 278–279. D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome, pp. 169–188.

42

chapter 2

(d. 1522) became a second introduction to the book in a later edition (published in 1514).43 Benetus echoes Castellesi’s view that only the true philosophy, that is, scripture, can lead to grace and salvation. Benetus writes that he has demonstrated the usefulness of Castellesi’s work in his university courses, where he used it to attack Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophers; the success of his teaching, he says, led to the request for the new edition.44 Castellesi’s views may not have enjoyed wide popularity, but the support of Benetus indicates that an audience was available. A more moderate voice was Paolo Cortesi (1465/71–1510):45 his Commentary on the Sentences was composed in Ciceronian Latin and was intended to create a more eloquent theological style and to arouse interest in theology among humanists. He criticised the excessive concern for philosophy and natural science among the preaching orders; their efforts yielded doubt and misinformation. Preachers, he insisted, should direct their attention towards sacred scripture, which contains certitude and truth.46 The views of Castellesi and Benetus found echoes outside of Rome, most significantly in the reform programme submitted to Leo x in 1513 by the two Venetian Camaldolese hermits, Pietro Querini and Paolo Giustiniani.47 In their Libellus ad Leonem Decimum, a ‘systematic if somewhat rambling’ appeal directly to the Pope,48 they view secular learning as dangerous, to be studied only under

43 44 45 46 47 48

Adriano Castellesi, De Vera Philosophia ex quatuor doctoribus ecclesiae (Bologna 1507, second edition, Rome, 1514). On Benetus, see Quétif-Echard, vol. 2, pp. 49a–50a; D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome, p. 173. On Cortesi, see D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome, pp. 76–81, 148–168. cwe Contemps, 1, 345–346. D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome, p. 153. Stephen D. Bowd, Reform before the Reformation: Vincenzo Querini and the Religious Renaissance in Italy (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Giuseppe Alberigo, ‘The Reform of the Episcopate in the Libellus to Leo x by the Camaldolese Hermits Vincenzo Querini and Tommaso Giustiniani’, in Christopher M. Bellitto and Louis I. Hamilton (eds.), Reforming the Church before Modernity: Patterns, Problems, and Approaches (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), pp. 139–152, at p. 141; this article includes extracts from the Libellus in English. See also Nelson Minnich, ‘Concepts of Reform Proposed at the Fifth Lateran Council’ ahp 7 (1969): pp. 163–251, reprinted, with new appendices, in Minnich, The Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517) (Variorum, Aldershot 1993), chapter iv, pp. 163–251, 252*–253*; John W. O’Malley, ‘The Discovery of America and Reform Thought at the Papal Court in the Early Cinquecento’, in Fredi Chiapelli (ed.), First Images of America: The Impact of the New World on the Old (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976), vol. 1, pp. 185–200; D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

43

the close control of religion. Classical languages are useful for the study of scripture and the fathers, but should not be pursued for their own sake. They argue that a new official translation of the Bible be prepared and that study of scripture replace the poets and orators of antiquity. They speak of the irreplaceable value of study and reading of the sacred scripture: Nothing can instruct people about matters divine and human as can the Sacred Scripture of the Old and the New Testaments. Because of this, the ancient fathers stipulated that they were to be read in church everyday, in order that the greatest number of Christians, regardless of their occupation in life, their inability to read, or the lacks of books (in fact at that time Christians did not possess the abundance of books that they do today) on account of which they were not able to read these kinds of things at home, could gather in the church where they would hear the word of God and thus advance greatly in understanding of these things and in the correction of their habits.49 By the second half of the second decade of the sixteenth century, something of a consensus can be seen to be emerging concerning the study of scripture— not just among northern humanists but including a number of highly-placed and influential figures in Rome. At the risk of over-simplification, the elements in this consensus can be summarised as follows. First, the Vulgate needed to be revised. The current Latin version, the Vulgate, was acknowledged as less than desirably accurate; it was marred by errors introduced by translators, editors, and copyists; it suffered from omissions and interpolations; the Latin was inelegant and misleading. Second, grammatical and philological learning were to be made central to biblical exegesis. Precedence was to be given to the original language sources; the inspired books were written in Greek and Hebrew, not Latin. The scholar must seek out and evaluate all available manuscripts and must master Greek and Hebrew. Third, the value of non-Catholic witnesses was acknowledged. In addition to Catholic philosophy and speculative theology, exegetes may profitably avail themselves of a wide range of historical, geographical, and liturgical sources. The practice of conferring with the Greeks was defended; likewise the consultation of the commentaries and glosses of rabbis on the Hebrew Bible. A consid-

49

Rome, p. 186. An Italian translation by Germiniano Bianchini is published as Lettera al Papa: Libellus ad Leonem x (Modena: Artioli, 1995). Cited in Alberigo, ‘The Reform of the Episcopate in the Libellus to Leo x’, p. 143.

44

chapter 2

erable number of Christian Hebraists were former Jews themselves, including Felix de Prato and most of the Complutensian Old Testament scholars, facilitating the absorption by Christians of Jewish sources. Fourth, the underlying reason for such scholarly labour was the renewal of Christian life: the education of the clergy, the improvement of preaching and teaching, the better knowledge and understanding of the faith among Christians, the evangelisation and conversion of non-Christians. The Word of God must be allowed to nourish every Christian life and the Word of God must be preached to the ends of the world. For some, this aim was accompanied by a sceptical attitude towards the abilities of human reason; the Word of God, as handed on and interpreted by the saints of the early Church, was the only word that could be trusted. For others, the biblical word was indeed pre-eminent, but it had to be interpreted in its proper context, which was the sacred tradition of fathers and councils under the guidance of the pope. Cajetan cannot have been unaware of this intellectual current. He was active in the Roman curia throughout the period under consideration; he taught at Rome’s university from 1501 to 1507–1508; he preached at the Fifth Lateran Council during which he worked alongside Giles; he knew both Giles and Giberti well; he was Master General in the same order as Giustiniani and Pagnini, living in the same priory in Rome as Pagnini for a number of years; nor can he have been unaware of the views of Castellesi and Benetus: one was a Dominican Cardinal Protector during his generalate and the other a Dominican teaching theology and philosophy alongside him. When he met Luther in October 1518, Cajetan did not need convincing of the need for biblical preaching and a solid scriptural foundation for theology—he had called his Dominican confreres to just such tasks. Notwithstanding the diversity in their theological training and personal experience, both men had come under the influence of the same developments in scripture studies, both cared about the preaching of the gospel, and both were aware of the state of the Church’s health. In this light, their meeting, and Cajetan’s subsequent actions, bear careful scrutiny.

Luther By the end of the Fifth Lateran Council, the prestige of the Roman curia was low. The nadir was reached when Cardinal Alfonso Petrucci and four other cardinals (including Castellesi) were accused of attempting to poison Pope Leo; Petrucci was strangled in his cell in Castel Sant’Angelo.50 On 1 July 1517, perhaps 50

See Kate Lowe, Church and Politics in Renaissance Italy: The Life and Career of Cardinal

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

45

in an attempt to restore the reputation of the Sacred College, and probably to raise money, Leo created thirty-one new cardinals. Among them were men of good reputation, such as Cajetan, Giles of Viterbo, and Adrian of Utrecht (later Adrian vi). At the end of April 1518, standing in for Cardinal Farnese (later Paul iii), Cajetan was sent as legate of the Holy See to the Imperial Diet at Augsburg. His mission was to raise money and support for a planned crusade against the Turks: since the capture of Constantinople in 1453, the Ottoman Empire had continued to spread westwards overland and by sea to compete with the Portuguese spice-routes to the East. Not long after Cajetan’s departure from Rome, a case was brought in Rome against an Augustinian friar, Martin Luther, who was suspected of heresy.51 Prierias, as Master of the Sacred Palace, prepared a first accusation (the Dialogus) against Luther’s Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum (Ninety-five theses on the power and efficacy of indulgences). Cajetan was first asked to secure, from Luther’s prince, Friedrich of Saxony, Luther’s passage to Rome. Cajetan subsequently concurred with Friedrich’s proposal that the case could be dealt with in Germany; agreement from Rome was given. Cajetan was to perform the necessary preliminary examination of Luther and determine whether the charges of heresy were to stand. In preparation, Cajetan studied those of Luther’s writings he had to hand. He composed fifteen treatises in all, structured on scholastic lines: the question to be treated, Luther’s position, together with his arguments, Cajetan’s counter-positions with their supporting definitions and arguments, and final rebuttals. The topics covered include penance and confession, sacramental absolution, merit, excommunication, papal authority, purgatory, and indulgences;52 this was not Cajetan’s first attempt at the latter subject—a year earlier, he had written a short treatise on indulgences at the request of the pope’s cousin, Cardinal Giulio de Medici (later Clement vii).53

51 52

53

Francesco Soderini, 1453–1524 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2002), pp. 104– 113. Jared Wicks, ‘Roman Reactions to Luther: The First Year (1518)’, Catholic Historical Review 69 (1983): pp. 521–562. The last three treatises, on indulgences, purgatory, and excommunication, were composed in the days after the meetings with Luther. For the Latin texts with French translations, see Charles Morerod, Cajetan et Luther en 1518. Édition, traduction et commentaire des opuscules d’Augsbourg de Cajetan (2 vols., Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 1994). For English translations or synopses, see Cajetan Responds, pp. 47–98. Reprinted in Fabisch and Iserloh (eds.), Dokumente zur Causa Lutheri (1517–1521) (2 vols.,

46

chapter 2

Luther and Cajetan had a series of inconclusive meetings in Augsburg on 12–14 October. It is difficult to reconstruct the tenor of the meeting. But what is clear is that, beyond his original instructions, Cajetan entered into debate with Luther. His studies led him to challenge Luther on two main points. The first concerned the kind of faith required of a penitent in order that sacramental absolution be effective. For Cajetan, the penitent must believe in the efficacy of the sacraments when properly administered, but he judged Luther to be demanding something too ‘localised’, a faith in the efficacy of this particular act of absolution as it is being granted.54 The second point concerned indulgences: Luther denied that they were granted from the accumulated merits of Christ and the saints (the so-called ‘treasury of merits’), as determined by Clement vi in the bull Unigenitus of 1343. When Luther did not give ground on either point, Cajetan pressed only the second (since the first was the subject of some dispute among the different theological schools) and agreed to drop the charges if Luther would accept Unigenitus. Luther demurred, appealed to the pope, and fled Augsburg. Seeking further support on the treasury of merits, Cajetan sent to Rome a draft of a possible official text on indulgences; it came back from Leo x in the form of a doctrinal declaration, Cum postquam.55 Luther dismissed this bull on the basis that it was not properly based on scripture, the fathers, and the canons.56 Some scholars judge Cum postquam as an ineffectual battening of the hatches; David Bagchi however claims that ‘this bull goes so far towards answering Luther’s original objections that, had it been published thirteen months earlier, Luther would not have posted his theses’.57

54 55 56 57

Münster: Aschendorff, 1988–1991), vol. 2, pp. 142–168. See Bernhard A.R. Felmberg, Die Ablasstheologie Kardinal Cajetans (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 72–186; David Bagchi, ‘Luther’s Ninety-five Theses and the Contemporary Criticism of Indulgences’, in Robert Swanson (ed.), Promissory Notes on the Treasury of Merits: Indulgences in the Later Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 331–355; Irena Backus, ‘Le contenu doctrinal des traités sur les indulgences (1517, 1518, 1521–1522) de Thomas de Vio Cajetan’, in Bruno Pinchard and Saverio Ricci (eds.), Rationalisme Analogique et Humanisme Theologique: La Culture de Thomas de Vio ‘Il Gaetano’. Actes du Colloque de Naples 1er–3 Novembre, 1990 (Naples: Vivarium, 1993), pp. 239–252. Susan Schreiner, Are You Alone Wise? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 55–56. See Fabisch and Iserloh (eds.), Dokumente zur Causa Lutheri, vol. 2, pp. 185–202. Scott Hendrix, Luther and the Papacy: Stages in a Reformation Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), pp. 76–78. David Bagchi, ‘Luther’s Catholic Opponents’, in Andrew Pettegree (ed.), The Reformation World (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 97–108, at p. 98.

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

47

Cajetan did not expect the new canonical ruling to stand alone: in his Augsburg treatises, he clearly ranks scripture as the highest theological authority, followed at the next level by the teachings of popes and councils, then by the fathers and doctors of the Church, then reason and his own legatine authority. Luther follows a similar pattern, defending his own teaching as being in accord with scripture, the fathers of the Church, pontifical decretals, and right reason.58 It is important to highlight the similar basis of Luther’s dismissal of Cum postquam: not only does it lack a firm basis in scripture, it also lacks the support of the fathers and the canons. In other words, Luther does not yet present a case from scripture alone. His own position on the unique role of scripture in determining theological truth will emerge gradually, acquiring greater rhetorical clarity in the course of his disputation with John Eck at Leipzig (1519) and his appearance at the Diet of Worms (1521). At Augsburg in 1518, Cajetan was not challenged with a sola scriptura argument. Attempts to settle the conflict were brought to a sudden halt by the death of Emperor Maximilian on 12 January 1519 and the crisis of Imperial succession that arose. Cajetan’s initial instructions from Rome were that the Habsburg candidate, Charles, King of Spain, must not be elected emperor. In the early part of 1519, Cajetan travelled among the Imperial territories, preparing for the Imperial election and promulgating the new bull, Cum postquam. In Koblenz, it is said that he met with representatives of the faculties of Louvain and Cologne, who were preparing judgments against Luther’s teaching. News of this meeting came second-hand to Martin Bucer. Bucer was a follower of Luther by this point, but he had not yet been formally released from his vows as a Dominican. In a letter to Bheatus Rhenanus he described the encounter: For I have learned from a trustworthy friend, in whom Cajetan confided, that there was almost no page in a book of Luther’s on which they had not written ‘heresy, heresy’, several times. They showed the book thus disfigured to the cardinal, led perhaps by their own prejudice to hope that he would endorse their judgment at once. But when he had examined the book and their dirty notes, he said: ‘We must not strike out too much. There is a very slight difference between some things which you have called heresies and the orthodox view. They are errors, not heresies’.59 58

59

‘Hodie protestor, me non esse mihi conscium aliquid dixisse, quod sit contra sacram scripturam, Ecclesiasticos patres aut decretales Pontificum aut rectam rationem,’ wa, vol. 2, p. 8, cited in Morerod, Cajetan et Luther, vol. 2, p. 524. Preserved Smith and Charles M. Jacobs (trans. and eds.), Luther’s Correspondence and

48

chapter 2

Though this is not by any means a secure testimony, it is consistent with other evidence concerning Cajetan’s preferred tactics: isolate the key issues, be sparing in accusations of heresy, be clear in defending the authentic teaching of the Church. The curial party’s attempts to influence the Imperial election were unsuccessful and Charles’s progress could not be halted. In the first half of June, Rome definitively renounced its opposition to Charles and his election was ratified on 28 June. Combining the prestige of emperor with the real power of considerable territories (including Naples and Sicily in Italy), Charles became the most powerful monarch in Europe. His claims in Italy would be challenged by Francis i, who held Milan and claimed Naples for France. Their rivalry, and that of their Hapsburg and Valois successors, would be played out in Italy over the next forty years.60 It was not a triumphant return to Rome for Cajetan (September 1519): the Turkish issue was unresolved (the original purpose of his mission), the case against Luther far from settled, and Charles had been elected emperor. Apart from one further mission (to Hungary in 1523–1524), Cajetan’s career as a papal diplomat was over. On his return from Germany, Cajetan took part in some of the formal discussions preparing the condemnation of Luther’s errors. Cajetan proposed the publication of a measured assessment of Luther’s errors, with explanations included. However, his influence on discussions was limited in part by absence through illness,61 and in part by his difficult relationship with Prierias. Throughout this period, Prierias was the Master of the Sacred Palace, the Pope’s official theologian. Intellectual differences between Prierias and Cajetan seem to have had an adverse effect on their ability to collaborate. Just at the point when they should have been working closely together, there were considerable personal and professional tensions between them. Their differences over the interpretation of Aquinas have already been touched on;62 we can also surmise that they were on opposite sides of the dispute over Reuch-

60 61

62

other Contemporary Letters (2 vols., Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1913), vol. 1, p. 209. For a modern critical edition, see Jean Rott (ed.), Correspondance de Martin Bucer (Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 79–81. Michael Mallett and Christine Shaw, The Italian Wars 1494–1559 (Harlow: Pearson, 2012), p. 136. Stöve, dbi, p. 471. ‘Haec sunt pater beatissime quae inter tot adversas corporis valetudines obedientiae tuae gratia ex prompto animo sub apostolatus tui censura protuli’. Super quinque Martini Lutheri articulos (completed 6 June 1521), Opuscula, i, 128b. See above, p. 15.

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

49

lin.63 Cajetan’s involvement in the Roman process against Luther must therefore be interpreted with care, particularly insofar as this involvement might be said to influence the character of later works. The bull addressing Luther’s teaching, Exsurge Domine (June 1520)—with its sweeping condemnation of a long list of errors, lack of counter-arguments, and threat of excommunication—embodied the tactics of John Eck and Prierias.64 When Luther failed to recant the forty-one errors, the bull of excommunication followed (Decet Romanum Pontificem, Jan 1521). Three further theological works issued from Cajetan’s meetings with Luther. The first of these, written in Mainz before Cajetan returned to Rome, is a defence of the use of scripture in canon law (1519). Without naming Luther, it responds to his criticisms that the canons especially concerning indulgences and papal authority twist the meaning of scripture. While he concedes that sometimes the popes use the scriptures in a ‘transferred sense’, he defends the interpretations of, for example, Mt 16.16–19. He takes for granted that such exegesis ought to be justifiable.65 The second is the long De divina institutione pontificatus Romani pontificis (On the divine institution of the papacy, February 1521), in which he replied to the Lutheran critique of papal primacy. Cajetan treats the matter chiefly through detailed exegesis of Matthew 16 and John 20, arguing that the traditional view of the papacy is in fact the best reading of the scriptural evidence.66 This treatise was praised by Erasmus, who said that if Luther were attacked by six hundred books like this, books that illuminate the subject without stirring up riots, then everyone would want to learn.67 (This seems to mark the turning

63

64

65 66

67

See Tavuzzi, ‘Capreolus dans les écrits de Silvestro da Prierio, o. p. (1456–1527)’, Memoire Dominicaine. Numéro spécial No. 1, Jean Capreolus et son temps 1380–1444. (Paris: Cerf, 1997): pp. 239–258, especially pp. 249–252. Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias: The Life and Works of Silvestro Mazzolini Da Prierio 1456–1527 (Durham nc: Duke University Press, 1997), p. 106; Jared Wicks, ‘Thomas de Vio Cajetan (1469–1534)’, in The Reformation Theologians (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), pp. 269–283, at p. 277. De usu sacrarum scripturarum ab ecclesia, Opuscula, i, 125a–126a; Cajetan Responds, pp. 99–104. De divina institutione pontificatus totius ecclesiae in persona Petri apostoli, in Opuscula, i, 48a–67b; = De divina institutione pontificatus Romani pontificis super totam Ecclesiam a Christo in Petro, Friedrich Lauchert (ed.), Corpus catholicorum x (Münster, 1925). For English translations of parts of this treatise, see Cajetan Responds, pp. 105–144. See Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism’, p. 271; A.F. von Gunten, ‘Cajétan dans la correspondance d’Erasme’, in Bruno Pinchard and Saverio Ricci (eds.), Rationalisme Analogique

50

chapter 2

point in Erasmus’s view, who had previously considered Cajetan to be firmly at home among the intransigent scholastics.)68 The third is an explanation of the condemnation of some aspects of Luther’s theology. This brief treatise (June 1521) is written seemingly for Roman consumption; Cajetan refers to certain ‘eminent persons’ who are uneasy with some of the points that have been condemned and he seeks to justify and qualify the bull on these questions. The topics that Cajetan singles out for notice come as no surprise: the value of penance, conviction regarding forgiveness, disposition for approaching communion, the treasury of merits, and papal authority in such questions.69 Cajetan’s subsequent explanation of the condemnation of Luther’s teaching is deliberately restrained.70 This was the kind of document Cajetan had wanted to come out of Rome the previous year. At this point, Cajetan’s involvement in Luther’s case appears to cease. After completing this work, Cajetan wrote nothing more against Luther or ‘Lutherans’ for a decade.

Indefatigable Scholar and Adviser to Popes Throughout his professional life, Cajetan maintained an extraordinary work rate. During his involvement with Lateran v, his administration of the Dominican order, and his embassy to Germany, he continued to work on his commentary on Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae. He had completed his commentary on Aquinas’s Secunda secundae in February 1517 and he seems to have begun work on the Tertia pars soon after. By July 1517, he had reached st iii, 7, 11, since he departs from his text to mention the Pope’s decision to make him a cardinal.71 By the beginning of 1519, he was commenting on st iii, 48, 5, where he quotes the ‘very recently’ issued bull Cum postquam.72 On returning to Rome he commented on the last parts of Aquinas’s unfinished work, adding a further eleven sets of questions to complete the treatment of sacramental theology. It

68 69 70 71 72

et Humanisme Théologique. La Culture de Thomas de Vio ‘Il Gaetano’ (Naples: Vivarium, 1993), pp. 297–323, here 299. ee, iv, p. 560. See Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism’, p. 271. Super quinque Martini Lutheri articulos, Opuscula, i, 127a–128b; Cajetan Responds, pp. 145– 152. Jared Wicks, Cajetan und die Anfänge der Reformation (Münster: Aschendorff, 1983), pp. 125–127. On st iii, 7, 11, [i]. On st iii, 48, 5, [iii].

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

51

has been argued that the commentary on the Tertia pars reflects a new awareness of scripture that was absent in the earlier parts.73 However, even when the statistical evidence is clear, conclusions need to be drawn with care. About half of the Tertia pars is directly concerned with Christology; Aquinas himself makes much greater use of New Testament material in these questions than he does in other sections. On the other hand, Pesch includes Cajetan among those commentators who ‘more or less ignore’ the sections in the Summa dealing with creation, the old and new law, and the life of Jesus (he cites Cajetan on st i-ii, 102–105; iii, 35–45).74 Pope Leo died in December 1521, leaving the papal finances woefully overdrawn (the cardinals could not pay for his funeral without further borrowing).75 The conclave that followed was drawn-out and frustrating. Eventually, it is said, at the suggestion of Giulio de Medici (who saw his own candidacy sputtering) and at the urging of Cajetan (taking part in his first conclave) the cardinals elected one of their number who was not present, Adrian of Utrecht. He was a scholar, with connections to Spain and the Emperor—he had been Charles’s tutor—and was known for his asceticism and integrity. He arrived in Rome eight months later and promised a new beginning—a period of austerity and renewed devotion. In the dedication of his commentary to the Tertia pars (March 1522), Cajetan reveals his view of the task facing the newly elected Pope Adrian vi (who was yet to arrive in Rome). Although Luther is not named, Cajetan speaks of the agitation caused by new heresy; but heresy is not the sole worry. Cajetan’s list of concerns begins with the moral corruption, spiritual bankruptcy, and wilful ignorance he sees in the Church of his day; and he names the lack of peace among Christian princes and the threat of the Turks as major causes of decline.76 A similar list of woes is enumerated in Cajetan’s speech before Adrian in the new pope’s first consistory (1 September 1522). The one thing that is needed is the reform of the head and prince of the Church, but this head is already reformed, unlike his predecessors who sinned greatly (‘Peccaverunt

73 74

75 76

Wicks, Cajetan und die Anfänge der Reformation, p. 122; dbi 39, p. 571. Otto Hermann Pesch, ‘Thomas Aquinas and Contemporary Theology’, in Paul Van Geest, Harm Goris, and Carlo Leget (eds.), Aquinas as Authority (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), pp. 123– 163, at p. 137, n. 39. Melissa Meriam Bullard, Filippo Strozzi and the Medici: Favor and Finance in SixteenthCentury Florence and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 128. ‘[…] turpissimis moribus foedata, bonis spiritalibus destituta, ignorantiae tenebris obsessa, novis haeresum tempestatibus agitata, bellorum tumultibus inter Christianos principes concussa, Turcarum impietate labefacta ac diminuta existit’. Leonine, xi, p. 2.

52

chapter 2

valde predecessores tui’). The omens are good since the Church is blessed with such a virtuous pope.77 Cajetan’s hopes for Adrian were short-lived:78 his pontificate lasted only twenty months. In the conclave that followed Adrian’s death (November 1523), Giulio de Medici at last was able to gain enough votes to secure the papacy, taking the name Clement vii. If the people of Rome expected a revival of the ceremony and patronage seen under the previous Medici pope, Leo x, they were to be disappointed: even had he wanted to, Clement could not turn the clock back; his political strategies could not prevent the Sack of Rome in 1527, and his religious strategies could not prevent the deepening divide known as the Protestant Reformation.79 Over the next decade, Cajetan’s opinion continued to be sought on controversial and political questions. In 1525, as a result of the controversy raised by Zwingli’s preaching and writings, he was asked to produce a theological briefing for a papal nuncio who was to be sent to Switzerland.80 In 1530, Clement asked Cajetan to examine the university opinions and treatises that Henry viii of England had gathered in support of his marriage case. Cajetan’s reply (a votum, or formal theological opinion) not only defended Pope Julius (who had granted the dispensation permitting Henry to marry his brother’s widow in the first

77

78

79 80

‘Tu reformatione non indiges, caput es iam reformatum! Admonet nos domesticatus disciplina quidnam nobis agendum sit. Tibi unum tantum observandum est, ut duo isti digiti sancti sint [marg add: quales esse debeamus]. Si enim sancti fuerunt, non modo Romana curia, sed omnes provinciae christianorum sanctae erunt [marg add: quales in re publica principes, tales esse subditos]. Hoc autem eveniet Tibi, si non signaveris quidquam praeter dispositionem iuris et canonum, si opera impleveris, quod prudentissime at sanctissime in ivo sententiarum scripsisti [marg add: Quod si secus feceris, credant omnes Te ad decipiendos fideles opus illus composuisse]. Peccaverunt valde predecessores tui in hoc quod non solum posse sed haec sibi omnia voluerunt’. ct xii, p. 31. The anonymous vernacular document of 1522 attributed to Cajetan in ct, xii, pp. 32– 39, Consilium datum summo pontifici de reformatione ecclesiae Christianae, will not be considered here; Tavuzzi has argued persuasively that Cajetan is an unlikely author and has also shown the plausibility of an attribution to Prierias, Tavuzzi, Prierias, pp. 115–119. For Wicks’s earlier analysis of the anonymous document, in which Cajetan’s authorship is cautiously assumed, see ‘The Reform of the Church: A Roman Proposal of 1522’, Currents in Theology and Mission 15 (1988): pp. 589–596. Kenneth Gouwens and Sheryl E. Reiss (eds.), The Pontificate of Clement vii: History, Politics, Culture (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005). Instructio nuntii circa errores libelli de cena Domini, sive de erroribus contingentibus in eucharistiae sacramento, ed. A.F. von Gunten (Rome: Angelicum, 1962). English translation in Cajetan Responds, pp. 153–173.

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

53

place) but also used Henry’s chief weapon, the Old Testament, against him to underline his obligations to Queen Catherine.81 Cajetan was studying the books of the Pentateuch at this time. In a final, direct appeal to Henry viii (January 1534), while praising him as an exegete, Cajetan took the learned king to task for his interpretation of certain texts and pleaded with him to remove the cause of so great a scandal. Summarizing these texts, Skelly notes that while the votum combines scriptural and philosophical arguments, the letter to Henry presents a more unified approach, solely based on the literal interpretation of scripture, and the mutual interpretation of one scriptural text by another.82 On the occasion of the attempted accord with the Lutherans at Augsburg (1530), Cajetan presented a document proposing a number of concessions, using the distinction between matters of faith and matters of practice. About the former, there can be no concession, about the latter he proposes a number of concessions. Cajetan was prepared to allow clerical marriage after the manner of the Greek Church and communion under both forms ‘in accord with the terms of the bull of the Council of Basle for the Bohemians’.83 He suggests a very discreet process of reintegration, not demanding extensive and public retractions from the Lutherans, but minimal statements of faith. Jared Wicks describes elements of this document as ‘startling’ and ‘breathtaking’ and surmises that it was voted down by an ‘overwhelming majority’.84 Cajetan also responded to doctrinal affirmations put forward by the Lutherans in the Confessio Augustana (1530) and Melanchthon’s Apologia (1531).85 In

81

82 83

84 85

De coniugio regis Angliae cum relicta fratris sui, Opuscula iii, 296a–298b, and Ad serenissimum Angliae regem fideique defensorem Henricum nominis de coniugio cum relicta fratris, Opuscula iii, 295a–295b. English translations in Cajetan Responds, pp. 175–188, 241–244. See Guy Bedouelle, ‘The Consultations of the Universities and Scholars Concerning the “Great Matter” of King Henry viii’, in David Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1990), pp. 21–36; G.B. Skelly, ‘Cardinal Cajetan’, in Guy Bedouelle and Patrick Le Gal (eds.), Le ‘Divorce’ du Roi Henry viii. Etudes et Documents (Geneva: Droz, 1987), pp. 205–228. Skelly, ‘Cardinal Cajetan’, p. 228. Wicks observes that with this latter concession, ‘Cajetan is something less than the thoroughgoing papalist in recommending use of a measure Pope Eugenius iv did not recognise in 1437 and Pope Pius ii formally annulled in 1462’, Cajetan Responds, p. 202 (for a translation of the text), and p. 288, n. 5. Cajetan Responds, p. 41. The English translation of the document is on pp. 201–203. De missae sacrificio et de ritu adversus Lutheranos (1531), Opuscula iii, 285b–288a; De communione sub utraque specie, de integritate confessionis, de invocatione sanctorum adversus Lutheranos (1531), Opuscula iii, 292b–295a; De fide et operibus adversus Lutheranos (1532), Opuscula iii, 288a–292b. English translations in Cajetan Responds, pp. 189–240.

54

chapter 2

several treatises, he dealt with specific contested questions, including the sacrifice of the mass, confession and penance, faith and works, and the invocation of saints. In these treatises, his argumentation is almost entirely scriptural and his goal not merely to rebut error but to articulate what he sees as the coherence of the Catholic theological tradition. The opening paragraph of De sacrificio missae et ritu adversus Lutheranos, completed in May 1531, suggests the resumption of a particular kind of task set aside for a time: Earlier, most blessed Father, you commanded me to write an instruction for your Nuncio in response to the booklet on the Lord’s Supper which asserted that the body and blood of Christ were only signified in the Eucharist. Recently, a Lutheran writing was given to me which, although it affirms the true body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, denies the sacrifice of the Mass, this going against all the churches, even those of the schismatics. I judged it my duty not to wait for a command but to elucidate immediately the causes of error in this new heresy.86 These are substantial works, worthy of the attention they have received. Nonetheless, they account for only a part of Cajetan’s intellectual activity during this period. For a fuller picture, we need to return to 1523 and Cajetan’s second diplomatic mission.

When Left to Himself The new Ottoman Emperor, Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566), captured Belgrade in 1521, with clear designs on the Kingdom of Hungary. In 1522, Rhodes fell to the Ottomans, giving them an even greater strategic hold on the Eastern Mediterranean. Cajetan was sent to the Kingdom of Hungary by Pope Adrian vi in July 1523 to discuss defences against the Turks. Cajetan’s mission was inconclusive. Among Cajetan’s early biographers, there is even a suggestion that this embassy was engineered by Cajetan’s enemies in order to remove him from Rome and to minimise his influence over the new pope (and perhaps, after Adrian’s death, to prevent him becoming the next pope).87 In any case, the

86 87

Opuscula, iii, 285b; translation from Cajetan Responds, p. 189. Stöve recounts the chronology: in July 1523 Cajetan left Rome. Adrian died 14 September 1523, the news reaching Cajetan in October of 1523. Clement vii was elected in November

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

55

death of Pope Adrian in September 1523 annulled his mission. Not wishing to waste the time, he worked on two projects until he returned to Italy in the summer of 1524. The first was the completion of a work he had begun earlier in Rome, a handbook for confessors, the Summula peccatorum. At first sight, this book is in the solid alphabetic tradition of the manualists and canonists, providing advice for priests on almost every conceivable sin from a to z. In the prologue, however, Cajetan distances himself from that tradition, lamenting the all too frequent presentation of a stifling multiplication of authorities and the lack of common sense.88 The decision to clear the decks and treat the questions in hand directly, without multiple glosses from numerous holy doctors, will also be a feature of his biblical commentaries. The second work is the Ientacula Novi Testamenti, literalis expositio. This work is really a collection of independent articles, each one nibbling at a problematic text or group of texts from the New Testament (Ientacula are ‘snacks’!). Although one of the discussions touches directly on a matter of Reformation controversy (the royal priesthood),89 this is the exception, not the rule. Enduring questions from the history of exegesis are represented (Who was the young man in Mark’s passion who ran away naked from Gethsemane? Did the apostle Thomas actually touch the risen Lord?);90 Cajetan alludes implicitly to disputes in the published writings of his contemporaries (Who was the woman who anointed Jesus at Bethany?);91 questions of translation are discussed (concerning theologically significant terms, e.g., priesthood);92 and, writing on the

88

89 90 91 92

1523 but only in January 1524 is Cajetan recalled to Rome. In June, however, Cajetan is still in Hungary; in late June, Clement writes to Cajetan, permitting him to return to Gaeta without coming to Rome, in order to avoid the heat and the plague. Cajetan was back in Rome by autumn 1524. See Stöve, dbi 39, p. 572. ‘Aegre ferunt siquidem nonnulli editas Summas: quod dum externa innumera immiscent, opiniones multiplicant, disputationes producunt, propria tuentur, alios oppugnant: vexatus tot doctoribus lector, confusus, perplexus, aut certe inanis relinquitur. Quocirca rogatus a multis, Summulam colligere decrevi de peccatis, Alphabetico ordine, posthabitis non solum disputationibus ac opinionibus propriis et alienis, sed etiam doctoribus omnibus tacitis, ut nullus aemulatione aliqua a veritatis sequela retrahatur’. Summula peccatorum (Lyons: Giunta, 1551), title page verso. See Pierre Michaud-Quantin, Sommes de casuistique et manuels de confession au moyen âge (xii–xvi siècles), Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia 13 (Montreal: Librairie Dominicaine, 1962), pp. 104–107. Ientacula iii.1–3, v, 425a–429a. Ientacula vi.4, v, 444b; Ientacula vii.2, v, 448a. Ientacula i.1, v, 405a–408a; Ientacula xii.1–2, v, 466a–467a. Ientacula ii.1, v, 416a–419b.

56

chapter 2

beatitudes, Cajetan plugs a gap in his own Summa commentary.93 He writes in the dedication that texts were chosen at random, as they took his fancy (‘Absque ordine siquidem et delectu occurrentes’).94 Some of the texts were evidently suggested by the liturgical celebrations of the day.95 In style and format, the Ientacula demonstrate a movement from the quaestio of a scholastic treatise, towards the annotatio typical of the humanists, placing philogical and theological concerns side by side. This hybrid humanist-scholastic form will be typical of Cajetan’s later biblical commentaries. Hence, when left with time on his hands, Cajetan dedicated himself to two works, the Summula peccatorum and the Ientacula Novi Testamenti. It is hard to read them as responses to Luther. It makes much more sense to see them as part of much broader agenda: they correspond directly to the two areas of pastoral importance that he had singled out some years before as Dominican Master General: confession and preaching—ministries whose proper exercise is vital to the reform of the life of the Church as a whole. Though the method and tools are different, there is an affinity here with Silvestro Prierias’s earlier Rosa area (published in 1503)—a collection of sermon notes on the gospel passages assigned to the Sundays of the year, together with moral guidance on cases of conscience. This book was intended for those who, ‘like Silvestro himself, were heavily involved in popular preaching, hearing confessions, and the direction of souls’.96 The Ientacula demonstrates that Cajetan came to exegesis with a wide range of interests (speculative, controversial, and pastoral). The questions he asked arose not only from his limited acquaintance with Luther and Zwingli, but also from his reading of the humanists and from years of teaching and writing, preaching, and administration. That this same breadth of interest and stimulus informs the biblical commentaries themselves is suggested in the dedication of the Ientacula to Clement vii: the snacks had to be set aside when the possibility arose of embarking on the more substantial banquet of a literal commentary on the Psalms.97

93

94 95

96 97

Ientacula iv.1–5, v, 429a–439a. Over a decade earlier, he had advised, ‘Quaestio sexagesimanona et septuagesima lectione frequenti, meditationeque iugi egent, non expositione’. On i-ii, 69–70 [i]. See below, pp. 93–96. Ientacula Novi Testamenti (Lyons: Giunta, 1551), title page verso. For example, ‘Occurrunt septimo in hac solemnitate Paschali tria. […] tertium, quod in his diebus legitur ex Apoc. cap. 5, Dignus est agnus qui occisus est accipere divinitatem’, Ientacula vii, v, 446a. Tavuzzi, Prierias, p. 17. The food theme is employed throughout: ‘Sapientiae Divinae, Clemens septime Pontifex

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

57

From 1524 until his death in 1534, Cajetan worked on the translation and exegesis of scripture, the works that are the main focus of this study. The Ientacula had been composed during the Hungarian legation (1523–1524). On returning to Rome in 1524 he began work on a commentary on the Psalms, completed at Easter 1527. In May 1527, his work was interrupted by the Sack of Rome, whose horrors and humiliations he experienced at first hand. There are differing accounts of his treatment, the worst of which has the aged cardinal taken prisoner by the invading Landsknechte and paraded through the city riding backwards on a donkey, wearing nothing but a labourer’s cap. A sum of 5,000 gold ducats was demanded for his ransom, for which he had to take out substantial loans.98 In June he was in Gaeta, where he remained until the autumn of 1529. During this time he returned to scripture, completing his literal commentaries on the whole of the New Testament, with the exception of the Book of Revelation. For this book, he confessed that he was not able to discern its literal sense, but he invites those to whom God has given the ability to make up for that lack.99 By the beginning of 1530, Cajetan was again in Rome. By the time he received a copy of the Augsburg Confession, he had completed his commentaries on the New Testament books and these commentaries informed his polemical works adversos Lutheranos. Around 1529 he had commenced work on the Old Testa-

98

99

maxime, mensam post perfectam peccatorum summulam instruere quum Hungarica peregrinatio vetaret: ne ieiunia omnino mens manusque transiret, Ientacula quaedam parare curavi. Absque ordine siquidem et delectu occurrentes nonnullae per Novum Testamentum sententiae, literali sensu hic declarantur. Nec propterea finem feci, quod omnes declaratione dignas arbitrarer me complexum esse; sed ubi obtulit se commoditas inchoandi commentaria Psalmorum iuxta literalem sensum, omissis Ientaculis, convivio apparando vacandum credidi. Non dedignaberis itaque Pater beatissime, exiguum hoc munusculum suscipere: quandoquidem et mea omnia tuae beatitudini debentur, et divina est materia. Felix vale’. Ientacula Novi Testamenti (Lyons: Giunta, 1551), title page verso. See André Chastel, The Sack of Rome, 1527 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983); Judith Hook, The Sack of Rome (London: Macmillan, 1972); Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, pp. 320–332; Peter Partner, Renaissance Rome, 1500–1559: A Portrait of a Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), pp. 31–33. Tavuzzi, Prierias, p. 131; Mallett and Shaw, The Italian Wars, pp. 160–164. ‘Apocalypsim enim fateor me nescire exponere iuxta sensum literalem, exponat cui Deus concesserit’. On Jude 1.25, v, 400vb. ‘Et quoniam intentionis meae fuit sensum dumtaxat germanum prosequi, ideo Apocalypsim Ioannis omisi: fateor enim ingenue me non penetrare illius mysteria iuxta sensum literalem’. Dedication to Charles v, Epistolae Pauli et aliorum apostolorum ad graecam veritatem castigatae iuxta sensum literalem enarratae (Venice: Giunta, 1531), title page verso.

58

chapter 2

ment, beginning with the Pentateuch. He omitted the Song of Songs because, once again, the literal sense escaped him.100 He worked steadily through these texts and had just begun Isaiah when he died in August 1534. Pope Clement vii was the dedicatee of almost all of Cajetan’s biblical commentaries (his commentary on the New Testament epistles was uniquely dedicated to Charles v, coinciding with Charles’s coronation as emperor in Bologna in February 1530). Like his cousin Leo x, Clement was a keen patron of biblical study—Cajetan speaks of Clement vii as one who delights in the familiar company of sacred letters.101 There are indications that he may have planned a revision of the Vulgate Old Testament by a team of Jewish and Christian Hebraists (six apiece),102 perhaps as part of a revision of the Latin text of the entire Bible.103 Evidently, he encouraged Cajetan’s biblical project and took an active interest in it. Cajetan dedicates his Psalms commentary to the pope, who had urged him to the task in the first place and who led him to hope for its success once it was completed.104 After the Sack of Rome, Cajetan took refuge in Gaeta for twenty-seven months, a retreat that tempered the trauma of plunder and destruction. He dedicated his gospel commentaries to Clement as the fruit of this unexpected and lengthy absence from public duties; the implication is that they will be considered a worthy compensation.105 This produc-

100

101 102

103 104

105

‘Et sic finitur Ecclesiastes cum omnibus Salomonis et Sapientiae libris; Salomonis quidem quia Parabolas exposuimus, et Canticum Canticorum iuxta germanum sensum fateor me non intelligere’. On Eccl 12.14, iii, 633b. ‘[…] quae sacrarum literarum consuetudine delectatur […],’ In omnes authenticos veteris Testamenti historiales libros commentarii (Paris, 1546), dedication, n.p. See A.F. von Gunten, ‘La contribution des “Hébreux” à l’oeuvre exégétique de Cajétan’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 46–83, at pp. 60–62. See Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism’, p. 245. ‘Tibi autem pater b. haec in primis commentaria debentur: qui et principio ut eadem cuderem, et dulci postea colloquio uti de successu bene sperare incitasti’. Psalmi Davidici ad Hebraicam veritatem castigati et iuxta sensum quem literalem dicunt ennarati (Venice, 1530), Dedication, n.p. ‘Romanae ruinae pars pater beatissime quamvis et rerum omnium direptione et personali captivitate fuerim, magnitudo tamen ocii inde subsecuta in propria patria, universa temperavit. Septem siquidem supra viginti menses integros privatam Caietae vitam ducens, commentarios in novum testamentum quos inchoaveram (duobus duntaxat Matthaei capitibus prius expositis) perfeci. […] Suscipiat igitur benigne beatitudo tua fructum invitae simulque ociosae tam diuturnae meae absentiae, et felix valeat’. In quattuor Evangelia et Acta Apostolorum ad grecorum codicum veritatem castigata ad sensum quem vocant literalem commentarii (Venice: Lucantonio Giunta, 1530), dedication, n.p.

prelate, diplomat, biblical scholar (1513–1534)

59

tivity did not go unnoticed further afield: writing from Carpentras, Cajetan’s friend Jacopo Sadoleto marvels that, in such terrifying circumstances, Cajetan should have been able to find the peace and the time to take up the translation and exposition of both Testaments (Sadoleto uses the Erasmian term instrumenta).106 Cajetan makes reference to daily disputations in the pope’s presence which spurred learned men to take up the study of sacred scripture. He therefore offers back to the instigator the result of his own labours—this time, his commentary on the Pentateuch. He notes that he is especially bound to do so, since the pope has followed his work closely and made possible the time and space necessary to dedicate himself to these studies.107 It would seem that Cajetan’s exegetical labour was no maverick hobby; it was known about, was supported financially and otherwise, and was prized at the papal court. The last point—that the pope even provided the time and the space for Cajetan to complete this work—is the clearest indication yet that Cajetan’s exegetical labours may have been less a ‘self-directed’ project than an explicit papal assignment. (To anticipate a point to be treated below, none of these dedicatory letters links Cajetan’s exegetical output to the Reformation.) Cajetan was aware that his was an ambitious undertaking and he was aware that his own linguistic and philological skills were not adequate to the task. He consoles himself by recognizing that he is not working alone, that he is contributing his part to a greater and public good. The Italian humanists (and later the Jesuits) were compelled by this idea, captured beautifully in a frequently-quoted passage of Cicero:

106

107

‘Sed quod in tanto armorum strepitu tumultuque bellorum, furore hominum crudelissimorum atque avarissimorum omnia perfringente, tam multis caedibus, directionibus, incendiis, in pace et otio esse potueris, et ad literas sacras toto animo ita incumbere, ut utrumque Instrumentum nostrae fidei sanctissimae interpretandum susceperis, totumque pene absolveris: nec te aut periculi tui metus, aut alienorum incommodorum dolor, ab ea cura et intentione animi avocare potuertit: hoc est, quod ego imprimis novum et admirabile esse duco’. Cited in Aluigi Cossio, Il Cardinale Gaetano e la Riforma (Cividale: Fulvio, 1902), p. 453. ‘Quotidiana de divinis coram beatitudine tua disputatio provocans etiam viros doctos ad sacrarum studia literarum, meretur ut quicquid circa divinorum librorum declarationem cuditur, illi dicetur. Par enim est ut qui plus temporis alendo animo quam corpori impendis, nostrorum quoque studiorum fructus tibi vendices: eo magis quod et non dedignaris nostra qualiacunque sunt legere, et amplum temporis spatium ad dictandum mihi largiri’. Commentarii illustres planeque insignes in quinque mosaicos libros (Paris: Petit, 1539), dedication, n.p.

60

chapter 2

We are not born for ourselves alone. […] Everything that the earth produces is created for our use, and we, too, as human beings are born for the sake of other human beings that we might be able mutually to help one another; we ought therefore to […] contribute to the common good of humankind by reciprocal acts of kindness, by giving and receiving from one another, and thus by our skill, our industry and our talents work to bring human society together in peace and harmony.108 In his exegetical work, Cajetan draws heavily on the published writings of the biblical humanists. And he employs assistants who are experts in the biblical languages. His literal commentary on the Psalter, his first undertaking, was necessary and desirable, but no less arduous, taking three years of uncommon labour.109 He claims not to have finished the task but rather to have opened the way for others, so that what he has done less well, they can bring to completion. He assures others that the whole task need not be completed in an instant. Nevertheless, the urgency of the situation requires that he himself make a start. 108 109

Cicero, De officiis, cited and translated in John W. O’Malley, The Jesuits ii: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts, 1540–1773 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), p. xxxii. ‘Hinc factum est ut ad literam interpretandi non minus arduum quod necessarium et optatum munus sim aggressus: quod tandem post triennii labores non vulgares absolvi. Qua quidem in re non ita mihi arrogo, ut putem rei magnitudini satis factum: sed videor mihi, viam aliis aperuisse: et eousque progressus esse, ut posteris animum addiderim, ut quod ego minus potui ipsi suppleant et perficiant. Quod eo libentius facturos puto, quod universum non sint opus aggressuri: quo forte poterant deterreri’. Psalmi Davidici ad Hebraicam veritatem castigati et iuxta sensum quem literalem dicunt ennarati (Venice, 1530), Dedication, n.p.

part 2 Motive

∵

chapter 3

The Bible and Reform For Cajetan, biblical translation and exposition are instruments of reform. This is clear from the few explicit statements of motive he gives within the course of his exegetical works. He wants to open up the Bible, to provide a more accurate text for people to read and an accessible commentary that will help them to understand and pray the words of scripture. He wants to enkindle their minds towards the sacred scriptures,1 and to provide them with the one weapon that is useful in the fight against temptation and sin.2 His goal is not primarily apologetic but pastoral. For this reason, he does not limit himself to those passages controverted by heretics or philosophers. He wants to make the whole of the word of God more accessible to the people of God. This is his motive at the most general level. In the course of his verseby-verse commentary, he identifies specific ills besetting the Church and the world. These are consistent with the reform needs he had listed earlier. For example, in his discourse to the Fifth Lateran Council (1512), he called for the reform of the Church, the restitution of declining morals, the crushing of schism, the conversion of infidels, the calling back of heretics, the rewarding of virtue, the punishment of vice, and the strengthening of appropriate laws and sanctions. He strongly urged that positions of rank in the Church be given only to those who deserve them. As Dominican Master General (in letters of 1513 and 1515), he called for his confreres to observe faithfully the rule and constitutions and to study sacred letters. When challenged by Martin Luther (1518), he sought to improve legislation on indulgences. Writing to the newlyelected Adrian vi (1522), Cajetan identified the problems facing the new pope: moral degradation, spiritual destitution, ignorance, new heresies, war among Christians and the Turkish threat.3 In short, Cajetan reiterates a number of

1 ‘Ego iam senex non novitatis sed veritatis solius amore allectus, opus hoc aggredior in holocaustum omnipotenti Deo ad accendendum aliorum mentes erga Sacras Scripturas’. Preface to Pentateuch, i, facing 1. 2 ‘Discamus hinc omnes arma nostra esse sacras scripturas; ideo namque Iesus omnes has tentationes solis sacris scripturis vicit, ut doceret nos sic pugnare et vincere; nulla enim poterit nos suasio ad malum trahere, si consultis sacris scripturis actiones et omissiones nostras direxerimus’. On Mt 4.4, iv, 16b. 3 On Lateran v, see pp. 28–30, on Dominican principles, see pp. 31–34, on Luther, see pp. 44–50, for the address to Adrian vi, see pp. 51–52.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325098_005

64

chapter 3

basic goals: peace and unity within the Christian community and the removal of the Turkish threat from without; moral improvement in general through faithful obedience to law and devout participation in worship; and, above all, a carefully-selected, well-educated, and morally upright clergy. Cajetan’s list is typical: we can find variations on this basic pattern among his contemporaries in Rome and further afield.4 For Cajetan, a deeper and better informed knowledge of the Bible is a central part of the solution from the outset, hence his ten-year commitment to biblical study and writing. In the course of writing his commentaries, however, he finds further confirmation and elaboration of his reform priorities. It seems that scripture is both remedy and diagnosis, revolving in a virtuous circle: it identifies the sickness and furnishes a cure. This chapter will show how, in the course of his verse-by-verse commentary on the Bible, Cajetan’s hopes for reform frequently surface in his thinking. Sometimes this occurs as an explicit statement of motive (and I shall begin with those cases); at other times it is a reasonable inference from the context. For the purpose of this chapter, I am reading the biblical commentaries of 1524–1534 as a single corpus.

Cajetan’s Stated Reasons In the biblical commentaries, Cajetan says very little explicitly about his motive; brief remarks can be found in the dedication of the commentary on the Psalms, in the preface to the commentary on the Pentateuch, and at the outset of his commentary on Joshua. Nevertheless, what he does say, however briefly, points to a consistent and intelligible purpose. In the dedication of the commentary on the Psalms, Cajetan speaks of the importance of these texts in the life of the Church. They are the best known and most widely used of the books of the Bible. Some books of the Bible are used now and then, even daily, but the psalms are used at all hours of the day (if no longer during the night).5 He goes on to note that, although many

4 See, for example, Nelson Minnich, ‘Concepts of Reform Proposed at the Fifth Lateran Council’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 7 (1969): pp. 163–251, reprinted, with new appendices, in Minnich, The Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517) (Aldershot: Variorum, 1993), pp. iv, 163–251, 252*–253*; John W. O’Malley, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: Rhetoric, Doctrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, ca.1450–1521 (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1979), pp. 195–196; Guy Bedouelle, The Reform of Catholicism, 1480–1620, trans. James K. Farge (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2008), pp. 14–25. 5 ‘Inter omnes sacrae scripturae libros beatissime Pater, psalmi quum maxime familiares cui-

the bible and reform

65

commentaries on scripture have appeared, none has given the literal meaning of the Psalter.6 And yet it is this sense, the sense most frequently at issue in the liturgy, that should be better and more transparently known by those who sing and read the psalms.7 Cajetan is thus offering to provide a commentary on the literal sense of the psalms to help clergy and religious with their prayers. This echoes Agostino Giustiniani’s reason for his own version of the Psalter discussed above: to help priests understand and interpret scripture.8 And in their Libellus for Pope Leo, Querini and Giustiniani had urged that no one be ordained priest who had not memorised the psalms.9 A more general reason is given in the preface to the commentary on the Pentateuch: now advanced in years, driven only by a love of the truth, he has begun this work, this burnt offering to God, in order to stir up the minds of others towards the sacred scriptures.10 After completing his commentary on the Pentateuch, Cajetan began explaining the historical books of the Old Testament, beginning with Joshua. He gives three reasons for embarking on this particular commentary. First, some things in these books are obscure and need to be made clear. Cajetan

6

7

8 9

10

que aetati ecclesiae fuerint et esse non desinant, mirum quod minus cogniti ac minus intellecti perseverant. Et alios quidem sacrae legis libros interdum legimus, alios quotidie, sed tamen certo diei tempore inter sacrificii solemnia audimus: a psalmis vero nulla omnino diei hora (ut nocturnas nunc psalmodias taceamus) eximitur’, Psalmi Davidici ad Hebraicam veritatem castigati et iuxta sensum quem literalem dicunt ennarati (Venice: Giunta, 1530), Dedication, n.p. Only those who ‘dwell in the house of the Lord’ need praise the Lord at night, ‘Sicut enim hodie canonici habitantes habitacula in claustro adhaerentes ecclesiae habent commoditatem dicendi matutinas nocturno tempore, habitantes autem alibi excusantur a tali onere nocturno tempore’. On Ps 134.1, iii, 451a. Beryl Smalley has remarked that Cajetan was clearly unaware of the medieval English tradition of commentaries on the Psalms, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (3rd edn., Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), pp. 351–352. ‘Ad haec, novi et veteris testamenti mysteria, multi multis commentariis aperuerunt: solus psalterii sensus quem literalem vocant, nulli est adhuc pervius, sed abstrusus: quum fere omnes qui commentarios in illud ediderunt, mysticos tantum sensus attulerint. Et tamen literalis, quo crebrius psalmi leguntur in ecclesia vel cantantur, eo deberet esse lucidior et apertior’. Psalmi Davidici ad Hebraicam veritatem castigati et iuxta sensum quem literalem dicunt ennarati (Venice: Giunta, 1530), Dedication, n.p. See p. 40 above. Giuseppe Alberigo, ‘The Reform of the Episcopate in the Libellus to Leo x by the Camaldolese Hermits Vincenzo Querini and Tommaso Giustiniani’, in Christopher M. Bellitto and Louis I. Hamilton (eds.), Reforming the Church before Modernity: Patterns, Problems, and Approaches (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), pp. 139–152, at p. 146. See n. 1 above.

66

chapter 3

attributes the obscurity either to the text itself or to the translation. Second, there are unusual things said and done in these books, particularly by holy men. By implication, the ambiguities evident in their words and deeds need to be clarified in order to prevent others from being led astray. Third, those who read and study the Bible are not always equal to the task of understanding the text. A commentary is provided to make the meaning of the text clearer.11 These are the only explicit statements of purpose in the biblical commentaries. In addition to these texts, Cajetan’s frequent asides give some idea of his anticipated readership. Most often he will invite the careful reader to take note (‘Adverte, prudens lector’). On occasion, however, this is varied: clerics are to note the care taken over divine worship (‘Adverte, clerice’),12 and the learned reader will be able to follow a subtle argument (‘Ubi docte lector, intueri potes’).13 Often, the asides address those who are less advanced in their studies, cautioning them to proceed carefully or to consult more widely. Theologia speculativa is recommended as an extra source of learning, distinct from the biblical commentaries, for those more interested and more persevering.14 (Perhaps Cajetan has in mind the Summa theologiae of Aquinas and his own commentary on it; there are passing references to both.)15 These remarks suggest that he envisaged his readership to include those who were literate and educated, but not necessarily expert, or yet fully-trained, in theology. From all of these remarks, we can discern a consistent motive in Cajetan’s exegetical programme: to explain biblical ambiguities and obscurities to those who prayed, studied, and preached the Bible. Cajetan’s work is offered to religious, clerics, and literate lay-people as a tool to give accurate access to the Bible, to help them to pray, and to furnish moral guidance from the examples of holy men and women. Concerns about heresies may not be far from his

11

12 13 14

15

‘Tria me movent post expositos libros Mosis ad scribendum super libros historiales Veteris Testamenti. Primum, difficultas rei gestae, vel quia obscure traditur, vel quia secus interpretes eam reddiderunt. Secundum, ratio, tum verborum, tum factorum, quae ambigua videntur, virorum praesertim sanctorum. Tertium, imbecilitas multitudinis legentium studiose sacram scripturam, ut quae illis minus clara sunt, manifesta fiant’. On Josh 1.1, ii, 1a. ‘Adverte, clerice, quantum erat studium erga honorem divini cultus’. On Lev 4.12, i, 281a. On Ps 31.5, iii, 108b. ‘Ubi subtiliter penetrare studias’; ‘Et bene nota qui minus exercitatus es in theologia speculative’. On Jn 16.14, iv, 403a–b, on the procession of the Holy Spirit. ‘Lege speculativam theologiam si haec non intelligas et nosse cupis’. On Jn 16.15, iv, 403b. ‘Siste hic minus erudite in philosophia seu speculativa theologia’. On Ps 94.9, iii, 321a. ‘At si diffusius cupis ista discuti, lege theologos speculativos’. On Ps 94.11, iii, 321b. On Ex 23.7, i, 220b; on Lev 18.18, i, 314b.

the bible and reform

67

mind, but only insofar as heresy adds to an already-existing confusion. Cajetan disappoints the reader who is looking for ammunition to use against the reformers; he takes for granted that his reader accepts certain doctrines and practices (for example, concerning Eucharist, penance, and the papacy), even if they are under attack. And he deals with many other topical issues besides: the immortality of the soul, lending money for interest, duelling and ambushing, the death penalty, the legitimacy of bowing before non-Christian rulers, the braiding of hair, the wearing of earrings, and even the finer points of Jewish baking.16

The State of Things In addition to these direct statements about his reforming motive, Cajetan peppers his commentaries with indirect indicators of his motive concerning the state of the Church and the world, especially concerning those in authority. Evaluating his age, and comparing it with others, Cajetan reveals glimpses of nostalgia for the early Church.17 The expression utinam [hodie] (‘if only [today]’) often introduces a reflection on the poor match between the demands of the gospel and the current state of the Church.18 The Church, which should be redolent with the odour of Christ, smells of this world and its delight in honour, rank, and comfort.19 The devil continues to disrupt and deceive, even at the highest levels of Church and State. Indeed, the council chamber is almost

16

17 18

19

On Cain and the death penalty, on Gen 4.15, i, 35b; bowing to infidel princes, on Gen 33.3, i, 120b; braiding hair and earrings, on 1 Tim 2.9, v, 296a; duelling, on 1Kings 17.51, ii, 108a; ambushes, on Josh 8.2, ii, 12b; on the preparation of unleavened loaves and wafers brushed with olive oil, originally for sacrificial offerings but which even today are eaten, with sugar: ‘Inducit me modus, qui in Litera servatur, scribendi diversa coquendi genera […] ut merito appellentur crustulae quia totum quod sunt crusta est, quarum usus usque hodie est inter delicias, cum saccharo tamen’, on Lev 2.4, i, 277b. On usury, see p. 73; on the immortality of the soul, see pp. 224–227. E.g., ‘Primi ecclesiae Christianae patres Iudaei iuncti sunt Christo potioribus donis’. On Gen 49.11, i, 150a. ‘Ecce infallibilia apud omnes nationes signa discipulorum Christi, ecce insignia propriae Christianorum, quae utinam hodie apparerent’. On Jn 13.35, iv, 386a. All have sinned: ‘Utinam non experiremur veritatem huius sententiae’. On 3 Kings 8.46, ii, 196a. ‘[…] dum ecclesiastica apparentia in quo navigamus, aromatibus redolet mundi huius, et non in odorem unguentorum Christi, sed in odorem mundi huius, gloriae scilicet honoris, gradus, commoditatum, &c., curritur’. On Job 41.22, ii, 554a.

68

chapter 3

his proper place.20 An abiding enemy, for Cajetan, is the pursuit of fame. He reminds his readers that every ancient Roman strove for fame and repute, and it brought them only bodily and spiritual death.21 Remarks on kings and judges compound this general sense of disappointment with those in authority, as Cajetan sees the demands of scripture going unheeded. Moses was advised on the kind of men he must choose as judges: ‘able men’, who ‘fear God’, who ‘are trustworthy’, and who ‘hate a bribe’. Cajetan reads off this list and sighs that it is a blessed nation that has such men to rule in it. A judge who is not wise, understanding, and experienced is not fit to practise.22 In a sermon preached before Julius ii in 1507, Giles of Viterbo addressed the pope as a greater emperor than the first Julius (Caesar). The first Julius ruled only half the world; this Julius, with the discovery of the New World, now rules over the whole world (notwithstanding many of the territories of the Old World being in the hands of the Infidel).23 By contrast, Cajetan resists imposing any theoretical scheme of history. Although an occasional tone of pessimism can be detected, he makes virtually no use of apocalyptic imagery. He is struck, however, by a passage from Luke’s gospel in which Jesus contrasts the certainty of God’s providence with the uncertainty of human faith: Will not God vindicate his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth? Lk 18.7–8

20

21

22

23

‘Ubi adverte officium esse diaboli decipere et praevalere, et hoc officium diabolicum usque adeo versari in curiis, ut Diogenes diffinierit, curiam esse locum ad decipiendum et praevalendum’. On 3 Kings 22.22, ii, 225a. Cajetan refers to this saying of Diogenes on other occasions: on Job 40.15, ii, 547b, and on st ii-ii, 187, 2; I have been unable to identify the source. ‘Operari et laborare nihilque omittere pro immortalitate famae, via recta fuit in conspectu Romanorum, et tamen finis illius in vias mortis corporis et animae terminata est’. On Prov 14.12, iii, 546b. ‘Discurre per omnes philosophorum sectas et per omnium gentilium scriptorum libros, et tandem invenies omnes ambulasse in vanitate mentis suae, sive illa fuerit immortalitas famae, sive gloria praesens, sive virtus praesens speculativa, &c’. On Eph 4.17, v, 236a. ‘Libra prudens lector has quatuor conditiones virorum qui assumendi sunt ad principatum iudicium seu regimen aliorum, et perspicies beatam esse rempublicam illam, in qua tales eliguntur’. On Ex 18.21, i, 201a. ‘Quodcunque enim horum defuerit, ineptus est iudex’. On Dt 1.13, i, 431a. See John W. O’Malley, ‘Fulfillment of the Christian Golden Age under Pope Julius ii: Text of a Discourse of Giles of Viterbo, 1507’, Traditio 25 (1969): pp. 265–338.

the bible and reform

69

Cajetan first of all expresses his dismay that despite such a promise of providence, the number of the faithful has fallen. Although God has such concern for his people, they disregard his care, and when they should grow strong and increase, they do the opposite. Cajetan reads the words of Jesus as a prophecy for his own day. The diminution of Christians is well under way; it is already very extensive and shows little sign of reversing.24 As if wary of appearing to foresee too much, Cajetan attaches a disclaimer to his clairvoyance: echoing Amos (7.14) he says he is neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. Nonetheless, a great part of the world is now Muslim and the small part that remains Christian is riven with heresy, schism, and immorality. The number of genuine faithful is tiny.25 Cajetan laments the various ways in which Christians compromise their faith: magic, fortune-telling, idolatry, and the frivolous misuse of scripture. He notes with approval that the magicians who joined the first Christians burned their books, showing that there is no common ground between Christianity and magic.26 When the Jews are told that God will not be pleased until they remove idols from the temple, Cajetan takes the occasion to warn all rulers, ecclesiastical and secular, of their responsibility to ensure that God is not provoked.27 Nor are pastors to be too inquisitive about future events that are concealed in the will of Christ. It should be enough for them to heed the Lord’s calling and follow him.28 Recalling that the house of Jacob began to turn to soothsayers and diviners, questioning Moses and doubting the scriptures, Cajetan accuses certain Christians of allowing the influence of non-Christian 24

25

26 27 28

‘Quamvis Deus tantam curam habeat electorum suorum quod cito faciet vindictam eorum, nihilominus numerus fidelium diminuetur; non recognoscent homines tantum beneficium, sed ubi deberent crescere, minuentur, ita ut vix inveniantur veri fideles veniente filio hominis ad iudicandum mundum. […] Ex hoc loco timeo diminutionem Christianae fidei quam videmus, non solum inchoatam sed valde extensam, non esse restaurandam sed extendendam’. On Lk 18.8, iv, 251b. ‘Non sum tamen propheta neque filius prophetae, sed video viam valde frequentatam ad verificationem huius textus: magna siquidem mundi pars Mahumetana est; et parva pars Christianis relicta, tot haeresibus et schismatibus ac pravis usibus repleta est, ut exiguus vere fidelium numerus iam apparere videatur. Vere autem fideles dico professores Christianae fidei verbis et factis’. On Lk 18.8, iv, 251b. ‘[…] ut omnes viderent Christianam religionem inimicam esse magicis artibus’. On Acts 19.19, iv, 469b. ‘Et hoc annotarent, et curarent, ut fieret, principes tam saeculares quam ecclesiastici, placarent saepius iram Dei’. On Josh 7.13, ii, 11b. ‘Satis est eis sollicitos esse de praecepto eis facto: tu me sequere, tu me imitare’. On Jn 21.33, iv, 429b.

70

chapter 3

knowledge to distract them from a genuine study of scripture.29 The scriptures are given in the Holy Spirit and must not be employed to frivolous purpose.30 Cajetan draws connections between failings in faith and failings in virtue. He refers to heretics who preach that those who are born of God enjoy complete freedom; that they have permission to act in whatever way they choose, including sin. In response, Cajetan looks to John, who in his first epistle says that those who have been born of God do not sin; that the divine grace does not include freedom to sin.31 In remarks on a similar passage later in the epistle, Cajetan condemns certain rectors of houses of women religious. It seems that some of these used the text of John to justify certain irregular practices, not all equally grave, which Cajetan sees as sinful precisely on account of the particular state of life of those committing them: wearing purple or silk, wearing rings, sharing a bed with a man.32 Cajetan wishes that Paul’s caution against admitting young widows to a life of prayer and service were heeded in his own day (‘utinam hodie’); men and women are admitted far too young to religious vows or sacred orders.33 On the question of war and combat, Cajetan seeks to reconcile established practice with the demands of the Bible. He is not a pacifist. He takes literally the statement by the author of the Book of Judges that God wanted to teach 29

30

31

32

33

‘Domus Iacob movebit quaestiones circa alienas disciplinas, parvipendendo movere dubia circa ea quae sunt legis Moysi. Tale peccatum utinam non irrepserit Christianis parvipendentibus sacrae scripturae dubia et extraneis studentibus’. On Is 2.6, iii, 643a. This remark echoes a warning about the use of the cabala, on 1Tim 6.21, v, 307b; see chapter 7, p. 217, n. 89. ‘Et hinc confutantur abutentes sacris quibuscunque (sive Psalmis sive aliis) ad efficienda quaedam vana. Manifestatio siquidem Spiritus sancti non est nisi ad id quod confert’. On 1Cor 12.7, v, 128a. ‘Et non est opus glossa sed attentione quorsum haec dicat Ioannes. Dicit enim haec adversus haereticos qui, ex eo quod a Deo se habere, praedicabant et peccabant et poterant peccare. Adversus hoc docet Ioannes quod id gratiae quod habemus ex Deo, quod simus et sumus filii Dei, nec fert secum peccare, nec posse peccare’. 1Jn 3.9, v, 394va. ‘Contra haereticos, hypocritas et deceptores ut praedictum est dicit haec Ioannes. Utinam aetate nostra advertissent hoc rectores muliercularum religiosarum, nam neque purpura aut serico vestitas, neque annulum gestantes, neque cum viris dormientes in eodem lecto, tolerassent. Quoniam nullum peccatum, tam ex suo genere quam ex circunstantia personae, provenit ex eo quod natum est ex Deo. Hoc enim est quod Ioannes toties clamat, quod omnis qui natus est ex Deo non peccat. Non sunt haec ex revelatione aut inspiratione divina quaecunque; sunt, ex suo genere, aut ex conditione personae, peccata. Imo, quod plus est, nullum indecens provenit ex Deo quod datum est ex Deo’. On 1Jn 5.18, v, 398rb. ‘Didicit ab experientia Paulus non conducere illis iuvenculis viduis, nec conducere ecclesiae huiusmodi professionem. Utinam hodie disceremus ab huiusmodi experientiis, an

the bible and reform

71

Israel war—in this context, meaning armed military combat and not just the metaphorical battle with sin. He rejects the shoddy thinking of those who conclude from the poor conduct of the military that all war is unjust. Commenting on John the Baptist’s counsel to soldiers (Lk 3.14), he says that these are the typical sins of soldiers: doing violence to the weak and vulnerable, making false accusations, and being discontent with their wages. He suggests that the third is key: if they remain content with their wages, there will be no cause for violence or deceit, whether hidden or open.34 While soldiers will be held responsible for their sins, legitimate military combat is not offensive to God.35 For Cajetan, however, war should not be the first choice. Peace-making is the greater statesmanship. It is always better to offer peace, in order to preserve lives and goods, however just the cause for war.36 Commenting on the beatitude, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God’, he describes this virtue as the highest calling of those in government; those who make peace grow greatly in the likeness of God and therefore deserve the exalted status of children of God.37 A foremost concern for all Christians is the right use of money. Cajetan calls for good stewardship on the part of individuals and rulers. He recognises that the majority of Christians cannot avoid dealing with temporal realities—not everyone is called to sell all they own and join a monastery. He commends those who perform good works by giving temporal goods and making sacri-

34

35

36 37

prosint iuvenilis aetatis utriusque sexus personarum solemnia vota, tum sacrorum ordinum, tum religionum’. On 1 Tim 5.15, v, 303a. ‘Tria praecipit militibus, concernentia eorum statum. Primo prohibet violentiam inferre, neminem concutiatis. Deinde fraudem, neque calumniam faciatis, sive facto, sive verbo, imponendo alicui crimen. Et demum ut sint contenti stipendiis suis. In his enim tribus genus militum peccare consuevit, nam et crebras violentias inferunt rusticis, et hominibus humilibus viribus: calumniantur quoque imponentes aliis quae non fecerunt; et rarissimus est qui propriis stipendiis sit contentus. Et si perspicaciter haec tria considerantur, ordinatur animus militum in tertio: et uterque modus iniuriandi (scilicet manifeste vel occulte, vi vel dolo), tollitur’. On Lk 3.14, iv, 190b. ‘Et scripta haec in doctrina sacra, attributaque Deo, ut intelligamus gratam esse Deo non solum pugnam adversus vitia, sed etiam ipsam armatam militiam adversus hostes, quam hodie vituperant vitia militum, sed eorum iniquitas, non militia ipsa, in culpa est’. On Judg 3.2, ii, 39a. On this topic in general, see David S. Chambers, Popes, Cardinals and War: The Military Church in Renaissance and Early Modern Europe (London: Tauris, 2006). ‘Sancta lex ut quamvis iustum sit bellum, offeratur tamen pax ad salvandam vitam et libertatem singulorum et res eorum a praeda’. On Dt 20.10, i, 473b. ‘[…] supremum locum teneat inter opera gubernationis. Assimilat igitur maxime Deo hominem pacificatio, et in excelso valde loco constituit’. Ientacula iv.5, v, 436a.

72

chapter 3

fices for others, and he warns against missing the daily opportunities.38 When Paul speaks against those who seek to become rich, Cajetan tactfully defends businessmen and traders who need to make money simply in order to support their families.39 When the law teaches that the king must not multiply wealth for himself, Cajetan distinguishes between the personal wealth of the king and the wealth of the nation, insisting that scripture’s prohibition applies only to the amassing of personal wealth; kings have a great responsibility for the wealth of the nation and they must be careful to make provision for financial crises.40 When such a crisis occurs in the Old Testament, the king uses the riches of the temple to buy off an aggressor. Cajetan argues that as a last resort, when all other revenue is exhausted, the wealth of the Church may be used in this way.41 Perhaps Cajetan was reminded of the necessities of the Sack of Rome, when Clement vii had to ask Benvenuto Cellini to melt down chalices, the papal tableware, and even his predecessor’s tiara to secure his ransom.42

38

39

40

41

42

‘Hoc praeceptum adimplet non solum relinquentes mundum et ad eremum seu monasteria proficientes, sed etiam quicunque opportunitatem benefaciendi praeponunt damnis rerum temporalium aut incommodis corporis et huiusmodi’. On Eph 5.16, v, 240a. ‘Videmus quotidie haec adimpleri: pauperes enim obsecrando loquuntur, divites autem respondent dure’. On Prov 19.24, iii, 558b. ‘Et bene nota ne per istos intelligas eos qui pro necessitate familiae suae industrias exercent mercaturae; hi enim non sunt qui volunt ditescere, sed lucrari ut possint secundum statum proprium vivere filii, &c’. On 1 Tim 6.9, v, 305b. ‘Pondera verbum sibi et non reprehendes reges multiplicantes valde argentum et aurum non sibi, sed reipublicae, ne opprimatur populus tempore publicae necessitatis’. On Dt 17.17, i, 469a. ‘Ab hoc exemplo pecuniae et iocalia ecclesiarum pro redimenda vexatione populi ab infidelibus vexati, sed vexandi bello, licite impenduntur, simul tamen cum toto thesauro regio, ut hic narratur factum. Iniquum siquidem esset inchoare ab expoliatione ecclesiarum, sed, ubi publicus thesaurus non sufficit, ecclesiarum opes subvenire debent’. On 4Kings 12.18, ii, 251a. When Hezechiah does the same a little later, Cajetan takes the opportunity to repeat and reinforce his argument; since Hezechiah is clearly a good and holy man, ‘Et quoniam Ezechias sanctus proculdubio fuit, si obiicitur facto Ioas, omni exceptione maius est exemplum hoc Ezechiae, ut pro redemptione vexationis ab infidelibus liceat exhaustis publicis thesauris ex ecclesiae iocalibus subvenire publicae libertati Christianorum’. On 4 Kings 18.16, ii, 261a. Massimo Firpo, ‘The Cardinal’, in Eugenio Garin (ed.), Renaissance Characters, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 46–97, at p. 80. For another example, see Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias: The Life and Works of Silvestro Mazzolini Da Prierio 1456–1527 (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1997), p. 67.

the bible and reform

73

Cajetan’s strongest words are against usury, an evil for which he has no tolerance.43 The right to practise usury cannot be claimed among the blessings of God conferred on his people; usury, he insists, is against both divine and natural law.44 He has considerable difficulties with the classic proof text in Deuteronomy, appealed to by all who supported the practice of charging interest on a loan: ‘To a foreigner you may lend upon interest, but to your brother, you may not lend upon interest’ (Dt 23.19–20). For Cajetan, usury is always wrong; a fruitless thing (money) cannot be rendered fruitful. This axiom, which is in accord with right reason, the tenth commandment, and Psalm 15.5 (The just man ‘takes no interest on a loan’), must determine the interpretation of the text. This text can only make sense, according to Cajetan, as an expression of the degree of wrongdoing involved: though it is worse to exact interest from your own people than from foreigners, usury is wrong in every instance and can never be justified.45 Running through Cajetan’s biblical commentaries is a diagnosis of the ills of the world and the Church, together with some indications of the remedies needed. He draws attention to signs of decay and corruption, compromise and 43

44

45

On Cajetan’s otherwise accomodating attitude towards emerging capitalism, see John Noonan, The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1957), pp. 407–408; Raymond de Roover, ‘Cardinal Cajetan on “Cambium” or Exchange Dealings’, in Edward P. Mahoney (ed.), Philosophy and Humanism (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 423–433; de Roover, Business, Banking, and Economic Thought in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974); Julius Kirschner, ‘The Moral Problem of Discounting Genoese Paghe, 1450–1550’, afp 47 (1977): pp. 109–167. ‘Et hoc ideo annotaverim ne errares audiendo quod inter benedictiones populi supputatur foenarari aliis, quod peccatum esse contra divini naturalisque praecepta perspicuum est’. On Dt 28.68, i, 489b. Cajetan departs from his usual word-for-word running commentary, paraphrasing this whole passage to illustrate the vehemence with which Moses condemns usury: ‘Non facies mordere fratrem tuum morsu argenti, morsu cibi, morsu omnes rei, quae mordebit. Extraneum facies mordere, et fratrem tuum non facies mordere, ut benedicat tibi Iehovah Elohe tuus in omnibus, ad quae mittes manus tuas super terram, ad quam ingrederis ad haereditandum eam’. On Dt 23.20, i, 479b–480a. ‘Omni ergo ex parte usura est prava, et haec contra Hebraeos usuram tuentes. […] Vallatur enim hinc, et inde praecepto non foenerandi fratribus, ut hinc intelligerent omnes, rationem permittendi peccatum illud, ne fratribus (quos tenentur plus diligere) damnum usurae inferrent’. On Dt 23.20, i, 480a. On Cajetan’s consistent condemnation of usury, including some practices of Christian charitable institutions, see Nelson Minnich, ‘The Function of Sacred Scripture in the Decrees of the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517)’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 18 (1986): pp. 319–329, reprinted in Minnich, Catholic Reformation: Council, Churchmen, Controversies (Aldershot: Variorum, 1993), at pp. 326–327, n. 18.

74

chapter 3

division, in order to call his fellow Christians back to fervent faith, to the unity in charity demanded by the New Testament. However, by far the greatest number of complaints and exhortations refer not to Christians in general, but to Church leadership in particular.

Reform of Pastors, Prelates, and Preachers: The Ideal Pastor The stress on clerical reform, including reform of the papacy itself, was a common feature of Catholic reform thought in the period before the Council of Trent (1545–1563).46 For example, in a notable message given by Adrian vi to his nuncio Francesco Chierigati, to be conveyed to the Imperial Diet of Nürnberg (January 1523), the pope blames the sins of priests and prelates for the suffering being endured by the Church (namely, Lutheranism). He goes on to give assurances of amendment, in order to bring about the longed-for reformation of the whole Church: [to Chierigati:] ‘You will promise that we will expend every effort to reform first this Curia, whence perhaps all this evil has come, so that, as corruption spread from that place to every lower place, the good health and reformation of all may also issue forth. We consider ourselves all the more bound to attend to this, the more we perceive the entire world longing for such a reformation.’47 Cajetan echoes this judgment in a passage written in Gaeta soon after the Sack of Rome (6 May, 1527). He interprets that calamity as a just punishment from God: We, the prelates of Rome, had been called to be salt of the earth but had become good for nothing, concerned only with material goods and the externals of ceremony; for this we were crushed and humiliated, not even by infidels, but by Christians carrying out God’s most just judgment.48 Cajetan’s

46 47 48

John W. O’Malley, Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in the Early Modern Era (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2002), p. 69. John C. Olin (ed.), The Catholic Reformation: Savonarola to Ignatius Loyola (New York: Fordham University Press, 1992), p. 125. ‘Experimur et speciali modo hoc nunc nos Ecclesiae praelati Romae, in praedam, direptionem atque captivitatem dati, non infidelibus, sed Christianis iustissimo Dei iudicio: quia quum in sal terrae electi essemus, evanuimus ac ad nihilum utiles nisi ad externas cerimonias externaque bona. Conculcati etiam corporali captivitate sumus, cum direptione et captivitate totius urbis, die 6. Maii, hoc anno 1527’. On Mt 5.13, iv, 24a.

the bible and reform

75

evaluation of the Sack—that it was a deserved punishment—contrasts with that of, for example, Thomas More, who attributed the Sack of Rome to the wickedness of the Lutherans.49 Entirely absent from Cajetan’s estimation of events is any criticism of the forces from the north. In his biblical commentaries, Cajetan never gives a complete picture of the ideal bishop or preacher or teacher. However, whether in detailed comment on a germane passage, or in an unprovoked aside, he constantly draws attention to their calling and the standards that ought to apply. At times it is clear that he is thinking of a bishop, or of a preaching friar; frequently, however, the reference is less precise. For this reason, the remarks that follow move freely between prelates, pastors, and preachers. No attempt has been made to reconstruct specific portraits of the ideals and vices that Cajetan sees belonging to each— he allows the biblical text to prompt his comments, rather than compose a systematic reform programme or a formal treatise such as Contarini’s De officio episcopi (1516), or Paolo Cortesi’s De cardinalatu (1510), or Querini and Giustiniani’s Libellus.50 The key to Cajetan’s thought concerning Church leadership is the imitation of Christ and the apostles. He draws attention to the virtues he sees in them: they are humble, prayerful, sound in preaching and teaching, gentle with the wayward, zealous in calling sinners to repentance, irreproachable in the use of money, always delighting in the good. The chief ills among the Church’s leaders, most frequently noted, are greed for glory and greed for money. Prompted by Paul’s admonitions to Timothy, Cajetan sums up: a bishop must be hospitable (‘a rare virtue’); learned, though not necessarily with a degree, but with sufficient learning for his role as a teacher; not a drinker, nor a violent man (it is a disgrace for a bishop to strike anyone, even with just cause; he should have someone else do it for him!—perhaps a reference to the standard practice of handing criminals over to the secular arm, though maybe a specific reference to Julius ii); nor should he be a lover of money (a ubiquitous vice among bishops).51 49 50

51

See Kenneth Gouwens, Remembering the Renaissance: Humanist Narratives of the Sack of Rome (Leiden: Brill, 1998), p. 170. Gasparo Contarini, The Office of a Bishop = De Officio Viri Boni et Probi Episcopi (Milwaukee, wi: Marquette University Press, 2002); Kathleen Weil-Garris and John F. D’Amico, ‘The Renaissance Cardinal’s Ideal Palace: A Chapter from Cortesi’s “De Cardinalatu”’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 35 (1980): pp. 45–123; Alberigo, ‘The Reform of the Episcopate in the Libellus to Leo x’. ‘Hospitalem, rara est haec hodie virtus, doctorem, non laurea, sed scientia sufficiente ad docendum […], non percussorem, quamvis Paulus de iniusta percussione loquatur, turpe tamen est episcopo etiam iuste percutere. Debet enim aliena, non propria manu,

76

chapter 3

Ministers of the New Testament are given a high calling. They are not simply delegates of Christ; they are co-workers of God and Christ.52 Cajetan reminds them that, in theory, it is on account of Jesus alone that they have assumed this office.53 Jesus, setting an example to all Christians but especially to his ministers, emptied himself of glory and honour. Cajetan can think of no bishop or prince who has followed this advice and lowered himself in rank or title.54 For those who are of high rank, success should foster companionship: any kind of promotion, be it ecclesiastical or civil, should not distance us from our friends. Cajetan includes the resurrection among those promotions that might have tempted Jesus to become aloof. The risen Jesus, however, calls his friends ‘brothers’. This is not only a theological statement about the unity of humanity with the risen Christ, but also an example to those whose careers flourish: they should become more intimate with their friends than they were before.55 Cajetan commends the practice of the seventy-two disciples returning from their preaching tour, telling Jesus all that they had seen and done: so should preachers be prepared to report back to their superiors. He also commends the reception given them by Jesus: superiors, in their turn, should be prepared to listen, to take notice of them, and to provide for their rest.56 Following the example set by Christ and the apostles, the Church’s ministers must strive unceasingly for the conversion of sinners.57 They must never

52 53 54

55

56

57

percutere delinquentes’. On 1 Tim 3.2–3, v, 297a. ‘Nec loquor de simonia, sed proprie turpi lucro sparso nimis in episcopis ecclesiarum Christi’. On 1Tim 3.2–3, v, 297a–b. ‘Turpe est episcopo etiam iuste percutere manu propria’. On Titus 1.7, v, 321a. ‘Ministri Novi Testamenti non sunt instituti puri legati, sed legati cooperantes Deo et Christo’. On 2 Cor 6.1, v, 173a. ‘Bene nota illis qui exercent officium solum propter Iesum’. On 2Cor 4.5, v, 164a. ‘Hoc est exemplum summae humilitatis rarissimos habens imitatores. Consideramus enim quae dignitatis et authoritatis nostrae sunt, et tuemur illa. Nec ulla ratione flectimur, ut ea quae minuunt authoritatem nostram nobis inseramus. Nusquam invenitur episcopus qui, episcopus cum sit, minuat suum nomen, et similiter de quolibet alio principe, imo de quolibet alio homine in suo gradu discurre’. On Phil 2.7, v, 250a. ‘Quos passibilis et humilis appellaverat amicos, modo immortalis et gloriosus appellat fratres […] ut ab exemplo disceremus exhibere nos amicis magis intimos cum promoti fuerimus ad aliquem superiorem gradum quam prius’. On Jn 20.17, iv, 422b. ‘Ideo hoc scriptum est ut inde discant missi referre gesta, et praelati studiosos se exhibere ad audiendum quae praedicatores eorum dicunt’. On Lk 9.10, iv, 210b. ‘Providet pius ac prudens magister discipulis de aliquantula quiete, instruens praelatos quid agere debeant cum ministris suis’. On Mk 6.30–31, iv, 146b. ‘Quocirca et Dei et apostolorum exemplo instruimur praelati ad submissas actiones amplectendas, utiles ad conversionem peccatorum’. On 2Cor 5.20, v, 172a.

the bible and reform

77

overlook those who have been excluded by others.58 Even the one who is justly excluded, through excommunication or some other censure (such as those imposed within religious communities), is not to be treated as an enemy but to be instructed and exhorted in the faith that brings salvation.59 Cajetan sides with Paul against the false prophets, who were not only severe with the wayward but provocative of their elders and disruptive of their ministry. Paul shows himself to be a genuinely spiritual pastor by his gentle, reconciling spirit.60 This gentle spirit is typical of Jesus,61 and to be imitated by all who minister in his name. In a sermon of Cajetan’s Dominican contemporary, Tommaso Radini Tedeschi, secular princes were also urged to cultivate the virtue of gentleness (mansuetudo).62 The ministers of the Church must delight in the virtues of the people and the gifts the Spirit has given to the Church. No bishop, no ecclesiastical authority, is empowered to act or command against any virtue, or any counsel of perfection.63 There can be no law against the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

58

59

60

61 62 63

Jesus goes in search of the man born blind, whom he has healed and whom the Jews have excommunicated from the synagogue on account of his growing faith in Jesus, ‘ut instrueret pastores ecclesiae ut essent studiosi erga repulsos ab aliis propter nomen Iesu’. On Jn 9.35, iv, 357a. ‘Hinc tractum est quod licitum est monere excommunicatos, et instruere et hortari ad ea quae salutis sunt’. On 2 Thess 3.15, v, 290b. ‘Pensa rigorem primitivae ecclesiae, ex hoc quod propter otium et huiusmodi venalia excommunicabantur moniti non se corrigentes, ut erubescerent. Intelligoque non ecclesiasticas censuras quibus hodie ecclesia utitur, sed censuras religiosas quibus claustrales utuntur, quae non censurae ecclesiasticae, sed poenae quaedam sunt separantes a templo, vel conversatione fratrum, vel a mensa fratrum, et huiusmodi. Tales erant istae ad Thessalonicenses indictae poenae pro iis vanitatibus, non excommunicationes decretalium’. On 2 Thess 3.14, v, 290a–b. ‘Hoc enim familiare est novis doctoribus provocare priores ad certamen; tanquam ipsi doceant ea quae sunt legis divinae, nec alii possint resistere’. On Gal 5.25, v, 217b. ‘Haec est forma reparandi lapsos, ut actio correctiva procedat in spiritu mansuetudinis, ad differentiam eorum qui impetuose saeviunt in delinquentes. In hoc vult cognosci vere spirituales pastores, quod in spiritu mansuetudinis procedunt ad reparandum non ad puniendum’. On Gal 6.1, v, 218a. E.g., ‘mansuetissimus magister’, on Jn 8.34, iv, 349b. Michael Tavuzzi, ‘An Unedited Oratio by Tommaso Radini Tedeschi o.p. (1488–1527)’, ahp 32 (1994): pp. 43–63, at 55–57. ‘Hic est textus toties citatus de potestate ecclesiastica quod nihil potest adversus bonos mores, imo nec adversus meliora bona (qualia sunt consilia Christi) quoniam hoc non esset posse in aedificationem, sed in destructionem spiritualem’. On 2Cor 10.8, v, 188a–b. ‘Et bene nota adversus huiusmodi non esse legem, ut intelligas nullum legem praecipere adversus virtutis actus, ac per hoc nullum principem, etiam ecclesiasticum, posse praecipere adversus virtutis actus’. On Gal 5.23, v, 217a.

78

chapter 3

Rather, a bishop ought to boast (magnificari) of the increase of virtue and merit among his people. Indeed, a great part of the ministry is to love what is good; such a pastor is a joy to his people.64 Cajetan stresses the degree to which the fruitfulness of the Church flows from the efforts of the pastors.65 He notes that it is a great affliction to a pastor when his people will not be corrected.66 Yet he is understanding of the failings of the laity where they have been led astray by the poor example of their priests.67 Like the king in one of his parables, Jesus desires not only the restoring to health of sinners who lie within the Church, but also the initiation of those who wander without, those who are hedged in by different laws or beliefs. All of these are invited to the heavenly banquet. When Cajetan reads that these are to be forced to enter (‘modus quodammodo violentus’), he argues that, while none will be taken against their will, some will be forced to change their will. His example is Paul, whose conversion was precipitated by just such a forceful intervention on God’s part.68 Cajetan insists that there is no justification in scripture for the use of force to spread the gospel. Christ sent the apostles into the world equipped only with gospel teaching, the sacraments, the grace of the Holy Spirit, and his enduring presence.69 Against the temptations of the devil,

64

65 66 67 68

69

‘In vobis magnificari. Non in nobisipsis. Haec est vera secundum Deum glorificatio, cum pastores et doctores sperant magnificari in augmento meritorum eorum qui sunt eis crediti, non in propria gloria, non in divitiis et opibus’. On 2Cor 10.15, v, 189b. ‘Magna pars praelati est esse amatorem bonorum. Magna felicitas subditorum est bonos amari ab eo qui praesidet. Fiunt siquidem et quasi pullulantes germinant boni ubi amantur’. On Titus 1.8, v, 321a. ‘Ut hinc intelligas quo ordine fructus populi ex praelatorum dependet studio’. On Ps 45.17, iii, 166b. ‘Magna afflictio est pastoris animarum, peccatum quasi incorrigibile populi’. On Num 11.11, i, 364b. ‘Facile enim in sacrilegia laici labuntur, licentia sacerdotum invitati’. On Num 18.5, i, 385a. ‘Non solum peccatores intra ecclesiam existentes, sed etiam ex iis qui extra ecclesiam vagantur et qui septi legibus aut dogmatibus contrariis ecclesiae sunt, vult Deus coeleste intrare convivium. […] Non quod compellatur voluntas, sed mutantia voluntatem talia sunt ut compellatur quis mutare voluntatem, ut vides in exemplo Pauli’. On Lk 14.23, iv, 237b. ‘Populus messiae non acquiretur, nec propagabitur, nec servabitur, armis bellicis. […] media ad acquirendum, propagandum, ac servandum Christianum populum instituit doctrinam evangelicam, sacramentaque, ac Spiritus sancti gratiam cum sua perpetua praesentia’. On Is 2.4, iii, 642b. On Cajetan’s earlier advocacy of this same principle see on st ii-ii, 66, 8 [1]: ‘Cajetan is unequivocally firm in his conviction that holy words and holy lives, not armies, are the instruments of conversion, and he pronounces the wars of

the bible and reform

79

the only weapon Jesus used, thereby teaching others how to resist temptation, was the weapon of scripture.70 As is to be expected, Cajetan has much to say about the ministry of preaching. He stresses to his fellow clergy that this ministry is neither optional nor frivolous. Bishops, on account of not only their profession but also a specific command of the Lord, must be preachers.71 Towards the end of his commentary on the Secunda secundae (completed in February 1517), Cajetan reflected on the nature of the episcopate. One very practical question that arises is this: Should a bishop be a teacher and scholar of canon law or of theology? Some, he comments, argue in favour of the former: in earlier times bishops had to fight against heresy with the sword of theology, but now a bishop’s task is more administrative and requires primarily a knowledge of canon law. For Cajetan, this is far wide of the mark: the office of a bishop is to preach, and the subject of his preaching is not the law but the gospel; now the gospel is to be found in the scriptures, the study of which is truly and properly the science of theology. For Cajetan, the office of preaching is a permanent feature of the episcopate; it is imposed on today’s bishops at their consecration no less than on those of old, even though, he complains (in the words of the psalmist), there is none who actually fulfils it.72 Preachers cannot pick and choose the message they deliver, but must proclaim all that God has revealed and commanded.73 They are bound to their office no less firmly than were the apostles before them, but woe to them (Cajetan has ‘woe to us’) if they do not preach the gospel.74 They must therefore be

70 71 72

73

74

subjugation which the Europeans were waging against the new peoples to be unjust and immoral’. O’Malley, Praise and Blame, p. 236. On Mt 4.4, iv, 16b, cited above, n. 2. ‘Mandatur siquidem episcopo, cum ordinatur ut praedicet populo Dei, ita quod non solum ex professione propria, sed ex mandato obligatur’. On 1 Tim 6.14, v, 306a. ‘Sed hi longe aberrant. Tum quia officium episcoporum, quod eis in consecratione imponitur, est praedicare. Materia autem praedicationis non est ius, sed evangelium, dicente Domino, Praedicate evangelium [Mk 16.15], sub quo sacra scriptura comprehenditur, quae est vere et proprie scientia theologiae. Nec minus tenentur hodie quam olim episcopi ad praedicandum. Quia non minus hodie quam olim eis officium hoc imponitur, quamvis hodie tanti sit abusio quod, non est qui faciat, fere, usque ad unum. [Ps 14.1,3]’. On st ii-ii, 185, 4 [iv]. ‘Perpende debitum pastoris ad annuntiandum non aliquid sed omne consilium Dei, tum de iis quae sunt fidei, tum de iis quae sunt morum’. On Acts 20.27, iv, 472a. Lateran v mandated that all sermons be based on scripture, see Minnich, ‘The Function of Sacred Scripture’, p. 329. ‘Et hinc patet quod quemadmodum apostoli tenebantur ad evangelizandum ex iniuncto

80

chapter 3

both orthodox and zealous, above the vain curiosities that distract people from making progress in the spiritual life.75 Cajetan is content to praise eloquence of speech in a preacher; many rush to hear the wise man who speaks well and he is rightly commended for his wisdom. If only, he adds, those preachers who can attract people with their eloquence would teach doctrine and not fables.76 Such teachers scandalously undermine not only the credibility of their own ministry but also that of others.77 Cajetan is uncharacteristically caustic about those preachers who confuse their listeners with quibbles over words (pugnas verborum). The gospel has no place for such hair-splitting which leads the hearer astray.78 In a passage that resembles the criticisms levelled typically by the humanists against the scholastics, Cajetan rails against those who, in Paul’s words, have ‘a morbid craving for controversy and disputes about words’ (1 Tim 6.4). Cajetan depicts the sick mind, arguing feverishly, but knowing nothing of the truth.79 Connected to these last remarks are Cajetan’s thoughts about the need to reform the liturgy. He complains about the excesses of some liturgical music: it is better to have none at all than to have an unintelligible cacophony.80 He claims the authority of Paul in support of vernacular prayers (echoing the opinion of Erasmus on the same passage). Where prayers are said publicly, in

75

76

77 78 79 80

sibi officio, ita tenentur modo praelati quibus ex officio incumbit praedicare, et vae est nobis nisi evangelizemus’. On 1 Cor 9.16, v, 114a. ‘Et hinc habetur quod non loquitur de ministris docentibus haereses, aut corrumpentibus vitam et mores Christianorum, sed de docentibus curiosa et minus utilia et similia vana occupantia Christianas mentes, ac per hoc impedientia a profectu spiritualis vitae, et a notitia utilium et expedientium ad progressum spiritualis vitae’. On 1Cor 3.15, v, 95b. ‘Vir autem dulcis eloquii docendo alios multiplicabit doctrinam. Currunt enim homines ad eloquia dulcia et sapientes quidem laudant quoad intelligentiam. Ad dulcia vero eloquia pergunt pro instructione et sic vir dulcis eloquii addit docere, accumulat et multiplicat actus docendi. Utinam praedicatores trahentes homines dulci eloquio adderent doctrinam et non fabellas’. On Prov 16.21, iii, 553b. ‘Quinetiam hodie doctores scandalizantes, non solum seipsos vituperant, sed quantum ex eis est, vertunt in dubium sanctum aliorum ministerium’. On 2Cor 6.3, v, 173b. ‘Et vere experimur quod in materia evangelica pugnare verbis ad nihil est utile, et auditorum mentes subvertit non penetrantium veritatem’. On 2Tim 2.14, v, 312a. On 1Tim 6.4, v, 304b. For text, see p. 110, n. 30 below. ‘Unde discere debemus eligibilius esse ut in Ecclesia dicantur divina (horae scilicet Canonicae et Missae) intelligibiliter sine melodia musica, quam sic ut non intelligi possint, qualiter sunt tam particulae quae sonis committuntur organorum, quam quas cantus reddit imperceptibiles, vel multitudine clamoris occupantis, vel qualitate cantus notas magis, quam verba concinentis’. On 1 Cor 14.19, v, 137a–b.

the bible and reform

81

the hearing of both clergy and people, it would contribute more to the building up of the Church if they were said in the vernacular.81 For Cajetan, the one who preaches and teaches must also, like Christ, be one who prays.82 Cajetan commends to clerics a zeal for the divine liturgy, but, like Jesus, they should also seek out quiet lonely places for prayer where they can avoid the temptation to bask in human praise.83 As Jesus rose early to pray, so his preachers should snatch any time that comes to them for the same purpose; as Jesus raised his mind to God in prayer after preaching, so likewise should his preachers.84 It should come as no surprise that Cajetan identifies the love and abuse of money as a great danger to the Church’s clergy, recognised since apostolic times. Paul condemns those who use the gospel to make a profit, and Peter condemns the greed of false teachers.85 Cajetan laments the wealth of Church institutions which has so distracted people from the goal of living a holy life, and he is anxious that preachers should not acquire the image of bankers or financiers. When Paul encourages the Corinthians to begin saving money for the church in Jerusalem, Cajetan emphasises what is only implicit in the text, namely that this money is to be saved at home and not collected by the clergy. He identifies those causes in his own day that have occasioned financial abuses, undermining the Church’s authority and giving the impression that preachers are more interested in profit than in the gospel: indulgences, crusades, hospitals.86 One diatribe against the selling of indulgences, labelling it a ‘monstrous’

81

82

83

84

85 86

‘Ex hac Pauli doctrina habetur quod melius ad aedificationem ecclesiae est orationes publicas quae audiente populo dicuntur, dici lingua communi clericis et populo, quam dici latine’. On 1Cor 14.17, v, 137a. This opinion is reiterated in Responsiones, v, 470. See Michael O’Connor, ‘The Meritorious Human Life of Jesus: Renaissance Humanist Tendencies in the Thomism of Cardinal Cajetan’, New Blackfriars 81 (June 2000): pp. 285– 296. ‘Adverte, clerice, quantum erat studium erga honorem divini cultus’. On Lev 4.12, i, 281a. ‘Ad exemplum aliorum doctorum, post tot miracula petit locum desertum, tum propter quietem orationis, tum ob fugam gloriae humanae’. On Lk 4.42, iv, 195b. ‘Hinc apparet quod Iesus summo mane solus recessit e domo in desertum ad orandum, exemplum praedicatoribus praebens rapiendi tempus aliquod ad orandum, ad mentem in Deum elevandam, precando quae sunt salutis’. On Mk 1.36, iv, 136a–b. ‘Verum hominem se monstrat orando, exemplumque aliis praebet post praedicationem, mentem ad Deum levandi’. On Mk 6.46, iv, 147a. ‘Contra praedicatores Evangelium vertentes in quaestum, manifeste loquitur, longe a mercenariis locans veros Christi praedicatores’. On 2 Cor 2.17, v, 158a. On 1Pet 5.3, v, 379b. ‘Ne pariat suscipientibus eleemosynam relaxionem potius morum quam laborum: opulentae siquidem eleemosynae susceptae reddunt quandoque suscipientes remissos et

82

chapter 3

practice, abusing Christians for money, shows that there was no monopoly of indignation at the kind of sharp practice made notorious by Tetzel: such figments are foreign to Christianity, they are the inventions of greedy fraudsters swindling the faithful.87 Denis Janz sees here a proof of a change of Cajetan’s theological position on indulgences; it is perhaps more accurate to describe this text as a condemnation of an abuse (driven by greed) rather than of the practice itself (which is never questioned).88 For Cajetan there can only be two explanations of profit-seeking: need (necessitas) or greed (avaritia). He insists that religion (pietas) is never an excuse. Christ never taught his disciples to seek profit, nor even to beg.89 The mention of begging (mendicatio) in these last remarks is curious; there is no mention of begging in the text commented on and Cajetan introduces it gratuitously. Here, and elsewhere, Cajetan takes occasion from the acts of Christ and the apostles to comment on the exercise of poverty in religious life. This issue is one on which he revises an earlier opinion and over which he parts company with Aquinas. Aquinas had argued that Jesus was a beggar. In his

87

88

89

tepidos, tum ad debita exercitia tum ad sanctiores mores, ut experientia utinam non testaretur in opulentis monasteriis, ecclesiis, &c’. On 2Cor 8.13, v, 182b. ‘[Secundo] ordinat quod eleemosyna oblata pro sanctis in Hierusalem recondatur non in communi deposito, non apud aliquos ad hoc electos, sed quilibet apud seipsum recondat quod dedit, ut quilibet pecuniae datae cuius erat dominus sit depositarius. Et huius status ratio creditur, ne quisquam obiiceret quod quaestor esset Paulus, quod quaestores essent clerici praedicatores et universaliter Christiani; denigrat siquidem non parum et exauthorat Christianam ecclesiam quaestus, quo plena hodie est propter indulgentias, cruciatas, hospitalia, &c’. On 1Cor 16.2, v, 149b–150a. ‘Non longe ab istis sunt praedicatores quaestus, qui abutuntur populi Christiani devotione ad quaestum, qui ignoranter aut temere praedicare audent, quod solventes carolinum aut ducatum provocata indulgentia plenaria, sunt in eo statu ac si tunc baptizati fuissent, et similiter quod liberant animam unam a purgatorio. Haec enim monstra sunt, et negotiationes de Christiano populo. Nescit Christiana religio haec figmenta, sed adinventiones sunt eorum qui in avaritia fictis verbis de Christianis negotiantur, abutentes illis in quaestum’. On 2Pet 2.3, v, 383b. Denis R. Janz, Luther and Late-Medieval Thomism (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1983), pp. 140–141. Bernhard Felmberg is more circumspect in his evaluation of this passage, in Die Ablasstheologie Kardinal Cajetans, 1469–1534 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 351– 353. ‘Nunquam Christus docuit discipulos suos quaestum, nunquam ordinavit ut quaererent, nunquam ut mendicarent. Paulus mente corruptis et a veritate destitutis attribuit doctrinam dicentem quaestum esse pietatem. Quaestum autem est aut necessitatis aut avaritiae, nunquam autem pietatis. Et est sermo de quaesto per se; secus autem est de quaesto pro pauperibus Hierusalem’. On 1 Tim 6.5, v, 305a.

the bible and reform

83

commentary on Aquinas’s text, prior to February 1517, Cajetan’s agreement with Aquinas is rather half-hearted.90 A decade later, commenting on the gospels, he reverses his conclusions altogether, admitting that, in an earlier work, he had ‘written otherwise, following others’.91 Cajetan never misses an opportunity to affirm that Jesus and his disciples did not live in poverty as beggars, but possessed some property and money in common, donated by others. Although the disciples were sent out with instructions to take no money for their journey, this is taken not as an absolute rule, but as a preparatory discipline for the preacher.92 Furthermore, not only did Jesus and the apostles not live from begging, but from their common purse they were in the habit of giving to those who were indeed beggars. Those who dispute about the perfection of religious poverty should note that having a common purse was not an imperfection for Jesus and the apostles.93 Since Jesus himself had money, it is blasphemous to suggest that to do so is a moral imperfection.94 Cajetan argues that the life instituted by Jesus among his disciples continued after Pentecost. There is no mention of any vow of poverty, and even though 90 91

92 93

94

On st ii-ii, 187, 4 [i]. ‘Iesus non fuit mendicus, quia nunquam legitur petisse nisi a samaritana potum aquae, quod constat non proprium esse mendicare, cum hoc cuilibet maiori possit accidere, quamvis alibi sequendo alios aliter scripserimus. Sed fuit in paupertate mendicorum, quia nihil dominio habuit proprium, nisi vestes. […] vivebat autem non ex mendicatis rebus sed ex oblatis a devotis personis’. On Mt 5.1, iv, 21a–b. ‘Non enim hoc in loco privat apostolos pretio rerum et alimentis, sed tantum ordinat ac disponit de itinere eorum ad praedicandum, ut clare textus sonat’. On Mt 10.10, iv, iv, 50a. ‘Hinc clare apparet nec Iesum nec Apostolos vixisse mendicando: sed potius dando mendicis. Apparet etiam hinc quod non solum mulieres sequentem Iesum ministrabant Iesu de facultatibus suis: sed etiam Iesus habebat marsupium pecuniarum apud Iudam, non tantum ad victum, sed etiam ad erogandum egenis. Nisi enim saepe Iesus praecepisset dari egenis, non putassent discipuli ad hoc fuisse verba dicta. Quod etiam apparet ex murmure discipulorum in Bethania: Potuit unguentum istud venundari et dari pauperibus. Et haec notent qui de paupertatis perfectione disputant: ut intelligant non derogare perfectioni Christi et Apostolorum, habere commune marsupium non solum ad proprias necessitates, sed ad subveniendum pauperibus’. On Jn 13.29, iv, 385a. ‘Hinc apparet quod Iesus non ibat mendicando, sed pretio cibos emendo. Apparet rursus quod proprium, in communi tamen, habebat. Non enim de alieno sed proprio emebant cibos. Habeturque hinc non imperfectionis habere proprium, nisi quis blasphemet, dicendo in Christo inveniri imperfectionem moralem’. On Jn 4.8, iv, 311a. On poverty and religious life, see also on Mt 19.21, iv, 87a–b; on Mk 6.9, iv, 145a–b; on st iii, 40, 11, [ii]. The Franciscans too could not settle the question whether Jesus begged or not; see Kelly S. Johnson, The Fear of Beggars: Stewardship and Poverty in Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), p. 33.

84

chapter 3

the first Christians sold their possessions, they obviously kept their houses— seemingly held in common.95 Furthermore, the decision to sell anything was never made under compulsion, but only ever freely.96 Paul argues that he could have submitted to the servitude of making his living from the gospel—Jesus had expressly allowed this—but he chose not to, in order to leave no grounds for suspicion of his motives.97 Thus Cajetan distinguishes between living off alms as a preacher (which echoes New Testament practice) and begging (which does not). Cajetan’s longest and most expansive condemnation of clerical immorality is reserved for simony—the buying or selling of ecclesiastical offices and benefits.98 Here the need for reform was great and the inertia almost absolute. The crime of simony, Cajetan insists, is not simply a matter of ecclesiastical prohibition; it is intrinsically wrong. Cajetan’s words, far from discussing abstract possibilities, refer to real situations and clearly address those for whom the principles involved were less than self-evident. He specifically rules out one line of reasoning, which must have appealed to some with uneasy but not inflexible consciences, based on a specious distinction between offices held ex officio and those held ex privilegio.99 Eager to define the extent of simoniacal actions, he explains at length why the sin of simony includes the sale of offices that may 95

96 97

98

99

There are two things to note about the practice of the Jerusalem Church: ‘Alterum quod nisi Christus hanc instituisset, non dixisset Lucas primum hanc vitam introducens, erant autem perseverantes. Alterum est quod nulla fit mentio de voto paupertatis, sed tantummodo quod erant illis omnia communia, quod vendebant possessiones et substantias, &c. Nec dicitur quod vendiderint domos in quibus habitabant, sed inter omnia eis communia etiam domus intelligendae sunt communes’. On Acts 2.45, iv, 438a. On Acts 5.4, iv, 438a. ‘Quod autem dicit, nullo horum usus sum, refertur ad tot argumenta, quibus manifeste convincitur quod quod etiam si non essem apostolus Christi, posse tanquam praedicator evangelii vivere alieno sumptu. Et hinc manifestat se esse liberum ab huiusmodi servitute, quae est vivere alieno sumptu. Est enim haec nonnulla servitutis species, quam etiam pro nobis suscipere voluit Christus’. On 1 Cor 9.15, v, 113b. Cajetan had dealt with this issue already in three quaestiones written for Julius ii in 1503– 1504. On curial simony, see Barbara McClung Hallman, Italian Cardinals, Reform and the Church as Property (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985). ‘Nec obstat si dicatur quod cardinalibus non ex officio cardinalatus, sed ex privilegio competit hoc officium. Quoniam aliud est cardinales eligant, et aliud est quod soli cardinales eligant, et quamvis hoc secundum (videlicet quod soli eligant) conveniat eis ex privilegio, primum tamen convenit eis suapte natura, qua sunt primi clerici Romani. Nam ad clerum Romanum spectat suapte natura electio Pontificis Romani. Et haec ideo dixerim ne aliquis fallatur audiendo officia licite vendi, ut sciat distinguere et intelligere quod hoc verificatur de officio non spirituali, et quod emere aut vendere officium spirituale curae

the bible and reform

85

not in themselves be sacramental (i.e., not involve an actual rite of ordination, such as deacon, priest, or bishop). A bishop who buys the papacy, or a cardinalate, though not purchasing episcopal ordination (he is presumed already to be a bishop), is nevertheless purchasing the care of souls that accompanies such offices and, in doing so, is purchasing spiritual realities. This makes him a simoniac. Similarly, a cardinal is given responsibility for the spiritual care of part of the universal Church; and when he takes part in the election of a pope there can be no doubt that he is exercising a spiritual responsibility. If he allows the exercise of this responsibility to be purchased, then he is clearly guilty of simony.100 As is clear from the foregoing, Cajetan does not exclude the papacy from the ambit of concern and criticism. Indeed, biblical texts allow him to imply that the papacy, no less than other offices, must go through a purification of motive and a moderation of excess.

The Papacy Peter and the Papacy For Cajetan’s understanding of the papacy, the key text is Mt 16.18–19, Jesus’s words to Peter after he has confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God: Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail

100

animarum (sive in parte) simonia est suapte natura (venditur enim donum Dei quod vere solus Deus communicat hominibus, ut scilicet officium curae animarum Deo proprium homo participet)’. On Acts 8.20, iv, 448b. ‘Unde si quis consecratus episcopus emeret papatum, procul dubio non emeret nisi officium curae animarum, quoniam iam consecratus erat episcopus, et huius officii emptio simoniacum ipsum constitueret. Et similiter si quis sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae cardinalatum emeret, officium spirituale emeret. Nam assumitur cardinalis Ecclesiae Romanae in partem solicitudinis proculdubio spiritualis curae universalis ecclesiae. Eiusdem siquidem naturae sunt tota cura et pars curae. Ipsum autem officium curae universalis ecclesiae (quod totum est in summo Pontifice) spirituale constat esse, ac per hoc partes eius ad quas Cardinales assumuntur spirituales oportet intelligi. Ad idem quoque genus officii spectat electio spiritualis pastoris, et propterea cum Cardinales ad eligendum quoque summum Pastorem eligantur, indeque officium eorum spirituale constat esse’. On Acts 8.20, iv, 448b.

86

chapter 3

against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. In Cajetan’s comments, the doctrinal claims of the papacy are not understated. Peter is said to have been given a special revelation from God and to have received the keys of knowledge and government from Christ.101 Cajetan briefly explains the pun on rock/Peter, but then refers the inquisitive reader to his De divina institutione pontificatus Romani pontificis (1521) for further detail, ‘in order to avoid repetition’.102 Cajetan’s exegesis immediately introduces qualifications. First, the gates of hell will certainly not prevail against the Church; but this is not a promise that temporal powers, wealth, and comforts will be preserved. It is the Church herself, defined as the gathering of the faithful in faith, hope, and charity, which is assured God’s protection. Moreover, according to the lessons of history, the Church actually thrives when poorest, when persecuted, when prevailed against.103 (Cajetan was writing this part of his commentary on Matthew in the immediate aftermath of the Sack of Rome in 1527.) Second, the keys are indeed promised to Peter (‘tibi dabo claves’); but they are keys to the kingdom of heaven: his entire authority refers to spiritual matters, spiritual goods ordered to the salvation of souls. Any temporal power or worldly jurisdiction claimed by Peter can only be justified if it is necessary to the kingdom of heaven.104 Cajetan is here distancing himself from developments in the theory of papal power arising under Gregory vii and Innocent iii, whereby the keys were understood to indicate two powers: spiritual and tem-

101 102 103

104

See Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill, 1972), pp. 39–45. ‘Vide huius lectionis mysteria per nos latius discussa in opusculo De institutione pontificatus a Iesu Christo, ne eadem repetamus’. On Mt 16.18, iv, 76a. ‘Non dicit adversus delicias, divitias, temporalesque potentatus eius, sed adversus eam, quae constat ex congregatione fidelium in una fide, spe et charitate. Immo quanto contra ecclesiae temporalia magis praevaluerunt, tanto magis ecclesiae aucta est numero, vel merito, ut patet in actibus apostolorum, gestis martyrum et comparatione ecclesiae divitis ad olim pauperem’. On Mt 16.18, iv, 76a. ‘Tota Petri potestas refertur ad regnum coelorum, ad gubernandum mundum in ordine ad regnum coelorum, in ordine ad salutem animarum, in ordine ad ea quibus regnum coelorum in hominibus servatur ac augetur quae constant esse bona spiritualia. Quo fit ut temporalia non comprehendantur sub potestate Petri, nisi relata ad spiritualia’. On Mt 16.19, iv, 76b.

the bible and reform

87

poral. Eamon Duffy finds this theory depicted in Perugino’s fresco in the Sistine Chapel, where Christ hands a golden key (spiritual authority) and a base metal key (temporal authority) to Peter.105 Third, Peter is given power to bind on earth. Cajetan interprets this strictly: the power to bind on earth excludes any power over those under the earth, in hell and in purgatory. He cannot know their circumstances, therefore he cannot have any jurisdiction over them. They are now under the sole jurisdiction of Christ in heaven.106 Here Cajetan is reiterating the position he developed in a treatise shortly after he met Luther in Augsburg (15 October 1518) and in a subsequent quaestio; these texts can be plausibly seen as correctives to the excessive view of Tetzel (among others) on the near-mechanical functioning of indulgences for the dead.107 Furthermore, Peter’s power to bind on earth is limited by what can, or will, be bound in heaven. If what he binds on earth is to be ratified in heaven, then he cannot act casually or wilfully or wrongfully. To suggest that such binding and loosing would be automatically ratified in heaven is not only foolish but blasphemous. Thus Cajetan refuses to allow Peter to become proud in his power; rather he must fear.108 After he has repented, he is bound to the task of strengthening his brothers in faith. For Cajetan, this wording is crucial: Peter must strengthen, not dominate; the other apostles are his brothers, not his subjects.109

105

106

107 108

109

Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (3rd edn., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), pp. 185–186. See Natascia Villani, Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum: il primato di Pietro nel pensiero di Tommaso de Vio (Naples: Editoriale Scientifica, 2007); Benoît Schmitz, ‘Claves regni coelorum: le sens d’ une métaphore entre hérésiologie et ecclésiologie (xvie siècle)’, Bulletin du centre d’études médiévales d’Auxerre, Hors-série 7 (2013), accessed 29 May 2015. url: http://cem.revues.org/12786; doi: 10.4000/cem.12786. ‘Limitabitur hinc potestas Petri ad ea quae super terram liganda, aut solvenda sunt, ad differentiam eorum quae sunt sub terra, qualia sunt quae sunt apud inferos aut purgatorium. Illa enim sicut exempta sunt a cognitione Petri, non enim potest Petrus cognoscere causas eorum, ita exempta sunt a iurisdictione Petri. Transierunt siquidem a foro militantis ecclesiae ad forum Iesu Christi regnantis in coelo’. On Mt 16.19, iv, 76b. Cajetan Responds, pp. 88, 272. ‘Admiranda efficacia ut ligatio a Petro facta super terram penetret coelos, sed tam stupenda efficacia quemadmodum terribilis est ligatio a Petro, ita libranda traditur ab ipso Petro. Colligere siquidem hinc potest, et debet quod non ad libitum ligat super terram, sed tunc tantum quando vinculum ratificatur in coelis, alioquin voluntarias immo etiam malas Petri ligationes et solutiones, coelestis cogeretur curia approbare, quod est non solum stultum, sed blasphemum’. On Mt 16.19, iv, 76b. ‘Officium confirmandi fratres praedicit futurum Petri. Et hinc tollit occasionem recidivae contentionis. Sed vide quod non subditos sed fratres vult haberi reliquos a Petro. Vide

88

chapter 3

Alone of the main characters in the gospels, Peter is the subject of several brief but unexpected apostrophes. Cajetan asks him why, having walked on water, he now should take fear at the wind. Cajetan explains that the miracle is tempered by Jesus in order for Peter to learn his own weakness; to discover the degree to which, in using the gifts God has given him, he must be strengthened by God’s assistance.110 In other words, God sometimes withdraws his assistance in order to show Peter that his own strength is insufficient. And at the Last Supper, Peter is warned by Cajetan that in presuming to be more constant than the others, he is setting himself up for a harder fall.111 This warning goes unheeded; at Peter’s first denial of Christ, Cajetan sighs at this demonstration of constancy (‘Ecce Petri constantia’).112 Cajetan observes that, even though his faith did not fail (since Jesus prayed that it would not), Peter’s charity and his confession of faith most certainly did fail. Peter denies Christ not because of a lack of faith, but because of his fear and his lack of love.113 When Jesus repeatedly asks Peter, ‘Do you love me?’, Cajetan comments that the first, second, and third quality required of a pope is that he declare before God and the Church his love of the Lord.114 A particularly striking feature of Cajetan’s exegesis is the way Peter is depicted in the resurrection narratives. In each of the gospels, Peter features pre-

110

111 112 113

114

quod officium non dominandi, sed confirmandi in bono fidei, spei et charitatis praenunciat ac mandat’. On Lk 22.32, iv, 265a. ‘O Petre, securus ambulas in praesenti super aquas fluctuantes, et futuram times a vento validiore procellam? […] Divina dispensatione temperavit Iesus miraculum, ut experiretur Petrus sine divinae gratiae assistentia proprium defectum in utendo divinis donis’. On Mt 14.30, iv, 71a. ‘Petre, nimis de te praesumis, praeferendo constantiam tuam caeteris condiscipulis’. On Mt 26.33, iv, 119b. On Jn 18.17, iv, 413b. ‘Non dicit ut non deficiat charitas tua, non dicit ut non deficiat confessio fidei tuae, sed fides tua, quae est in corde. Corde enim creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem, ad Romanos decimo. Defecit siquidem Petri charitas, defecit et confessio fidei, quum Christum ter negavit, sed non defecit fides, quoniam timore negavit, non incredulitate’. On Lk 22.32, iv, 264b. ‘Ideo Iesus multiplicat quaestionem de amore sui, ut intelligamus primum, secundum et tertium requisitum ad pontificem esse amorem ipsius Iesu, et hinc totum negotium pendere, et sine hoc amore non esse pontificem aut pastorem nisi aequivoce. Ut disceremus nullum esse assumendum ad pastorale officium nisi credatur teste Iesu quod amet ipsum Iesum, hoc est nisi credatur in veritate conscientiae coram Deo quod ille amet Iesum; et similiter ipse qui assumitur in pastorem nisi coram Deo cognoscat se amare Iesum, nulla debet ratione pastorale officium suscipere’. On Jn 21.17, iv, 428a.

the bible and reform

89

eminently, singled out for mention by the angel(s) at the tomb and enjoying his own encounter with the risen Jesus. For many commentators, this demonstrates his primacy within the apostolic group, the collective witnesses to the resurrection. For Cajetan, the focus is different, demonstrating the mercy of God: Peter denied Christ three times and for this reason the angel names him (and him alone), so that God’s great mercy to sinners may be known.115 In this, Peter is aligned with that other great sinner, Mary Magdalene: Jesus wanted to show his grace towards sinners first of all by appearing to her who had been subject to seven demons (i.e., all kinds of sin).116 For Cajetan, Peter is a forgiven sinner, reliant on God’s grace, commissioned to carry out an onerous service. Peter, the Papacy, and Aaron Cajetan’s contemporaries delighted in finding typological anticipations of the papacy in the Old Testament, especially in the lives of Moses and Aaron.117 In Cajetan’s commentaries such pairings are rare, but the few hints there are indicate that he thought the lessons learnt from Aaron could be applied to the situation of his day. The first concerns the promotion of Aaron after his complicity in the idolatry of the people. When they ask for a god in the desert, Aaron fashions for them the Golden Calf. Cajetan notes carefully that, although the people asked for Elohim (a title not unique to Israel), Aaron presents them with yhwh (the Tetragrammaton, the holy name, the name of the God of Israel alone). This is reported, however, to show not Aaron’s wickedness but the mercy of God who forgave so great a blasphemy. Even after such a calamity, he was chosen to be high priest (‘assumpsit ad pontificatum’); so, too, was Peter, after his admittedly less grievous failure.118 That Aaron is confirmed in his position demonstrates both God’s mercy and Moses’s fraternal affection, neither of which is withdrawn because of his idolatry.119 Cajetan underlines that neither God’s choice nor Moses’s acceptance of this choice is a sign of favouritism or nepotism.120 The parallel between Aaron’s example (his fall, forgiveness, and

115 116 117 118

119 120

On Mk 16.7, iv, 168a–b. On Mk 16.9, iv, 169a. See Charles Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome (2nd edn., Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1998), pp. 201–221. ‘Scriptum est autem hoc, quemadmodum et peccatum Petri in Novo Testamento (quod tamen Petri peccatum fuit longe minus), ad commendationem divinae gratiae, quae post tantum scelus Aharon assumpsit ad pontificatum’. On Ex 32.5, i, 251a. On Ex 40.13, i, 272a. On Lev 8.3, i, 292b.

90

chapter 3

subsequent promotion) and that of Peter is explicit in Cajetan’s comments. With the additional insistence that Aaron rose to the high priesthood without the benefit of nepotism, Cajetan delicately implies that the typology has a further application. In a second comparison, Cajetan simply observes how the people of Israel rejoiced at the anointing of the high priest, just as in his day people rejoice at the coronation of a new pope.121 In the light of these first two comparisons, a third becomes likely, whereby straightforward remarks about Aaron’s head-gear acquire an added significance. Josephus reports that, when officiating in the temple, the high priest wore a tiara decorated with three gold rings. In Cajetan’s day, this tiara was seen by some (including Giles of Viterbo, Pius ii, and Sixtus iv) as a forerunner of the more richly-fashioned papal triple tiara (Sixtus iv’s cost 100,000 ducats, more than a third of the annual papal revenue).122 In several frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, dating from the 1480s, either Aaron or one of his successors is depicted wearing a papal tiara. (For Giles, the cabala reveals a knowledge of its mystical meaning.)123 In this way, the Renaissance papacy linked the typology of Aaron, the high priest, with the medieval ideology of the triple papal powers: priestly, kingly, and imperial.124 Although Cajetan does not mention Josephus or the triple tiara, his scrupulosity in reading relevant texts is notable. Normally he allows that, in descriptive passages, scripture often omits or summarises details—the attentive reader can surmise other details125—but when he comes to explain the high priest’s head-gear, he takes the scriptural description to be exhaustive. Aaron, he says, wore a linen mitre or cap and, therefore, only a linen mitre or cap. Others may tell us many things about what the high priest wore, but these are to be dismissed as lacking evidence in scripture.126 There is simply no case in scripture for Aaron’s depiction wearing silk or gold.127

121 122 123 124 125 126

127

‘Cum ungebatur summus sacerdos magna erat iucunditas populi, sicut modo cum coronatur summus pontifex’. On Ps 133.2, iii, 450a. Duffy, Saints and Sinners, p. 185. John W. O’Malley, Giles of Viterbo on Church and Reform (Leiden: Brill, 1968), p. 80. Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, pp. 215–216. For a sequence of such remarks, occurring shortly before those on Aaron’s turban, see on Ex 26.1, i, 231a; on Ex 26.19, i, 233a; on Ex 26.30, i, 234a. ‘Veruntamen in litera, neque hic, neque in Levit. tam octavo quam decimoseptimo invenitur cidaris, nisi linea. Multa enim de his ornamentis referuntur quae faciliter reiici possunt, quia scripturae authoritate carent. Distinguitur tamen in mitram et pileum, seu tiaram, ut patebit’. On Ex 28.4, i, 238a. ‘Ubi clare vides non sericam, aut auream, sed lineam scribi mitram pontificis’. On Ex 28.39,

the bible and reform

91

Remarks such as these are entirely consistent with Cajetan’s explicit qualifications of papal power and temporal authority.

The Beatitudes Cajetan intended his biblical exegesis not only to benefit the ministers of the Church but, through their teaching and preaching, to bring light and encouragement to all the faithful. While it is not surprising that he raises questions of clerical reform when prompted by the biblical text, we should also expect him to address the virtues and vices of Christian life more broadly, showing how the Bible addresses all types of Christians. The beatitudes, the threshold of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s gospel (5.1–12), provide a good test case: for some, this text measures out the qualities of the different religious orders in the Church; for others, it is a distillation of Jesus’s teaching intended for all the faithful, not just those in monastic vows. Cajetan opts for the latter. In doing so, he distances himself from late medieval interpretations and aligns himself with humanists in general and Erasmus in particular. Augustine established a pattern for most future commentators when he asked two questions about the number and the order of the beatitudes. First, how many beatitudes are there? He answered that although there are nine phrases introduced by the term ‘blessed’, the ninth is much longer; and while the first eight are in the third person (‘Blessed are they’), the ninth uniquely addresses the audience directly (‘Blessed are you’) and it seems to fit the pattern less comfortably. Furthermore, since the eighth contained the same blessing as the first (‘theirs is the kingdom of heaven’), Augustine saw it as a recapitulation of the whole sequence, rather than a new beatitude. He concluded: Seven in number, then, are the things which bring perfection: and the eighth illuminates and points out what is perfect so that through these steps others might also be made perfect, starting once more, so to speak, from the beginning.128 A second question concerns the order of the beatitudes. Following Augustine, Aquinas presented the beatitudes as a sequence of ascent towards ever greater

128

i, 242b. ‘Attende prudens lector quod in sancto sanctorum Pontifex nec auratis nec sericis utebatur, sed mere lineis’. On Lev 16.4, i, 307a. The Preaching of Augustine: Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, trans. Francine Cardman, ed. and intro. Jaroslav Pelikan (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), p. 9.

92

chapter 3

perfection, from active to contemplative living. For Aquinas, the first three beatitudes are remedial, dissuading one from a life devoted to pleasure, accumulation of material goods, and aggressive and affective emotions. The next two represent the active life, a life doing good, honouring debts and in spontaneous giving to one’s neighbour. The final pair relates to the contemplative life, not so much deserving blessing as showing it.129 The sequence is clear, representing a seven-step journey from lower to higher, a journey that can be characterised as sapiential: the ultimate happiness consists in a kind of illumination or wisdom, the contemplative vision of the greatest intelligible good, namely God.130 Aquinas understood the Sermon on the Mount to ‘apply now and always to every Christian’.131 Nevertheless, over time, a distinction was made between those biblical directives that applied to all the faithful, such as the ten commandments (‘precepts’), and those, such as the beatitudes, that applied especially to men and women seeking a more perfect Christian life in religious orders or vows (‘counsels of perfection’). These counsels found their way into the rules of religious orders, whose members came to be seen as experts in holiness. By the late fourteenth century, layman and humanist Coluccio Salutati could write: Indeed the fullest perfection in this life is when we not only follow God, shunning the devil, when we not only give ourselves in service of God, relinquishing the world (for a cleric ought not to involve himself in secular affairs), but also when we offer ourselves to God through a vow of chastity, obedience and poverty, and consecrate ourselves as a true holocaust on the altar of religion [i.e., in a religious order]. Thus not improperly it can be said, as I indicated above, that to all Christians sowing in good soil a thirty-fold is reserved, to clerics a sixty-fold, to the religious, indeed, a hundred-fold.132 It is against this backdrop that Erasmus formulates the philosophia Christi. In his paraphrase on Matthew (1522), Erasmus notices that it was the disciples who

129 130

131 132

st i-ii, 69, 1. ‘[…] ultima felicitas consistit in visione optimi intelligibilis, scilicet Dei’, Thomas Aquinas, Super Evangelium Sancti Matthaei Lectura, ed. Raphael Cai (5th edn., Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1951), p. 408. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Continental Commentary, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 220. Coluccio Salutati, cited in Charles Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Renaissance Thought (2 vols., London: Constable, 1970), vol. 2, p. 672.

the bible and reform

93

came up to Jesus at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. But for Erasmus, this is not because they are an elite audience for a restricted message, but because they are the ones who are to go out and present the new law to all people. Erasmus is not interested in the sequence (or the precise number) of beatitudes; the message is simple and it is bound for all. In the preface to his New Testament, he lists the signs of the ‘true theologian’: someone who disdains riches, who trusts in heaven, who forgives enemies, who cherishes others as members of the same body, and who blesses the poor, the dispossessed, and the bereaved.133 This is almost a summary of the beatitudes and it is offered as an ethical template for all Christians. Valla makes the same point, though in a more scornful tone, when he rebukes the friar in his dialogue The Profession of the Religious, questioning the need for special rules for religious life over against the very words of the New Testament: ‘Nor can any rule be better than the one handed down by Christ and the apostles.’134 Cajetan on the Beatitudes Cajetan had occasion to deal with the beatitudes three times. In his commentary on Aquinas’s Summa theologiae, he sidestepped the issue entirely, saying that Aquinas’s words require ‘frequent reading and meditation, rather than exposition’.135 About ten years later (spring 1524, in Hungary), he began his Ientacula on the New Testament. Among these first ‘snacks’ of exegesis is his treatment of the beatitudes, headed, ‘On the nine beatitudes of the gospel’. He returns to this same text in his commentary on Matthew’s gospel, in the spring of 1527. Cajetan asks the same questions Augustine and Aquinas had asked, about number and order, but his answers are closer to the thinking of Erasmus. He speaks of nine beatitudes and he sees all nine as a set. The first seven (and he recognises that these seven ‘alone are called beatitudes by many’), are concerned with activity, what individuals themselves might strive for. The last two (eight and nine), by contrast, suppose the intervention of others and are passive, patient, concerned with suffering. Cajetan is contrasting active and passive, not active and contemplative. This grouping also allows Cajetan to explain the repetition of the promise in the first and the eighth beatitude. Augustine had seen the eighth as a recapitulation of the first. Cajetan, on the 133 134 135

Christian Humanism and the Reformation: The Selected Writings of Erasmus, ed. John C. Olin (New York: Fordham University Press, 1987), pp. 97–108. Cited in Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness, p. 677. ‘Quaestio sexagesimanona et septuagesima lectione frequenti, meditationeque iugi egent, non expositione’. On i-ii, 69–70 [i].

94

chapter 3

other hand, uses it as the common basis for his two groups (1–7, 8–9): the first in each group brings with it the promise of the kingdom of heaven. This establishes the equality of the two groups. Cajetan, like Augustine and Aquinas, does perceive a kind of ascent through the nine beatitudes in terms of what is done and what is suffered; but the repetition at this point has the effect of demonstrating that neither the virtuous agent nor the virtuous sufferer is preeminent, since they are equal in the promise of the kingdom of heaven. This concern for equality is reflected in his remarks about the plurality of beatitudes. According to Cajetan, Jesus speaks of more than one beatitude in order to show that there is more than one way of life leading to heaven. The beatitudes are common to the whole human race, ‘some going one way, others another’.136 Having included the ninth beatitude in his set, he has to address the fact that it is very different in tone. For Cajetan, the first eight are common to all, whether they came before or after Christ. For the eighth (‘Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake’), he gives the examples of the Maccabean martyrs of the Old Testament, John the Baptist in the New Testament, and Thomas of Canterbury a millennium later—all of whom suffered martyrdom for the sake of justice. The novelty of the ninth is that it relates to those who suffer for the sake of Christ; its reward is without measure (‘your reward will be great in heaven’), because it is derived from its intimate connection to the mystery of the incarnation. This is the reason for the direct address to the disciples: they will be the ones who will suffer for the sake of Christ.137 Thus for Cajetan, the apex of the beatitudes is not the vita contemplativa but the via dolorosa of suffering and martyrdom. ‘The highest perfection for us who profess faith in Christ is to suffer for him’.138 Using a term more commonly used of bishops, he calls martyrs, ‘princes of the Christian religion.’139 His characterization of the final beatitude may stress the dramatic and the heroic, but his remarks on the sixth (‘Blessed are the pure in heart for they

136

137 138 139

‘Quasi vias multas perducentes ad coelestem patriam […]. Christus enim posuit sic beatos in hac vita pauperes spiritu ut poneret etiam beatos mites, et rursus poneret etiam beatos misericordes, etc, ita ut qui misericordiae perfectione esset beatus, non excluderet eum qui munditia cordis beatus esset, et sic de aliis. Monstraturque hinc communes esse toti humano generi beatitudines viae huius, dum aliis sic et aliis sic ire potest’. Ientacula iv.2, v, 429b. Ientacula iv.v, v, 436b. ‘Suprema itaque perfectio nostrae in Iesum Christum fidei est pati pro ipsum’. On Mt 5.11, iv, 23a. ‘[…] principes Christianae religionis (sancti martyres scilicet)’, Ientacula iv.v, v, 438a.

the bible and reform

95

shall see God’) offer a complementary view. Cajetan asserts that this beatitude belongs not to the intellect but to the affective sphere: the vision of God is promised not to the learned or the wise but to the pure of heart. He stresses that the way, the preparation, and the reward of seeing God consist not in knowledge or wisdom but in purity of heart. This life is accessible to every kind of person, however ignorant or illiterate, since a pure heart can be found within anyone—even a little old woman.140 Later in his commentary on Matthew, commenting on the episode of the rich young man who asks how he might be perfect, Cajetan takes occasion to comment on religious vows: Jesus asks the young man to find perfection not by taking vows (though religious vows are praiseworthy in themselves), but by deeds, such as selling his goods and giving alms to the poor. He adds that while there are many who acquire the status of perfection by the profession of religious vows, there are few who want to be perfect by imitating Jesus in humility, patience, gentleness, and charity.141 In his interpretation of the beatitudes, Cajetan’s distinctive approach is significant and it effects an alignment that brings him closer to Erasmus. First of all, Cajetan’s ascent through the beatitudes points to the saints, pre-eminently the martyrs. The apostles are top of the tree, not because they are the first bishops or the greatest contemplatives but because they are first among the martyrs. Cajetan’s overview thus looks to the Church’s liturgy and the calendar of saints (especially the martyrs of the early Church), which provide the constant framework for Christian prayer and devotion. Second, Cajetan is emphatic that 140

141

‘[…] secundo, ut discamus praeparationem humanae mentis ad videndum Deum non consistere in perficiendo partem speculativam (ut philosophi tradunt ponentes sapientes maxime appropinquare Deo) sed in perfectione parties affectivae quae cor vocatur, ita quod ex hic quod non doctis et sapientibus, sed mundis corde promittitur visio Dei, ut sciamus viam, praeparationem ac meritum perveniendi ad videndum Deum, consistere non in scientia et sapientia, sed in cordis munditia. Scimus consequenter quod communis est praeparatio viaque omnibus hominibus quantumcunque idiotis et ineruditis, quoniam munditiam corde minima vetula habere potest’. Ientacula iv.5, v, 435b. The faith and devotion of the little old woman (vetula) is a trope of Aquinas’s; see Fergus Kerr, Thomas Aquinas: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 35. ‘Attende prudens lector quod nullum indicitur a Iesu votum volenti perfectionem vitae assequi, quia non in vinculis votorum sed in operibus consistit perfectionis assecutio. Laudabilia sunt vota religionis, sed non illorum professione, sed operibus, quibus imitamur Iesum Christum, acquiritur perfectio. Infinitus est hodie numerus eorum qui acquirunt perfectionis statum profitendo religionis vota, sed rari sunt qui volunt esse perfecti imitando Iesum factis humilitatis, patientiae, mansuetudinis, charitatis, etc’. On Mt 19.21, iv, 87a–b.

96

chapter 3

the beatitudes can be lived out by every kind of Christian, whatever their education or status—as long as they love God and their neighbour. The variety of saints points to the variety of routes to blessedness in God’s kingdom. Finally, the role of the disciples is clarified. They have a special role as the original hearers of the Sermon on the Mount; but as a consequence, they have a special responsibility to ensure that that message reaches those for whom it is intended. For Cajetan as for Erasmus, the verses immediately following the beatitudes are addressed to those who are to be sent out into the world to proclaim the good news: you are the salt of the earth, you are the light of the world. This is the crucial transition: those who are able to hear and study the word, those who have the leisure and the literacy, are then sent to proclaim the word to the world. As we have seen already, Cajetan was aware of the ways the prelates of Rome had failed in this regard.142 The martyrs are the genuine witnesses, the true leaders showing the path to glory. And this is the model Cajetan puts before his readers: not the hierarchical holiness of priestly ordination or monastic vows, but the ethical holiness of martyrdom. Cajetan completed his commentary on Matthew in 1527, in the wake of the Sack of Rome. The slaughter of innocents and the humiliation of the shepherds—at the hands of fellow-Christians—was still fresh in his memory. He completed his earlier Ientacula in 1524, in the Kingdom of Hungary. There he had met Christian people who had lived for years with the fear of Ottoman invasion, for whom that danger was closer than ever. Such fear might naturally find expression in vituperation, accusation, and an urgent call to arms; but in Cajetan’s biblical commentaries, the admittedly few and scattered remarks on Turks and Islam have a rather different character.

Muhammad and Ishmael In 1472, Cajetan’s future patron Cardinal Oliviero Carafa had commanded a successful Christian fleet against the Turks at Smyrna and Satalia, returning with slaves, camels, and some links of harbour chain that still decorate his tomb.143 This was not a one-off expedition: the Turkish peril was a constant theme in early modern reform thought, and almost every Renaissance pope was preoccupied with mounting a crusade.144 According to David Bagchi, ‘The

142 143 144

See p. 74. Chambers, Popes, Cardinals and War, p. 77. Addressing Lateran v in May 1514, Pope Leo had urged an end to war in Italy as the highest

the bible and reform

97

“Turk” was perceived as the gravest external threat, and often the greatest threat tout simple, to Western Christendom—a fact which those of us who specialise in studying the upheavals caused by the Reformation can sometimes overlook’.145 In April 1512, Selim i (1512–1520) seized the Ottoman leadership from his father. He undertook a huge expansion of the Ottoman Empire throughout the Arab world, tripling its size by his death. His accession was not welcomed in the west. The published version of Cajetan’s discourse to Lateran v includes a dedication to Tamás Bakócz, the Cardinal Archbishop of Esztergom (and aspirant to the papacy in the conclave of 1513).146 Cajetan praises the Cardinal’s steadfastness since his youth in resisting the Turkish threat and defending the Christian faith. He describes the new sultan as a ‘ferocious young man, most eager for Christian blood’.147 Both of Cajetan’s diplomatic legations had been concerned with the threat of the Turks. He was sent to the Imperial Diet of Augsburg in 1518 to urge a crusade. The papacy was frustrated by the conflict among Christian princes that hindered an effective response to the Ottoman threat. The scandal of this infighting was exacerbated when—heaven forbid!—a Christian nation contemplated joining in alliance with the Turks against another Christian nation (as the French eventually did against the Hapsburgs in 1536). Cajetan’s mission was part of a coordinated diplomatic effort on the part of the papacy to secure a five-year truce among Christian princes, so that they could focus on the crusade—less a matter of reclaiming the Holy Land than a campaign of defence against Selim’s advancing forces.148 The death of Emperor Maximilian,

145 146 147 148

priority ‘so that with God appeased by a change of life, after quarrels have been set aside, we may be able to bring together and gather into one the Lord’s flock entrusted to our care, and to encourage and arouse this flock more readily, in a union of peace and harmony, as by a very strong binding force, against the common enemies of the christian faith who are now threatening it’, Tanner, p. 610. This was still the theme a decade later when Pope Adrian vi sought peace between Francis i and Charles v so they could together resist Turkish advances into Europe; see Michael Mallett and Christine Shaw, The Italian Wars 1494–1559 (Harlow: Pearson, 2012), p. 145. David Bagchi, ‘Recent Studies in the Reformation and Islam’, in Reformation 14 (2009): pp. 161–170, at p. 162. Tommaso de Vio, Cajetan, Oratio in Secvnda Seseione [sic] Concilii Lateranensis (Rome: Beplin, 1512). Kenneth M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571 (4 vols., Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1976–1984), vol. 3, p. 126. Chambers, Popes, Cardinals and War, p. 141.

98

chapter 3

as well as the emerging Luther problem, effectively scuppered that mission’s prospects of success. Cajetan’s second diplomatic mission, in 1523 to the Kingdom of Hungary, followed the fall of Belgrade (1521) and Rhodes (1522) to Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566). That mission, too, came to a premature conclusion, this time with the death of Pope Adrian. Soon after Cajetan was recalled to Rome, Suleiman inflicted a heavy defeat on the Hungarians at the Battle of Mohacs (September 1526). The Hungarian Kingdom was left flailing under divided leadership. The Ottomans continued to advance north and west; in 1529, Suleiman reached the walls of Vienna, which was battered and besieged but did not fall. As the Turkish advances in the East cast a shadow over Europe, the fear of invasion and defeat found expression in a tendency to demonise the Turks, sometimes in quite dramatic and apocalyptic tones. Giles of Viterbo explicitly identified the Ottomans as the Antichrist.149 But this was not the only kind of reaction. Cajetan’s admittedly few remarks concerning Islam belong to a more conciliatory tradition, represented by Nicholas of Cusa, Juan of Segovia, and Pius ii.150 Cajetan’s remarks fall into two groups, those referring to Muhammad, Muslims, or Turks and those concerning the person of Ishmael. The former are explicit references and reflect Cajetan’s view of the contemporary scene. Cajetan does not hesitate to criticise Muhammad—chiefly for the misuse of scripture. He is accused of picking and choosing, doing violence, as the heretics do, to the unity of scripture.151 It could not be said of him that he came ‘not to abolish the gospel, but to perfect it’; for all his lipservice, he has undermined the gospel.152 Cajetan seems to concur with the 149

150

151

152

See John W. O’Malley, ‘Fulfillment of the Christian Golden Age under Pope Julius ii: Text of a Discourse of Giles of Viterbo, 1507’, Traditio xxv (1969): pp. 265–338, at pp. 333–338. On a variety of Roman attitudes, see Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, pp. 118–123. For wider context, see Nancy Bisaha, Creating East And West: Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). Ian Christopher Levy, Rita George-Tvrtković, and Donald F. Duclow (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa and Islam: Polemic and Dialogue in the Late Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill, 2014); Anne Marie Wolf, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace: Christians and Muslims in the Fifteenth Century (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2014); Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, p. 119. ‘Vere amica est veritas veritati. Remittit se Iesus ad scripturas, nullam scripturarum refutans, nullam mendosam, falsam aut suspectam dicens, cuius oppositum faciunt haeretici, cuius oppositum fecit Mahomet’. On Jn 5.39, iv, 323b–324a. ‘Ne putares Christum ad abolendam legem Dei venisse, testatur quod volui, non verbis aut signis exterioribus, sed intimo corde intra viscera mea legem tuam, quam dedisti per Moysen. Et dixit haec ad excludendum humanas astutias, quasi Christus monstraverit se

the bible and reform

99

medieval appraisal of Muslims as Christian heretics.153 Nonetheless, although the Muslims, like heretic Christians, do not worship in truth, they do worship in sincerity of spirit.154 Although he evidently shares the concern of many of his contemporaries with the threat of the Turks, he is extremely reluctant to translate those fears into the language of biblical prophecy and apocalyptic. His discussion of the ‘Man of lawlessness’, commonly taken to be the Antichrist (2 Thess 2.3–12), proceeds with measured calm. When Paul says that the Antichrist will take his seat in the temple and proclaim himself ‘to be God’, Cajetan simply remarks that this rules out the identification of the Antichrist as Muhammad. Muhammad did not place himself above God, or equal with God, but made himself the breath (‘flatum’) of God.155 Cajetan is normally cautious about identifying, in his own day, the fulfilment of biblical prophecies; in one case, however, he wonders at length regarding the fierce and destructive ‘ships that shall come from Kittim’ in Balaam’s prophecy (Num 24.24). He refers to the opinion of the Glossa interlinearis that Kittim stands for Greece and considers the opinion of some that the prophecy was fulfilled in Alexander the Great. However, if this prophecy is yet to be fulfilled, the Turks, now occupying Greece, could very soon bring it about.156 In this context, Cajetan says nothing of a crusade. More allusive than these direct references to Muhammad and the Turks is Cajetan’s portrait of Ishmael. Ishmael was the eldest son of Abraham, by his second wife Hagar (Gen 16). He is honoured as a prophet in Islam and counted among the ancestors of Muhammad. Cajetan’s elaborate, even forced, exegesis concerning Ishmael and his mother, Hagar, is consistent with an irenic disposition towards Islam. At the first mention of Ishmael, Cajetan points out that this is the first child in scripture to be given a name by God before his

153

154 155

156

velle legem Moysi, et tamen in corde suo intenderit illam solvere, ut Mahometus fecit de evangelio’. On Ps 40.8, iii, 147a. See Richard Southern, Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1962), pp. 27–32; Margaret Meserve, Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), pp. 157–158. ‘[…] alioquin non colitur veritate, quamvis colatur spiritu, ut colitur ab haereticis, Mahumetanis, &c’. On Ps 31.5, iii, 109a. ‘Ex hac conditione apparet quod Mahometus non fuit Antichristus, nam fecit seipsum flatum Dei, non supra Deum. Antichristus autem non solum adversabitur Deo, sed etiam extolletur supra omnem qui dicuntur Deus’. On 2 Thess 2.4, v, 286b. ‘Et quae hic prophetantur forte adhuc impleta non sunt, sed paulatim adimplentur in regno Turcarum, quorum sedes est in terra Chittim’. On Num 24.24, i, 406b.

100

chapter 3

birth and this is a great grace. Nonetheless, he declines to attribute any sense of moral superiority to this fact.157 It soon appears, however, that Cajetan is keen to defend the reputation of Ishmael. When Hagar is sent away by Abraham, she is said to carry her son Ishmael on her shoulder, together with bread and water. For Cajetan, always mindful of the wealth and dignity of Abraham, this burdening of Hagar is to be understood metaphorically: Hagar was doubtless given donkeys and servants to carry her doubtless abundant supplies.158 When Hagar then leaves, or ‘casts’ (rsv), Ishmael under a tree and moves some distance off (apparently in despair and accepting the inevitability of death), Cajetan reads the gesture quite differently: she is leaving her child to be fed by the servants. Throughout his commentary, he sees Hagar as a good woman and a model mother, doing all that she can for her son, and he admonishes for their harsh judgment those who would think otherwise.159 Cajetan defends Ishmael, too, against the slander (not actually in this scriptural text) that he is a thief. John Thompson notes that this pejorative opinion is found in rabbinic commentaries and reported by Christian writers.160 For Cajetan, if Ishmael were a thief, why would Moses relate that ‘God was with the boy’ as he grew up in the desert (Gen 21.20)?161 On the contrary, before long, the sons of Ishmael are thriving and each one has become a prince.162 When Paul recalls that Isaac was persecuted by Ishmael, Cajetan searches the Old Testament in vain for evidence of this persecution; Paul’s word is sufficient to assure us that it happened, but perhaps, Cajetan opines, he has in mind not a genuine persecution, but a game of hunting or chasing,163 or mocking and inciting other young boys to tease.164 When Ishmael dies and is gathered to his ‘kindred’ (Gen 25.17), Cajetan takes this as a demonstration of the immortality of the soul. He does not venture 157

158 159 160

161 162 163 164

‘Et cum hac tam nova, ac non parva gratia, nihil scitur bonusne, an malus fuerit Ismahel, ut ex divina gratia gratis data nullus glorietur, nullus laudetur, nullus speretur bonus’. On Gen 16.11, i, 72b. On Gen 21.14, i, 89a–b. ‘Nefarium siquidem est cogitare quod tam pia mater adderet afflictionem afflicto filio proprio unigenito’. On Gen 21.15, i, 89b. John L. Thompson, Writing the Wrongs: Women of the Old Testament among Biblical Commentators from Philo through the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 71–72. ‘Si enim Deus, quatenus iudex, erat cum puero, longe erat a latrociniis’. On Gen 21.20, i, 90a. On Gen 25.16, i, 101a. On Gal 4.29, v, 214a. On Gen 21.9, i, 88b.

the bible and reform

101

an opinion on the eternal fate of Ishmael—whether good or bad, his soul was gathered with those similar to his.165 Cajetan does not condemn Ishmael to hell; he simply says that he went to be wherever his ancestors were. Where does Cajetan’s stance towards Islam come from? Thompson reads Cajetan’s ‘fairly sympathetic’ exegesis of Hagar and Ishmael—his unwillingness to impugn the character of either—as a sign of his own decency and humanity.166 This may be a sufficient explanation. It is also possible that he was personally acquainted with Muslims, or Christian converts from Islam, and that this experience affected his approach to the biblical texts. One prominent possibility is Leo Africanus (1495–1550): born in Grenada, al-Hasan ibn Muhammad was a traveller and Arabic scholar who was captured by Spanish corsairs in 1518 and brought to Rome. He was baptised by Pope Leo x (who named him Johannes Leo de Medicis), and entrusted to the care of Giles of Viterbo, whose Arabic teacher he became. Although his biography is sketchy, it is generally assumed that in later life he returned to North Africa and to the practice of Islam.167 A man of learning and culture, a scholar and a teacher, Leo Africanus may have contributed to a more generous appraisal of Islam in the west. More remotely, it is possible that Cajetan’s attitude to Islam in general and to the biblical Ishmael in particular, may have been influenced by stories that reached Italy from Persia at the turn of the century: Shah Ismail Safavi (the Sophy) had arisen as a great leader, and for a time posed a formidable threat to the Ottomans. He was praised for his wisdom, learning, military prowess, religious authority, tolerance, and ancestry (he was descended from Muhammad). It was even whispered that he might secretly favour the Christian faith. His advances were finally halted in 1514 at the Battle of Chaldiran where his cavalry were no match for Ottoman artillery and muskets.168 This very specific set of remarks about Islam has served to illustrate a general tendency towards irenicism in Cajetan’s commentaries. The sacred text prompted him to reflect on moral, social, and political issues of the day: war and peace, concord within the Church, co-existence with other religions, the right use of money, and, above all, effective spiritual leadership. Inspired both

165 166 167

168

See chapter 7, p. 227, n. 131. Thompson, Writing the Wrongs, pp. 70–73. Pekka Masonen, ‘Africanus, Leo’, in Kevin Shillington (ed.), Encyclopedia of African History (Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2004): vol. 1, pp. 17–19; Natalie Zemon Davis, Trickster Travels: A Sixteenth-Century Muslim Between Worlds (New York: Hill and Wang, 2007); François Pouillon et al. (eds.), Léon l’ Africain (Paris: Institut d’ études de l’islam et des sociétés du monde musulman, 2009). See Meserve, Empires of Islam, pp. 231–237.

102

chapter 3

by the humanist call for a return to the sources as well as his own scholastic tradition of biblical exposition, he set himself the task of diagnosis and treatment. He sought to open the Bible up for others—for bishops and popes, priests and princes, even soldiers and bankers—to excite them about its teaching, to loosen some of its knotty intricacies, and to put its words back in their mouths as prayer, with understanding. His reading is constructive in aim. Even where he makes accusations of error, he is never simply dismissive; he proposes the biblical medicine that will lead from error to truth, corruption to holiness, war to peace. The same reconciliatory and irenical outlook predominates when he addresses aspects of the nascent Protestant Reformation.

chapter 4

Error, Schism, and Heresy Addressing Pope Adrian vi in 1523, Cajetan added the Lutheran problem to the list of ills to be reformed in the Church. Adrian himself was harsh and intransigent in his opposition to Luther.1 Since Cajetan saw his biblical translation and exposition as a contribution to reform, it is not surprising to find criticism of Luther within their pages. What is surprising is how infrequent such elements of Counter-Reformation are—and when they do arise, how restrained, measured, and judicious they are. Cajetan is concerned to uphold the solemnly defined faith of the Catholic Church. He is, however, able to recognise the limits of solemn definition and to allow for a legitimate variety of theological opinion. He is careful to distinguish between heresy and error, and is reluctant about naming names. His overriding concern is not so much labelling the delinquent as fostering the peace of the Church. The one instance where he departs from this general pattern, his exegesis of John 6, will form a detailed case study at the end of this chapter.

Error, Heresy, and ‘Lutherans’ in Cajetan’s Biblical Commentaries There are about two dozen mentions of unspecified ‘heretics’ in the biblical commentaries. Many of these are general comments: about the heretics’ selective use of scripture,2 and their moral turpitude;3 that heresy is the work of the devil,4 and that heretics, like the Samaritans before them, are often hated more than pagans.5

1 Robert E. McNally, ‘Pope Adrian vi (1522–1523) and Church Reform’, ahp 7 (1969): pp. 253–285, at p. 257. 2 ‘Vere amica est veritas veritati. Remittit se Iesus ad scripturas, nullam sacrarum scripturam refutans, nullam mendosam, falsam aut suspectam dicens. Cuius oppositum faciunt haeretici, cuius oppositum fecit Mahomet’. On Jn 5.39, iv, 323b–324a. 3 On Rom 8.1, v, 40a–b. 4 On 1Tim 4.1, v, 299b. 5 ‘Quarti Reg. 17 habes qui sunt Samaritani. Ethnici enim erant, et colebant simul Deum Israel et idola. Erantque exosi Iudaeis plusquam illi qui erant totaliter gentiles, sicut haeretici sunt Christianis magis exosi quam pagani’. On Jn 4.9, iv, 311a.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325098_006

104

chapter 4

The list of specifically named heresies or heretics is extensive: Arius and Arianism (fifteen times refuted from scripture), Sabellius, Valentinus, Nestorius, Eutyches, Helvidius, the Nicolaitans, the Manichees (twice), and the Ebionites (twice). Recalling a notorious debate of the fourteenth century, Cajetan criticises those heretics who deny that the souls of the saints are already blessed in heaven.6 The passages that are most peppered with an explicit awareness of heresy are those concerned with the incarnation: the conception and birth of the Word made flesh, God and man, two natures in one person.7 Commenting on Solomon’s condemnation of those with a ‘haughty look’ (sublimes oculi), Cajetan gives some indication of the kinds of false teachers he has in mind. They are the sort who deny divine providence or the immortality of the soul (such as the Paduan Averroists). Among Christians, they are those who deny the Trinity and other doctrines professed by the Catholic Church.8 Biblical philology can be brought to the aid of Catholic doctrine: Cajetan demonstrates how an accurate understanding of Paul’s Greek undermines the heretical claims of the Arians.9 So much for historic heresy—what of the contemporary scene? Areas of doctrine and practice contested by the reformers are certainly covered by Cajetan—and in the unique case of John 6, discussed below, quite extensively. However, in the course of over half a million words, there are only four explicit references to ‘Lutherans’. These are the only instances in which Cajetan actually names contemporaries as opponents (or names contemporaries at all). In the first case, the Lutherans are said to level against the pastors of the Church the accusation Christ levelled against the Pharisees, namely, that they receive certain human traditions as if they are part of divine law. Cajetan is far from dismissive of this charge; he examines the text with care and calmly appeals 6 On 1Cor 5.8, v, 169a; on Philem 1.24, v, 248a. See Christian Trottmann, La vision béatifique: des disputes scolastiques à sa définition par Benoît xii (Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 1995). 7 One such cluster, repeatedly stressing that Mary was the ‘natural’ mother of Jesus, is on Lk 1.31, iv, 177b; on Lk 1.35, iv, 178b; on Lk 1.42, iv, 179b. 8 ‘Sublimes enim oculi sunt eorum qui negant divinam providentiam circa humanas actiones, qui negant immortalitatem animae, et huiusmodi. Sublimes oculi sunt Christianorum qui negant mysterium Trinitatis, et aliorum quae catholica ecclesia profitetur’. On Prov 6.17, iii, 522b. 9 ‘Legendum est definito filio Dei, verbum verbo reddendo. Et oportet propter haereticos textum ipsum Pauli (non interpretis) exponere. Aiunt enim Arriani et similes: Paulus dicit sic, quicquid expositores interpretentur. Est itaque sensus literalis quod factus secundum carnem ex semine David, est definitus, determinatus, decretus filius Dei’. On Rom 1.4, v, 2a. Cajetan is here following Erasmus, Reeve, ii, pp. 336–337, as he had done earlier examining the same text: Ientacula ii.1, v, 419b.

error, schism, and heresy

105

to the Lutherans to obey such laws not as divine commands but, in a second position, ‘post divina’: in other words, he defends ecclesiastical law as just that, no more and no less, and certainly at a lower rank than the commands of the Old and New Testaments.10 In the second case, Cajetan comments on Jesus’s criticism of the scribes and Pharisees: they do not practise what they preach and they bind extra burdens on people’s shoulders and offer no help in bearing them. Cajetan wishes that this were not the case in his own day. Certainly, the gospel commands that certain things be done and that confessors should impose honest burdens as appropriate; but Cajetan laments the actions of those confessors who, like the scribes and the Pharisees, add extra burdens: in doing so they condemn themselves. But in an unusual aside, he tells the Lutherans that they condemn themselves for the opposite mistake, by removing these honest burdens all together.11 The third case concerns the words to be used in the celebration of the Eucharist, ‘This is my body which is broken for you’ (1 Cor 11.23–26). ‘Lutherans’, according to Cajetan, would try to discount the authenticity of this tradition regarding the Eucharist, were it not the case that Paul not only ‘handed it on’ in his preaching to the Corinthians, but providentially put it in writing too. Two things should be noted about Cajetan’s remarks. First, he inaccurately attributes to the ‘Lutherans’ a position in fact closer to that of Zwingli; it was precisely this issue that passionately divided Zwingli and Luther and their followers.12 Second, Cajetan restricts the nature of the objection: although it 10

11

12

‘Quia Lutherani ex hoc textu exauthorant ecclesiam, et super hunc textum fundant nullitatem mandatorum ecclesiae, utpote reprobatorum ub utroque testamento, veteri scilicet apud Esaiam, et novo hic a Domino Iesu, ideo diligentius textum hunc discutere oportet, ut illius veritas non commentum elucescat. […] Venerare igitur Lutherane ecclesiae mandata non ut divina, sed secundo loco, scilicet post divina. Quoniam sic oportet nos implere omnem iustitiam’. On Mt 15.9, iv, 72b. ‘Utinam haec verba Domini Iesu in sedentibus super cathedram Moysi finem habuissent; utinam hodie non verificarentur. Tot iam onera sunt super utriusque testamenti honestissima praecepta, imposita super humeros hominum ut Christiani facile se servire Christo credant, si tot laqueis non subiicerentur, et confessores felices se arbitrarentur si de solis divinis praeceptis soliciti esse deberent. Cum his tamen omnibus parendum est Iesu dicenti, omnia quae dixerint servare, servate et facite. Et ipsi quidem sedentes super cathedram Iesu Christi damnationem suam cognoscant multiplicando onera; et tu Lutherane damnationem tuam abiiciendo illa’. On Mt 23.4, iv, 101b. Euan Cameron, The European Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 164– 165; Bernard M.G. Reardon, Religious Thought in the Reformation (2nd edn., London and New York: Longman, 1995), pp. 100–105; Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man between God

106

chapter 4

concerns Paul’s teaching (doctrina), Cajetan considers it chiefly as a liturgical objection (de ritu et usu). In support of his reading of this text he appeals to a liturgical source, the liturgy of the Greeks—since the Greeks still use the Pauline formula of consecration when celebrating the sacrifice of the mass.13 Paul’s text gives Cajetan the occasion to defend the text of the mass as biblically authentic, but no further defence of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine is offered at this point. (In one case only does he offer a more sustained and relatively polemical reflection on Catholic Eucharistic teaching: his singular exegesis of John 6 discussed below.) These three remarks, from commentaries on New Testament books, date from the period Cajetan spent in Gaeta, between May 1527 and August 1529. Cajetan’s assessment of ‘Lutherans’ obviously draws on his personal encounter with Luther in 1518. In addition, it may be based on a conflation of two groups of texts: those he read during the period when he was directly involved with the Roman case against Luther (1518–1521) and the teaching of Zwingli he was asked to examine in 1525—indeed, his reading here of 1Corinthians recapitulates an argument used in the Instruction of 1525.14 His remarks do not suggest, or require, evidence of any subsequent detailed investigation on his part. The fourth case, from the early months of 1533, conveys an unmistakable sense of alarm. The Lutherans are seen to be in the throes of a dramatic and scandalous act of schism. For Cajetan, Leviathan’s serried teeth are the teeth of the devil, effortlessly ripping apart anything that is good, whether in the moral life of individual Christians or the unity of the Church as a whole. Cajetan warns his readers to look on and wonder at the swiftness and the licentiousness with which this schism has taken place and (perhaps looking towards England) to fear further divisions among other nations.15

13

14 15

and the Devil, trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart (New Haven, ct: Yale University Press, 2006), pp. 232–245. For fluidity in the use of the term ‘Lutherans’ in the 1520s, see Cornelis Augustijn, Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence, trans. J.C. Grayson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), p. 147. ‘Nota ex isto textu clare habere Paulum docuisse Corinthios de ritu et usu eucharistiae antequam scriberet eis hanc epistolam. Et nisi Paulus hoc testificaretur, non crederent Lutherani doctrinam Pauli fuisse, et tamen in rei veritate fuisset doctrina Pauli. Et usque adeo haec Pauli traditio apud Graecos perseverat, ut usque in hodiernum diem in sacrificio missae Graeci utantur his Pauli verbis consecrando corpus Christi, hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis frangitur’. On 1 Cor 11.23, v, 125a. Erasmus also prefers frangitur to tradetur, Reeve, ii, pp. 492–493. Instructio nuntii circa errores libelli de cena Domini, sive de erroribus contingentibus in eucharistiae sacramento, ed. A.F. von Gunten (Rome: Angelicum, 1962), pp. 61–62. ‘Et huiusmodi dentium circumitus, quoad mores quidem, tu videris, et cave; quoad eccle-

error, schism, and heresy

107

In none of these instances, in which Lutherans are mentioned, does the express charge of heresy appear. (If there is a heresiarch Cajetan presents to his readers’ eyes it is Arius rather than Luther.)16 In each of the four cases considered above, the scope of the criticisms is narrow and discrete, largely confined to the perceived pastoral damage caused by schism and failure of leadership. For Cajetan, even after Luther’s excommunication for heresy, the chief ‘Lutheran problem’ would seem to be ecclesial discipline and unity. At other points, Cajetan is indeed ready to bring the accusation of heresy. But in the handful of cases where he does so, he stops short of naming the alleged heretics. For example, those who say that the Eucharist is nothing but a sign of the body and blood of the Lord are called heretics,17 and Cajetan defines as a ‘recent error’ (‘errorem noviter exortum’) the claim that, at the time of the apostles, the Eucharist was not considered a sacrifice but only a sacrament.18 Zwingli and Luther are obviously the targets here. Cajetan clearly objects to these aspects of their sacramental theology, but he refrains from naming names and from tackling the controversial issues in detail. In the biblical commentaries, Cajetan evidently prefers not to engage in CounterReformation polemic. One Reformation doctrine to be refuted in unusual detail is that concerning the priesthood of all believers.19 Consistent with other Catholic controversialists of the time, Cajetan argues against the view that all Christians are properly (proprie) priests and that this universal priesthood is the only kind

16 17

18

19

siae vero unitatem, videmus nostra aetate Lutheranos tam magnam scissuram cum tanta peccandi licentia effecisse tam cito, ut mirum incredibileque sit et formidandum ne nationes alias scindant’. On Job 41.8, ii, 551b. Marcel Nieden concurs; see Organum Deitatis: Die Christologie Des Thomas de Vio Cajetan (Leiden: Brill, 1997), p. 10. ‘Et confutentur haeretici dicentes non esse nisi signum corporis et sanguinis Domini. Iniuria itaque irrogatur corpori et sanguini Domini indigne sumendo’. On 1Cor 11.27, v, 125b–126a. ‘Adverte hic, prudens lector, errorem noviter exortum dicentium quod tempore apostolorum eucharistia non erat sacrificium, sed tantum sacramentum, ex hoc loco manifeste confutari: nam hic clare de eucharistia quatenus sacrificium est, est sermo’. On 1Cor 10.21, v, 120a. This is anticipated in the Instructio for the nuntio, chapter 9, ‘ex verbis Pauli apostoli in epis. ad Cor. 1. colligitur Christum instituisse hoc sacrificium, et tempore apostolorum fuisse in usu non solum ut sacramentum, sed ut sacrificium’. Instructio nuntii circa errores libelli de cena Domini, sive de erroribus contingentibus in eucharistiae sacramento, ed. A.F. von Gunten (Rome: Angelicum, 1962), p 61. Also in Opuscula, ii, 145b. For a detailed exposition of Cajetan’s thinking on priesthood, see Charles Morerod, ‘Le prêtre chez Cajetan’, Revue Thomiste 99 (1999): pp. 245–279.

108

chapter 4

of Christian priesthood.20 The two disputed texts are both in 1 Peter and both crucially employ metaphorical language;21 for Cajetan, the literal sense of a biblical passage encompasses all figures of speech intended by the author, including metaphor, irony, parables, and so on.22 In the first text, Cajetan argues that a metaphorical interpretation is required from the context. Peter brings together, in the same sentence, two expressions: you are ‘living stones built into a spiritual house’ and ‘a holy priesthood’ (1 Pet 2.5). For Cajetan, since the first of these is clearly a metaphor (the ‘spiritual house’), the second (‘holy priesthood’) must also be taken metaphorically.23 Peter goes on to say that the ‘holy priesthood’ must offer a ‘spiritual sacrifice’. For Cajetan, this expression reinforces his conclusion. To offer a spiritual sacrifice, in prayer and meditation and spiritual instruction, is common to all Christians, and this activity is correctly but metaphorically described as a holy priesthood. This metaphorical priesthood is quite distinct from the ordained priesthood that offers the Eucharist, which, according to Cajetan, is not under consideration in this text.24 If this use of metaphor is not understood, the reader risks being caught in the trap of the heretics, who say that all Christians are, properly speaking, priests.25 The second text occurs just a few verses later in the same chapter, when Peter quotes from Exod 19.6, ‘You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation’ (1Pet 2.9). Cajetan refers to the heretics’ mindless logic that would conclude from this that every individual Jew was a king and a priest. These things were said then of Israel and now of the Church, not in reference to every individual, but to the people as a whole. It is because there were priests and kings within the people of Israel that the people as a whole enjoyed a royal and priestly

20 21 22 23

24

25

David Bagchi, Luther’s Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists, 1518–1525 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 137–138. These texts, alongside two similar texts from Revelation (Rev 1.6, 5.10), are also discussed at length in Ientacula, iii.1–3, v, 425a–427b. See chapter 6. ‘Deprehende caecitatem istorum ex hoc quod eodem contextu utrumque dicit, aedificamini domus spiritualis, sacerdotium sanctum. Quemadmodum metaphora est, aedificamini domus spiritualis, ita metaphora est, sacerdotium sanctum’. On 1Pet 2.5, v, 374a. ‘Offerre siquidem spirituales hostias orationum sanctarumque meditationum ac spiritualium instructionum, commune est omnibus, sicut offerre seipsum Deo in hostiam suavitatis. Nullus est itaque hic sermo de sacerdotio quo offertur eucharistia’. On 1Pet 2.5, v, 374a. ‘Adverte hic prudens lector, ne in haereticorum laqueum incidas, dicentium ex hoc loco Christianos omnes esse proprie sacerdotes’. On 1 Pet 2.5, v, 374a.

error, schism, and heresy

109

dignity. Likewise in the Church: it is because there are some who are priests, and because the spiritual kingdom of God is among them, that the Christian people as a whole enjoy a royal and priestly dignity. At the same time, the royal priesthood of the whole people could be said to be particularly present in the pope, who ranks above all temporal kings, presiding over them in spiritual matters.26 In these texts, Cajetan quite clearly denounces as heresy a view held by the Protestant reformers. But as with his treatment of Eucharistic doctrine, accusations of heresy are never coupled with specific names, other than those formally recognised and long dead. Cajetan’s text could be read as a solicitous warning to the Lutherans, to Zwingli, and even to Erasmus, to steer clear of a trap before them.27 Elsewhere in his commentaries, there are some glaring missed opportunities for the polemicist. First, commenting on the words episcopos and presbyteros, he denies that they are used to designate hierarchical or sacramental categories. Neither term stands for the name of an order, but for a general kind of official function. An episcopos is an overseer, a presbyteros an elder and, by extension, also a supervisor.28 More significantly, Cajetan acknowledges (but then avoids addressing) one of the very points that would be so problematic for the reformers: how did the Greek term presbyteros (elder) come to be translated into Latin as sacerdos (priest), and can this translation be justified? This, he says in a telling remark, is not his business at present.29 Were he concerned in

26

27 28

29

‘Ubi et adverte contra haereticos fingentes ex similibus authoritatibus scripturae Christianos omnes esse sacerdotes. Convincit eos hic textus, quo ad universum populum dictum est, eritis mihi regnum sacerdotale [Ex 19.6]. Constat enim amentis esse intelligere universum populum Israel fuisse reges et sacerdotes. Sed haec et tunc dicta sunt, et nunc dicuntur, ut significetur utraque dignitas collata populo non ut singulis sed ut universis, hoc est, quod esset in universitate et dignitas sacerdotii et dignitas regalis. […] Modo autem verificatur in universo populo Christiano, sacerdotium quidem secundum quosdam consecratos, regnum autem spiritualiter. Quamvis etiam universus populus Christianus habeat regale sacerdotium in summo Pontifice, cui suapte natura convenit praeesse regibus omnibus et relative ad spiritualia de eis disponere’. On 1Pet 2.9, v, 374b. For an example from Erasmus, see Reeve, iii, p. 748. ‘Neutrum siquidem horum nomen est ordinis, sed potius officii: episcopus quidem secundum proprietatem, presbyter autem secundum translationem: significat enim seniorem, qui communiter consuevit superintendere aliis’. On Titus 1.7, v, 321a. ‘Quomodo autem nomen presbyterii translatum sit ad significandum sacerdotem, non est praesentis negotii’. On Titus 1.7, v, 321a. For the debate between Tyndale and Thomas More on this point, see Allan K. Jenkins and Patrick Preston, Biblical Scholarship and the Church: A Sixteenth-Century Crisis of Authority (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 94–99.

110

chapter 4

these commentaries with defending Catholic sacramental doctrine, this question would be very much his business. Second, paraphrasing Paul to Timothy, he complains about the fruitless quibbling of sick minds that know nothing of words or the truth about words. His example is the word libertas, but he does no more than hint at contemporary debates on free will.30 And third, as we saw in the previous chapter, he takes the existence of a Petrine office for granted and asks the reader to consult his De divina institutione pontificatus Romani pontificis (against Luther, 1521) for further detail.31 Cajetan expects his readers to look elsewhere for his refutation of the reformers, in his treatises dealing with specific questions, where he is able to weigh a variety of evidence and construct a comprehensive argument. The same systematic procedure is not possible in a verse-by-verse biblical translation and commentary. This conclusion is reinforced by an examination of Cajetan’s commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans. Luther considered Romans the most important part of the New Testament, the heart of the Christian message,32 but Cajetan’s work, composed in 1528,33 contains no obvious riposte to Luther’s teaching on faith, grace, works, merit, justification, or free will. At the end of a thorough comparative survey of Romans commentaries, T.H.L. Parker is able to point to no specific anti-Lutheran content and commends Cajetan for ‘the calm and measured way in which he expounded the literal sense’.34 I have shown elsewhere that Cajetan seems to have had other interlocutors in mind—perhaps Scotists and the humanist Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples, and more likely neo-Pelagians of his own day.35 Although Augustine fought the decisive battle against Pelagius 30

31 32 33 34 35

‘Nihil scit rei veritatis, sed est ad similitudinem aegrotantis circa inquisitiones et pugnas verborum, puta quia Christus nos liberavit, habent mentem velut aegrotam ad inquirendam vim vocabuli libertatis, ad discernendum pugnam libertatis et servitutis, tanquam non stet simul libertas, qua Christus nos donavit, cum servitute civili. Et superbia enim talium doctorum provenit, et quod nihil sciunt quoad veritatem rei, et quod circa inquisitiones et pugnas verborum non habent mentem sanam, sed aegrotantem ac per hoc deficientem etiam a veritate circa verba; et propterea omnino nihil sciunt, quia nec res, nec verba’. On 1 Tim 6.4, v, 304b. (Compare Erasmus, Reeve, iii, p. 680.) On the debate concerned, see Reardon, Religious Thought in the Reformation, p. 81. ‘Vide huius lectionis mysteria per nos latius discussa in opusculo De institutione pontificatus a Iesu Christo, ne eadem repetamus’. On Mt 16.18, iv, 76a. lw 35, p. 355. On the dating of the Romans commentary, see above, pp. xv–xvi. T.H.L. Parker, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans 1532–1542 (Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1986), p. 204. Michael O’Connor, ‘Cajetan on Paul’, in R. Ward Holder (ed.), A Companion to Paul in the Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 337–362, at pp. 341–352.

error, schism, and heresy

111

in the fifth century, skirmishes with Pelagianism recurred periodically: two of Cajetan’s fellow Dominicans, Chrysostomus Javelli and Battista Carioni, were both suspected of holding views like those of Pelagius. And the commentary on Romans produced by Cajetan’s friend and fellow cardinal, Jacopo Sadoleto, was felt by many to have erred in the same direction.36 Cajetan insists on the priority of grace in a way that is consistent with the anti-Pelagian teachings of Augustine and Aquinas: Justification is a free gift of God, not the reward of human works.37 Far from being a tract against the Lutherans, parts of Cajetan’s Romans commentary implicitly make common cause with Lutheranism against the Pelagians of the early sixteenth century. Indeed, in a couple of instances, he (unconsciously?) echoes Luther’s own distinctive formulations: the justice of justified sinners is never their own; it belongs to another (Christ), it is an alien justice (iustitia aliena).38 And when Paul says that the gospel brings salvation to everyone who believes (Rom 1.16), Cajetan summarises: faith alone is needful for salvation (‘Sola fides exigitur ad salutem’). Although such remarks are capable of an orthodox Thomistic interpretation,39 those five words found considerable disfavour among some Catholics; they are scratched out of some 36

37

38

39

R.M. Douglas, Jacopo Sadoleto (1477–1547): Humanist and Reformer (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1959), p. 88; Michael Tavuzzi, ‘Chrysostomus Javelli o.p. (ca.1470– 1538), part i’, Angelicum 67 (1990): pp. 457–482, at p. 481; Paul F. Grendler, ‘Man is Almost a God: Fra Battista Carioni between Renaissance and Catholic Reformation’, in John W. O’Malley, Thomas Izbicki, and Gerald Christianson (eds.), Humanity and Divinity in Renaissance and Reformation: Essays in Honor of Charles Trinkaus (Leiden: Brill, 1993), pp. 227–249. ‘Iustificantur autem, hoc est ex peccatoribus iusti fiunt, gratis, hoc est, non ex operibus sed gratuito. Et ne quaeras cuius est hoc gratuitum beneficium, explicat per gratiam ipsius, scilicet Dei. Ubi clare explicatur, iustitiam Dei iustificantem peccatorem, non ex operibus, sed per gratiam Dei haberi’. On Rom 3.24, v, 18b. ‘Sola divina potentia est perseverantia. Nulla siquidem est in homine virtus sufficiens ad hoc, ut patet ex eo quod quilibet viator potest cadere. Hoc enim reservatur divinae gubernationis potentissimae ad preservandum ne cadamus’. On Rom 14.4, v, 75b. See also on Rom 6.17, v, 32b; on Rom 7.24, v, 39b. ‘Solutio est quod credere in eum qui iustificat impios, innititur iustitiae alienae, scilicet Dei per Iesum Christum; reliqua vero opera innituntur iustitiis propriis, ut scilicet quodlibet opus secundum se bonum est, et bonum reddit habentem’. On Rom 3.27, v, 19b. On Luther’s formulation ‘iustitia Christi aliena’, see Karl-Heinz zur Mühlen, ‘On the Critical Reception of the Thought of Thomas Aquinas in the Theology of Martin Luther’, in Paul van Geest, Harm Goris, and Carlo Leget (eds.), Aquinas as Authority (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), pp. 65–86, at pp. 81–82. Romanus Cessario, Christian Faith and the Theological Life (Washington dc: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), p. 134; Richard Rex has argued similarly regarding John

112

chapter 4

early printed editions and dropped altogether in the complete edition of 1639.40 A similar act of censorship, the only other such case, occurs in Cajetan’s commentary on Psalm 2, where he writes that no work is necessary to attain bliss other than hope or trust ( fiducia) in Christ; this alone is necessary and suffices to avoid hell; we are saved not by our merits but by hope.41 Cajetan appears unaware that by the mid-1520s, the idea of a trusting ‘fiducial’ faith was becoming something of a slogan among Protestants (it was ‘Luther’s favorite term for faith’),42 and a target for Catholic polemicists.43 In general then, Cajetan does not see his biblical commentaries as the most useful forum for Counter-Reformation polemic. He will address errors where they arise and engage with relevant opinions on a given biblical verse, but he will not enter into the more sustained argumentation that we find in his explicitly controversial treatises. That is his normal pattern, followed fairly consistently throughout the commentaries. One passage, however, stands out and deserves attention: the bread of life discourse in the sixth chapter of John’s gospel. This passage is a lightning rod for Eucharistic controversy, and Cajetan’s treatment of it shows the difficulty in holding two purposes completely apart: verse-by-verse biblical exposition and theological controversy.

40 41

42 43

Colet and John Fisher, in The Theology of John Fisher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 118, 245, n. 61. Epistolae Pauli et aliorum apostolorum ad graecam veritatem castigatae iuxta sensum literalem enarratae (Venice: Lucantonio Giunta, 1531), p. 2v. Compare on Rom 1.16, v, 4b. The whole of the following text is missing in the 1639 edition: ‘Nihil aliud laboris apponens ad assequendam beatitudinem nisi spem seu fiduciam in Christo. Haec enim sola et sufficit et exigitur ad evitationem gehennae, et ad assequendam beatitudinem. Quoniam non nostris meritis sed spe salvi facti sumus. Beatitudines erunt omnium, nullo excepto, sperantium in eo, filio’, Psalmi Davidici ad Hebraicam veritatem castigati et iuxta sensum quem literalem dicunt ennarati (Venice: Lucantonio Giunta, 1530), viir–v, compare on Ps 2.12, iii, 12b; Claus Arnold, Die Römische Zensur der Werke Cajetans und Contarinis (1558– 1601): Grenzen die Konfessionalisierung (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2008), p. 168. Barbara Pitkin, What Pure Eyes Could See: Calvin’s Doctrine of Faith in Its Exegetical Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 14. See John B. Payne, ‘The Significance of Lutheranizing Changes in Erasmus’ Interpretation of Paul’s Letters to the Romans and the Galatians in his Annotations (1527) and Paraphrases (1532)’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 312–330; Susan E. Schreiner, ‘Faith’, in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hans Hillerbrand et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996): vol. 2, pp. 89–93. See also O’Connor, ‘Cajetan on Paul’, pp. 347–350.

error, schism, and heresy

113

Is John 6 about the Eucharist? John 6 figured heavily in sixteenth-century debates about the Eucharist. Cajetan’s exegesis contains the most sustained and overt polemical writing anywhere in his biblical commentaries, and is unusually fastidious.44 The importance of the Johannine text would be reason enough for such care, but Cajetan had other reasons impelling him: he had commented on different parts of this chapter several times before, and the task of reconciling his earlier views was not an easy one to accomplish. This background is essential to understanding the commentary of 1528. Cajetan commented on at least part of this passage four times: in his commentary on the third part of Aquinas’s Summa (c. 1519–1520),45 in his Instructio for the nuntio against the Eucharistic errors of Zwingli (1525),46 in his commentary on John’s gospel, to be considered here (1528), and finally in a treatise responding to Lutheran demands for communion under both forms (1531).47 His exegesis in these works is not consistent: the Instructio is the exception, departing from the approach taken in the other works. The aim of this section will be to present Cajetan’s exegesis of John 6, to examine the circumstances that led to his changes of mind, and to assess the results, both for controversy and for theology. (Since the significant changes take place among the first three works, the fourth, the response to Lutheran demands for communion under both forms, will not be examined here; it makes use of arguments established in the commentary on John.) Commentary on st iii, 80, 12 (c. 1519–1520) In the article under consideration, Aquinas asks whether the reception of communion under the form of bread alone is lawful. His answer is in the affirmative and, although he notes the benefits of communion under both

44

45 46

47

Craig R. Koester gives a helpful survey of the history of interpretation of this passage in ‘John Six and the Lord’s Supper’, in Lutheran Quarterly 4 (1990): pp. 419–437, at 420–426. See also Stefan N. Bosshard, Zwingli, Erasmus and Cajetan: Die Eucharistie als Zeichen der Einheit (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978). On st iii, 80, 12. Tommaso de Vio Cajetan, Instructio nuntii circa errores libelli de cena Domini, sive de erroribus contingentibus in eucharistiae sacramento, ed. A.F. von Gunten (Rome: Angelicum, 1962). Also in Opuscula, ii, 142a–146b. Translation in Cajetan Responds, pp. 153–174. De communione sub utraque specie, de integritate confessionis, de satisfactione, de invocatione sanctorum, adversus Lutheranos. Opuscula iii, 292b–295a. Translation in Cajetan Responds, pp. 205–218.

114

chapter 4

forms, he speaks of the importance of ecclesial custom. Cajetan’s note, which is uncharacteristically long and detailed, is rather more than a commentary on Aquinas’s text.48 This matter, he says, requires detailed discussion on account of ‘novelties’ (‘propter novitates’).49 Cajetan immediately proceeds to consider the meaning of Jn 6.53–54: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. He notes a number of heretics and schismatics (Pelagius, Nestorius, the Greeks, the Bohemians, Jacobellus), who, for a variety of reasons, argue from this text that communion under both forms is necessary for salvation. Cajetan immediately makes his own position clear: this text speaks of the spiritual reception of Christ by faith; it has no bearing on the reception of the Eucharist—either sacramentally or spiritually, in fact or by desire. This is the literal meaning of the text. For Cajetan, a Eucharistic reading of this text compromises other texts in scripture, most notably Jn 3.5, which asserts that baptism is necessary and efficacious for salvation. The Church’s practice of infant baptism bears this out: baptised infants, even before they receive the Eucharist, do indeed ‘have life in them’. To assert that sacramental reception of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation amounts to a denial of the efficacy of baptism.50 Having first argued from the text itself, Cajetan then argues from the context of the whole passage. Drawing on Augustine, he concludes that the passage is concerned with spiritual actions, spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ. Though the passage contains several kinds of ‘bread’—material bread, spiritual food, bread from heaven, and flesh and blood—it makes no mention of the consecrated host of the mass, the sacramental elements.51

48 49

50 51

Leonine, xii, pp. 246–248. In June 1520, Leo x’s bull Exsurge domine included the following error of Martin Luther: ‘[Error no. 16] It is apparently agreed that the Church should decree by a general Council that the laity should be communicated under both kinds: the Bohemians, who follow this practice, are not heretics—merely schismatics’. Quoted in E.G. Rupp and Benjamin Drewery (eds.), Martin Luther: Documents of Modern History (London: Arnold, 1970), p. 38. On st iii, 80, 12, [Q. 1, vi]. Aquinas does speak of the necessity of the Eucharist for adults, st iii, 73, 3; st iii, 80, 11 ad 2. ‘Ubi diligenter advertendo, clara luce patet, quod cum totus praecedens sermo fuerit de actibus pure spiritualibus, de spirituali quoque manducatione et potatione ipsius Christi carnis et sanguinis sermo praesens, ad litteram, est. In cuius signum, nunquam in toto

error, schism, and heresy

115

Cajetan denies that ‘flesh and blood’ inevitably points to the Eucharist. He argues instead that Jesus mentions his flesh and blood in order to show that belief in Jesus as God incarnate, ‘come down from heaven’, is not sufficient for eternal life; it is also necessary to believe in his passion and death for the life of the world, in which his flesh and blood were separated. Cajetan’s exposition is fixed on the unfolding narrative of the gospel: Jesus is replying to the questions and murmurings of the Jews. In doing this he does not need to instruct them concerning the Eucharistic sacramental species; rather, he foretells his death for the life of the world.52 Cajetan claims that his interpretation of John 6 is based on the literal sense, which alone is effective in argument. This sense is discovered by paying attention to the context of the passage as a whole.53 He appreciates how the transition could be made from a metaphor of eating and drinking (as a means of taking hold of Christ by faith), to a non-metaphorical, ‘proper’, eating and drinking of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Nonetheless, he says that such a transition misses the distinction between what is signified in the Eucharist and the Eucharistic signs themselves. The signs, the forms of bread and wine that are properly eaten and drunk, are not the subject of this passage.54 The influence of Augustine is evident in Cajetan’s exegesis of John 6. According to Augustine, the primary meaning of eating and drinking in John 6 is belief: ‘crede, et manducasti’.55 By believing, you become what you believe, namely,

52

53

54 55

illo capitulo fit mentio de speciebus sacramentalibus: sed, post panis materialis, primo de cibo spirituali, deinde de pane caelesti, quia Iudaei, obiicientes manna, adduxerunt scripturam, Panem de coelo dedit eis manducare; est postea de carne et sanguine’. On st iii, 80, 12, [Q. 1, vii]. ‘Carnis quoque et sanguinis meminit, non ut species sacramentales traderet, quoniam, ut patet, sacramentum non celebratur sub specie carnis et sanguinis: sed ut doceret non sufficere ad vitam nostram credere in ipsam Christum, panem quidem caelo descendit, hoc est, Deum et hominem, sed oportet etiam credere ipsius pro mundi vita passionem et mortem, in qua sanguis separatus fuit a carne’. On st iii, 80, 12, [Q. 1, vii]. See also the Instructio, ‘Prius loquitur de credenda divinitate sua, et deinde de credenda morte sua pro vita mundi’, Opuscula, ii, 142a. ‘Quocirca, cum ex solo sensu litterali trahatur efficax argumentum, et sensus litteralis ex contextu praecipue pendeat, et ad litteram, tam ex textu quam ex contextu, de spiritualibus actibus solummodo sermo sit, consequens est ut textus iste de spirituali manducatione Christi carnis et sanguinis, hoc est de fide in ipsum et mortem eius, et non de sacramenti eucharistiae spirituali aut sacramentali manducatione, sermo sit’. On st iii, 80, 12, [Q. 1, vii]. On st iii, 80, 12, [Q. 1, vii]. In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus cxxiv, trac. xxv, 12 (ccsl, 36, p. 254); quoted by Cajetan

116

chapter 4

the body of Christ. When Augustine refers to the Eucharist, he acknowledges that he is speaking of the sacrament precisely as the sign of the ecclesial body of Christ; the ecclesial body of Christ, the ultimate reality of the sacrament for Augustine, is the subject of this chapter of the gospel.56 Cajetan simply applies Augustine’s principle in a strict manner, ruling out any reference at all to the forms of bread and wine in the literal interpretation of John 6. Instructio for the Nuncio (1525) The commentary on the Summa theologiae was completed in 1520. In 1525, Cajetan was asked by Pope Clement vii to comment on the Eucharistic teaching of Zwingli and Cornelis Hoen. Hoen’s symbolic interpretation of the Eucharistic presence (taking ‘is’ to mean ‘signifies’ in the phrase, ‘This is my body’), had a great influence on Zwingli.57 A papal nuncio was to be sent to Switzerland to investigate the preaching and liturgical changes introduced in Zurich, and Cajetan was to prepare a theological brief in advance of that mission. Although the nuncio never went, Cajetan’s brief was preserved in his Opuscula.58 In this work, Cajetan completely reverses his earlier position concerning the exegesis of John 6. Indeed, he notes that the first position of Zwingli’s to be countered is that Our Lord does not speak of the Eucharist in Jn 6.56, ‘He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him’. In terms not dissimilar to Cajetan’s own earlier Augustinian exposition, his opponent says that this text speaks only of faith and trust in Christ. For Cajetan, there are three ways to speak of the Eucharist: (a) the sacrament itself (which is to be adored), (b) the sacramental reception of the Eucharistic elements (i.e., eating and drinking the elements, irrespective of the disposition of the recipient) and (c) the spiritual reception of the Eucharist (through faith in love). While Cajetan concedes that the second of these is not spoken of in John 6, he argues that the first and the third are indeed intended in the text.59

56 57

58 59

(albeit peripherally) on st iii, 80, 12, [Q. 2, iii]. Cajetan quotes this work of Augustine four times in the course of these three questions. Trac. xxvi, 15–19 (ccsl, 36, pp. 267–269). On Zwingli and Hoen, see Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (London: Lutterworth, 1966), pp. 243–255, 268–278; W.P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 218–259. See Cajetan Responds, pp. 33–34. ‘[…] de fide formata Christi filii Dei ac mortis eius pro vita mundi et quod non de manducatione sacramentali est sermo cap. 6. Ioan., non tamen verum est excludi a capite illo fidem formatam seu manducationem spiritualem sacramenti eucharistiae’. Instructio nuntii, p. 30. Also in Opuscula, ii, 142a. Translation in Cajetan Responds, pp. 153–154.

error, schism, and heresy

117

He proves the first from the text, ‘The bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world’ (Jn 6.51). By these words, in the future tense, Jesus looks forward to the institution of the Eucharist which was to take place at the Last Supper. Furthermore, the twofold act of eating and drinking is not easily interpreted as a metaphor for a single act of faith. There is more to this language: Jesus is giving advance notice that the sacrament of his body and blood will be instituted in the twofold form of food and drink. Finally, Cajetan notes that John, assuming what the other evangelists have already written (namely, the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, with the command of sacramental reception), includes what they have omitted, speaking of the spiritual eating and drinking of the death of Christ and of the sacrament of the Eucharist, ‘Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him’ (Jn 6.56). The reason for this about-turn appears in a later section of the Instructio, when Cajetan comes to consider the text: ‘It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail’ (Jn 6.63). This text is the key to Zwingli’s interpretation of the whole of John 6 and to his Eucharistic theology in general.60 For him, this text excludes any doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Hoen had taught him that in the words of Christ, ‘This is my body’, the word ‘is’ should be taken to mean ‘signifies’. As a consequence, a text such as ‘My flesh is real food’ (Jn 6.55) has to be interpreted in a way that does not contradict the fundamental principle that ‘flesh avails nothing’. For Zwingli, flesh has to be interpreted metaphorically in John 6 and there can be no real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharistic bread and wine.61 With arguments garnered from Aquinas and Augustine, Cajetan chooses another way to harmonise the ‘flesh and blood’ texts with the ‘flesh avails nothing’ text. To do this, he distinguishes between carnal eating and spiritual eating; between carnal food and spiritual food; and between flesh alone and flesh united to spirit. By means of these distinctions, he seeks to demonstrate how the flesh and blood of Christ, far from availing nothing, are indeed capable of communicating eternal life in the Eucharist. Not unreasonably, Cajetan accuses Zwingli of seeking to revive the error of Berengarius (d. 1088), whose philosophy of symbolism entailed denying a real change in the consecration of the Eucharistic elements.62 To refute this 60

61 62

‘Pro fundamento firmissimo totius erroris assumitur, et millies repetitur’. Instructio nuntii, p. 35. Also in Opuscula, ii, 142b, Cajetan Responds, p. 155. On the centrality of this text for Zwingli, see Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, pp. 218–259. On Zwingli’s Neoplatonism, see Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, pp. 254–255. ‘Quia enim Berengarius errorem, quem iste suscitare conatur, secutus est—scilicet quod in sacramento caro Christi erat sicut in signo tantum […]’. Instructio nuntii, pp. 41–42. Also

118

chapter 4

position, Cajetan frames his defence of the real presence (at Jn 6.63) with a Eucharistic interpretation of the whole of John 6. That this leads him into the difficulties he had sought to avoid in the commentary on the Summa does not seem to concern him: the Instructio does not deal with the question of communion under both forms (though Zwingli was in favour of it) nor that of the necessity and sufficiency of baptism. The Summa commentary, meanwhile, in its treatment of John 6, had not raised the question of the real presence. Cajetan’s approach, therefore, appears to be quite pragmatic (even opportunistic), determined by the different needs in each case. To refute the demands of the utraquists (those who demanded communion ‘under both kinds’, sub utraque species), he denied that John 6 dealt with the Eucharist, removing the foundation of the utraquists’ argument; while to refute the Berengarian errors of Zwingli he asserted that John 6 was indeed about the Eucharist and that it supported the doctrine of the real presence. While both cases make reference to verses from John 6, the texts used are different: the Summa commentary makes no mention of Jn 6.63–64; the Instructio does not deal with Jn 6.54. It is only when Cajetan comes to write a commentary on the gospel of John that he is required to see the entire bread of life discourse as a whole, and this clearly forces him to return to his earlier position. Commentary on John (1528) Cajetan divides the discourse on the bread of life (Jn 6.25–65) into two parts. In the first part (Jn 6.25–50), Jesus speaks of himself as the bread of life; in the second part he speaks of his future passion and death and of himself as food and drink.63 The first part of the discourse concerns Jesus in his divinity, as the Word of God, come down from heaven (not by a physical entry, but by uniting to a human nature) for the salvation of the world.64 ‘Eating the bread of life’ is a metaphor for believing in him.65

63

64

65

in Opuscula, ii, 143b, Cajetan Responds, p. 159. On Berengarius, see Gary Macy, Theologies of the Eucharist in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), pp. 35–43. For the affinity between Zwingli and Berengarius, see Gary Macy, The Banquet’s Wisdom: A Short History of the Theologies of the Lord’s Supper (New York: Paulist, 1992), p. 194. ‘Occasione nata ex quaerentium verbis, aggreditur Iesus doctrinam de seipso quatenus est panis vitae. Et primo tractat de seipso ut est panis vitae. Deinde de passione sua futura secundum quam est cibus et potus vitae’. On Jn 6.32, iv, 329a. ‘[…] dicendo quia descendi de coelo, non corporeis gressibus sed uniendo mihi carnem humanam. Ipsa enim carnis in terra assumptio, descensus est de coelo, de summa celsitudine’. On Jn 6.38, iv, 330b. ‘Dicendo enim qui credit in me, manducationem panis significat’. On Jn 6.47, iv, 332a.

error, schism, and heresy

119

In this second part of the discourse (Jn 6.51–59), Cajetan argues that the attention moves from life-giving faith in the Word incarnate, to life-giving faith in his passion and death for the life of the world. Thus, not only is the divinity of Jesus to be understood as the bread of life, but his humanity too—above all in his passion and death.66 This division of the text is characteristic of Cajetan. For Aquinas, the full humanity of Christ has been implicit throughout the discourse on the bread of life; flesh and blood are mentioned here in order to make this explicit, lest it be thought that Jesus is speaking only of his divinity, or his human soul; from this, Aquinas moves immediately to a consideration of the sacrament of the Eucharist.67 For Cajetan, the bread of life which is to be eaten by faith is not only the Word of God ‘come down’ (past tense, referring to the incarnation), but the humanity of Jesus which ‘he will give’ (future sense). For Cajetan, this future tense (‘the bread that I will give’) is not to be taken as looking forward to the institution of the Eucharist (as he had argued in the Instructio), but as looking forward to the passion and death of Christ. The giving of this metaphorical bread is the literal laying down of his life.68 Thus whoever approaches his flesh and blood—given and poured out for the life of the world—with faith, trust, and love, has eternal life.69 Cajetan has returned to and developed his earlier position. Perhaps the influence of Lefèvre’s ‘Augustinian’ commentary on John 6 (published in 1522) can be discerned here (though Lefèvre is prepared to accept a Eucharistic reading of the text, if pressed).70

66

67 68

69

70

‘Postquam declaravit seipsum ratione suae deitatis panem vivum qui de caelo descendit, transit modo ad declarandum rursus seipsum etiam secundum humanam naturam assumptam esse panem vivum, et incipit a morte passioneque sua, dicens esse simpliciter cibum mundi. Ita quod non solum ipse verbum est cibus et vita mundi, sed etiam ipse crucifixus, mortuus, &c., est panis et vita mundi. Quod est dictu, oportere mundum pasci credendo non solum Deum in ipso Iesu homine, sed etiam hominem passum ac mortuum pro salute mundi’. On Jn 6.52, iv, 332b–333a. Super Evangelium Sancti Ioannis Lectura, p. 180b, then 181a–b. ‘Manifestissime explicat panem hunc fore passionem et mortem suam, dicendo quod panis quem ego dabo est caro mea, non mystica, non spiritualis, sed quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. Constat enim quod in passione et morte sua daturus erat carnem suam naturalem pro mundi vita’. On Jn 6.52, iv, 333a. ‘Qui spiritualiter manducat carnem naturalem Christi et spiritualiter bibit naturalem sanguinem Christi (credendo, confitendo, et amando carnem datam pro mundi vita et sanguinem similiter fusum pro mundi vita) habet vitam aeternam’. On Jn 6.64, iv, 337a–b. Commentaria initiatoria in quatuor evangelia (Paris, 1522), ‘Cibus doctrina Christi est et potus fidei eius’. (fol. dxlv); ‘Manducat qui perfecte credit’. (fol. dxlviii); ‘Et de ea quae ex fide est manducatione, id quod hic dicitur praecipue est intelligendum, et non

120

chapter 4

Cajetan considers at some length the text on the necessity of eating and drinking (Jn 6.53–54), on account of the sects and factions that misunderstand and misuse it—in the past and in the present day.71 They conclude from this text that communion under both forms is required for all, including infants. Cajetan examines the literal sense of this necessity in three stages: does the text speak of the necessity of faith in the death of Jesus? Of the necessity of spiritual communion? Of the necessity of worthy sacramental communion? Nowhere else in the biblical commentaries is there a case of such intricate manoeuvring. At the first level, the necessity of eating and drinking refers to faith in the death of Christ (de fide mortis Christi). The death of Christ is food and drink, that is, sustenance and delight, for the believer. This is clearly true doctrinally, since if not, there can be no life of grace. It is also, he argues, the sense intended by the author, as demonstrated by the context: Jesus has just been speaking of flesh and blood (which suggest death) and of his flesh given for the life of the world (which is a clear anticipation of the crucifixion).72 At the second level, Cajetan examines whether these words speak of the necessity of faith in the sacrament of the Eucharist (de fide sacramenti eucharistiae). Cajetan is here referring to the Eucharist insofar as the Eucharist is the memorial of the death of Christ. The Eucharistic rite signifies the death of Jesus by separating the signs of his body and blood. Therefore, just as it is necessary to eat and drink the death of Christ (as defined at the first level), it is necessary

71

72

sacramento’. (fol. dxlviii); ‘Qui ergo vere credit humanitatem Christi pro mundi oblata in morte, et mundum per eam hostiam esse redemptum, et ex morte vivificatum, manducat carne eius. Et qui credit sanguine Christi in ara crucis fuso, et se et mundum, id est fideles ex mundo ad Christum venientes esse lotos, bibit sanguinem eius’ (fol. dxlix). Nonetheless, ‘Si etiam et ad sacramentum extendat, non repugno […]’ (fol. dl). ‘Et quoniam textus iste similis praecepto baptismi superius, 3. cap. descripto […], occasio diversarum factionum seu sectarum fuit et est, ideo perspicatius discutiendus est, ut clare habeatur sensus literalis ex quo solo trahitur efficax argumentum’. On Jn 6.54, iv, 333a. ‘Primus est de fide mortis Christi. Et est sensus: nisi usi fueritis morte filii hominis tanquam cibo et potu, non habetis vitam spiritus in vobis. Et sensus est in se verus et necessario intentus. Verus quidem: quoniam nisi anima hominis sic credat mortem Christi quod sustentetur per illam velut cibo et delectetur in illa velut potu, non habet vitam gratiae in seipsa. Necessario autem intentus tum quia separatio carnis et sanguinis manifeste mortem Christi in qua separatus est sanguis a carne explicat, tum quia expresse dixit, caro mea est, quam dabo pro mundi vita, quod constant mortem explicare; immo ad declarandum hoc (scilicet, quam dabo pro mundi vita) ad respondendum Iudaeis, quomodo potest hic nobis dare, manfestat modum, scilicet per separationem carnis et sanguinis, hoc est per mortem talem in qua sanguis separabitur a carne, qualem constat esse mortem crucis’. On Jn 6.54, iv, 333a–b.

error, schism, and heresy

121

to eat and drink that death (again metaphorically, by believing) as signified in the Eucharist, that is, in the separation of body and blood. Cajetan urges that the precept concerns not the Eucharistic signs themselves, but the things signified by the signs. The text is saying that believers must eat and drink the thing signified (quoad rem sacramenti); the text is not saying that believers should eat and drink the signs (sacramentum tantum), even though they happen to be food and drink. Once again, there is no doubt that this is doctrinally true,73 but it is less than clear that this is the sense intended by the author.74 Cajetan is aware that some use this text to insist on the necessity of the spiritual reception of the sacrament (among them, Aquinas, as we have seen). But he rejects this view since, although the res of the sacrament is intended, necessary spiritual reception of the sacrament implies necessary sacramental reception as a precondition. Cajetan is keen to avoid this; the Church’s practice of not communicating infants argues forcefully against it.75 The third level of enquiry concerns the necessity of sacramental reception of the Eucharist (de manducatione sacramentali). He refers to the ‘Bohemian 73

74

75

‘Secundus sensus est de fide sacramenti eucharistiae, quod est memoriale mortis Christi, iuxta illud Apostoli, quotienscunque manducabitis panem hunc et calicem bibetis, mortem domini annunciabitis [1 Cor 11.25]. Calix enim et hostia separationem realem carnis et sanguinis, quae fuit in cruce, significant. Et est sensus: nisi spiritualiter manducaveritis et biberitis sacramentum eucharistiae, non habetis vitam in vobis. Et hic est verus in se: quoniam spiritualiter manducare et bibere sacramentum eucharistiae quoad rem sacramenti, nihil aliud est quam manere in Christo et Christum manere in eo, sine qua mansione constat non esse vitam spiritus’. On Jn 6.54, iv, 333b. ‘An autem sit intentus, non clare apparet. Immo si perspicaciter fuerit consideratum, apparet quod sermo formalis non est de sacramento, sed de re sacramenti, sed de fonte sacramenti; quoniam formaliter loquendo si manducare et bibere spiritualiter sacramentum eucharistiae necessarium est ad vitam, sequitur quod sacramentaliter manducare et bibere idem sacramentum eucharistiae est necessarium ad vitam. Et patet sequela: ex eo quod praeceptum cogens ad sacramentum formaliter loquendo cogit primo et directe ad sacramentalem perceptionem, ut patet in praecepto baptismi; ad spiritualem autem perceptionem, (quae consistit in voto) cogit tanquam ad initium sacramenti. Unde dicere quod hic praecipitur spiritualis perceptio eucharistiae et non sacramentalis, formaliter loquendo est contraria implicare’. On Jn 6.54, iv, 333b. ‘Nec propterea intelligas arguendos doctores exponentes hoc de spirituali manducatione, quoniam ad rem sacramenti referunt’. On Jn 6.54, iv, 333b. He seems to be referring to Aquinas here; Cajetan does not make use of Aquinas’s distinction between necessity for all (baptism) and necessity for adults (Eucharist), presumably since this would still leave him with the problem of the necessity of communion under both kinds. For references to Aquinas, see p. 144, n. 50 above.

122

chapter 4

sect’ who communicated even infants, on the understanding that, in addition to baptism, sacramental communion under both forms was necessary for salvation. Cajetan simply states that the Church’s practice of not communicating infants and not giving communion under both forms excludes such a view. Furthermore, it contradicts the teaching of the Church, which affirms that one form is sufficient to salvation.76 In the light of this authority, the utraquists ought to be satisfied that they have no case. Not content, however, they multiply arguments from the text.77 Cajetan’s replies to these arguments need not be noted in detail. It is enough to note how detailed these arguments are and how seriously they are considered by Cajetan. The reason for this is that most of them are his own. They first appeared in the Instructio, where Cajetan sought to demonstrate that the flesh and blood of John 6 referred unquestionably to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The unwelcome consequence that these arguments might now be used to promote the utraquist position requires that Cajetan dismantle his own earlier case more thoroughly than he had constructed it in the first place. For this reason, the exegesis especially of Jn 6.53 is among the most convoluted in the whole corpus. In addition to Lutheran Bohemians and Zwinglian Berengarians, Cajetan is also refuting himself. In the closing stages of the discourse (Jn 6.60–65), Cajetan has to deal once again with the dualist interpretation of spirit and flesh, typified by Zwingli. Cajetan observes that there are some in recent times who use this text to support the ancient error that denied the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist.78 He urges them to read the chapter as a whole and he presents them with a dilemma: if it is not about the Eucharist, then their case crumbles; if it is about the Eucharist, then they must deal with a text such as this: ‘unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you’ (Jn 6.53). Cajetan upbraids these heretics because of their selective use of scripture, using some texts in a way that is actually ruled out by other

76

77 78

‘Tertius sensus est de manducatione sacramentali, digne tamen. Et est sensus: nisi realiter manducaveritis carnem filii hominis in sacramento hostiae et biberitis in sacramento calicis eius sanguinem, non habetis vitam spiritus in vobis. Ita quod iuxta hunc sensum necessarium est ad salutem non solum sacramentum baptismi, sed etiam sacramentum eucharistiae sub utraque specie. Ex hoc sensu, orta paulo ante est secta Bohemorum, communicantium etiam infantes sub utraque specie’. On Jn 6.54, iv, 333b. ‘[…] sectatoribus tamen illorum dogmatum non satis fit’. On Jn 6.54, iv, 333b. ‘Et scito hoc in loco antiquum errorem negantem in eucharistiae sacramento verum Christi corporis contineri, modernis temporibus fundatum esse super hunc textum’. On Jn 6.64, iv, 337a.

error, schism, and heresy

123

texts.79 He calls them confused and speaks of them as slower intellects, to whom he must stoop to explain. His final word is severe: the heretics who read 6.63 to deny the Eucharist are embarked on a course that leads to the denial that any good at all can come from the humanity of Christ, his flesh crucified, his blood poured out; this, he says, is no longer to be Christian.80 Whereas in the Instructio Cajetan was concerned with Eucharistic errors, here the threat to Christian faith of a spiritual-material dualism is seen to be absolutely fundamental. Throughout the 1528 commentary, Cajetan holds his position consistently: eating and drinking are never meant properly, their literal sense is a metaphor for believing. This principle is never abandoned. The food and drink that is ‘eaten’ and ‘drunk’ in this way are both Jesus the Word of God (come down from heaven) and Jesus the man (in his passion and death, his flesh and blood separated in death). Insofar as this also happens to be the eventual and ultimate reality (the res) of the Eucharist, then the Eucharist is at issue, but only ever at this deeper level. Cajetan never takes eating and drinking to refer to the physical eating and drinking that occur when the faithful receive the Eucharistic elements in the liturgy. The obverse of this is that Cajetan always takes flesh and blood in a proper literal sense: the flesh and blood to be ‘eaten’ and ‘drunk’ (metaphorically, by faith) are the (literal, physical) flesh and blood of Jesus who endured suffering and death on the cross. A consequence is that even while playing down the connection between this passage and the Eucharist, Cajetan has introduced a new stress into his Eucharistic theology: the Eucharist can be spoken of in sacrificial terms because it is a memorial of the death of Christ. It is the sacred sign (the sacramentum) by which the faithful come into contact with, eat and drink by faith, the ultimate reality (the res) of the death of Christ. For Cajetan, the principle reality to which the Eucharistic signs give access is the sacrifice of Christ, his passion and death for the life of the world. There is certainly an apologetic or polemical accent in Cajetan’s exegesis of this passage. As has been noted already, the theology of the Eucharist is

79

80

‘Si namque de substantia carnis Christi est sermo, caro multum prodest, utpote qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aeternam; et modo dicitur quod non prodest quicquam, ergo propriam ignorant vocem haeretici isti’. On Jn 6.64, iv, 337a. ‘[…] est autem asserere quod caro naturalis Christi non prodest quicquam ad vitam spiritus, et asserere quod caro crucifixa, sanguis effusus Iesu Christi nihil nobis prodest ad salutem aeternam, quia caro non prodest quicquam, quod est non esse Christianum’. On Jn 6.64, iv, 337b.

124

chapter 4

almost the sole issue on which he enters into explicit theological debate with his contemporaries in these biblical commentaries. There are two targets, Zwingli and the Lutherans; a distinction seems to have been made between them, and only those denying the real presence in the Eucharist are named ‘heretics’. Comments about the two matters of practice (infant communion and communion under both forms) are usually defensive in tone; Cajetan never criticises the Greek practice, he simply defends the Roman traditions against attacks based on John 6. He clearly hoped that practical differences in ritual would not be obstacles to Church unity: in 1531, he was prepared to allow communion under both kinds for the Lutherans, and he calls the Lutherans stubborn for insisting that this practice is not merely permitted but positively commanded in scripture.81 Evaluating the success of Cajetan’s exegesis, Bellarmine disagreed with Cajetan’s method (denying that John 6 treats of the Eucharist), but commended his intention (defending the truth of faith).82 Nevertheless, this commentary is not an undifferentiated piece of polemical writing. Interwoven with his concern to refute the modern utraquists and Berengarians, Cajetan has also explored issues in Christology and the theology of faith. Against the backdrop of Renaissance Roman theology, which stressed the soteriological reality of the incarnation to such an extent that it sometimes lost sight of the suffering and death of Christ, Cajetan’s exegesis of this chapter could be seen as something of a correction.83 His deliberate division of the text encourages this view, moving from faith in the incarnation to faith in the passion and death of Christ. Thus, even while this section of the biblical commentaries does indeed consolidate points of Counter-Reformation polemic, it contains much else besides that would serve the preachers and pastors fostering the devotional life of the Christian faithful. Cajetan did not embark on biblical exegesis to refute the reformers. For one thing, it would not have been a very efficient strategy: how is that purpose served by verse-by-verse translations and commentaries on Chronicles, Leviticus, and Proverbs? Instead, his exegetical work was a contribution to a wider work of Church reform, addressing a range of ills that beset the Church and the 81 82 83

For the concessions of 1531, see above, p. 53; for the 1531 treatise, De communione, &c., adversus Lutheranos, see Cajetan Responds, pp. 205–206. Cited by Wicks in Cajetan Responds, p. 283, n. 2. See John W. O’Malley, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: Rhetoric, Doctrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, ca.1450–1521 (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1979), pp. 140, 146.

error, schism, and heresy

125

world. He offered a more accurate biblical text with a careful commentary as a means of identifying those ills and as one of the means of treating them: the Bible provided both diagnosis and medicine. Within his commentaries, Cajetan acknowledges issues raised by the reformers, insofar as they relate to the health of the Church in its head and members. However, when he wants to address Reformation issues directly, he chooses to do so in the form of dedicated treatises, unconstrained by the needs of a verse-by-verse translation and commentary. In such cases of disputed questions, he does not avoid using a phrase like adversos Lutheranos in the title. In such cases, he maintains a constructive and respectful approach, ‘well-mannered’,84 free from abuse, ‘calm and objective’.85 The difference of genres is not absolute: exegesis does find a place in Cajetan’s polemical writing. In his controversial treatises of the 1520s and 1530s, arguments based on scripture are given pride of place; and his treatise De fide et operibus adversus Lutheranos (On faith and works against the Lutherans, 1532) quite clearly benefits from the exegesis of Paul he had carried out a few years earlier.86 Indeed, as an experienced debater, he recognises that since his opponent values scriptural evidence above other kinds, then he should furnish his arguments with such evidence. It is therefore true that Cajetan wanted to show that the Bible supported Catholic rather than Protestant teaching on the Eucharist, penance, the papacy, and so on. This is evident above all in his adversos Lutheranos treatises. But it is not true of his biblical commentaries. So does polemic have no part in exegetical works? I have shown in this chapter that Cajetan does not shy away from correcting error and refuting heretics (especially Arius), where the text and context warrant it—where it would be useful for preachers to be suitably prepared. But again, for a systematic exposition of Cajetan’s Christology, one would need to take the scattered remarks in the biblical commentaries and place them alongside the more orderly commentary on the final part of Aquinas’s Summa.87 In the one place in his biblical commentaries where he does aim to tackle controversial issues in a more comprehensive way—his commentary on John 6—the result is dense and confusing. His basic premise, that John 6 is not about the Eucharist, is implausible 84 85 86 87

J.J. Scarisbrick, Henry viii (London and Berkeley, University of California Press, 1968), p. 166. Bagchi, Luther’s Earliest Opponents, p. 49. Cajetan Responds, p. 42. Nieden, Organum Deitatis; Michael O’Connor, ‘The Meritorious Human Life of Jesus: Renaissance Humanist Tendencies in the Thomism of Cardinal Cajetan’, New Blackfriars 81 (2000): pp. 285–296.

126

chapter 4

and forced and finds little support, even from those who appreciated his wider purpose. This is, in large part, a result of Cajetan’s particular history with the text rather than an organic development of the genre. More positively, Cajetan wanted to articulate doctrine, encourage virtue, and foster devotion, using the Bible as his main source. He wanted to ‘enkindle the minds of others towards the holy scriptures’.88 To meet this goal, he needed a method that would bring out the meaning of the biblical text in a dependable way. But before he could do that, he needed a text that was accurate. He had been persuaded that the Latin Bible used in prayer and study was not free of errors. If his teaching was to rest on solid foundations, he would have to subject the Latin text to critical comparison with the available Greek and Hebrew sources. For this, he did not hesitate to make use of the textual critical tools provided by humanist scholars. 88

Preface to Pentateuch, i, facing 1.

part 3 Method

∵

chapter 5

Correcting the Latin Text When Tommaso de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan, set out to produce biblical commentaries in the 1520s, he was associating himself with a thoroughly traditional practice, not least within his own Dominican order. Nevertheless, he proceeded in a manner that drew on the scholarly principles of his own day. The titles of his published works regularly mention not one but two undertakings: first, to correct the translation according to the original language sources; second, to comment on the corrected translation according to the literal sense.1 He had adopted the same method in his approach to Aristotle, basing his commentary on the best available Greek text and taking advice from those more skilled in the language than he was. Similarly, for his biblical exegesis, he drew on the work of those expert in Hebrew and Greek, Jews as well as Christians. He shared their assessment of the Latin text in use: the Vulgate contained errors and needed revising; this revision should be based on original language sources, supported by grammatical and philological learning. Though this task begins with single words and short phrases, it soon raises questions of authorship and the biblical canon. Cajetan’s consistent adoption of a critical approach, together with a remarkable reverence for the trilingual Jerome, leads him to make some unexpected choices.

The Word of God in Human Words Cajetan never questions the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible. The truth of scripture is absolute and free from error; it is truth in all its purity.2 In answer to the question how the sacred writer (of 2 Chronicles) knew

1 Examples of Cajetan’s titles: Psalmi Davidici ad Hebraicam veritatem castigati et iuxta sensum quem literalem dicunt enarrati; In quattuor Evangelia et Acta Apostolorum ad Graecorum codicum veritatem castigata ad sensum quem vocant literalem commentarii; Epistolae Pauli et aliorum apostolorum ad Graecam veritatem castigatae iuxta sensum literalem enarratae. 2 ‘De ipsa sanctorum scientia, quae divinae subiungit quantae sit veritatis, ac efficaciae, et sufficientiae et authoritatis. […] Universa dicta a Deo, qui dedit legem populo Israel, sunt tanquam purgata igne, nihil scoriarum habentia, sed veritatem puram retinentia’. On Prov 30.5, iii, 591b.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325098_007

130

chapter 5

that the prayer of the priests had reached God in heaven, he replies that the testimony of scripture is sufficient, the Spirit revealing the truth to the writer.3 The knowledge of all the sacred writers owed its reliability to the intervention of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit ensured that, in their teaching about Jesus, the apostles were never in error, neither through ignorance nor forgetfulness.4 This was a mature divine inspiration, not to be compared with the oracles of the sibyls.5 This truthfulness is not without complications. Cajetan himself raises questions about the accuracy of certain details in scriptural texts. In one case, he comes close to admitting a factual error on the part of Luke, who, uniquely, refers to King Agrippa i as ‘Herod’. The explanation is backed up with a lengthy excursus on the relative chronology of Roman emperors and Jewish kings. Nevertheless, Cajetan leaves the question open, not wanting to deny the possibility that Luke could have had a source for this usage in which Agrippa is also called Herod.6 In another case, he criticises ‘those Greeks’ who say that John corrected the synoptics concerning the timing of the Last Supper; he dismisses this explanation since, if one error is admitted in the gospels, then all scripture becomes unreliable.7 This sense of the inerrancy of scripture is paired in Cajetan’s thought with a keen recognition of the role of the human author. Divine inspiration does not replace the human author. For example, while David acknowledges that the Spirit speaks through him, by an internal prompting that breaks out into external speech, his words are nonetheless still his words. Cajetan suggests that 3 ‘Testimonium scripturae sat est; si quaeris quomodo cognitum est, respondeo quod Spiritus sanctus est auctor scripturae sacrae qui omnia novit et scriptori revelavit ex illa oratione Deum benedixisse populo’. On 2 Par 30.27, ii, 349a. 4 ‘Et hinc habes nullum errorem apostolos (sive ignorantia sive ex oblivione) potuisse incurrere circa doctrinam Iesu, circa evangelia scribenda aut approbanda’. On Jn 14.26, iv, 393a. 5 ‘[…] in Spiritu Sancto non in spiritu pythonico’. On Eph 3.5, v, 230a. 6 Agrippa i, the son of Herod the Great’s second son Aristobolus, is called ‘Herod’ only in Acts. ‘Unde autem Lucas ei Herodis nomen attribuerit, non invenio autentice’. On Acts 12.1, iv, 454b. A second Agrippa appears later: ‘Filius fuit Agrippae regis quem Lucas appellavit Herodem’. On Acts 25.13, iv, 479b. 7 ‘Ad hoc dicitur posthabita responsione illorum Graecorum qui correctos asserunt alios evangelistas a Ioanne, quoniam si unum falsum in evangelio admittitur, perit certa fides reliquorum, perit fides totius sacrae scripturae’. On Jn 13.1, iv, 381a. Cajetan is reproducing a claim of Aquinas: ‘Ad quod quidem Graeci respondent dicentes, alios Evangelistas non vere narrasse hoc factum, et ideo Ioannes, qui ultimum Evangelium scripsit, eos correxit’, Super Evangelium Sancti Ioannis Lectura, chapter 13, lectio 1; I have been unable to identify the ‘Greeks’ in question.

correcting the latin text

131

the human author exercises a role of subordinate co-authorship: David is a genuine author of the words (‘author dictorum’); the Holy Spirit is the principal author (‘principalis author eorundem’).8 (The characteristics of different human authors of scripture will be examined in chapter 6.) Such an approach excludes the option of reading the Bible ahistorically: Cajetan readily concedes that these texts, which arose in particular historical contexts, from the pens of distinct and differently gifted individuals, have reached us by means of a long and arduous human history. He does not worry that some of the sacred books have come down to us in mutilated fashion: for example, many of the original three thousand ‘parables’ of Solomon have been lost, perhaps through the decay of manuscripts. The book of Proverbs as we have it now is clearly a reconstruction. Nor does he seem to be too concerned that some writings of the prophets have been lost altogether.9 Even the gospels and the epistles of Paul are not entirely intact. The ending of Mark seems to have been damaged, while Paul’s letter to the Laodicaeans, which he mentions when writing to the Colossians, has never been found at all, nor the letter that was actually Paul’s first to the Corinthians (Cajetan evidently does not accept as authentic the edition of the letter to the Laodicaeans published by Lefèvre).10 Thus Cajetan’s view of the Bible as God’s inspired revelation is qualified by a sense of historical vicissitudes: the text that we have has not been unaffected by processes of human authorship, historical transmission, and decay. And if this is true for the ‘originals’, how much more so for translations.

8

9

10

‘Ut subiuncta dicta intelligamus dicta quidem esse hominis, sed inspiratione divina dicta. Quemadmodum ergo in apostolis Spiritus Sanctus in die Pentecoste datus locutus est, ita et in Davide […]. Non solum interna locutio Spiritus Sancti in eo describitur, sed etiam quod illa interna locutio prodit extra in exteriori sermone’. On 2Kings 23.2, ii, 169a. Compare A.J. Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship (2nd edn., Aldershot: Wildwood, 1988), pp. 73–84. ‘[…] quoniam multos libros prophetarum non haberi qui forte tempore quo Iesus erat in terra habebantur, apparet ex libro Paralip. ubi fit mentio librorum Nathan, Gad, Ahiae, Addo, Semeiae et Ozai’. On Jn 7.38, iv, 343b. For other lost books, see on Josh 10.13, ii, 16b; on 3Kings 11.41, ii, 203b; on 3 Kings 14.19, ii, 208b; on Eph 5.14, v, 239b. On Mk 16, see below; on Col 4.16, v, 274a; see also on 2Thess 3.17, v, 290b, where Cajetan assumes the ending of Colossians to have been lost since the authentic greeting from Paul is incomplete. For Lefèvre’s edition of Laodiceans, see Commentarii pauli, p. 188r.

132

chapter 5

Error in Translation and the Authority of the Original Languages In the titles of his works, Cajetan acknowledges that he is correcting the Vulgate. In a few introductory passages, most notably on his commentary on the Psalms, he gives an account of the methods he will use and the goals he is pursuing. Cajetan invites Pope Clement vii to accept his first commentaries, those on the Psalms (1524–1527), together with the accompanying biblical text which he has corrected against the Hebrew.11 Unlike a number of his contemporaries, he had no qualms admitting that the Vulgate contained errors and was in need of revision; indirectly, therefore, he ruled out the view that it was in some way inspired. In the lengthy introduction, he speaks of his dissatisfaction with the edition in current use, indeed with all available editions, explaining how he has taken upon himself the laborious task of producing a new translation more faithful to the Hebrew.12 The need for a reliable, word for word, translation is fundamental, otherwise exegesis simply becomes guesswork.13 Cajetan’s sense of urgency is indicated by the fact that he has embarked on this project immediately, even though his linguistic skills are lacking. He chose to employ expert assistants rather than to delay and improve his own knowledge of ancient language.14 The exegetical enterprise is conceived as a corporate work and this goes some way to excusing Cajetan’s temerity. Nevertheless, his commentaries seem to have fulfilled a need. After completing the commentary on the Psalms at Easter 1527, Cajetan says that he bowed to pressure from others and commenced writing commentaries on the New Testament.15

11

12

13

14

15

‘Accipe itaque illa, qualiacunque sunt, cum textu ad Hebraicam veritatem castigato’. Psalmi Davidici ad Hebraicam veritatem castigati et iuxta sensum quem literalem dicunt ennarati (Venice: Giunta, 1530), Dedication, fol. vii verso. ‘Divinorum Psalmorum Librum iuxta literalem sensum cum incepissem exponere, comperi nullum apud nos haberi textum talem, qualis est in sua origine, lingua scilicet Hebraea’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 1a. ‘Fuit autem tanti laboris necessitas, quia nisi textus adsit qualis est in sua origine, iam non textus exponitur, nisi divinando, sed exponitur textus ut intellectus est ab illo interprete’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 1b. ‘Haec de Hebraea lingua dixi expers literarum Hebraearum: ut cognoscatur ab omnibus quantum nobis deest puri textus Hebraei in Testamenti veteris scripturis, et detur opera ad habendum textum purum’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3b. Cajetan’s Hebrew and Greek assistants will be discussed below. ‘Postquam divina favente gratia exposuimus psalterium ad literam, intendimus multorum precibus acquiescentes novum testamentum etiam ad literam exponere’. On Mt, Intro, iv, 1a.

correcting the latin text

133

Once again, he notes the unreliability of the Vulgate and declares his readiness to benefit from the scholarship of those learned in Greek and Latin. His intention is to explain the genuine text, not a translation. In correcting the text he has not been over-fastidious. However, with the text of John’s gospel (1528) and the letter to the Romans (1528), he has been most thorough, because of the difficulty of the matters they treat.16 By the time he wrote the preface to his commentary on the Pentateuch (1530 or 1531), his adopted methods were in dispute. Defending the practice of correcting the Vulgate, he affirms the principle that no translation, not even those as revered as the Vulgate or the Septuagint, enjoys the authority of the original.17 With this statement, Cajetan was taking sides in a debate that, at one time or another, had involved many of the leading scholars of the day.18 Cajetan says no more about these two venerable editions; he does not comment on the origin or subsequent history of the Vulgate. He does refer to it as Jerome’s version, though extremely rarely and this perhaps is only a conventional usage.19 Otherwise, he is more circumspect: it is more usually the editio vulgata, or the work of the antiquus interpres.20 Cajetan shows no reluctance in pointing out errors in translation.21 He complains that while some difficulties encountered by the reader result from the original language text, many have been introduced by the translator.22 Names

16

17

18

19 20

21 22

‘Et quia vulgata editio totius novi testamenti quandoque minus fida est, et nos non interpres, sed verum textum intendimus exponere, ideo adhibuimus studium nostrum ut textus corrigentes iudicio peritorum in utraque lingua. Quod ubique facimus quando sententiae diversitas esset. Ubi autem eadem est sententia, pertransimus, nisi apud Ioannis evangelium et epistolam ad Romanos; propter arduam enim utriusque materiam exactius studuimus correctioni literae’. On Mt, Intro, iv, 1b. ‘Intendo autem iuxta Hebraicam veritatem textum exponere ubi diversa occurrerit sententia in vulgata editione et Hebraico textu. Nam ipsius Mosis textus, non interpres eius exponendus est. Non enim interpretis Graeci, aut Latini, sed ipsius tantum Hebraei textus authoritas est, quam complecti cogimur et complectimur fideles omnes’. Preface to Pentateuch, i, facing 1. See Erika Rummel, The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1995), pp. 100–107; Richard Rex, The Theology of John Fisher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 148–161. ‘[…] ut Hieronymus interpretatus est’. On Gen 3.12, i, 28b. For example, vulgata editio: on Gen 14.2, i, 64b; on Lev 5.3, i, 283b; on Num 24.14, i, 404b; on Josh 5.7, ii, 8a; On Judg 6.24, ii, 47a; on Jn 14.24, iv, 392b. Antiquus intepres: on Ex 2.1, i, 155a; on 2Cor 2.8, v, 157a; Cajetan also uses both together, on Job 13.15, ii, 448b. ‘Patet enim in primis manifestus error in vulgata editione’. On Num 24.14, i 404b; also on Jn 14.24, iv, 392b. ‘[…] vel quia obscure traditur, vel quia secus interpretes eam reddiderunt’. On Josh 1.1, ii, 1a.

134

chapter 5

pose a particular problem and commentators are warned against fabricating etymologies based on names that the Vulgate has wrongly transcribed.23 In one case, a negative in Hebrew has become a positive in the Vulgate, completely reversing the meaning.24 In some cases, the translator has not gone far enough: diabolus, apostolus, and paraclitus are simply transcriptions of the Greek.25 In others, the translator has overstepped the limits of his task, assuming the role of an editor (tightening up on the prolixity of the original), or even of a commentator (giving an explanation, rather than a translation, of the text).26 He notices the translator’s weakness for certain phrases, even when they are inaccurate translations of the Hebrew.27 The translator’s task, he insists, is first and only to translate the text as it stands, even if he cannot make any sense of it himself.28 Cajetan employed Hebrew specialists to assist him in developing a new translation of the Psalms and they were not immune from the temptation to tamper with the text. He relates their words to him: though the Hebrew says one thing, it makes no sense unless it is changed to another. Cajetan reports his rebuke to them: your job is to translate, not to commentate; you are to supply the text as it stands, however obscure it may be; and if I am unable to explain it, someone else will.29 For Cajetan, the translators are not required to grasp the

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

E.g., where the Vulgate has Aioth he writes, ‘Corruptum est vocabulum. Nam Hebraice vocatur Ehud. Sed innumerae sunt huiusmodi corruptiones’. On Judg 3.15, ii, 40a. On etymologies, see e.g., on Gen 14.2, i, 64b. ‘Cernis hic prudens lector quam contraria veritati sit quandoque vulgata editio. Nam oppositum habet Hebraica litera et sensum quadrantem libris Mosis’. On Josh 5.6, ii, 8a. On Jn 6.71, v, 338b; Jn 13.16, iv, 383b and on Jn 14.16, iv, 390a. ‘Nimis studuit brevitati interpres. Nam Hebraice diffuse scribitur […]’ On Num 16.18, i, 379b. ‘Interpres in vulgata editione expositoris assumpsit officium in his duabus legibus, et multo amplius in sequenti. Transtulit enim non iuxta Hebraicam veritatem sed prout ipse opinatus est intelligi’. On Ex 36.3, i, 267a. ‘Amicum valde fuit interpreti verbum noli; infinities enim illud apponit ubi non habetur’. On 1Kings 28.13, ii, 125a. Also, ‘Amicum fuit valde interpreti verbum noli; saepe enim ex propria officina illud addit’. On Gen 46.3, i, 142b. Similar examples include: ‘Scito prudens lector quod infinities interpres loco fuit ponit factum est, et similiter infinities loco sic ponit haec, sed fere semper pertransimus quia non variatur sententia’. On 2Kings 8.1, ii, 144b. In one long passage an adverb is changed for a pronoun, ‘non semel, aut saepe, sed infinities’. On 4 Kings 9.12, ii, 244a. ‘Perpende hinc, prudens lector, quanti refert exponere textum interpretatum sensu interpretis, vel interpretatum ut iacet in Hebraeo, quamvis interpres nesciat sensum’. On Gen 16.13, i, 73b. ‘Testor ego quod inter hos labores dicebatur mihi ab interpretibus, Dictio Hebraica sonat

correcting the latin text

135

meaning of every word they translate; their job is, first of all, to realise in Latin a Psalter that resembles, word for word, the Psalter of the Hebrews, with none of the obscurities glossed over. Cajetan does not reserve his criticisms for the translator of the Vulgate. On occasion, he accuses all the available translations of having failed to render the full meaning of a text; and on another text, advised by Hebraei doctores, he complains about additions made by the translators of the Septuagint (compounded by copyists errors).30 Faced with such dissatisfying options, Cajetan saw no alternative than to correct the Vulgate himself (or, in the case of the Psalter, produce a brand new translation altogether).

Sources Cajetan gives very limited information about which Greek and Hebrew texts he is using and he is very sparing in his attributions of textual variants and alternative translations. There is no discussion of manuscript sources, their provenance or relative value; he makes a number of references to ‘codices’, but these are always unspecified. In almost all New Testament cases, corresponding observations, often more detailed, are to be found in the commentaries of Lefèvre or the Annotationes of Erasmus (although he never names them).31

30

31

hoc, sed non apparet sensus nisi mutetur in hoc alterum. Respondebam ego auditis omnibus significationibus, Non sit vobis curae si sensus non apparet, quia non est vestri officii exponere, sed interpretare: interpretamini mihi sicut iacet, et relinquatis expositoribus curam intelligendi textum sic obscurum. Si ego non intellexero, alius intelliget. Sic quod curavi ut de verbo ad verbum textum haberem Psalterii, qualem habent Habraei: utinam assecutus sim’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 1b. ‘Adverte prudens lector quod nullum interpretem invenio contextem sequentem redidisse iuxta Hebraicam veritatem’. On Josh 23.4, ii, 29b. ‘Ubicunque in hac quarta plaga legis omne genus muscarum, seu muscas diversi generis, seu musca gravissima, et breviter muscas, ex officina interpretum scito legi. Nam in Hebraeo textu nullum animal nominatur, sed duntaxat mixtura. Aiunt Septuaginta interpretes introduxisse genus muscarum, et vitio scriptorum introducta cynomias, hoc est, muscas caninas’. On Ex 8.21, i, 171a. E.g., ‘nonnulli Graeci codices habent non maior sed maius, rectior […]’. On Mt 12.6, iv, 59a. This example corresponds to a note of Erasmus on the same verse (Reeve, i, p. 56). On Mt 27.34, iv, 125b, Cajetan notes that it is not clear whether Matthew wrote vinum or acetum, ‘propter diversitatem codicum’. This again corresponds to Erasmus (Reeve, i, p. 108). On Mt 27.35, iv, 125b, he notes that a prophecy has been inserted into Matthew’s text, because it cannot be found ‘in multis codicibus’, again, echoing Erasmus (Reeve, i, p. 109). On Jn 6.70, iv, 337b, where Cajetan wonders whether the words of Peter should include vivi and

136

chapter 5

The only manuscript Cajetan names is a ‘Latin codex’, for which he gives no further identification and which he cites only to correct.32 In a couple of cases, he notes that the Vulgate Old Testament has appropriated into the body of the text a marginal correction, attributed, ‘so the Hebrews say’, to Ezra.33 This affirmation need not presuppose consultation of manuscripts: one of the Hebrews in question was Elias Levita, whose writings on the formation of the Hebrew Bible were published in Cajetan’s time.34 One particular text detains him longer than usual, the so-called ‘Johannine comma’: ‘[There are three witnesses] in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one. And these are three that give testimony on earth’ (1Jn 5.8). The manuscript evidence, though scant, was fiercely contested throughout the early decades of the sixteenth century and the resulting confusion was compounded in print. Erasmus omitted this passage from the first two editions of his Annotationes (1516, 1519), restoring it in the third edition only under protest (1522) and with a long accompanying note detailing his misgivings. The Complutensian editors, who included the passage in both the Greek and the Latin columns of the New Testament Polyglot, appear to have produced their Greek text by translating from the Vulgate.35 Cajetan notes that the Greek codices are not unanimous, but he stops short of passing judgment on them. Nevertheless, his sympathies appear to lie with Erasmus’s initial position: he does not allow this verse, traditionally an important proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity, to add anything to his exegesis of the passage as a whole.36

32

33 34

35

36

so resemble the speech made at Caesarea Philippi (Mt 16.16), he remarks that the codices do not agree; in choosing to retain the word, he is following a reading offered by Lefèvre (Initiatoria quatuor evangelia, fol. dxl). In one case, Jerome’s opinion is noted, on 1Cor 15.51, v, 147b. ‘Non enim legendum est (ut Latinus codex habet), oves quoque, sed, ovesque et boves’. On Jn 2.15, iv, 299a. This corresponds to the more accurate reading of the Greek suggested by Erasmus, although Erasmus makes no mention of any codices at this point (Reeve, i, p. 233). Cajetan’s ‘Latin codex’ and the Vulgate have the same wording, oves quoque. ‘Et aiunt Hebraei existimari quod Esdras apposuit in marginibus huiusmodi diversitates’. On Prov 4.3, iii, 516b; on Job 13.15, ii, 448b. See Joseph T. Leinhard, The Bible, the Church and Authority: The Canon of the Christian Bible in History and Theology (Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 1995), p. 69. On Levita, see above, p. 38. H.J. de Jonge, ‘Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 (1980): pp. 381–389; Jerry Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 95–96, 152–153. ‘Si haec verba sunt de textu, afferuntur ad manifestandum quod dictum est quod spiritus

correcting the latin text

137

On other occasions, Cajetan argues more strongly the case for the acknowledgement and correction of scribal errors. However, a close inspection of the attribution of such errors suggests that his conclusions do not follow from a purely philological examination of the letters on the page. He never argues from a comparison of different textual sources. Rather, his motivation appears to be the theologian’s desire to avoid ascribing error or inconsistency to scripture. For example, what appears to be a shortcoming in Paul’s knowledge, either of history or of mathematics, is explained as a copyist’s error;37 the name Michal should be corrected to Merab, since what is said can only be verified of Merab (he hopes to spare the reader the error he made himself in his commentary on Ps 120);38 and in order to harmonise the gospel accounts concerning the hour of the crucifixion, it is necessary for Cajetan to claim that the ‘third hour’ of Mk 15.25 is mistakenly copied (‘credimus errore scriptorum’)— the text should read ‘sixth hour’, as in John’s account (Cajetan’s observation that three and six look very similar in Greek echoes Erasmus’s remarks on the same passage).39 In one case, Cajetan argues at uncustomary length that where scribal errors have been carried over into liturgical books, these should be corrected. This is to be done on the authority of the gospel itself: the text of scripture may not to be altered on the authority of a slip of the pen, however ancient.40

37 38

39

40

est veritas. Dixi autem, si sunt de textu, quoniam non inveniuntur in omnibus codicibus Graecis, sed in aliquibus. Unde autem ista diversitas processerit nescimus’. On 1Jn 5.7, v, 397rb. On Acts 13.20, iv, 457a. According to Cajetan’s calculations, taking account of 1Kings 6.1, the text should read 350 years, not 450 years. On 2Kings 21.8, ii, 166b. Cajetan is particularly solicitous to spare his readers the same mistake he himself made: ‘Vitio itaque scriptorum error nominis est. Et tu prudens lector hoc annotabis, ne falleris, sicut ego quoque falsus fui super Psalmum, Ad Dominum, cum tribularer, citando hunc textum ut iacet’. See on Ps 120.5, iii, 427a. ‘Mutati sunt characteres sexti in tertium. Sunt enim parum differentes in Graeco’. On Jn 19.14, iv, 418b; on Mk 15.25, iv, 166b. For Erasmus’s comments on Mk 15.25, on the way numbers are written in Greek, see Reeve, i, p. 146. Aquinas was aware of this explanation, which he notes without further comment: st iii, 46, 9, ad 2. ‘Corruptus est textus Latinus, non ab interprete, sed a nescio quo. […] Ita quod non est adverbium sic, sed coniunctio conditionalis si. Et ita quilibet debet non solum [non?] legere in Ecclesia, sed delere de proprio codice sic. Et hoc authoritate Evangelicae quia non est mutandus sensus textus Evangelici propter inveteratum errorem scriptorum’. On Jn 21.22, iv, 429a. Cajetan here concurs with Erasmus who also calls it a scribal error (Reeve, i, pp. 268–270). Cajetan also suggests amendments to the liturgical psalters, on Ps 136, Intro, iii, 456a.

138

chapter 5

Cajetan’s use of primary sources is thus limited and probably second-hand. There are no clear signs that he worked directly with manuscripts himself; it is quite probable that his knowledge of these sources came through the publications of others (especially during his sojourn in Gaeta between 1527 and 1529), and in the vast majority of cases he appears to have been content to rely on their judgment. As with original language texts, so with translations: Cajetan never names the resources he uses. The clearest detail is found in the introduction to the commentary on the Psalms. Here he lists the books he gathered together: Jerome’s translation of the Psalter from the Hebrew, the Septuagint, four modern translations direct from the Hebrew, and a number of Hebrew dictionaries. Previous research has yielded helpful results regarding the identity of the printed resources Cajetan and his secretaries used. Artur Allgeier has collected evidence showing that, for the Psalter, Cajetan made use of the versions of Felix de Prato, Agostino Giustiniani, and Santi Pagnini. Furthermore, Allgeier notes that in Cajetan’s discussion of Psalm 44, his references to the Targum (an Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew scriptures) have been lifted almost verbatim from Giustiniani’s polyglot.41 Von Gunten concurs, suggesting, in addition, that Cajetan would certainly have been aware of the Complutensian Polyglot.42 Another possible Latin translation of the Psalms ‘from the Hebrew’ is that of Lefèvre.43 Cajetan and his secretaries had, therefore, a considerable wealth of material to draw upon: texts in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and a variety of new Latin translations, together with a store of rabbinic exegesis and comment. Nevertheless, von Gunten cautions against trying to find direct correspondences, stressing that Cajetan’s translation is no mere conflation of the work of others, but an original and independent-minded piece of work.44

41

42

43

44

Artur Allgeier, ‘Les commentaires de Cajétan sur les Psaumes. Contribution à l’histoire de l’exégèse avant le Concile de Trente’, in Revue Thomiste 39 (1934/35): pp. 410–443, here pp. 416–417, 425. On these scholars, see chapter 2. A.F. von Gunten, ‘La contribution des “Hébreux” à l’oeuvre exégétique de Cajétan’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 46–83, at pp. 62–63, 66–67. The five Latin versions in the Quincuplex Psalterium included Lefèvre’s own (the conciliatum), though this perhaps was made not directly from the Hebrew but by conflating the other four. Bedouelle estimates that Lefèvre’s facility with Hebrew was probably quite elementary, remarking that he was not slow to seek advice from colleagues more expert in the language; see Guy Bedouelle, Le Quincuplex Psalterium de Lefèvre d’Etaples. Guide de lecture (Geneva: Droz, 1979), pp. 49–53, 74–78. A.F. von Gunten, ‘La contribution des “Hébreux” ’, pp. 66–67, n. 41.

correcting the latin text

139

Cajetan usually makes corrections without attribution or acknowledgment. The likely influence of Erasmus and Lefèvre d’Etaples on Cajetan’s New Testament exegesis has been clearly demonstrated by Jacques-Marie Vosté. In a more recent comparative study of one passage from Matthew’s gospel, Jean-Pierre Delville found that all of Cajetan’s amendments to that passage matched those of Erasmus.45 Cajetan never mentions the names of exegetes whose work he has consulted, but in a few cases he refers to interpretes moderni and in these cases Erasmus and Lefèvre are plausible sources.46 It may be possible to say more about Cajetan’s familiarity with Erasmus’s Annotationes. The five editions are dated 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535. Cajetan began his New Testament commentaries in Rome shortly before the Sack in May 1527 and completed them in Gaeta in August 1529. At most, he could have had access to the first, second, and third editions of Erasmus and, for at least part of the time, the fourth. Regarding matters of translation, there is more evidence of familiarity with the earlier editions (1516 and 1519) than with the later (1522 and 1527). This is true for the examples cited above. In another case, Cajetan appears to take up a suggestion offered by Erasmus in 1516, while ignoring a note about another word in the same verse, added in 1522.47 Where he appears to concur with suggestions made by Erasmus only from 1522 onwards,48 these amendments

45

46

47 48

Jacques-Marie Vosté, ‘Cardinalis Cajetanus Sacrae Scripturae interpres’, Angelicum 11 (1934): pp. 446–513, here pp. 465–472. Jean-Pierre Delville, L’Europe de l’exégèse au xvie siècle: interprétations de la parabole des ouvriers à la vigne, Matthieu 20, 1–16 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), p. 275. Cajetan: ‘[…] interpretes moderni ignominiam, seu contemptum seu inhonorationem interpretantur’ (on 2Cor 6.8, v, 174b); Erasmus: ‘ignominiam sive contemptum’ (Reeve, ii, p. 541); Lefèvre: ‘inhonorationem’ (Commentarii D. Pauli Epistolarum, Paris: 1512, fol. 27ra, sect. 27). Cajetan: ‘[…] moderni interpretantur resumite’ (On 2Cor 2.8, v, 157a); Lefèvre: ‘resumite’ (Commentarii Pauli, fol. 255ra, sect. 10). In one case, Cajetan notes that the Greek is ‘mutilated’ and then gives a literal translation; he complains that none of the translations consulted represents the Greek closely enough: ‘Nullus interpres quem viderim interpretatus est textum Pauli ut iacet, eo quod mutilus apparet. Iacet enim sic: Num aliquem eorum quem misi ad vos, per hunc circumveni vos? Primum enim particula mutila manifeste est, sed intentus sensus habetur’ (on 2 Cor 12.17, v, 197b); on this text, neither Lefèvre nor Erasmus is as literal as Cajetan (Reeve, ii, p. 563; Commentarii Pauli, fol. 31ra, sect. 67). Comparing Reeve, i, p. 97 with Cajetan on Mt 24.32, iv, 110b. Comparing Reeve, i, p. 233 with Cajetan on Jn 3.5, iv, 301a; and Reeve, i, p. 241 with Cajetan on Jn 6.28, iv, 328b.

140

chapter 5

are quite straightforward (words missing, tenses wrong) and could easily have been established directly from the examination of a Greek text. In Cajetan’s comments and explanations, the influence of earlier editions (1516 and 1519) is much more easily identified than that of later editions (1522 and 1527). His attitude to the ‘Johannine comma’ has already been noted. On the Angel Gabriel’s greeting to Mary (Lk 1.28), Cajetan’s translation reflects Erasmus’s of 1516, where he suggested that gratia plena (‘full of grace’) be replaced with the neologism gratificata (‘gracified’). In 1519, among other additions, Erasmus reported Origen’s observation that this greeting is unique in the whole of scripture. This too is echoed by Cajetan, though without the attribution to Origen. In 1522, responding to criticisms of gratificata, Erasmus offered gratiosa (‘gracious’) as an alternative.49 While Cajetan uses gratiosa facta (‘made gracious’) throughout, he does so in a distinctive way that is not easily derived from Erasmus. Furthermore, apologising for an earlier use of the word in the active form, Cajetan lays much greater stress than does Erasmus on its passive form, seeing in this a sign of the initiative of God by which Mary is made gratiosa.50 Likewise, Cajetan’s consideration of the translation of the Greek logos (Jn 1.1) is evidently inspired by Erasmus’s simple observation in 1516 that there are many possible alternatives to verbum (word).51 Sermo (‘discourse’) was Erasmus’s preferred translation and the one he defended at considerable length in controversial works and in the 1522 edition (and subsequent editions) of the

49 50

51

Reeve, i, pp. 154–155. ‘Ubi adverte quod nusquam alias invenitur in sacra scriptura angelum huiusmodi salutationis verbo usum fuisse. Reservata siquidem est haec angelica veneratio beatae virgini. Gratia plena. In Graeco habetur una sola dictio quae est participium praeteriti temporis passivum, quam interpres carens vocabulo Latino exposuit. Potuisset tamen fingi gratificata. Hoc enim passive acceptum significat dictio Graeca, quod Latine dicitur gratiosa facta. Et significatur per hoc quod erat facta gratiosa, eo solito loquendi genere quo personam multum dilectam ab aliquo dicimus gratiosam illi, seu apud illum. Salutavit siquidem angelus virginem non solum gratiosam (hoc est acceptam, placentem et dilectam) sed effectam gratiosam, ut donum Dei significaretur quo reddita est gratiosa. Non enim ex seipsa erit gratiosa, sed ex divinae gratiae dono effecta erat gratiosa. Et propterea interpres non falso exposuit gratia plena, sed explicavit illud quo effecta est gratiosa. Ex plenitudine enim donorum divinae gratiae in ipsa, effecta est gratiosa. […] Et recole quod proprie loquendo gratiosi nomen passive intelligitur, non active, quamvis in psalterio novo coacti fuerimus usurpare illud active. Nam proprie significat eum non qui facit gratiam, sed qui acceptus est apud alios, qui vulgariter dicitur habere apud alios gratiam’. On Lk 1.28, iv, 177a. Erasmus offers verbum, oratio, sermo, ratio, modum, supputatio, even liber.

correcting the latin text

141

Annotationes.52 Most of Cajetan’s note concerns the relative merits of verbum and ratio; sermo is dealt with very briefly.53 The conjecture that the 1519 edition was probably the latest edition consulted by Cajetan finds explicit support in one rare instance when Cajetan cites an authority. On Gal 4.24–25, Cajetan reports that, according to Vulgarius, Mount Sinai is known in Arabic as Hagar.54 Preparing his annotations, Erasmus had made use of a pair of manuscripts (one containing the gospels, the other St. Paul’s epistles) bearing the name Vulgarius Archiepiscopus. In 1516 and 1519, whenever he gives a reading from this source, he attributes it to Vulgarius. In the 1522 edition, however, all of these attributions are corrected to Theophylactus, a reference to Theophylact, the eleventh-century bishop of Achrydas in Bulgaria (whence Vulgarius). Erasmus excused his error with the complaint that the manuscript was so damaged that the author’s name was illegible.55 The reference to Sinai, absent from the 1516 edition, was added in 1519 and attributed to Vulgarius in that edition only. A reference to Vulgarius also occurs in the Ientacula; here again, the corresponding note from Erasmus’s, absent in 1516, was new in 1519, and corrected in all subsequent editions.56 The 1519 edition, or some other text derived from it, was the edition that Cajetan must have consulted in these cases at least. Even if he was not limited to this edition, he certainly seems

52

53

54 55 56

A considerable section of the Apologia de In principio erat sermo (published c. 1520; see lb ix, 111–112) was inserted into the Annotationes in 1522 (Reeve, i, 218–220). See C.A.L. Jarrott, ‘Erasmus’ In Principio Erat Sermo: A Controversial Translation’, in Studies in Philology 61 (1964): pp. 35–40; Henri Gibaud, ‘In Principio erat Sermo (Érasme)’, in Henri Gibaud (ed.), Les Problèmes d’ Expression Dans La Traduction Biblique (Angers: Université Catholique de l’ Ouest, 1988), pp. 97–105. ‘Et quia dictio Graeca hic posita significat verbum, sermonem et rationem, et sermo species est verbi (nam est verbum constans ex simplicibus verbis) magis quadrat proposito verbum quam sermo. Compositum enim minus quadrat quam abstrahens a compositione. At si interpres sicut transtulit verbum transtulisset ratio (dicendo, In principio erat ratio) non errasset, immo propinquiori vocabulo usus fuisset, quoniam ratio non nisi intelligibilis genus est, verbum autem per translationem ab sensibilibus intelligibile genus ingreditur. Consulto tamen credimus amplexam haec fuisse significationem et verbi potius quam rationis nomine uteremur in proposito, quia explicatur verbi nomine ordo originis, qui non explicatur nomine rationis. Verbum enim intelligi nequit nisi a dicente, ratio autem intelligitur ratio, absque hoc quod intelligitur excogitata’. On Jn 1.1, iv, 279b–280a. ‘Ait Vulgarius quod mons Sina Arabum lingua nuncupatur Agar’. On Gal 4.24–25, v, 213b. lb ix, 311. See Erika Rummel, Erasmus’s Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), p. 67. ‘Nam apud Vulgarium legitur, praedestinatus, et apud Originem, destinatus’. Ientacula ii.1, v, 419b. See Reeve, ii, pp. 336–337.

142

chapter 5

to have used it in January 1524 in Hungary when he composed the Ientacula and in January 1529 in Gaeta when he composed his commentary on Galatians.57 As has already been noted, Cajetan did not work alone. For his commentary on the Psalms, completed in Rome at Easter 1527, he enlisted the assistance of two secretaries, both experts in Hebrew: one a Christian and the other a Jew, a teacher of Hebrew.58 There is no indication of their identity. Giberti’s possible Bible translation project, together with that of Clement vii, suggests that a number of Hebrew scholars, Jewish and Christian, were active in Rome in the 1520s.59 Regarding Cajetan’s later Old Testament commentaries (1530– 1534), also composed in Rome, we can only assume that he employed expert assistants once again, though he does not say so explicitly. The name of one scholar who assisted Cajetan on the Greek of the New Testament is known: Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda.60 He was a translator of ancient Greek works and a correspondent (not always friendly) with Erasmus. In 1523, he was commissioned by Cardinal Giulio de’Medici (very soon to be Clement vii) to translate Alexander of Aphrodisias’s commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Sepúlveda was in Rome at the time of the Sack in May 1527. As Cajetan retreated to his home town and episcopal see of Gaeta, Sepúlveda went a little further on to Naples. Cajetan had by now commenced work on his New Testament commentaries, which he would complete before returning to Rome (1527–1529). By

57

58

59 60

Von Gunten seems to have overlooked the reference to Vulgarius, ‘La contribution des “Hébreux”’, pp. 47, n. 3; it is most unlikely that there is another source for this attribution. Early on in the commentary on the Psalms, commenced in the year he wrote the Ientacula, Cajetan seeks support for a textual argument from commentators on Paul (‘testantur expositores epistolae Pauli’), on Ps 14, Intro, iii, 49a; Cajetan’s reading concurs with that of Erasmus, Reeve, ii, p. 358. ‘Et propterea assumpta illa, quae nomine B. Hieronymi circumfertur interpretatione iuxta Hebraicam veritatem, et collata cum ea quae circumfertur nomine lxx Interpretum, et cum quatuor aliis modernis interpretationibus ex Hebraeo immediate, adhibui duos linguam Hebraeam scientes, alterum Hebraeum, magistrum linguae illius, alterum Christianum, cum pluribus vocabulariis linguae illius: et coram me […] feci per singula verba vocatam Beati Hieronymi interpretationem reduci ad respondendum Hebraeo textui de verbo ad verbum’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 1a. A.F. von Gunten, ‘La contribution des “Hébreux” ’, p. 67, n. 42. He became a combatant against Dominicans on the rights of the American Indians and Spain; see cwe, Contemps, 3, pp. 240–242; Kenneth Gouwens, Remembering the Renaissance: Humanist Narratives of the Sack of Rome (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 36–39; Gustavo Gutiérrez, Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ, trans. Robert R. Barr (Maryknoll, ny: Orbis, 1993), p. 522, n. 51, which notes Sepúlveda’s attempt to refute Cajetan’s classification of unbelievers.

correcting the latin text

143

summer 1528, Naples was under siege and close to famine. Sepúlveda tells us that small boats were able to reach Naples from Gaeta and that Cajetan sent for him and brought him safely to Gaeta. Sepúlveda stayed with Cajetan for some time, as his Greek assistant, while he worked on his New Testament commentaries. He underlines his usefulness to the cardinal who, he says, knew no Greek.61 The fact that almost all references to ‘modern translators’ occur in the commentaries on the epistles (while there is none in the gospel commentaries) may be connected to Sepúlveda’s time in Gaeta.62 The identities of other Greek or Hebrew assistants remain unknown. However, as Grendler notes, published editions of the the first half of the commentaries (Ientacula, Psalms, and New Testament commentaries) acknowledge the contribution of Jean Danielo, a member of Cajetan’s household ( familaris) and a student of his (alumnus). Danielo was a bachelor of theology who held benefices in Tours and was employed in the Roman curia (in the Sacred Penitentiary). He is said to have ‘carefully revised and corrected’, or ‘diligently reviewed’ the commentaries—which may indicate a role in the editing and proof reading stages.63

Method of Translation In his biblical commentaries, Cajetan presents his translation in two different ways. In the commentary on the Psalter, his first major exegetical work, he offers his own complete translation of each psalm, below (or alongside) the Vulgate translation. This is then followed by the commentary (commentarium), which 61

62 63

‘Nam cymbae et scaphae quotidie fere, his invitis, ex Cajeta profectae portum intrabant. Ad quam urbem ego tunc temporis aderam cum Thoma Vio Cardinali, viro singulari religione et theologica doctrina claro. Nam post urbis Romae direptionem is Cajetam urbem patriam, cujus etiam ecclesiae antistes erat, ego Neapolim me receperam, unde ab ipso studiorum gratia inter initia belli hujus sum evocatus, ut ex sacra Novi Testamenti scriptura, quam scripto tunc enarrabat, obscura et ancipitia loca ad normam me adhibito (nec enim ipse Graece noverat) dirigeret ac explanaret’. De rebus gestis Caroli v, libri xxx, liber 8, §16 (in Joannis Genesii Sepulvedae Opera, 1780, 4 vols.), vol. 1, p. 256, cited in Aubrey F.G. Bell, Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. Historic Notes and Monographs. Essays, Studies, and Brief Biographies Issued by the Hispanic Society of America, 9 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925), pp. 66–67. See note 46 above. Paul F. Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism and the Papacy, 1515–1535’, in Erika Rummel (ed.), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus (Leiden: Brill, 2008), p. 256.

144

chapter 5

has the following components: remarks on the title (if there is one), the subject matter of the psalm (materia), a summary of the psalm (summarium est), a note on who the speaking voices are (e.g., God, the prophet, the just, David himself, the messiah, the prophet in the person of the Church, and so on) and finally, a verse-by-verse exposition of the new translation. Moving on to the gospels, and in all subsequent commentaries, he presents the Vulgate text, verse-by-verse or phrase-by-phrase, followed immediately by amendments to the translation and then a commentary. Cajetan uses shorthand in order to avoid repetition of ‘the Greek says’: where he is offering an alternative to the Vulgate, he writes pro (‘for’); if the Vulgate has too much, he writes superfluit (‘is redundant’), if it lacks something, he writes deficit (or deest, ‘is lacking’), always assuming iuxta textum Graecum (‘according to the Greek text’).64 The long preface to the commentary on the Psalms gives the most detailed account of Cajetan’s approach to translation of Hebrew. His approach is functional and realistic: at the outset, he says that he will translate word for word from the Hebrew into Latin. This statement is then followed by considerable qualification.65 To translate noun for noun is easy enough, but gender for gender is not feasible (not least because Hebrew lacks the neuter gender), nor case for case (since Hebrew and Latin use cases in different ways). Cajetan promises to keep his readers informed; there are enough mysteries in scripture without details like this adding to them. When a grammatical case has been changed (most frequently, Hebrew datives are translated into different cases in Latin) he notes the Latin word in the case of the Hebrew original in the margin. Numbers are easily translated, except where one of the names of God, Elohim, is actually a Hebrew plural (depending on context, it can be translated as ‘God’ or ‘angels’ or ‘gods’ or ‘judges’). Cajetan translates this in the singular, once again noting the original plural in the margin.66 Likewise the divine name known as the Tetragrammaton (yhwh): here Cajetan translates Deus, or Dominus, adding either Tetragrammaton in the margin or simply an interlinear figure ‘4’.67 Cajetan has provided his translation with superlatives and comparatives (which Hebrew lacks) when it is clear that these are intended by a Hebrew circumlocution.68

64

65 66 67 68

‘Et ne oporteat millies repetere Graece sic habetur, noverint omnes mutationes fieri apposita sola praepositione pro; et superflua aut deficientia significari superfluit, aut deficit, subintelligendo semper iuxta textum Graecum’. On Mt, Intro, iv, 1b. ‘Sobrie autem intellige, de verbo ad verbum’. On Pss Prooemium, iii, 1b. ‘[…] ut et mysterium non lateat, et erroris occasio in lingua Latina non detur’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 2a. ‘[…] ut mysterium palam fit’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 2a. ‘Et licet Hebraei careant nomine tam comparativo quam superlativo, et circumloquantur

correcting the latin text

145

In general, verbs are translated word for word, number for number, person for person, mood for mood, tense for tense. To achieve this, Cajetan requires consistency in translation; the same word is to be translated the same way each time it appears. He reproaches the Vulgate for using different Latin words to translate the same recurring Hebrew word.69 In requiring consistency over variety, he appears to side with Valla who was much stricter in this regard than was Erasmus.70 Nevertheless, Cajetan lists the instances where complete consistency is impossible.71 In practice, Cajetan might allow the same word to be translated in several ways, so long as the reader is informed. For example, his defence of the Vulgate’s verbum as the best translation of logos in the Johannine prologue has already been noted;72 however, when he finds logos translated as sermo elsewhere—in Hebrews 4.12, ‘The word of God is alive and active’—he is content to alert the reader’s attention, without insisting that a change be made. His commentary remains consistent: logos [tou Theou—‘of God’] in both cases, whatever the translation, is taken to refer to the Son of God.73 There follows a long discussion of the number and type of Hebrew tenses and moods. Throughout this section it is clear that Cajetan wants his Latin to reflect the Hebrew in every way possible. For this reason, he promises to refrain from using the full range of Latin verb forms; he will only use in his Latin translation the verb forms found in Hebrew.74 Any tense, therefore, that

69 70 71

72 73 74

illa: quia tamen nos habemus illa, si quandoque comparativum aut superlativum in hoc textu habebitur, nobis clarius redditum credimus verbum verbo: cum nec mutatio constructionis interveniat’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 2a. ‘Interpres gaudet copia circumlocutionis; in Hebraeo enim eaedem dictiones repetuntur’. On Gen 41.4, i, 134b. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ, pp. 52–53, 166–168. Typically, when Latin has to replace a certain Hebrew gerund form with an ablative absolute, ‘quia Latinus sermo caret tali constructione’. He gives an example: ‘In convertendo Dominus captivitatem Sion, interpretatus est, convertente Domino captivitatem Sion’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 2a. See also on 4 Kings 15.30, ii, 255b. On Jn 1.1, iv, 279b. See above, pp. 140–141. ‘Eadem enim est dictio, ita quod cum in hoc textu dicitur sermo Dei, de Filio Dei intelligitur’. On Heb 4.12, v, 337b. ‘Et quia apud Hebraeos modi verborum sunt tantum tres (indicativis, imperativus et infinitivus) ideo nullum verbum invenitur in hoc Psalterio optativi aut subiunctivi modi. Quia quoque apud Hebraeos nullus est tempus praeteritum nisi praeteritum perfectum indicativi modi, ideo nullum verbum praeteriti temporis hic habetur nisi praeteriti perfecti indicativi. Et quia apud Hebraeos nullus est praesens tempus nisi imperativi modi (et hoc in secunda tantum persona) et infinitivi, et loco praesentis indicativi, participium

146

chapter 5

does not belong to his list of the six tenses of Hebrew is not from the text but from the translator’s studio.75 (Other translations, he complains, are not only full of confusions but also opaque about their methodology.)76 While the translator must be accurate in translating tenses, the exegete will be sensitive to their theological significance: in both Hebrew and Greek, the future tense is sometimes used for past actions already completed and the present tense is sometimes used for future actions that fulfil a prophecy, on account of the certainty that the prophecy will be fulfilled.77 Having laid down so many qualifications, Cajetan suspects that his translation is perhaps a little unwieldy or inelegant (mutila). R. Gerald Hobbs concurs: Cajetan’s ‘absolute literalism could verge on nonsensical Latin’.78 Cajetan insists that it cannot be otherwise, on account of the poverty of the Hebrew language.79 Nevertheless, he would prefer to have the whole of the Old Testament awkwardly in this way, as it may well have been of old, in order to have the Bible itself and not some translator’s confection.80 For Cajetan, the ideal translation is an unattainable goal. Hebrew is a language rich in equivocations and transferred meanings and this kind of flexibility can never be translated.81

75

76

77 78

79

80

81

praesentis temporis, ideo nullum verbum praesentis temporis hic invenitur nisi imperativi in secunda persona et infinitivi modi’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 2a–b. ‘Quae omnia si, prudens lector, consideraveris, scies primo omnem, exceptis adverbiis, dictionem significantem tempus extra haec sex (praeteritum perfectum indicativi, futurum indicativi, praesens imperativi in secunda persona, praesens infinitivi, et participium tam praesentis quam praeteriti temporis) ex officina esse interpretum’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 2b. ‘Scies secundo confusum esse apud reliquas interpretationes quid in textu Hebraeo habeatur in praeterito et quid in futuro, quid indicative et quid aliter: dum interpretum arbitrio multa mutata sunt, et interpretationes non monstarant quae ex quibus mutata sunt, et quae immutata relicta sunt’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 2b. On Num 10.25, i, 362a. ‘Ut intelligant quod in ianuis est’. On Mk 9.30, iv, 153a. R. Gerald Hobbs, ‘Reading the Old Testament after Trent: Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and his Italian Predecessors on Psalm Four’, Reformation and Renaissance Review 12 (2010): pp. 207–234, at p. 218. ‘Crediderim ego linguae Hebraeae paupertatem tantam obtigisse ex ipsius antiquitate. Commune enim cum sit omnibus artibus habere principia imperfecta, par est ut prima sermonis ars imperfecta fuit’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3b. ‘Desines tertio mirari mutilam hanc interpretationem: et Hebraice linguae paupertati id tribues. Cupies proinde mecum universi Testamenti veteris interpretationem sic mutilam habere: et utinam talis habita fuisset a priscis Patribus, quoniam iam haberemus expositum textum ipsum sacrae Scripturae, et non textum confectum interpretum arbitrio’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 2b. ‘Sunt enim omnes fere dictiones Hebraicae aequivocae’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 2b.

correcting the latin text

147

Furthermore, since Hebrew nouns do not modify, there is a constant ambiguity about the case of nouns that can never be realised in a translation, since the translation must commit itself to one case or another.82 Sometimes the context suggests which reading is to be preferred, but there will be times when two different renderings are equally legitimate.83 He informs the reader when the obscurity of the Hebrew text leaves him with no other option than to guess.84 These factors illustrate why a perfect translation is impossible and go some way towards excusing the variety found among different translations.85 This reasoning sets him apart from his contemporaries in two respects. First, on the Hebrew language: Giles of Viterbo and others considered Hebrew to be a perfect language, created and spoken by God.86 Second, on possibilities of translation: Erasmus (referring, of course, only to the New Testament) set himself the goal of producing a translation that was not only accurate and accessible but elegant too.87 Cajetan will happily refer to Italian vernacular vocabulary if that will help clarify his translation.88 More common than this, however, is his propensity for creating new words in Latin, in pursuit of a translation that follows the original as closely as possible. This he does most frequently where Hebrew coins a verb from a noun.89 Examples include reptilificare (‘let the waters reptilify’),90 cordabitur (for ‘elevabitur corde’, ‘let the heart be raised up’)91 and, most candidly, vira: a feminine form of vir (man), reflecting the derivation of the Hebrew word

82 83

84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

‘Quo fit ut apud Hebraeos haec restant libera: in quaelibet autem interpretatione habentur determinata ad certum casum’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3a. ‘Non est usquaque clarum an pronomen ipse demonstret Gedeonem, ut interpres vulgatae editionis intellexit, an demonstret altare, ut alii interpretes intelligunt. Contextus autem favit huic secundo intellectui’. On Judg 6.24, ii, 47a. ‘Certum non est; utriusque sensus capax est litera, et uterque in seipso verus est’. On Prov 30.11, iii, 592b; see also on 2Cor 8.24, v, 184b. There are lengthy discussions of possible translations on Lk 12.50, iv, 232a; on Lk 13.32, iv, 235b; on Gal 3.5, v, 207b. ‘Iuxta Hebraeum habetur obscurissima litera […]. Si divinare licet, […]’ On Dt 33.11, i, 504a. ‘Et his enim duobus contingit tanta interpretum varietas irreprehensibilis’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3a. John W. O’Malley, Giles of Viterbo on Church and Reform (Leiden: Brill, 1968), pp. 74–80. See Rummel, Erasmus’s Annotations on the New Testament, pp. 89–121. E.g., on Gen 4.7, i, 33b; on Ex 22.17–18, i, 218a; on Num 11.7, i, 364a; on Num 13.21, i, 371b; on Judg 8.27, ii, 51a; on Prov 10.13, ii, 536b; on Prov 25.11, ii, 577b. ‘[…] ut Hebraei faciunt, a nominibus verba formando’. On Job 9.1–2, ii, 433b. On Gen 1.20, i, 10b: ‘Oportuit autem novum verbum effingere ut Hebraeum verbum exprimeretur’. On Job 11.11–12, ii, 443a.

148

chapter 5

for woman (ishah) from the word for man (ish).92 In the course of a complex discussion of degrees of consanguinity, Cajetan even suggests inventing a new Latin word to express the specific relationship between a man and his father’s brother’s wife (patrua).93 In the last line of Psalm 93, to show how holiness is a beautifully apt or comely ornament in the house of God, he offers both a Latin neologism and an Italian equivalent (pulchruit and starli bello).94 Cajetan’s principles of translation, enunciated in the introduction to the first of his major exegetical works, are put into practice in all his subsequent exegesis, of both Old and New Testaments. Although the New Testament commentaries lack a comparable discussion of the characteristics of Greek, Cajetan does note differences between Latin and Greek, where significant, and commits himself to the task of evoking the nuances of the original.95

Authorship and Canonicity Having set himself the task of correcting the Vulgate, Cajetan could not confine his work simply to the examination of words and phrases in isolation. He observed that sentences, paragraphs, parts of books, and even whole books were absent from Hebrew or Greek sources. The question of canon had to be addressed: What was the authentic biblical text to be translated? Underlying Cajetan’s approach to canonicity is his acceptance of the historicity of the Bible and the active role of the human author: God’s inspired word has been revealed through human authors and passed on in the course of a history that has been far from smooth. Given such contingency, a firm anchor is needed lest the divinely inspired authority of scripture come completely adrift. Cajetan seems to find this anchor in apostolic authorship or approval. While the New Testa-

92 93 94

95

On Gen 2.23, i, 23b. On Lev 18.14, i, 312b. ‘Adverte hic quod dictio Hebraica interpretata pulchruit sonat unum verbum quod lingua Latina non habet, quod vulgariter diceretur starli bello. Intendit enim Propheta quod sanctitas congruit Ecclesiae Christi non solum quasi substantia sed etiam ut pulchritudo eius, ut delectaremur in sanctitate sicut delectamur in pulchritudine’, on Ps 93.5, iii, 318b. Cajetan uses this form again: pulchruisti on Ps 45.2, iii, 161b and pulchruit on Ps 147.1, iii, 488b. For example, noting the effect of the use of the definite article, ‘Ac si aperte diceret: in principio erat illud Verbum, quid est Verbum omnium, scilicet Dei et omnium rerum, sensibilium et intelligibilium et possibilium et imaginabilium’. On Jn 1.1, iv, 280a. See also on Acts 17.26, iv, 466a; on Rom 1.9, v, 3b.

correcting the latin text

149

ment is revealed to, and written by, the apostles themselves, the Old Testament is written by Moses, David, and the other prophets under direct divine revelation and subsequently received or approved by the apostles. Cajetan asserts that, for the sake of the unity of Christians, the apostolic mandate includes the determination of the corpus of sacred scripture.96 At the same time, however, he is aware that the issue of canonicity is far from straightforward. At times, Cajetan seems to work with a strict criterion of authorship. The most authoritative books are those whose authorship is certain. Solomon is commended as the first Old Testament writer to identify himself in the text of his work—Moses, Job, and the Psalmist do not—and Solomon was followed in this praiseworthy practice by the later prophets.97 Cajetan’s measure is seemingly exclusive: those books which lack certain authorship, either from the text or from repute, are counted as apocryphal.98 Nevertheless, he recognises that, for several Old Testament books and many New Testament letters, the identity of the author is far from certain, and even the most rigorous textual analysis may fail to resolve all doubts. Faced with inconclusive authorship, Cajetan calls on the authority of Jerome. In his basic determination of the canon, he aligns himself with Jerome: what Jerome took to be canonical or excluded from the canon, is allowed or excluded by Cajetan99 (though, as we shall see, his deference is not slavish or mechanical). This principle leads Cajetan, on Jerome’s authority (and without detailed consideration of authorship), to exclude the following from the canon of the Old Testament: Judith, Tobit, six or seven chapters of Esther, the Books of Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus (Sirach).100 Cajetan recognises that, 96

97 98 99 100

‘Ad eos enim spectat universalis ecclesiae regimen non solum verbo et actione, sed etiam scriptura. Unde sola scripta ab apostolis, seu ab eis approbata, sacrae scripturae authoritatem habent’. On 1 Cor 12.28, v, 130b. On Prov 1.1, iii, 505a. ‘Confert siquidem hoc ad authoritatem libri, in cuius signum libri carentes certo authore supputantur ab ecclesia inter apocrypha’. On Prov 1.1, iii, 505a. ‘Quos ille canonicos tradidit, canonicos habemus. Et quos ille a canonicos discrevit, extra canonem habemus’. On Heb 1.1, v, 329b. ‘A divo Hieronymo extra canonicos libros supputantur, et inter apocrypha locantur’. On Esth 10.3, ii, 400b. Cajetan refers to Jerome’s ‘Prologus Galeatus’, which is the prologue to Jerome’s commentaries on the books of Samuel and Kings (pl 28, 547–558). See also ‘Et sic finitur Ecclesiastes cum omnibus Salomonis et Sapientiae libris; Salomonis quidem quia Parabolas exposuimus, et Canticum Canticorum iuxta germanum sensum fateor me non intelligere. Reliquos autem qui vocantur libri Sapientiales quoniam Hieronymus extra canonicos ad authoritatem fidei supputat, omittendo duximus, ad prophetarum oracula properantes’. On Eccl 12.14, iii, 633b. Jerome’s was a minority view in the Middle Ages,

150

chapter 5

for his day, this is an unusual line to take and one that raises serious questions. He is not unaware that the circumstances of the argument have developed since the time of Jerome. He persists, however, in urging that Jerome’s determination is the measure to which the teaching of the fathers and even the councils of the Church must be aligned.101 The issue of canonicity had conventionally suggested an element of initiative for the Church over scripture; writing just a few years earlier (1525), Cajetan had expressed precisely this view: I only know that John’s gospel is canonical (as opposed to Bartholomew’s) because the Church has told me.102 The consistent position in the commentaries, however, is that the witness of Jerome is crucial.103 Here, his evaluation of the authority of Jewish sources is clear. He has already argued that the aim of the translator must be to produce a text as close as possible to that of the Hebrews; likewise, on the issue of canonicity, he shares Jerome’s concern that the Church’s canon of the Old Testament should be no more extensive than that of the Hebrews. Furthermore, by following Jerome’s authority, says Cajetan, the Church is spared the reproach of the Hebrews, namely, of having added to the canon.104

101

102

103 104

but those who shared his approach included Gregory the Great, Hugh of St. Victor, and Nicholas of Lyra; see Aidan Nichols, The Shape of Catholic Theology: An Introduction to Its Sources, Principles, and History (Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1991), pp. 102–103. ‘Nec turberis novitie si alicubi repereris libros istos inter canonicos supputari, vel in sacris conciliis vel in sacris doctoribus. Nam ad Hieronymi limam reducenda sunt tam verba conciliorum quam doctorum’. On Esth 10.3, ii, 400b. ‘Ex authoritate siquidem ecclesiae habemus omnes libros sacrae scripturae; nam evangelium Ioannis nescirem magis quam Bartholomaei, nisi me authoritas ecclesiae admoneret’. Instructio nuntii circa errores libelli de cena Domini, sive de erroribus contingentibus in eucharistiae sacramento, ed. A.F. von Gunten (Rome: Angelicum, 1962), p. 65. Also in Opuscula, ii, 146a. Cajetan responds, p. 171. On the fortunes of Cajetan’s view at Trent, see chapter 8 below. ‘Divo Hieronymo pater beatissime universa ecclesia Latina plurimum debet: non solum ob annotatas ab eo in libris veteris ac novi testamenti particulas tum adiectitias tum ambiguas, sed etiam propter discretos ab eodem libros canonicos a non canonicis. Liberavit siquidem nos ab Hebraeorum opprobris, quod fingamus nobis antiqui canonis libris aut librorum partes, quibus ipsi penitus carent. Quocirca quum disposuissem prosequi commentarios in libros veteris testamenti post Moysi expositionem iam aeditam, libros historiales omnes in unum volumen coegi: videlicet Iosuae, Iudicum, Ruth, Regum, Paralipomenon, Hezdrae, Nehemiae, et Ester libros, omissis reliquis a Hieronymo inter apocrypha supputatis’. In omnes autenticos Veteris Testamenti historicales libros (Paris: Guillard, 1546), Preface, title page verso. See J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome (London: Duckworth, 1975), pp. 160– 161.

correcting the latin text

151

He immediately qualifies this position, and offers a compromise that aims to reconcile his view of the smaller canon with the prevailing view of a larger one. He introduces a distinction again derived from Jerome: a difference of status between books that are canonical ‘for the establishment of faith’ (‘canonici, hoc est regulares, ad firmandum fidei’) and those (including the books he has just spoken of as apocryphal) that are canonical ‘for the building up of the faithful’ (‘canonici, hoc est regulares, ad aedificationem fidelium’).105 He claims that this distinction, between what will here be called primary and secondary canonicity, resolves any apparent contradiction between his position and that of some illustrious antecedents: Augustine (in De doctrina christiana), the Council of Florence, the provincial councils of Carthage and Laodicaea, and popes Innocent and Gelasius.106 In this way, he attempts to preserve a sense of the privileged authority of the (smaller) Hebrew canon of the Old Testament (‘primary’ canon), while not dismissing the development of a broader canon in the Christian Church (‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ canon together). Cajetan has no wish to reduce the canon any further than did Jerome; with a combination of repeated appeals to Jerome’s authority, together with his own, often highly imaginative, arguments, he strives to ensure that the rest of the canon remains intact. The most pressing cases, where authorship cannot be clearly established and Jerome’s dependable opinion is most needed, concern the Psalms and Job in the Old Testament, two contested gospel passages, and the non-Pauline epistles in the New Testament (especially Hebrews). The Psalms The lack of a title to the Psalter has led to much debate about its author. Cajetan himself argues for the Davidic authorship of the entire Psalter, relying entirely on evidence gathered from the Psalter itself. Nevertheless, he admits that the question has not been settled definitively.107 He observes that Psalm 72 ends with the subscript, ‘The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended’

105

106 107

‘Libri isti, et si qui alii sunt in canone bibliae similes, non sunt canonici, hoc est, regulares, ad firmandum ea quae sunt fidei; possunt tamen dici canonici, hoc est, regulares, ad aedificationem fidelium, utpote in canone bibliae ad hoc recepti et auctoritati’. On Esth 10.3, ii, 400b. Cajetan here refers to Jerome’s Epistola ad Chromatium et Heliodorum Episcopos, i.e., his Prefatio in Librum Iudith (pl 29, 37–40). On Esth 10.3, ii, 400b. ‘Nullo autem extante titulo, nullus hic apparere potest auctor libri Psalmorum. Propter quod certant Doctores an David fuerit auctor libri Psalmorum: et adhuc sub iudice lis est’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 4a.

152

chapter 5

(72.20). Cajetan infers a great deal from this: first, that David is the author of all those psalms of which this is the last. Second, that David is the author of this particular psalm, even though it bears the superscript ‘A psalm of Solomon’. Third, that this is the last of all psalms, not just of a putative sub-group written by David, since this subscript is the only such indicator in the Psalter and it is appended deliberately to a psalm inscribed to another, namely, Solomon. This is confirmed by the observation that, were a heading to be found saying ‘The beginning of the prayers of David the son of Jesse’, there would be no doubt that David was the author: a colophon is as good as a title.108 Fourth, this subscription can be used to re-create the title of the whole book, namely, ‘The beginning of the prayers of David the son of Jesse’. (Cajetan notes here that there is overlap in the usage of the terms psalm, canticle, and prayer.)109 Supporting proof of the Davidic authorship of the whole Psalter is seen in the New Testament custom of attributing certain psalms, even those without inscriptions or titles, to David.110 Cajetan considers the one remaining objection. A considerable number of psalms have titles that attribute them to authors other than David. Cajetan returns to the subscript of Psalm 72. Here is a psalm inscribed to Solomon, whose author, from the subscript, is seen to be David. He asks us to imagine his opponents’ next move: if that inscription cannot secure Solomon’s authorship there, then how about the others?111 Cajetan’s own solution is to speak of multiple authorship. He distinguishes between the theme (materia) of a psalm and the psalm itself. The themes were provided by Asaph, Solomon, David himself, and others, from divine revelation; then David, ‘the excellent psalmist’ (2Sam 23.1), composed the psalm with its metre and music. Thus some of the psalms of David legitimately bear the names of other prophets.112 In this way, Cajetan envisages divinely inspired

108 109

110 111 112

‘Pari ergo ratione idem asserendum videtur ex hoc quod invenitur in calce. Neque enim maior est auctoritas tituli in principio quam in fine’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 4a. ‘Ubi orationis nomen non ut distinguitur contra psalmum seu canticum, sed ut commune orationibus proprie dictis et canticis sumi testatur ipse psalmus cui appensa est haec notula: quoniam constat ipsum canticum esse sicut et alios psalmos et non esse inscriptum orationis nomine aut stylum orationis habere plus quam alios psalmos’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 4b. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 4b. ‘Nam si Salomonem non salvant auctorem, quomodo alios salvabunt?’ On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 4b. ‘Multorum Psalmorum materias ministrabant Davidi, Asaph et filii Core et alii Prophetae, David autem formabat eas sub forma Cantici. Ipse enim egregius Psaltes in arte hac

correcting the latin text

153

revelation passing through several forms of human composition before becoming the completed written (and sung) word. This ingenious solution goes a considerable way to harmonising the view of Augustine and of the rabbinic tradition (who claimed David as the sole author of the Psalter) with that of Jerome (who admitted other authors, with David compiling the whole collection).113 One psalm remains problematic: Psalm 90 bears the inscription ‘Oratio Moysi viri Dei’ (‘An oration of Moses, man of God’), suggesting that Moses not only provided the materia but also the finished literary form of this psalm. Cajetan is prepared to consider this an exception, written by Moses and later inserted into the Davidic Psalter (just as the occasional letter by someone other than Cicero is found among Cicero’s collected letters).114 He does not, however, rule out the possibility that, as in the cases mentioned above, Moses composed the materia of the psalm, which David later extended and arranged in metrical form. Even if the first hypothesis is embraced, the basic argument is still intact; the exception proves the rule.115 The Book of Job Literary approaches surface again in Cajetan’s consideration of the authorship and historicity of the book of Job. This book, he notes, is not about a Jew, nor about the Jewish people, nor about a Jewish prophet. It could only have become part of the Jewish canon, then, if its author were a great authority in Israel. Among the rabbis, there was a tradition that Moses was the author of this book. The authority of Moses would establish canonicity, since, for the Jews, Mosaic authorship carries the same canonical authority as does apostolic authorship for Christians. The book of Job itself does not tell us that Moses wrote it, but then, neither does the Pentateuch; we rely there on the traditional attribution of the Jews. And if there, why not here?116 Faced with the total absence of

113

114 115 116

peritus, non solum revelata sibi, sed etiam revelata aliis, in Psalmos redigebat: et propterea illorum quibus facta fuit revelatio nominibus inscripti sunt’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 4b. See R. Gerald Hobbs, ‘Hebraica Veritas and Traditio Apostolica. Saint Paul and the Interpretation of the Psalms in the Sixteenth Century’, in David Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1990), pp. 83–99, at pp. 87–90. ‘[…] sicut inter epistolas Ciceronis inseruntur aliquae aliquorum epistolae’. On Ps 90, Intro, iii, 308a–b. ‘Modicum siquidem pro nihilo habetur’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 4b. ‘Perspicuum est enim hunc librum inter canonicos apud Hebraeos libros supputari. At si Moyses huius libri author creditur, nulla superest quaestio, quomodo inter canonicos

154

chapter 5

internal textual evidence regarding the author, Cajetan is satisfied with the traditional Jewish attribution of Job to Moses, judging this a sufficient basis for the book’s canonicity. For Cajetan, in the absence of clearer evidence, the custom of the Jews becomes normative for establishing the Christian biblical canon. Cajetan then asks whether the book of Job is a historical narrative or a fiction. Aquinas had asked the same question in the introduction to his commentary on Job. Citing Ezekiel, who refers to Noah, Daniel, and Job as three just men (Ezek 14.14), and James, who speaks of the patience of Job (James 5.11), Aquinas concludes that Job is a historical character.117 Cajetan recapitulates these two arguments with their proof texts, but adds two further considerations from internal evidence in favour of the historicity of Job. First, had Moses wanted to portray a perfect mirror of patience, he would have created a character who was completely faultless—not the less-than-perfect Job of the text. In this, it is less than thorough as a fiction. Second, no author of a commoedia would write a speech that lasted for six chapters without interruption, though in this book Eliud delivers just such a speech (chapters 32 to 37). Thus, to the proof texts, Cajetan adds two remarkable arguments drawn from a consideration of the work as literature—if it is fiction, it is poor fiction—to argue for the historicity of Job.118 He does not discuss the difficulty raised by his two conclusions: how Moses came to be the author of this historical narrative about a worthy gentile. His position, here as elsewhere, is not presented as a definitive solution to the difficulties but as a plausible way of thinking about them, given the available evidence.

117 118

Hebraeorum libros insertus fuerit, ex eo enim quod Moyses scripsit illum, canonicus fuit, quemadmodum quicquid scripserunt apostoli canonicum apud Christianos est. Nec obstat quod sine titulo Moysi liber isti habetur quoniam nec in Genesi inscribitur Moyses author sed quemadmodum ab Hebraeis habemus Moysem scripsisse Pentateuchum, ita et librum Iob’. On Job, Preface, ii, 401. See also on Job 31.37, ii, 509b; on Job 42.16, ii, 557a. On the Jewish attribution of Job to Moses, see Victor Reichert, Job: Hebrew Text and English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary (London: Soncino, 1946), p. xx. Expositio super Iob ad litteram, Leonine, 26, p. 4. ‘Et confirmatur, quia si Moyses finxisset hominem speculum patientiae, non pinxisset illum cum delicto aliquo. Iob autem clare fatetur in calce capituli 39. se bis male loquutum fuisse in collatione habita cum sociis. Et iterum confirmatur, quia si non res gesta, sed commoedia esset haec, valde superflue author libri introduxisset Elihu loquentem a 32. capitulo usque ad 37. inclusive, absque aliquo respondente ei’. On Job 1.1–2, ii, 402a.

correcting the latin text

155

Epistles In his commentaries on the New Testament, Cajetan follows Jerome in raising doubts concerning the authorship of particular epistles. While not denying canonicity to such texts, Cajetan does claim that these doubts make their authority less reliable; he is left balancing internal incongruities against the external fact of reception by the Church. The following examples indicate the subtlety with which Cajetan assesses the opinions reported by Jerome. On the letter of James, Cajetan cites Jerome’s remarks that the identity of the author cannot be given for certain as James the brother of the Lord (the traditional attribution).119 Cajetan observes that the text itself does nothing to establish apostolic authorship: the greeting has nothing in common with the greetings used by the other apostles and the author does not refer to himself as an apostle—all of which increases the uncertainty concerning the author.120 He adds that, being sent to the scattered twelve tribes (i.e., members of the twelve tribes of Israel who are now Christians), it merits the title ‘book’ over ‘letter’.121 Jerome reports that many deny the authenticity of 2 Peter because the style of this letter is so different from that of 1Peter.122 Cajetan is critical of their bad logic, insisting that their conclusions ought be even more agnostic: if the two letters are so diverse, then they ought just as seriously to doubt the authenticity of 1Peter.123 Cajetan himself rejects this approach altogether, denying that it is possible to proceed from difference of style to difference of author—Pope Gregory’s letters are in a different style from other works of his, yet their authenticity is not questioned.124 In the body of the commentary he draws 119 120

121

122 123

124

On Jas 1.1, v, 362a. See Jerome, De viris illustribus, 2 (pl 23, 609). ‘Salutatio hic posita tam pura est ut nulli salutationi cuiuscunque alterius apostolicae epistolae conformis sit, nam nihil Dei, nihil Iesu Christi, nihil gratiae, nihilve pacis orat, sed prophano more salutem. Nec ipse seipsum nominat apostolum, sed tantum servum Iesu Christi. Ex quibus simul iunctus minus certus redditur author’. On Jas 1.1, v, 362a– b. ‘Et mittitur ad duodecim tribus dispersas, quoniam ex qualibet tribu erant aliqui dispersi per mundum. Unde magis libri quam epistolae titulum merebatur, scripta est enim non ut deferretur duodecim tribubus dispersis (cum hoc esset impossibile) sed ad instruendum eos’. On Jas 1.1, v, 362a–b. On 1Pet 1.1, v, 371a. See Jerome, De viris illustribus, 1 (pl 23, 607–609). ‘Verum haec ratio non minus infert primam quam secundam non esse Petri: nam tantum dissonat prima a secunda, quantum secunda a prima. Quo fit ut ex dissonantia styli neutra reddatur Petri certa, si argumentum valet’. On 2 Pet, Intro, v, 381a. ‘Infirmum itaque argumentum assumitur, cum unum atque eundem hominem diverso stylo quandoque scribere experientia testetur: Registrum Gregorii tantum dissonat ab aliis

156

chapter 5

attention to details that argue in favour of the same authorship for 1 Peter and 2Peter.125 Taking both letters as a single Petrine corpus, he is eager to show where the ‘teaching of Peter’ is perfectly consistent with that of Paul.126 Cajetan agrees with Jerome, on the authority of Papias, that the author of 2John and 3John is other than John the Evangelist and, therefore, of a lesser authority.127 The author of 2John is said to have extracted its doctrine from 1John. On this letter, Cajetan’s comments are brief, while for 3 John he does nothing more than correct the translation. The letter of Jude cites the apocryphal Enoch, causing many, as Jerome reports, to doubt its authenticity.128 Even if this is not as serious a shortcoming as citing poets, it nonetheless detracts from the authority of scripture and might lead some to assume that the book of Enoch, an apocryphal prophecy, is to be received as genuine. Cajetan accepts Jerome’s conclusion that the witness of tradition establishes this epistle as canonical, but less certainly than others.129 Gospels Two pericopes from the gospels deserve special mention: the conclusion of Mark (Mk 16.9–20) and the Johannine narrative of the woman taken in adultery (Jn 8.1–11). Cajetan is aware that there has long been discussion about the ending of Mark’s gospel, and he quotes in detail the doubts of Jerome.130 Cajetan notes that the codices have been tampered with, but argues that, unless an entire chapter has been lost—one that is different from this, and which these verses were written to replace—then what we have is a genuine, if mutilated, ending to the gospel. Cajetan rules out altogether the view that the gospel originally ended at 16.8. It is unthinkable that Mark ended his gospel

125 126

127 128 129

130

scriptis a Gregorio ut si ex stylo arguendum esset, negaretur Gregorii’. On 2Pet, Intro, v, 381a. On 2Pet 1.1, v, 381a. On 1Pet 1.2, v, 371b; on 1 Pet 3.7, v, 376b; on 1 Pet 5.13, v, 380b; on 2Pet 1.1, v, 381a–b; on 2Pet 1.2, v, 381b; on 2 Pet 2.13, v, 384b; on 2 Pet 3.9, v, 386a; on 2Pet 3.16, v, 386b–387a; see also on Gal 2.21, v, 206b. ‘Et propterea ambae minoris authoritatis sunt’. On 2Jn, Intro, v, 398va. See Jerome, De viris illustribus, 9 (pl 23, 623–625). On Jude 1.1, v, 399va. Jerome: ‘Tamen authoritate vetustate iam et usu meruit ut inter sanctas scripturas computatur’. De viris illustribus, 4 (pl 23, 613–615); Cajetan: ‘Ex quibus apparet minoris esse authoritatis hanc epistolam iis quae sunt certae scripturae sacrae’. On Jude 1.1, v, 399va. Jerome, Ad Hedibiam (pl xxii, 987); Dialogus contra Pelagianos, ii, 17 (pl 23, 550).

correcting the latin text

157

without completing the narratives of the resurrection; such a view is both foolish and treacherous; the whole of the Christian faith hangs on the resurrection.131 Cajetan goes on (despite the opinion of Erasmus and Jerome) to find parallels for each of the details of Mk 16.9–20 in the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances given in the other three gospels. Thus for Cajetan, though this pericope contains unique material, it is not manifestly contrary to the other gospels.132 However, on account of the tampering it has suffered, it lacks the authority of the rest of the gospel and is not to be used in establishing matters of faith;133 it has the equivalent of secondary canonicity only. Jerome notes that the pericope concerning the woman taken in adultery is found in many Latin and Greek sources. For Cajetan, to say that it is in many codices is to admit that it is not in all of them; it is not therefore altogether authentic (‘omnino authentica’).134 He argues that it does not really belong at the beginning of Jn 8: he can see no connection between the end of the pericope (8.11) and the following verse (8.12) and he criticises those who have tried to find one.135 Nonetheless, Cajetan does not pass on; since this passage is used in the liturgy precisely as part of John’s gospel, he includes it in his commentary.136 In all of these instances, the authority of Jerome is not followed blindly; each doubt is checked against the internal evidence of the text in question and weighed in the light of the customary usage of the Church (in liturgy especially). Nevertheless, Cajetan never strays far from the conclusions that he

131 132

133

134 135

136

‘Quod non solum stultum sed perfidum est cogitare. Nam tota fides evangelii ex resurrectione Christi pendet’. On Mk 16.9, iv, 168b. ‘Et revera nonnulla sunt in hoc capitulo quae in nullo alio evangelista habentur; nihil tamen ego video contrarium manifeste aliis evangelistiis’. On Mk 16.9, iv, 168b. Erasmus disagrees, citing the opinion of Jerome, ‘Divus Hieronymus in epistolis indicat hoc caput quod in Marco legimus a plerisque non recipi et in omnibus pene Graecorum libris in fine poni, velut adiectitium. Propterea quod hic diversa narret a reliquis evangelistis’. (1516; the note is lengthened considerably in 1535), Reeve, i, p. 147. ‘Quicquid autem sit de veritate suspicionum tamen istarum effectus est quod haec scripta non sunt solidae authoritatis ad formandum fidei sicut reliqua Marci indubitata’. On Mk 16.9, iv, 168b. On Jn 8.1, iv, 345a. See Jerome, Dialogus contra Pelagianos, ii, 17 (pl 23, 553). ‘Nulla continuatio praecedentis facti ad haec subiuncta testatur adiectitiam esse praecedentem particulam. Nec immerito ab illustribus doctoribus praetermissam’. On Jn 8.12, iv, 345b. The illustrious doctors include Aquinas, Super Evangelium Sancti Ioannis Lectura, p. 215a. ‘Quia tamen in ecclesia legitur tanquam pars evangelii exponemus illam’. On Jn 8.1, iv, 345a.

158

chapter 5

has reported from Jerome: in all of these cases of disputed authorship, he is neither more nor less certain than Jerome. More thorough than any of these cases, and still more revealing of his approach, is Cajetan’s examination of the authorship of the letter to the Hebrews.

The Letter to the Hebrews Cajetan worked out his views on the authorship of Hebrews only in the course of composing his commentary on that book.137 Earlier, in his commentary on the Psalms, he does not hesitate to attribute the letter to the Hebrews to Paul. In many cases it is possible to see this as a conventional usage (a usage he condones), but in one case he deliberately claims the authority of Hebrews as the apostolic authority of Paul in order to support a literal-Christological reading of one of the psalms.138 By the time he comes to comment on the letter to the Hebrews, Cajetan is far more sceptical. The authority of the letter to the Hebrews is never actually denied, but Cajetan finds the lack of title and authorial attribution very damaging to such authority as it has.139 It lacks the clear evidence of Pauline authorship that would make its canonicity obvious. There is a definite tone with which Cajetan states his views on this matter; from the outset, a distinct prejudice against apostolic authority can be noted and all evidence is weighed in this light. As ever, his ally is Jerome; the list of supporting evidence from Jerome, expressing doubts not only about Pauline authorship but also about canonicity, is the longest and most detailed of any in Cajetan’s biblical commentaries,140 and more exhaustive than Erasmus’s list.141 If Jerome is uncertain regarding the

137

138

139 140

141

See Ceslaus Spicq, L’Épitre aux Hébreux (2 vols., Paris: Gabalda, 1952), vol. 1, pp. 190– 191; and, especially, Kenneth Hagen, Hebrews Commenting from Erasmus to Beze 1516–1598 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1981). ‘Materia psalmi habetur ex auctoritate Pauli ad Heb. afferentis verba huius […]; et exponit apostolus […]; ex quibus apostoli verbis […]’. On Ps 40, Intro, iii, 145a. See also on Ps 102, Intro, iii, 339a–b. ‘Ecce quantum parit malum liber sine authoris titulo’. On Heb 1.1, v, 329b. ‘Non fuisse omnino certum de authore huius epistolae’. On Heb 1.1, v, 329b. Cajetan quotes the following works of Jerome: Ad Evangelum (pl 22, p. 678), Ad Paulinum, 8 (pl 22, p. 548); De viris illustribus, 5, and in Caio 50 (pl 23, pp. 617–618, 669); Super Hieremiam, 31.31 (ccsl 74, p. 319); in Isaiam, 6.2 (ccsl 73, p. 86); and in Isaiam, 8.17–18 (ccsl, 73, p. 118): ‘[…] licet eam latina consuetudo inter canonicas scripturas non recipiat’. Hagen, Hebrews Commenting, p. 22.

correcting the latin text

159

authorship of this letter, then we must be less than certain about its canonicity.142 Cajetan attributes only secondary canonicity to this book: matters of faith may not be determined on the evidence of this book alone.143 The doubts that Cajetan has about Pauline authorship are laid out at the beginning of his commentary. They are centred on the style of argumentation employed in the letter and, in particular, the use of the Old Testament. He begins by examining the way Hebrews uses two Old Testament passages: Psalm 2 and Exodus 24. According to Cajetan, Ps 2.7 is literally an address from David to his son Solomon (‘You are my son, I have begotten you this day’); it can be applied to Christ only using the mystical sense. Following Aquinas, Cajetan implies that an argument relying on the mystical interpretation of a text can never be conclusive. To use such an argument right at the beginning of a letter addressed to Christian converts from Judaism, who would be familiar with the literal meaning of the text, is hardly a sign of authority. The Christological difficulties are obvious.144 This is remarkable not only because of Cajetan’s discomfort with the mystical sense but because, in order to make this criticism at all, he has to go back on his own earlier interpretation of Psalm 2. In his commentary on the Psalms, he had clearly stated that the literal meaning of this psalm is Christological; it is addressed by God the Father to his Son. He supports this reading with an appeal not only to the use of it by Peter and Paul in Acts (4.27, 13.33) but also to the very passage in Hebrews (1.5) that he now finds so unconvincing. Apostolic usage, he had argued, establishes that this psalm speaks about Christ.145 It is almost as if he is setting out to find problems with the epistle. In the second case, Hebrews quotes from Exodus: ‘This is the blood of the testament which God has enjoined unto you’ (Heb 9.20; Ex 24.8). But this quotation is inaccurate, according to Cajetan: where Exodus has ‘covenant’ ( foedus or pactum), Hebrews replaces this with ‘testament’ (testamentum).146 142 143 144

145 146

‘Dubio apud Hieronymum authore huius epistolae existente, dubia quoque redditur epistola. Quoniam nisi sit Pauli, non perspicuum est canonicam esse’. On Heb 1.1, v, 329b. ‘Quo fit ut ex sola huius epistolae authoritate non possit si quod dubium in fide accideret determinari’. On Heb 1.1, v, 329b. ‘Minus siquidem decet in tanta re tantum apostolum uti tali argumento, cum potuissent Hebraei facile respondere quod non de Filio Dei, sed puro homine, et qui potuit peccare, et de facto postea peccavit, dicta sunt haec verba a Deo per Nathan ad Davidem. Unde ex tali filiatione non probatur superioritas ad angelos. Uti autem his verbis in sensu mystico minorem reddit authoritatem probantis, in principio praesertim epistolae et apud Hebraeos’. On Heb 1.1, v, 330a. On Ps 2, Intro, iii, 9a. Erasmus has a similar observation, Reeve, iii, p. 724.

160

chapter 5

Cajetan discusses the difference between the two: a covenant is effective where both parties are alive; a testament is effective only with the death of the testator. For Cajetan, this imprecision, whether accidental or deliberate, is no sign of the work of Paul; Cajetan appears quite unwilling to excuse the author for quoting from the Septuagint.147 Furthermore, even had Paul entertained such a flexible interpretation of the Old Testament, he would hardly have written so carelessly to the Jews, who knew Hebrew so well.148 Cajetan concludes that Paul could not have had anything to do with this epistle, remarking quite dismissively that Paul never even saw it.149 Thus Cajetan’s first reason for dismissing Pauline authorship is based on the conjecture that Paul, writing to wavering Christian converts from Judaism,150 would not have made such poor use of the Old Testament. Cajetan, having already indicated his respect for the traditions and scholarship of the Jews, and his concern not to earn their reproach, is here distancing himself from what he considers to be a defective piece of exhortation. This conjectural argument, however, is not the strongest he has.151 A second approach, again established at the outset, draws attention to apparent discrepancies between Paul’s account of the way he received the good news and that of the author of Hebrews. Throughout his commentaries on the Pauline epistles, Cajetan was sensitive to Paul’s own statements that he had received his revelation not from others but directly from the Lord Jesus.152 Yet here Cajetan finds the author of Hebrews counting himself among those whose faith was confirmed by others in precisely the way excluded by Paul: It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and vari-

147

148

149 150 151 152

He notes repeatedly that this fact rules out any suggestion that the epistle was originally written in Hebrew. See on Heb 2.7, v, 334a; on Heb 3.11, v, 336a; on Heb 8.10, v, 346a; on Heb 10.5, v, 350a. ‘Responderi potest authori huius epistolae quod de testamento proprie sumpto, migrat ad pactum, aut quod errat, putando in Exodo esse sermonem de testamento. Quorum utrumque dedecet tantum apostolum, ad Hebraeos praesertim, verborum textus Hebraici proprietatem scientes’. On Heb 1.1, v, 330a. ‘Et hinc (ut praediximus) non parvum argumentum sumitur et quod Graece scripta est epistola, et quod Paulus nunquam viderit illam’. On Heb 9.20, v, 348b. That this is the purpose of the letter is clear enough, on Heb 6.1, v, 339b; on Heb 13.8–10, v, 360a–b; on Heb 13.21, v, 361b. ‘Sed quid per coniecturas vagor?’ On Heb 1.1, v, 330a. E.g., Gal 1.12, v, 202b.

correcting the latin text

161

ous miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will. Heb 2.3–4

Paul not only did not receive this kind of proof from others, but he was among those who gave such proof, perhaps even to such people as the author of Hebrews.153 If Paul does not fit the description here, who does? Cajetan notes Jerome’s report of the range of opinions: some suggest Luke, some Clement of Rome; Tertullian suggested Barnabas.154 But Barnabas must also be cancelled from the list of possible authors for exactly the same reason as Paul; the author has to be someone who lived at a later date.155 The inference from one text that the author has been in chains is no proof of Pauline authorship either: Clement was also bound in chains.156 Nor is the fact that the author promised to send Timothy to the Hebrews: just as Clement used Dionysius the Areopagite (also a disciple of Paul) as a legate, so he, or whoever wrote this letter, could have used Timothy too.157 The case for Clementine authorship is, however, never very strong: the author urges the Hebrews to pray for him, that he may soon be restored to them. With this, the author identifies himself as a Hebrew. But just as this once more excludes Paul (who appealed to Caesar rather than fall into the hands of the Judaizers) it also excludes Clement, who, being bishop of Rome, was very unlikely to be ‘returning’ to them.158

153

154 155 156 157 158

‘In secundo huius epistolae capitulo author huius epistolae numerat se inter illos, in quos evangelica salus confirmata est per illos qui audierunt a Domine Iesu. Paulus autem clamat quod non ab homine, neque per hominem didicit, sed per revelationem Iesu Christi, et quod apostoli nihil sibi contulerunt’. On Heb 1.1, v, 330a. ‘Ecce textus testimonium perhibens quod author huius epistolae non fuit Paulus […]. Lege Pauli epistolas et invenies ipsum plures dicere de ipso quod per ipsum Deus effecit signa et prodigia, et varias potentias, &c. Quo fit ut Paulus sit de numero eorum quorum author huius epistolae meminit, qui confirmaverunt veritatem evangelicam, etiam ad authorem huius epistolae’. On Heb 2.3–4, v, 333b. On Heb 1.1, v, 328b; see Jerome, De viris illustribus, 5 (pl 23, 617–618). On Heb 2.3–4, v, 333b. ‘Quoniam vincula communia fuerunt multis. Et Clemens ipse, cuius dicitur haec epistola, in vinculis fuit’. On Heb 10.34, v, 352b. ‘[…] seu illo qui scripsit epistolam’. On Heb 13.23, v, 361b. ‘Hebraeum se esse significat, nec sonat Paulum, quem Hebraei sequentes legalia non expectabant eum sibi restituendum, quum Paulus ad evadendum eorum manus Caesarem appellaverit. Unde et hinc coniici potest, cum ipse esset Romanus pontifex, nec

162

chapter 5

These two groups of reasons against Pauline authorship (inept use of Old Testament material and biographical inconsistencies) are laid out systematically at the beginning of Cajetan’s commentary on Hebrews. Summing up this introduction, Kenneth Hagen writes, ‘On balance, Cajetan, to date, raised more questions, cited more references and gave more (and different) textual analyses, all about and against Pauline authorship’. And he adds later, ‘Cajetan’s handling of authorship was very critical and devastating, and, one is tempted to add, modern’.159 Cajetan will continue to use the name of Paul for the author, but this is pure convention, used not only by Jerome, but by Erasmus, too.160 In the case of Old Testament books, where Cajetan judged a work to have only secondary canonicity, he moved on without offering a commentary. With the contested gospel pericopes, however, he still offers a commentary, liturgical usage providing some basis of authority. The same is true of the letter to the Hebrews: despite his considerable doubts about the authority of the letter, his corrects the translation and provides a commentary. Neverthless, he repeatedly draws attention to what he considers to be the inaccurate use of Old Testament texts: the description of Sinai;161 the trembling of Moses;162 and a misquotation of Haggai 2.6, highly significant on account of the argument for which the author deploys this text.163 Cajetan is far less tolerant of the author of Hebrews than of any other New Testament writer found guilty of similar offences. He finds one particular example most unsettling, since it has an impact beyond the question of authorship. In addition to bad argumentation and careless use of the Old Testament (which have already excluded Pauline authorship), he finds a sentence that appears flatly to contradict the Old Testament altogether. When the author speaks of a golden censer in the holy of holies, Cajetan muses on how he knew this.164 When the author then locates the ark of the

159 160

161 162 163 164

expectabatur restituendus Iudaeis longe positis’. On Heb 13.19, v, 361b; see also on Heb 13.23, v, 361b. Hagen, Hebrews Commenting, p. 24 and p. 96. On Heb 1.1, v, 330a. ‘Erasmus’s approach may not be unlike Cajetan’s, who will marshal much evidence against Pauline authorship and then say that he will use the name of Paul’, Hagen, Hebrews Commenting, p. 96. On Heb 12.18, v, 358a. On Heb 12.21, v, 358b. On Heb 12.26, v, 359a–b. ‘Nescitur unde author huius epistolae hoc acceperit, scilicet quod in sanctis sanctorum esset aureum thuribulum’. On Heb 9.4, v, 346b.

correcting the latin text

163

covenant also within the holy of holies, Cajetan allows the observation.165 But when the author tells us that the ark contained the urn of manna, Aaron’s flowering rod, and the tablets of the covenant, Cajetan starts to fret. Scripture clearly states that the tablets of the covenant, and nothing else, were inside the ark.166 He can see no way around the problem; if something is inside something else, then it cannot be outside it at the same time.167 Cajetan tries to make excuses for the author’s mistake; perhaps he misunderstood other texts dealing with the same objects (Exodus 16, which speaks of the urn of manna, and Numbers 17, which speaks of the flowering rod).168 He wonders if a solution can be found, out of reverence for scripture, that would juggle with a variety of ways of ‘being in’ something.169 Yet Cajetan remains unconvinced by his own prestidigitation.170 With this conclusion, his confidence in the letter reaches a new low. Internal evidence argues not just against Pauline authorship but almost (though Cajetan never goes this far) against inspiration and inerrancy. The authority of this letter seems to rest on little more than external reception. Although he acknowledges that it has acquired the authority of scripture, Cajetan is nonetheless quite unconvinced of its reliability. In one case he argues that a sentence, if taken alone, would have to be condemned as heretical (it appears to deny the possibility of conversion for those who sin gravely after baptism); however, on account of the canonical authority that this letter has undoubtedly acquired, the offending sentence must be glossed in a way that renders it orthodox, even though this (by implication) finds little justification in the text itself.171 165 166

167

168 169

170 171

‘Hoc satis constat ex sacra scriptura’. On Heb 9.4, v, 346b. ‘Horum trium quae dicit esse in arca ultimum tantum authoritate sacrae scripturae habetur. Et ita habetur hoc tantum, quod excluduntur reliqua duo. Nam tertii Regum octavo [1Kings 8.9] exprese dicitur quod in arca non erant nisi tabulae testimonii’. On Heb 9.4, v, 346b. ‘Iste textus ut sonat manifeste contradicit sacrae scripturae. Nam sonat absque ulla differentia modi haec tria esse in arca quod perinde est ac si apertius dixisset haec tria esse intus arca’. On Heb 9.4, v, 347a. ‘Mandatur enim utrobique ut serventur coram testimonio Domini, seu coram Domino. Ex his enim forte credidit haec in arca servari’. On Heb 9.4, v, 347b. ‘Si tamen pro reverentia quia iam authoritatem obtinuit, placet glossare quod haec erant in arca sed non eodem modo, quia solae tabulae intus, virgae autem et urna mannae exterius erant in ea, esto’. On Heb 9.4, v, 347b. ‘Nescio enim literam tertii Regum ad literam salvare cum hoc, nisi iuxta glossam praedictam’. On Heb 9.4, v, 347b. ‘Si diceret impossibile est eos rursus renovari ad poenitentiam, sine aliqua additione, dif-

164

chapter 5

After the last verse of Hebrews, Cajetan writes, ‘The end of the commentaries on the letters of Paul’.172 But the colophon he adds to the whole section of Pauline commentaries is more revealing: ‘The end of the commentaries of Thomas de Vio Cajetan, Cardinal of St. Sixtus, on all the germane epistles of Paul, and on that addressed to the Hebrews’.173

Authorities and Decorations We have already noted how Cajetan, in keeping with the style of his day, prefers not to multiply authorities in his writing; he very rarely cites sources and authorities. The following list gathers together all references to Christian, Jewish, classical, and other authors either cited or referred to by Cajetan in the course of his biblical commentaries. A select few of these are invoked as genuine authorities; the rest appear casually, to confirm or illustrate a point, to support a conjecture, or perhaps just to demonstrate the breadth of the author’s learning. The two most frequently cited authors, by far, are Jerome and Josephus. Jerome is referred to more than thirty times, not only on matters of textual variation, canonicity, and authorship, but also on etymology, geography, and genealogy. Josephus is referred to more than fifty times, on matters of genealogy, geography, biblical chronology, Jewish customs, and biography. The testimony of Josephus is treated with respect; on only a few occasions does Cajetan quote Josephus to correct him. The combined number of references to Jerome and Josephus exceeds the total number of references to all other authors. The next in frequency is Aristotle (thirteen times). When referring to these three authors, Cajetan very often indicates the source of the reference. Gregory the Great appears twelve times, including four quotations. Augustine is mentioned nine times, including five quotations, although three of these are the same quotation. There are two mentions of Vulgarius (i.e., Theophylact), and one each of Ignatius, Dionysius, Ambrose, Bernard, and Innocent iii. There are also occasional references to canon law. Moral lessons are illustrated, when required, from scripture itself. On two occasions, Cajetan takes an exam-

172 173

ficilis esset sermo. Imo si non esset sermo authoritatis, censeretur haereticus. Quia tamen authoritatem obtinuit haec epistola, glossaretur quod non de quacunque renovatione, sed de renovatione baptismali intelligitur’. On Heb 6.6, v, 340b. ‘Et sic finis commentariorum Epistolarum Pauli’, after on Heb 13.25, v, 361b. ‘Commentarium Thomae de Vio Caetani Cardinalis Sancti Xysti, in omnes germanas epistolas Pauli et eam quae ad Hebraeos inscribitur finis’, on Heb, v, 361a–b.

correcting the latin text

165

ple from the lives of the saints—namely Lawrence, who rejoiced to suffer for Christ,174 and Paulinus of Nola. Virgil is quoted twice, once at some length. There are three mentions of Diogenes. Cicero, though never actually quoted, graces Cajetan’s commentaries on three occasions. The first has been noted already.175 In the second instance, Cajetan finds an ally in Cicero’s Latin to support his rendering of a problematic text.176 The final instance is purely decorative: where the scriptural text reads, ‘A good wife, who can find?’, Cajetan remarks that an orator of Cicero’s like is similary scarce.177 Other classical and non-Christian writers mentioned (either by their works or their reputations) are Strabo, Pythagoras, Ptolemy, Pliny (twice), Suetonius (his life of Nero is quoted), the poet Menander, ‘Berosus’ (three times),178 Terence, Mardochaeus (who is quoted), Hippocrates, Juvenal (who is quoted), Seneca, and Avicenna. Cajetan makes explicit mention of one architectural/archaeological monument: the candelabra used in the holy of holies, taken to Rome after the fall of Jerusalem, can be seen sculpted on the Triumphal Arch of Titus.179 There are dozens of references to ‘theologians’ and ‘philosophers’. As has already been shown, Cajetan refers his readers to theologians, or to ‘speculative theology’, for further information on questions of doctrine. They appear as authorities external to the exegete’s task, concerned with the systematic articulation of doctrine beyond the range of exegesis. ‘Philosophers’ are usually ancient non-Christian thinkers and, as has been noted above, they are quoted on a whole range of matters including physics, astronomy, medicine, biology, and natural history, as well as ethics and metaphysics. Cajetan never quotes Aquinas directly. He makes two passing references to the Summa, or his own commentary on it.180 Yet Aquinas is ever present: on questions of structure (the commentary on Job is modelled on that of Aquinas); on the interpre174 175 176 177 178

179

180

Ientacula iv.5, v, 437b. See note 114 above. On Rom 5.12, v, 26b, see p. 208, n. 45. ‘[…] sicut nec invenitur orator a Tullio descriptus’, on Prov 31.10, iii, 596b. On Gen 4.2, i, 32b, on Gen 6.4, i, 40b, on Ps 76.6, iii, 262b. On the forgery of Berosus by Giovanni Nanni (Annius) of Viterbo, see Ingrid D. Rowland, The Culture of the High Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 53–59. ‘In hodiernum usque diem in fornice Titi apparet candelabrum hoc sculptum, ut ductum est sub triumpho’. On Ex 25.33, i, 230a; on Ex 25.40, i, 230b. On the significance of the candelabra (imitated on the cancellata of the Sistine Chapel), and the Arch of Titus, see Charles Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome (2nd edn., Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1998), pp. 224–226. On Ex 23.7, i, 220b; on Lev 18.18, i, 314b.

166

chapter 5

tation of proof texts;181 even on the choice of examples to illustrate a line of thought.182 Living authors are never quoted by name (e.g., Erasmus, Lefèvre, Zwingli). With the exception of the ‘Lutherans’ discussed in chapter 4, the references are never more explicit than moderni interpreti. Although Cajetan’s style is personal, speaking in the first person and often addressing the reader directly, there is very little of anecdote in the commentaries. Exceptions, when they do occur, are usually decorative. The traders cleansed from the temple remind him of those selling religious artefacts outside St. Peter’s.183 Job’s description of Behemoth calls to mind the rhinoceros: known in Rome of old and more recently sent to Rome by the King of Portugal (though it died en route).184 The same monarch is also reprimanded for indulging in trade (a practice beneath his royal dignity).185 Cajetan makes passing remarks about his own health, noting at one point that he was getting used to using soap.186 Such remarks are notable for their rarity; Cajetan usually holds very closely to the text. The first task Cajetan set himself was the correction of the extant Latin version of the Bible, to ensure that each word was accurate and every book canonical. This was a scholarly task for which he availed himself of the findings of the humanists of his own day and of their ancient and learned model, Saint Jerome. It was also an ecclesiastical task, so he paid attention to liturgical usage, canonical rulings, and doctrinal determinations. Having established the text, his next task was to explain it. 181 182

183 184

185 186

E.g., compare Cajetan on Josh 8.2, ii, 12b with Aquinas, st ii-ii, 40, 3 (on the legitimacy of ambushing one’s enemies in a just war). Compare, ‘Homo qui fit albus, non fit albedo’, on Jn 1.14, iv, 286b and Aquinas, ‘Sicut si dicamus, Homo factus est albus, non quod ipse sit ipsa albedo, sed quod albedinem assumpsit’, Super Evangelium Sancti Ioannis Lectura, p. 33. On Mt 21.12, iv, 94a; on Jn 2.14, iv, 299a. ‘Et priscis temporibus visus Romae scribitur ductus a Pompeio; nostra autem aetate dum navi veheretur a Rege Lusitaniae missus, in via mortuus nunciatus est’. On Job 39. 9, ii, 540b. Not seen in Europe since Roman times, the rhinoceros was intended as a companion to the albino elephant (named Hanno) also given by King Manuel i of Portugal to Pope Leo. Descriptions of the rhinoceros inspired Albrecht Dürer’s well-known woodcut. See Silvio A. Bedini, The Pope’s Elephant (Manchester: Carcanet, 1997), pp. 111–136. On 3Kings 10.15, ii, 199b. ‘[…] ut expertus sum nuper in sapone lotus’. On Prov 25.20, ii, 578b.

chapter 6

Cajetan’s Literal Sense: Words, Context, Style According to Brevard Childs, ‘There are few more perplexing and yet important problems in the history of biblical interpretation than the issue of defining what is meant by the sensus literalis of the Bible’.1 When Cajetan began commenting on the literal sense of scripture, he was placing himself within a specific tradition, one that took in Aquinas, Nicholas of Lyra (1270–1349), Paul of Burgos (1351–1435), and contemporaries of his such as Prierias.2 In particular, Cajetan was relying implicitly on two principles established by Aquinas.3 First, Aquinas insisted that the literal sense is the foundation of the other senses of scripture and has therefore a certain priority over them. The spiritual senses are built on the literal sense and doctrinal argument must proceed from the literal sense alone.4 Indeed, there is a sufficiency in the literal sense: nothing that is necessary to faith can be found in one place according to the spiritual 1 Brevard Childs, ‘The sensus literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem’, in Hubert Donner et al. (eds.), Beiträge zur Altestestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1977), pp. 80–93, at p. 80. 2 See, among others, Ceslaus Spicq, Esquisse d’une histoire de l’exégèse (Paris: Vrin, 1944); Henri de Lubac, Exégèse Mediévale. Les Quatre Sens de l’ Écriture (4 vols., Paris: Aubier, 1959–1964); James Samuel Preus, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther (Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1969); Maximino Arias Reyero, Thomas von Aquin als Exeget: Die Prinzipien seiner Schriftdeutung und seine Lehre von den Schriftsinnen (Einsiedeln: Johannes, 1971); Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (3rd edn., Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), pp. 300–307; Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools, c.1100–c.1280 (London: Hambledon, 1985); A.J. Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages (2nd edn., Aldershot: Wildwood House, 1988), pp. 73–159; Richard A. Muller, ‘Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: The View from the Middle Ages’, in Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson (eds.), Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 3–22; Christopher Ocker, Biblical Poetics before Humanism and Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 3 The two points of concern here are summarised succinctly in Beryl Smalley, ‘William of Auvergne, John of La Rochelle and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Old Law’, in Armand Maurer et al. (eds.), St. Thomas Aquinas 1274–1974. Commemorative Studies (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974), vol. 2, pp. 11–71, here pp. 52–54. 4 ‘Et ita etiam nulla confusio sequitur in sacra scriptura: cum omnes sensus fundentur super unum, scilicet literalem; ex quo solo potest trahi argumentum’. st i, 1, 10 ad 1 (see also Quodlibet vii, 6, 1 [14] ad 1, ad 3 and ad 4, Leonine, xxv/1, 28b–29a).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325098_008

168

chapter 6

sense that cannot be found elsewhere according to the literal sense.5 Second, Aquinas carried out a necessary ‘mopping up operation’ and clarified the extent of the literal sense.6 He took the literal sense to be that intended by the authors and insisted that it encompassed not only what the human authors intended to say, but also the way they intended to say it. Thus, for Aquinas, the literal sense included the use of metaphor and parable, prophetic speech, symbolic actions, and gestures.7 This was not the only option. Origen in the East and Augustine in the West had taken a different road: when faced with a biblical text that on the surface seemed obscure or contradictory—even trivial or absurd—they looked above or beneath the literal meaning for the spiritual meaning intended by God. The division between literal and spiritual (or mystical) eventually found expression in a famous medieval couplet: Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, Moralia quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.8 [The letter teaches deeds, allegory what you believe, The moral sense what you do, and anagogy whither you are headed.] In this scheme, the literal sense is relatively ‘thin’, being confined to the level of narrative, while the depth of scriptural meaning is plumbed through the spiritual senses.9 When Cajetan repeatedly asserts that the literal sense is his 5 ‘Nihil sub spirituali sensu continetur fidei necessarium, quod scriptura per litteralem sensum alicubi manifeste non tradat’. st i, 1, 10 ad 1 (see also Quodlibet vii, 6, 1 [14] ad 3, Leonine, xxv/1, 29a). 6 Beryl Smalley, ‘William of Auvergne, John of La Rochelle and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Old Law’, p. 52. 7 ‘Ad tertium dicendum quod sensus parabolicus sub litterali continetur: nam per voces significatur aliquid proprie, et aliquid figurative; nec est litteralis sensus ipsa figura, sed id quod est figuratum’. st i, 1, 10 ad 3; ‘Per litteralem autem sensum potest aliquid significari dupliciter, scilicet secundum proprietatem locutionis, sicut cum dico, homo ridet; vel secundum similitudinem seu metaphoram, sicut cum dico, pratum ridet’. On Gal 4.24, Super Epistolas Sancti Pauli Lectura, eighth edition, ed. R. Cai (Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1953), vol. 1, viii.254, 620b (see also Quodlibet vii, 6, 2 [15] ad 1, Leonine, 25/1, 31a; vii, 6, 3 [16] resp. and ad 2, Leonine, 25/1, 32b). 8 This is the form given by Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla in Gal. 4.3, cited in Joseph Fitzmeyr, The Interpretation of Scripture: In Defense of the Historical-Critical Method (New York/Mahwah: Paulist, 2008), p. 94. 9 Fitzmeyr, The Interpretation of Scripture, pp. 94–95.

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

169

only concern, he does not have in mind such a thin literal sense; in Cajetan’s hands, the literal sense is ‘thicker’, more flexible and multifaceted, capable of yielding substantial doctrinal, spiritual, and moral insight. In the titles of his published exegesis, he often refers to it as the ‘so-called literal sense’, thereby alerting the reader that he is not simply providing the first step of the customary four, but doing something rather different.10 Cajetan’s understanding of ‘literal’ is more literary than literalist.

The Senses of Scripture Cajetan uses a variety of terms for the literal sense. He sometimes presents this as the ‘germane sense’ (sensus germanus—a nod to Erasmus),11 or the ‘plain sense’ (sensus planus),12 but without elaborating on it or relating it to the traditional four senses of scripture. The long introduction to the commentary on the Psalms contains the strongest indications of his intended method, but much of the discussion there concerns the single question of the correct Christological interpretation of the psalms (which will be considered below). His understanding of the literal sense will have to be gathered from his practice. The first thing to note about Cajetan’s method is the professed exclusiveness with which he approaches the literal sense. In the dedicatory letter to his commentary on the Psalms (addressed to Clement vii) he complains that the commentaries so far produced have given only the mystical sense (this is his preferred term for all ‘transferred’ senses, rather than allegorical or spiritual sense);13 a clear exposition according to the literal sense is required, in

10

11

12 13

E.g., ‘[…] et iuxta sensum quem literalem dicunt enarrati’ (from the title of the commentary on the Psalms); and ‘[…] ad sensum quem vocant literalem commentarii’ (from the commentaries on the Gospels and Acts). ‘Et quoniam intentionis meae fuit sensum dumtaxat germanum prosequi, ideo Apocalypsim Ioannis omisi: fateor enim ingenue me non penetrare illius mysteria iuxta sensum literalem’. Dedication to Charles v, Epistolae Pauli et aliorum apostolorum ad graecam veritatem castigatae iuxta sensum literalem enarratae (Venice: Giunta, 1531), title page verso. ‘Canticum Canticorum iuxta germanum sensum fateor me non intelligere’. On Eccl 12.14, iii, 633b. ‘In quibus igitur ego defuero veritati germani sensus, rogo, ut alii suppleant: sumus enim alter alterius membra [Rom 12.5]’. On Is, Intro, iii, 635a. On Erasmus’s coining of ‘sensus germanus’, see Terence Cave, The Cornucopian Text: Problems of Writing in the French Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), pp. 88–91. See e.g., on Jn 2.4, iv, 297b; on Mt 19.9, iv, 86a. Cajetan does not name the commentaries to which he refers. Beryl Smalley notes

170

chapter 6

order better to serve those who read and sing the Psalter daily.14 Evidently, Cajetan considers that, without the firm foundation of the literal sense, the mystical sense is less than helpful in opening up the meaning of scripture. When he alludes to the mystical sense, it is usually as something to be passed over. For example, he notes how the gospels link the raising of Jairus’s twelveyear-old daughter and the cure of the woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years (Lk 8.40–56). The evangelist, says Cajetan, notes this apparent coincidence of years because he is aware that divine providence has deliberately arranged events in this way. But Cajetan makes no attempt to explain this arrangement, since it belongs to the mystical sense of the passage. The reader seeking a thorough explanation is referred to the writings of the ‘sacred doctors’.15 On occasion, Jesus himself will offer a mystical interpretation, but even here Cajetan seeks to minimise its importance: Jesus is not providing a compelling message for all, but spiritual edification for those able to profit from it.16 There is a clear parallel, in Cajetan’s thought, between the status of mystical interpretations and the status of the deutero-canonical books of the Bible. The literal sense determines faith; the mystical sense is for the edification of those who already believe. There is a reluctant tone in Cajetan’s use of mystical interpretation, almost as if it were to be used only as a last resort.17 On one occasion only does Cajetan refer to ‘allegory’ and that only when he is led to do so because the Bible uses the word first. Referring to Abraham’s two sons,

14

15

16

17

that he seems unaware of certain English medieval Psalter commentaries; see p. 65, n. 6. ‘Ad haec, novi et veteris testamenti mysteria, multi multis commentariis aperuerunt: solus psalterii sensus quem literalem vocant, nulli est adhuc pervius, sed abstrusus: quum fere omnes qui commentarios in illud ediderunt, mysticos tantum sensus attulerint. Et tamen literalis, quo crebrius psalmi leguntur in ecclesia vel cantantur, eo deberet esse lucidior et apertior’. Psalmi Davidici ad Hebraicam veritatem castigati et iuxta sensum quem literalem dicunt ennarati (Venice: Giunta, 1530), Dedication, fol. vii verso. ‘Ad mysterium enim mystici sensus haec spectare cognovit, quod clare manifestatum est a sacris doctoribus, sed a nobis tacetur, quia solus sensus literalis sub nostri propositi intentione comprehenditur’. On Lk 8.42–43, iv, 209a. For a similar example, on the baptism of Jesus, see on Mt 3.16–17, iv, 15b. According to the literal sense, John the Baptist is not Elijah; nevertheless he can be referred to as Elijah according to the mystical sense, by those who wish: ‘Docuit siquidem nos optimus magister Iesus ut non cogamus auditores ad sensus mysticos sacrae scriptuae, sed ad aedificationem eorum qui libenter audiunt et proficiunt ex sensibus mysticis’. On Mt 11.14, iv, 56a. E.g., ‘Quia haec ut sonant nec prophetica nec moralia sunt, oportet mystice dicta esse’. On Prov 30.16, iii, 593a.

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

171

Paul writes to the Galatians: ‘But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise. Now this is an allegory’ (Gal 4.23–24). On this text, Aquinas provides a long explanation of the meaning of allegory and the four senses of scripture.18 Cajetan’s response is telling: he gives the briefest of definitions before moving quickly on.19 Commenting on this passage, Vincent Carraud is astonished that Cajetan does not take the opportunity to articulate his theoretical principles (‘Le mutisme téorique de Cajétan étonne’).20 Yet Cajetan cannot ignore the mystical sense altogether. Indeed, in one particular set of circumstances, he is rather quick to appeal to it, namely, where New Testament writers appear to have misunderstood the literal sense of an Old Testament text. In such cases, Cajetan readily employs the mystical sense as an ally: the explanation of an apparent misappropriation of the Old Testament is attributed to the apostolic use of it according to the mystical sense. Cajetan uses this method repeatedly, both excusing the apostles (such usage is quite deliberate)21 and apologising for them (we would not have expected this lack of precision from them). A particularly clear illustration of this is the fourth gospel’s reference to the prohibition of the breaking of the legs of the paschal lamb. This is written ad literam of the paschal lamb in Ex 12.46, but applied by the evangelist to the crucified Jesus according to the mystical sense. Two things are said to follow from this. First, the apostles do not always use scripture according to the literal sense; sometimes they will deliberately

18 19 20

21

Super Epistolas Sancti Pauli Lectura, vol. 1, 620b–621b. ‘Haec fuerunt per historiam dicta ut sonant. Et eadem per allegoriam, hoc est per sensum quo aliud significant et aliud verba sonant, dicta sunt iuxta subiuncta’. On Gal 4.24, v, 213a. Vincent Carraud, ‘Métaphore et sens littéral selon Cajétan’, in Bruno Pinchard and Saverio Ricci (eds.), Rationalisme Analogique et Humanisme Theologique: La Culture de Thomas de Vio ‘Il Gaetano’ (Naples: Vivarium, 1993), pp. 183–207, at p. 196. ‘Constant apostolus uti quandoque scriptura in sensu mystico’, on Ps 19, Intro, iii, 69a; ‘Paulus apostolus mystico sensu usus est’, on Ps 95, Intro, iii, 323a–b; ‘Matthaeus autem evangelista in mystico sensu dixit impleri hanc scripturam de Christo’, on Mt 2.15, iv, 10a; on Mt 4.15, iv, 18b; on Rom 10.7, v, 62a; on 2 Cor 5.17, v, 171a; on Eph 4.8, v, 233b; on Heb 1.5, v, 332a. Cajetan also seems to speak of a ‘spiritual sense’ in the same way: ‘Attende diligenter quod Paulus res gestas corporaliter in Moyse trahit ad sensum spiritualem’, on 2Cor 3.13, v, 161b. Cajetan also speaks of the ‘transumptive’ use of a text: ‘Auctor libri Machabaeorum versiculum hunc transumptive extendit ad suum propositum, ut frequenti usu faciunt doctores ecclesiae’, on Ps 79, Intro, iii, 276a; ‘[…] utendi sacra scriptura transumptive ad spirituales materias’, on 2 Cor 4.13, v, 165b. One text is interpreted in both a literal and a mystical way; the ‘long life in the land’ promised to those who honour father and mother, on 1Tim 4.8, v, 300a.

172

chapter 6

employ the mystical sense. Second, the fulfilment of scripture is sometimes disclosed by means of a mystical interpretation. This is not done casually or whimsically, but according to the intention of the Holy Spirit.22 The advantage of this line of thought for Cajetan is that he has protected the apostles from the accusation of misunderstanding the literal sense of the Old Testament. The disadvantage is that he has to allow that, even in this restricted number of cases, the mystical sense has a greater degree of authority than he had otherwise been willing to allow it. Furthermore, in order to justify (and limit) this concession, he has to invoke an exceptional intervention of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, who inspired the Old Testament writer, also inspires the New Testament writer to interpret the text in a given, even if exceptional, way.23 What Cajetan does not do here, or in similar places elsewhere in the New Testament, is take the lead from the sacred writers to promote the mystical sense more generally as a template or model to be imitated. Cajetan thus carefully circumscribes the mystical sense, clearly limiting its use. The reason for this is not that he wants to avoid complexity and depth, but rather that he wants to explore the complexity and depth already in the literal sense of the texts, the sense intended by the inspired human authors.

Language in Context In justifying his literal exegesis, Cajetan asks the reader to envisage what, in a given context, is most reasonable, most plausible;24 he seeks the interpretation that best accords with reason, context, and other texts of scripture.25 He suggests that the kind of certainty that obtains in exegesis (as distinct from the certainty of, say, mathematics) arises from the interrelation of different parts of

22

23 24 25

‘Alterum est quod non semper apostoli utuntur scriptura secundum sensum literalem, sed quandoque secundum sensum mysticum. Alterum est quod aliquis sensus mysticus spectat ad impletionem scripturae, ex intentione proculdubio Spiritus sancti, alioquin nunquam dixisset Ioannes ut scriptura impleretur loquens de sensu mystico’. On Jn 19.36, iv, 420b. On Gal 3.16, v, 209a. ‘Et hic sensus, tanquam literalis, complectendus est, utpote rationi, et contextui rerum scriptarum ac gestarum consonus, et nihil habens obstaculi’. On 1Kings 10.8, ii, 92a. ‘Et rationi ergo recte, et contextui et textui sacrae scripturae quadrat […]’. On Gen 2.21, i, 22b.

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

173

the text.26 He asks his reader to be a tolerant judge of his commentaries insofar as the interpretations they contain, however novel, do not contradict the truth of the Christian faith or the teaching and practice of the Church (even if they depart from the patristic tradition).27 And he chides those who, rather than applying right reason to the interpretation of a text, consult apocryphal, that is, non-authoritative, sources.28 Cajetan thus makes explicit reference to a number of principles: the literal interpretation of a text will be reasonable; it will be attentive to the context in which individual words are used; it will judge one text of scripture in the light of other texts of scripture; and it will say nothing that is not consistent with the teaching of the Church. The Historical Context of Words For Cajetan, attention to context includes a sensitivity to the history and use of words. His insistence on the accuracy of translation has already been shown; the commentator is foiled in his most basic tasks if the translator has not been conscientious.29 The literal interpretation of the scriptures must be founded on a knowledge of the languages in which they were written. He cautions that the nuances of biblical Greek and Hebrew will not always be captured by even the most careful translation.30 Thus the commentator’s first approach to literal exegesis will make use of the skills of the philologists and grammarians. Cajetan explains that the meaning of words can change over time: words such

26

27

28

29 30

‘Circa modum vero, meminisse decet: quod quemadmodum homo docilis non parem exigit certitudinem in omnibus, sed in mathematicis certitudinem demonstratam, in naturalibus certitudinem ex frequentibus naturae operibus consurgentem, in moralibus vero ex congruentibus rectae rationi, ita docilis nullus exiget hi evidentem omnimodam: sed admittet certitudinem ex contextu partium consurgentem’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3a–3b. ‘Et si quando occurrerit novus sensus textui consonus, nec a sacra scriptura, nec ab ecclesia doctrina dissonus, quamvis a torrente doctorum sacrorum dissonus, aequos se praebent censores’. I will return to this text later in this chapter. ‘Et hic sensus, quia nullo eget adminiculo apocrypho, sed libertati literae innititur […] complectendus est, utpote cui tam contextus literae quam ratio valde quadrat’. On 2Kings 4.2, ii, 136b. See also, ‘Et hic sensus et quadrat literae, et quadrat dispositioni habitantium in Ierusalem, et quadrat rationi rectae, et nullo eget adminiculo apocrypho’. On 2Kings 5.6, ii, 138a. See p. 132, n. 13. For example, in both Hebrew and Greek usage, ‘blessing’ can include the notion of increase, ‘Benedictio in sacra scriptura quoad augmentationem et multiplicationem sumitur frequenti usu’. On Ps 45.2, iii, 163a.

174

chapter 6

as ‘heresy’ or ‘clergy’ have specific meanings in the ancient world or the early Church, which differ from that of a later age.31 For Cajetan, a sensitivity to the evolution of the meanings of words takes into account not only the history of languages but also the historical setting of the text under examination. For example, according to a superficial reading (‘superficies literae’), the anointing of Aaron recounted in Ps 133 is a cause of joy for the people. But the fuller intention of the author (‘intentus tamen sensus’) can be gathered from the historical context of the psalm, which dates from the unification of the kingdom under David. For Cajetan, the author intends to indicate that the people are as joyful over their unity under one king as they are under one high priest.32 The history of words also includes the history of divine revelation. A recurring example is the explanation Cajetan gives of the ‘Son of God’ sayings in the gospels. The Christian title has a pre-history in Judaism, where it is used for the messiah, though without any implication of Trinitarian theology.33 This is also the sense in which it is used in the New Testament by John the Baptist, Nathanael, Caiaphas, and even the Roman centurion.34 Christians must not assume that their own post-paschal confession of faith is always intended in the expression ‘Son of God’. Similarly, when Jesus’s listeners heard him speak of his Father, they recognised an allusion to Jeremiah (‘You would call me, My Father’, Jer 3.19) rather than a claim of consubstantiality.35 Cajetan is critical of definitions that wildly exceed the genuine meaning of a word and he advises commentators to be judicious in their recourse to etymological interpretations. He himself is sparing in drawing attention to numbers. He notes briefly that, for the authors of scripture, some numbers (seven, ten, three) have a sacred or symbolic meaning;36 at the narrative of 31

32 33

34

35 36

‘Appellantur enim haeresim Platonicam, Peripateticam, Stoicam, &c., quas nos dicimus sectam Peripateticam, sectam Platonicam, &c’. On 1Cor 11.19, v, 124a. ‘Nec intelligo per cleros eos quod appellamus clericos, sed Christianos omnes ad divinam sortem asscitos’. On 1Pet 5.3, v, 379b. Also on Acts 15.5, v, 460b. On Ps 133.2, iii, 450a–b. ‘Nomen Filii [Dei] nomen proprium est messiae secundum divinam naturam in veritate. Sed apud Hebraeos non penetrantes mysterium Trinitatis, admittebatur nomen Filii Dei tanquam proprium epitheton Messiae’. On Heb 1.2, v, 330b. ‘Quamvis in veritate Iesus sit naturalis Filius Dei, ad literam tamen appellatio Filii Dei apud Hebraeos tunc temporis non sonabat explicite verum Deum, sicut apud Christianos sonat, sed sonabat messiam, quem tam digna appellatione dignum censebant’. On Jn 1.34, iv, 294b. See also on Mk 15.39, iv, 167a–b; on Ps 72.17, iii, 250b; on Mt 14.33, iv, 71a. On Jn 2.16, iv, 299a. ‘[…] consecratum septenarium numerum’. On 3 Kings 18.43, ii, 216a; on 4Kings 5.10, ii,

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

175

the miraculous catch of 153 fish (Jn 21.11)—a text that had occasioned much remarkable speculation among other commentators37—he passes on without comment. One area in which he allows himself some etymological scope is the interpretation of the different names used of God in the first chapters of Genesis. Cajetan constantly seeks to show why one or other name (Elohim, yhwh, Adonai) is used; he combines etymology with contextual analysis. The first to be considered is Elohim, in the first verse of Genesis.38 Cajetan is aware that this name is used in scripture to mean both ‘God’ and ‘judges’. He recognises that, grammatically speaking, Elohim is a plural noun and can therefore mean ‘gods’ (or even ‘angels’).39 However, noting the use of the singular verb, he suggests that the plural noun is here being used as a singular. He mentions the reverential use of such plurals before princes. Cajetan is aware that, ‘even today’, for the same reasons of reverence, the Jews use a plural name for God when reading aloud (Adonai, literally, ‘my Lords’), even though a singular exists.40 He notes in passing that this term cannot be taken as a reference to the three persons of the Trinity since this would require a plural verb (as at 1.26, ‘Let us make […] in our image’);41 in the opening verses of Genesis, therefore, Elohim with its singular verb refers to the divine persons as one single principle of creation.42 Cajetan takes seriously the connotation of judgment in the name Elohim; he gives two reasons why Moses deliberately uses this name for God in connection with the act of creation. First, he wishes to assert that the one God is both Creator and Judge, against those ‘philosophers’ who would deny this. And second, he sees the act of creation as involving a kind of judgment: the just arrangement and structuring of all that is brought into being. Referring to a favourite text, he speaks of the ‘sweet ordering’ (suavis dispositio) of divine wisdom (Wis

37 38 39 40 41 42

236a; on Ps 119.164, iii, 424b; on Prov 24.16, iii, 575a; on Prov 26.16, iii, 581b; on Eccl 7.20, iii, 619a. ‘Septenarius numerus Hebraeo more universitatis est index’. On Lk 8.2, iv, 207a. Summarised in Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vols., Garden City: Doubleday, 1966–1970), vol. 2, pp. 1074–1076. On Gen 1.1, i, 1–2a. On Gen 3.3–5, i, 26b. On Gen 1.1, i, 2a. Cajetan gives Adonai in Hebrew script; this is the only occasion when a word other than the names Elohim and yhwh is written in Hebrew script. On Gen 1.26, i, 12b. Just as the Father and the Son are a single principle of the spiration of the Holy Spirit. On Gen 1.1, i, 1b–2a.

176

chapter 6

8.1), exercising distributive justice in creating.43 Throughout his Old Testament commentaries, Cajetan draws attention to this special connotation of Elohim.44 The second name for God is his most proper name, the Tetragrammaton, yhwh. Some commentators found a mystical revelation of the Trinity encoded in the Tetragrammaton;45 Cajetan’s explanation, by contrast, is located firmly in the metaphysical tradition. The name derives from the verb ‘to be’ and defines the God of Israel as the source of being ( fons essendi).46 Cajetan insists on the freedom of God: he is the cause both of being and of ceasing to be, not by any natural necessity but according to his freedom.47 A recurring concern of Cajetan’s is God’s involvement in and providential care for the details of human life. Moses deliberately uses the name yhwh in specific situations to drive this point home. Cain is questioned about his brother Abel by yhwh; the reader might have expected Elohim, the Judge, to question the fratricide, but Moses wants us to see that even the supreme source of being scrutinises our actions.48 For the same reason, it is yhwh, the source of being, who interrogates Eve after the Fall.49 This etymology is given further explanation when God reveals this name to Moses at the burning bush (Ex 3.14–15). The Tetragrammaton can be translated as ‘I will be who I will be’. For Cajetan, the use of the future tense is appropriate for the one who perseveres in being.50 God could have said, ‘I am

43

44 45

46 47

48 49 50

On Gen 1.1, i, 2a. See also on 3 Kings 18.24, ii, 215a. This praise of the orderliness of Wisdom’s dispositions paraphrases a favourite text, Wis 8.1; see John W. O’Malley, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: Rhetoric, Doctrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, ca.1450–1521 (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1979), p. 128. E.g., on Gen 3.13, i, 28b; on Gen 6.2, i, 39a; on Gen 6.12, i, 42b; on Gen 6.22, i, 44a; on Gen 7.9, i, 45b; on Gen 7.16, i, 46b; on Gen 8.1, i, 47a. See Guy Bedouelle, Le Quincuplex Psalterium de Lefèvre d’Etaples. Guide de lecture (Geneva: Droz, 1979), pp. 167–174. For similar ideas in Giles of Viterbo, see John W. O’Malley, Giles of Viterbo on Church and Reform (Leiden: Brill, 1968), p. 78. On Gen 2.4, i, 15b. ‘[…] ut doceret Deum sic esse fontem essendi, ut ab ipso etiam emanet non esse, ita quod non est principium essendi naturale (hoc est, per modum naturae, ut multi philosophi putaverunt), nec est principium tantummodo essendi, sed et est principium privandi esse, et est principium liberum’. On Gen 6.7, i, 41b. See also the creation of the great seadragons: ‘Et meminit in primis draconum grandium ad tollendum errorem existimantium huiusmodi animalia non esse producta ex intentione divina, sed velut ex necessitate materiae’. On Gen 1.21, i, 11a. On Gen 4.9, i, 34a. On Gen 3.13, i, 28b. ‘Ego sum ille perseverans in esse, cui suapte natura convenit perseverare in esse’. On Ex 3.14–15, i, 158b–159a.

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

177

who I am’, but this would have been more subtle, requiring an understanding of eternity without past, present, or future, and a knowledge that in the esse of God all perfections are included.51 The revelation by God of his proper name was and is a great gift.52 These two names (plus Adonai on one occasion) are the only words printed in Hebrew script in Cajetan’s commentaries, and very rarely after the early chapters of Genesis. Thereafter, although the commentary becomes less detailed, Cajetan continues to note the name used for God and explain why it has been used in a given setting.53 The explicit assumption is that the author’s choice is deliberate and significant. The exegesis Cajetan gives is determined by the meaning these names have for the author and also for his first audience.

Literary Context: Metaphors, Parables, and Similitudes With this practice, Cajetan demonstrates that the literal meaning of a phrase or verse depends not only on the history and the dictionary definitions of the words used, but also on the manner in which they are used by the author. The same word can be used in two different sentences and have two different meanings. Interpreting individual words, the commentator should be aware of the reasoning of the author and the details of the narrative, since these will govern the way in which words are employed and will disclose the literal sense of the passage.54 In particular, the commentator will have to judge from the context when a word is being used ‘properly’ and when metaphorically; he will note the use of irony and exaggeration (even by God).55 Such ‘non-literal’ devices belong to the literal sense of a text. For example, when Paul says that he

51

52 53

54 55

‘[…] ille autem modus subtilior est, exigens notitiam aeternitatis nescientis praeteritum, praesens aut futurum, et notitiam quod in esse comprehenditur omnis perfectio &c., quae non facile percipiuntur communiter’. On Ex 3.14–15, i, 158b–159a. On Ex 3.14–15, i, 158b–159a. ‘Deinceps non prosequemur textum Hebraeum de verbo ad verbum, quia materia non videtur hoc exigere, sed, ubi mutatio sententiae eveniet, referemus Hebraea verba. Et dicemus nihilominus quando superfluum aliquid aut diminutum est’. On Gen 4.1, i, 32a. Cajetan also notes other names used, for example, Elohe, on Ex 3.13, i, 158b; El Shaddai, on Gen 43.14, i, 138b. ‘[…] a causis, ab effectibus, a contrariis, ab eventibus, a concomitantibus, a circumstantiis, et id genus reliquis’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3a. On Gen 3.22, i, 31a; on Ex 32.7, i, 251b; on 3 Kings 21.7, ii, 222a; on Job 38.3, ii, 532b; on 1Cor 4.8, v, 98a; on 1Thess 3.8, v, 279a.

178

chapter 6

had eaten nothing for fourteen days, he is surely exaggerating; were this exactly true, Paul and his companions would not have survived.56 Since blasphemy is abhorrent, scripture refers to it ironically by its opposite.57 When Aaron is said to ‘offer the Levites before the Lord’, we are warned not to be unsophisticated: Aaron will have selected a small representative group.58 Among those figures of speech—which the sacred authors use and which the commentator must discern—Cajetan makes specific mention of metaphor, parable, and similitude.59 Cajetan underlines that these are not departures from the literal sense; they are part of the variety of the literal sense.60 Echoing Aquinas, he argues that the literal sense is not the metaphor itself, but the meaning that the metaphor intends to convey.61 Many uses of metaphor are straightforward enough and clearly intended by the author (the ‘last trumpet’, for example).62 Others are not so easy to detect: for example, the precept forbidding the muzzling of an ox when it is treading out corn is to be taken metaphorically, as a reference to preachers of the gospel. This is the text’s literal meaning—a non-metaphorical, agricultural interpretation would be absurd. Following Paul, Cajetan asserts that God would hardly have established written legislation for animals.63 The mystical sense, on the other hand, is always additional to the literal sense, presupposing it and able to co-exist with it. For example, the ruling against breaking the legs of the paschal lamb is literally a regulation concerning the preparation of the Passover meal, but it is also a mystical figure ( figura) of the crucified Christ.64

56 57 58 59 60

61 62 63 64

‘Humano modo loquitur, quo qui valde parum comedit nihil comedisse dicitur’. On Acts 27.33, iv, 482b. ‘Ex opposito enim significat Scriptura (horrens etiam nominare) blasphemiam Dei’. On 3Kings 21.12, ii, 222a. ‘Non sis ita rudis, ut intelligas Pontificem singulos Levitas elevasse coram Domino, sed unum, vel duos in persona omnium Levitarum elevasse coram Deo’. On Num 8.11, i, 358a. For example, ‘Similitudines’: on Dt 8.2, i, 451a; ‘Metaphoricus est sermo’: on Gen 6.6, i, 41b; also on Lev 19.19, i, 317b; on Dt 25.4, i, 482b; on 1 Thess 4.15, v, 281b; on 2Cor 12.7, v, 196a. ‘Nec declino a literali sensu, sed memor parabolici stili expono ad literam’. On Prov 2.18, iii, 512a. ‘Adverte hic et pro praedictis et pro dicentis in hoc psalmo, quod quia sub metaphora psalmus iste tractat conditiones Messiae, &c., ideo expositiones istae non sunt mysticae, sed ad sensum spectant literalem’. On Ps 45.4–5, iii, 164a. ‘Constat enim sensum literalem metaphorae non esse ipsam metaphoram sed quod intendit significari per illam’. On Ps 45.4–5, iii, 164a. See n. 7 above. On 1Cor 15.52, v, 148a. ‘Quia nefas est quod Deus legem statuat scriptam pro bobus’. On Dt 25.4, i, 482b. See also on 1Cor 9.9, v, 113a. On Jn 19.36, iv, 420b. See also on Ps 68, Intro, iii, 231a.

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

179

Cajetan’s flexible use of terminology should be noted: the parables in the gospels are treated as extended ‘metaphors’; ‘metaphor’ and ‘similitude’ are used as interchangeable terms; in a passage of John, the use of the words ‘light’ and ‘darkness’ is said to be ‘half-proper, half-metaphorical’.65 Similitudo is often taken to mean simply ‘likeness’, but on one occasion, Cajetan uses the word similitudo to describe the typological burden of Old Testament events.66 Otherwise, in cases of typology, Cajetan speaks of figurae and praesignantia.67 When Paul uses the word typos, Cajetan translates or paraphrases it with figura, figuratio and similitudo, as well as typus and ‘velut forma exemplaris’.68 In other words, not only does he eschew definitions of these different terms, but he uses these terms with a freedom that pushes against easy categorisation. This only adds to the sense of ‘thickness’ around Cajetan’s understanding of the literal sense.69

65

66

67

68

69

‘Metaphoriceque Deus quoque dicitur conviva: quoniam ad similitudinem convivae dignatur concurre, cum nos pascimur bonorum operum fructibus, perinde enim gratum habet ac si ipse pasceretur’. On Lk 15.23, iv, 241b. ‘Docere enim per similitudines contingit dupliciter. Vel per metaphoras […] vel per similitudinem factorum’. On Ps 78.1, iii, 270b; ‘Sermo iste semi-proprius et semi-metaphoricus est’, on Jn 3.19, iv, 305b. ‘Propter tantam fidem accepit ipsum Isaac in similitudine futuri Messiae. Immolatio enim illa salva Isaac vita immolationis Messiae similitudo fuit, in qua caro, per ariete significata, occisa est, ipsa autem messiae persona viva mansit, utpote hypostasis divina’. On Heb 11.20, v, 354b–355a. ‘[…] sic fuit res gesta in figuram futurorum’. On Gen 15.11, i, 69b. See also on Gen 15.13, i, 70a–b. ‘[…] figurae nostri, hoc est eorum quae fiunt circa nos, quae sunt agenda per nos, quaeque patienda a nobis’. On 1 Cor 10.6, v, 116b. This is paraphrased shortly after: ‘Non solum fuerunt in veritate res gestae, sed etiam fuerunt praesignantia futurorum’. On 1Cor 10.11, v, 117a. On 2 Cor 3.16, v, 162a. ‘Et propterea potest esse sensus duplex. Alter est, qui typus seu figura futuri Adae, hoc est Christi. Inchoata siquidem est similitudo sicut per unum hominem, &c. Et tenet figuratio penes hoc quod Adam fuit pater peccati et mortis, Christus autem pater iustitiae et vitae. Alter est, Adam est typus, hoc est velut forma exemplaris, futuri peccati, quoniam ab eo deductum est peccatum totius humani generis, velut a typo exprimitur forma. Utrunque est verum; elige lector sensum quem vis’. On Rom 5.14, v, 27a. Cajetan had written on metaphor and analogy early in his career in De nominum analogia (1498), a work that has received much criticism, in his own time and since; see Joshua P. Hochschild, The Semantics of Analogy: Rereading Cajetan’s De Nominum Analogia (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010). Carraud draws on Cajetan’s earlier hermeneutic theory when examing his later biblical-exegetical practice (‘Métaphore et sens littéral selon Cajétan’, pp. 202–206), but a thorough study of the link between the two remains to be made.

180

chapter 6

Some figures of speech can be sustained for larger units of text. In the case of psalms, Cajetan suggests that once a metaphor has been discerned, a thoroughly metaphorical reading of the whole psalm may be required in order to uncover the literal sense of the whole text.70 The same can be said for the gospel parables and the poetic texts in the Old Testament.71 The most detailed instance of this occurs in his exegesis of the three parables in Lk 15. Always, Cajetan insists, it is the literal sense that is being explained. Thus the shepherd with a hundred sheep is Jesus the Son of God, the lost sheep is human nature, and the ninety-nine are the elect angels.72 The woman who had ten coins represents divine wisdom, the ten coins are the nine orders of angels plus human nature and the lamp that she lights is the incarnation.73 In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the fatted calf is Christ, the memory of whose death feeds and delights the repentant sinner. Cajetan does not shirk from a strong reading of the joy of the feast at the penitent’s return, a joy not only of the penitent and of the Church’s pastors, but of God himself.74 This kind of extended metaphorical-literal exegesis is not very common in Cajetan’s commentaries, but it is nevertheless consistent with his overall approach. It shows his appropriation of a source that is entirely typical of the exegetical tradition, especially as received in the Dominican order: these interpretations are all among those collected by Aquinas in his compendium of patristic gospel commentaries, the Catena aurea.75 Cajetan chooses not to follow the same procedure with the parable of the Good Samaritan: he notes that the fiction is so accurate that the Christological mystical sense almost is the literal sense—it is literally an allegory, almost.76 The reason he goes this far but no further is that the parable is given by Jesus in answer to the 70 71 72 73 74

75

76

In Ps 48, Sion is taken throughout to be a parable of the Church: ‘Ad literam psalmus iste est parabolicus’. On Ps 48, Intro, iii, 172a. E.g., on Mt 9.15, iv, 47b; on Mk 13.37, iv, 162a–b; on Lk 12.37, iv, 230b; on Gal 4.24–27, v, 213b–214a. On Lk 15.6, iv, 239a. On Lk 15.8, iv, 239b. ‘Fructus passionis Christi in poenitente materia est gaudii non solum ipsi poenitenti et ecclesiae pastoribus, sed etiam ipsi Deo, cuius gaudium quamvis non possit augeri, materia tamen gaudii multiplicatur in novis fructibus gratiae eius’. On Lk 15.23, iv, 241b. Cajetan has drawn particularly on John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, and Augustine, as collected by Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea in quatuor evangelia (2 vols., Rome/Turin: Marietti, 1953), vol. 2, pp. 212–221. ‘Tam accurata tamen fictio huius parabolae meretur ut fere literalis sensus parabolae sit mystica interpretatio de Christo, quam sacri doctores diffuse prosequuntur’. On Lk 10.37, iv, 219b.

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

181

question, ‘Who is my neighbour?’ The literal answer to that question, given by means of the parable, is ‘everyone’.77 In other cases, Cajetan’s discernment of parable and metaphor is less conventional. In his exegesis of the second and third chapters of Genesis, he goes to considerable lengths to avoid interpretations that he fears would be thought absurd. He is concerned that a simplistic reading of some parts of the narrative (the formation of Eve from Adam’s rib, the talking snake) might appear ridiculous to anyone with any learning. In order to avoid discrediting Christian theology and teaching, he insists that the reader be attentive to the use of metaphors. He prepares the ground for the forthcoming novelty by the use of a thoroughly traditional figurative reading in his comments on Genesis 1. In the interpretation of the six days of creation, patristic theology was divided. The view of the Cappadocians in the East and Ambrose in the West was that the six days were days in the real sense, six periods of twenty-four hours during which distinctions and embellishments were introduced into the original material of creation (‘temporal succession’). Others, including the Jewish scholar Philo, the Alexandrians in the East, and Augustine in the West, held that all things had been made in an instant; the ‘six days’ were to be seen as a literary device, a figure designed to express the order and harmony of the created universe (‘simultaneous creation’). Aquinas was aware of both the temporal-succession view and the simultaneous-creation view and attempted to do justice to both. In his Commentary on the Sentences he observed that although the first is more common and seemingly more in accord with the letter, the latter is more reasonable and better adapted to preserve sacred scripture from the mockery of infidels. Although the last opinion is his preference, he undertakes to defend both.78 In his biblical commentaries, Cajetan supports the simultaneous-creation view. The opening verse is decisive: it was ‘in the beginning’ that God created the heavens and the earth. This phrase argues that the work of creation is instantaneous, all things being created in the same instant in the beginning; nothing is created on subsequent days. The six days are not, however, a fiction; the narrative description is a fitting and helpful accommodation. The six days express six grades according to which the orderly perfection of the 77 78

‘Quantum ad satisfaciendum motae quaetioni hanc sufficiunt ad literalem sensum parabola: quoniam hinc habetur quod omnis homo est proximus’. On Lk 10.37, iv, 219b. ii Sent., 12, 3, solutio. See William A. Wallace (ed.), Blackfriars, vol. 10, p. 222. Aquinas deals with the Genesis account of creation at length in the Summa (st i, 65–74); Cajetan’s commentary does not enter into details of exegesis.

182

chapter 6

created world is distributed. There exists a proportional relation (‘similitudo proportionalis’) between the work of creation and the days of the week.79 Cajetan concludes his argument with supporting scriptural texts, insisting that his interpretation has not been dreamt-up.80 Having in this way assured his reader that the text of Genesis makes legitimate and recognised use of such literary devices as the six days of creation, Cajetan introduces into his commentary less familiar elements of parable and metaphor. The first element to be approached in this way is the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib. Cajetan warns against interpreting it ‘just as it sounds’ (‘ut sonat litera’)—we might say, he is excluding a ‘literalist’ literal interpretation. For Cajetan, this account is to be taken as a mystery—not of allegory (which would by a mystical interpretation) but of parable (which is its literal meaning).81 The first reason he gives for this is an anatomical one: if we take the text literalistically, either Adam had an extra rib to spare or he had to live the rest of his life with one rib too few. Adam is therefore either a monster (monstruosus homo), or incomplete (homo mancus). Both solutions are manifestly absurd.82 Cajetan considers the context surrounding this verse, the narrative style of the 79

80

81 82

‘Nec propterea finxit opera sex dierum, sed accomodavit sex ordinate se habentibus perfectionibus universi, sex dies, ad significandum quod res universi sunt a Deo dispositae ordinate, et consequenter se habentes inter seipsas quemadmodum sex dies naturales. Ita quod inter dies et opera est similitudo proportionalis. […] Ita effectae sex perfectiones consequenter se habent inter sese usque ad consummationem omnium requisitorum ad omnimodam perfectionem universi in esse naturae. Quia itaque effecta a Deo in distributa gradus se habent inter se, ac si facti fuissent singuli gradus singulis diebus, et septimo die quievisset opifex perfectis omnibus. Ideo asbque fictione Moses effecta a Deo omnia in primo instanti, quo creavit caelos et terram, distributa in sex perfectionum gradus consequenter se habentes, accomodavit sex diebus naturalibus et quietem diei septimo’. On Gen 1.5, i, 6a. ‘Nec somnio haec, quoniam omnia fuisse creata simul non solum Eccl. 18[.1, Vulg] legitur: Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul, sed Moses ipse testatur in hoc libro cap. 2[.4]: Istae sunt generationes caelorum et terrae in die qua fecit Deus caelos et terram et omne virgultum agri, omnemque herbam &c’. On Gen 1.5, i, 6a. ‘Cogor ex ipso textu et contentu intelligere hanc mulieris productionem non ut sonat litera, sed secundum mysterium non allegoriae sed parabolae’. On Gen 2.21, i, 22a. ‘Textus in primis dicens ablatum fuisse costam ex Adae, si ut sonat litera intelligitur, inevitabile absurdum incurritur, vel quod Adam fuerit monstrum ante sublatum ex eo costam, vel quod fuerit mancus post sublatum ex eo costam, quorum utrunque manifeste est absurdum. Nihil autem absurdi in prima rerum productione asserendum esse, confessum est ab omnibus. Et patet sequela: quia, si costa illa erat superflua homini, ergo monstruosus homo. […] Si vero costa illa necessaria erat homini constat quod illa sublata redditus est homo mancus’. On Gen 2.21, i, 22a.

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

183

rest of the chapter, and the relationship between this chapter and the previous one. Moses tells us that God brings the wild beasts and the birds of heaven to the man, to provide for him a helpmate. For Cajetan, it is plainly ridiculous to suppose that God actually thought he might find a suitable helpmate for Adam among the birds; therefore, Moses does not intend this to be understood as a description of an actual event. And since this passage introduces the account of the creation of the woman, it is reasonable to suppose that both are to be taken as similitudes.83 A further argument is adduced from a comparison of the two accounts of creation. Since, according to the first account, the man and the woman are said to have been created together on the sixth day, the second account, involving the formation of the woman from the man’s rib, is evidently a supplement to the first account, in the form of a similitude, and not a new account of the creation of the woman.84 (Cajetan is not entirely consistent here: the context also includes the narrative of the formation of Adam from the dust of the earth, Gen 2.7, which Cajetan interprets in a properliteral sense, and not as a metaphorical supplement to the earlier account.)85 A final argument follows from the fact that the woman, after having been fashioned from Adam’s rib, is ‘brought to him’. Here Moses hints that his text is to be taken metaphorically: had the woman actually been made from Adam’s rib, she would already have been next to him, having no need to be brought to him.86

83

84

85 86

‘Contextus quoque idem insinuat: nam adducere animalia coram Adam et non invenire inter ea adiutorium correspondens ei, si secundum literam intelligatur, ridiculum inquisitionem significat. In cuius mente verte poterat in dubium, an inter aves inveniretur adiutor correspondens Adae? Unde huiusmodi divina inquisitio introducta a Mose, dicendo, et non invenit, ad hoc introducta est ut intelligeremus formationem subsecutam mulieris ex costa viri non esse iuxta sonum literae intelligendam, sed similitudinarie, quemadmodum ipsa inquisitio divina secundum similitudinem intelligenda et, hoc est quod ad similitudinem inquirentis non invenit’. On Gen 2.21, i, 22a–b. ‘Accedit ad idem textus Mosi de sexto die, in quo manifeste scriptum est, masculum et foeminam creavit eos; ex hoc enim quod Moses scripserat mulierem creatam esse sexto die et postea, translato homine in paradisum, describit eam ex costa viri formatam; additum intelligendi huiusmodi formationem ex costa non proprie sed secundum similitudinem dedit. Producta siquidem sexto die muliere non esse intelligendum putavit quod iterum produceretur. […] Tunc et non nunc mulier est corporaliter producta’. On Gen 2.21, i, 22b. On Gen 2.7, i, 16b–17a. ‘Ubi etiam adverte quod undique Moses insinuat sermonem suum esse metaphorice intelligendum. Nam si corporaliter mulier formata fuisset ex costa viri, ibidem iuxta virum fuisset formata, et non alio abducta, ut inde oportuisset eam venire ad Adam, insinuat quod metaphorice loquitur’. On Gen 2.22, i, 23a.

184

chapter 6

Cajetan holds that his interpretation accords with reason, with the context, and with other texts of scripture.87 He is not perturbed by the fact that scripture gives this account in the form of a historical narrative: the same is said of the six days of creation, of the punishment of the serpent, and of the questioning of the animals for a helpmate for Adam. If it is reasonable to interpret such texts metaphorically, then there should be no objections to his interpretation of the rib.88 A second instance of Cajetan’s metaphorical reading of the early chapters of Genesis occurs with the appearance of the serpent. He notes how scripture often uses animal names metaphorically (‘Lamb of God’, ‘Lion of Judah’, the ‘Dragon’ of Revelation).89 Likewise here, ‘serpent’ is not the name of an (irrational) animal but a metaphor for the (intellectual) devil.90 It follows from this that the punishment of the devil (the serpent will crawl on its belly) must also be taken metaphorically; the text not only invites such an interpretation, but requires it. Otherwise, the sense is childish.91 Cajetan’s reticence about hermeneutical or semiotic systems is once again evident. In the course of these arguments, he refers to the literary genre used by Moses variously as a metaphor, a similitude, and a parable. He makes no attempt to define each term and he uses them interchangeably. Cajetan argues that this approach to these texts is not only reasonable and balanced but also useful for the profession of the Christian faith among the ‘wise of this world’.

87 88

89

90 91

On Gen 2.21, i, 22b, cited above, p. 172, n. 25. ‘Nec obstat si obiiciatur quod productio mulieris ex costa viri a scriptura narratur per modum historiae, seu rei gestae, tum quia non minus narrantur per modum historiae sex dies naturales cum vespera et mane, et tamen non oportet intelligere opera illa fuisse facta per huiusmodi naturales sex dies, tum quia poena serpentis inferius per modum quoque historiae describitur, et tamen puerile esse constat intelligere illam corporaliter ut sonat. Non adversatur igitur sensus iste sobrio sacrae scripturae sensui, quemadmodum sobrius sensus inquisitionis divinae supradictae est, quod ad similitudinem inquirentis et non invenientis Deus describitur’. On Gen 2.21, i, 22b. ‘Tum communibus locutionibus sacrae scripturae, tum propriis textus huius quadrat, serpentis nomine non proprie intelligitur animal illud brutum, sed metaphorice diabolum. Communibus quidem quoniam animalium nominibus utitur sacra scriptura pro rationalibus creaturas’. On Gen 3.1, i, 24a–b. ‘Unde sicut ibi non intelligitur diabolus in corporea specie serpentis, pari ratione nec hic’. On Gen 3.1, i, 24b. ‘Perspicaciter contemplare, prudens lector, has poenas, et perpendes puerile esse intelligere has poenas illatas animali irrationali, quem serpentem vocamus, ut hinc firmeris in intellectu metaphorici sermonis, tum hic, tum superius, ubi textus ipse ad metaphoricum sensum non solum invitat sed cogit’. On Gen 3.15, i, 29b.

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

185

His gain has not been at the level of theological content; there is little difference between his literal-metaphorical explanation of the creation of Eve and the non-literal, mystical explanation of the same text by Aquinas.92 Rather, he is concerned lest the mysteries of faith be dismissed as fables and that those who might otherwise embrace the Christian faith would be discouraged by exegesis that was puerile, ridiculous, and absurd.93 Where Aquinas, Savonarola, and Pagnini had expressed concern about Christian exegesis arousing the mockery of the Jews, Cajetan’s concern also takes in the ‘wise of this world’.94 These examples from Genesis demonstrate Cajetan’s quite deliberate attempt to avoid fragmenting the sacred text. Words must be understood in context; that context includes the history and the language to which those words belong, and the sentence, paragraph, or book in which they are used. The extension of the literal sense to include all figures of speech intended by the author owes much to Aquinas. In scope and execution, however, Cajetan’s literal sense is distinguished by its constant, and virtually exclusive, attention to human literary initiative; the human author is not a passive instrument. The sacred writer belongs to a people, with a history and a language; each language has a richness and flexibility which the accomplished writer will exploit by the use of poetry, narrative, metaphor, irony, hyperbole, and proper literalism. The study of grammar sheds light on divine revelation. For Cajetan, biblical words retain their human and historical contingency. The same is true of the people who composed the biblical books: the fact that the sacred authors were inspired by God in no sense diminished their character and individuality. Alongside grammar, the biblical exegete can also learn from the study of larger forms of writing, such as rhetoric and history.

Authorial Style An illuminating preface to Cajetan’s description of the artfulness of the sacred writers is his understanding of the artfulness of God. Paolo Cortesi had argued

92 93

94

Compare st i, 92, 3 and Cajetan on Gen 2.21, i, 23a. ‘Sunt autem sensus isti metaphorici non solum sobrii secundum sacram scripturam, sed non parum utiles Christianae fidei professioni, praecipue coram sapientibus huius mundi; percipientes enim quod haec non ut litera sonat sed metaphorice dicta intelligimus ac credimus, non horrent haec de costa Adam, et serpente tanquam fabellas, sed venerantur mysteria et facilius ea quae sunt fidei complectuntur’. On Gen 3.1, i, 25a. See Timoteo M. Centi, ‘L’attività letteraria di Santi Pagnini (1470–1536) nel campo delle scienze bibliche’, afp (1945), pp. 5–51, at pp. 7–8. For Aquinas, Centi refers to st i, 68, 1.

186

chapter 6

that it is entirely fitting to use rhetorical techniques, since God himself had done so in the Bible.95 Cajetan enjoys finding patterns in divine revelation and these he attributes to the deliberate intention of God. Such a pattern is evident, for example, in the manifestation to Samuel of God’s choice of David as king. First of all, Samuel is told that the kingdom is to be taken from Saul and given to another; then he is told that the new king is one of the sons of Jesse; then, finally, he is shown which of those sons it is to be.96 Samuel is led, step by step, to the specific identification of David. Similarly, when condemning Israel for the theft of idols, there is a gradual sharpening of focus in God’s words as the sin is disclosed.97 Although Cajetan does not state this explicitly, such a method clearly adds to the dramatic effectiveness of the narrative. Jesus shows a fondness for the same method, likewise in circumstances of mounting expectation. Cajetan discerns this pattern in the prophecies of betrayal, gathered from the different gospels. The first prophecies speak only of his being rejected (initially in unqualified terms, then ‘in fulfilment of the scriptures’).98 The idea of betrayal is thus introduced, but not the identity of the betrayer. Judas himself, who heard this prophecy, did not know at the time that he was to betray Jesus.99 At the Last Supper, Jesus declares that he is to be betrayed by one of his own disciples; this reduces the catchment to twelve. Next, Jesus reveals that the betrayer is one who has dipped his hand in the same dish as Jesus. This reduces the number of suspects to between six and four, since, according to Cajetan, this is the customary number of persons to share a dish of food in this way.100 (This is exactly as depicted in Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper, completed 1497, in the refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie, in Milan; Cajetan was assigned to this priory 1499–1501.) When Jesus finally 95 96

97

98 99 100

John F. D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), p. 153. ‘Ex his autem clare habetur progressus divinae revelationis de novo rege. Nam primum revelatum fuit Samueli quod Deus translaturus erat regnum in virum meliorem Saule; deinde revelatum est illi quod vir ille esset unus filiorum Isai Bethlehemitae, sed non est ei revelatum quis ex filiis Isai esset; et demum revelatum est ei quod vir ille esset David’. On 1Kings 16.9, ii, 104b. ‘Considera, prudens lector, quod Deus pedetentim revelat peccatum commissum: et primum quidem in genere dicit […], deinde descendendo […], postea ad speciem peccati descendens […], et amplius specificando […], et accumulando crimen […]’. On Josh 7.11, ii, 11a. On Mk 9.12, iv, 152a. On Mt 20.18, iv, 90b. ‘[…] ac per hoc descendit ad magis specialia, non tamen ad individuum’. On Mt 26.23, iv, 118a.

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

187

identifies his betrayer, he does so only to John, leaning on his breast. Thus, by taking the data from all of the gospels, Cajetan charts how Jesus’s disclosure of his betrayer becomes more specific and more intimate as the moment of betrayal draws closer, adding to and reflecting the tension of the moment.101 Cajetan also notes the pattern in the progressive stages in the coming of the Kingdom: Christ acquires dominion over heaven and earth in his resurrection; he takes possession (possesso) of heaven at his ascension; he will take possession (possesso) of earth when he comes again as judge.102 Perhaps Cajetan has in mind the pageantry of a newly-elected pope’s grand procession from the Vatican to the Lateran, called his possesso, by which he took possession of the cathedral church of the diocese of Rome.103 Having observed such patterns in the words of Jesus, Cajetan also has an eye for the rhetorical tactics of the biblical authors. He is especially interested in Moses (as the author of most of the Pentateuch), John (as the most detailed of the evangelists), and Paul (especially on preaching). Cajetan does not attribute to Moses an unreflective cataloguing of events. For example, the order in which things are told (ordo narrationis) is not always the same as the order in which they happened (ordo rerum gestarum).104 Arguments that derive the latter from the former should be avoided; such arguments are built on sand. The exegete must never lose sight of this principle.105 Sometimes Moses summarises and selects,106 often giving a general description of a whole episode before going back to account for particular details.107 If a discourse is to be repeated (for example, God speaks to Moses and then Moses 101

102 103

104 105 106 107

‘Si iungis his scripta ab aliis Evangelistis, invenies Iesum proditorem suum primo manifestasse unum ex duodecim; deinde restringendo, unum ex comedentibus in catino Iesu; et demum soli Ioanni demonstrasse individuo’. On Jn 13.26, iv, 385a. On Mt 28.18, iv, 130a; on Lk 19.15, iv, 254b. See Irene Fosi, ‘Court and City in the Ceremony of the possesso in the Sixteenth Century’, in Gianvittorio Signorotto and Antonietta Visceglia (eds.), Court and Politics in Papal Rome 1492–1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 31–52; Nicholas Temple, Renovatio Urbis: Architecture, Urbanism, and Ceremony in the Rome of Julius ii (New York: Routledge, 2011). On Gen 37.2, i, 128a. See also on Gen 26.1, i, 102b; on Gen 28.20, i, 109b; on Gen 31.12, i, 115a; on Ex 7.20, i, 169a; on Ex 9.23, i, 174a; on Ex 12.15, i, 180a; on Num 9.1, i, 359b. ‘Et hanc regulam habeto, prudens lector, semper ante oculos, ne super infirmum fundamentum aedifices’. On Gen 25.26, i, 102a. On Gen 48.22, i, 147a. See also on Ex 12.21, i, 180b; on Num 4.16, i, 349a. And not only Moses. See on Judg 6.24, ii, 47a; on Judg 10.17, ii, 55a; on 1Kings 1.23, ii, 77a; on 1Kings 2.30, ii, 80b; 1 Kings 24.5, ii, 118a (where an event is ‘recalled’ which had never hitherto been mentioned); on Mt 27.52–53, iv, 126b.

188

chapter 6

relays God’s words to the people) he doesn’t necessarily give all the words both times, lest he bore the reader.108 At other times, taking up again a narrative thread, he will repeat something already described.109 And when he has more weighty matters to narrate, he rushes through intervening material.110 For Cajetan, the style of Moses—story-teller and teacher of the law—respects both his message and his audience. The five books of Moses come down to us in Hebrew sources as one single work.111 Nonetheless, Cajetan sees a change in approach. In the first four books, God speaks through Moses; Moses is the translator of a new revelation. In the fifth, however, he is the doctor of the law, teaching that which has been revealed; Deuteronomy therefore has a recognisably different style; it is the book of the repetition of the law.112 Similar techniques are evident in the work of the evangelists, even more clearly, since they are telling one four-fold story. Cajetan explains that his comments on Mark will necessarily be more concise than those on Matthew because Mark covers much of the same ground as Matthew.113 Nonetheless, no single gospel gives all that Jesus said and did. One adds what another omits.114 Cajetan’s assumptions here are those of Aquinas.115 Each evangelist selects and edits in order to improve the narrative, to avoid repetition or tedium, or to point up some facet of the gospel message. For example, according to Cajetan, Matthew has relocated the narrative of the anointing at Bethany (Mt 26.6–13) in order to bring it closer to the narrative of Judas’s betrayal, which

108 109 110 111 112

113 114 115

‘[…] ne repetitio fastidio esset lectoribus’. On Ex 12.24, i, 181a. On Ex 6.30, i, 167b. ‘Festinat siquidem Moses ad Abraham’. On Gen 9.29, i, 55a. ‘Scito itaque quod Hebraice nulla est intercisio librorum, sed a principio Genesis usque ad finem Deuteronomii unicus est liber’. On Dt 1.1, i, 429a. ‘[…] tanquam interpres noviter revelatorum’. On Dt 1.3, i, 430a; ‘Loquitur itaque Moses in hoc libro tanquam Doctor consonus sibi prius revelatis a Deo’. On Dt 1.3, i, 430a; ‘Liber ergo iste declaratio legis est’. On Dt 1.5, i, 430a; ‘[…] cerne prudentiam doctoris’. On Dt 6.23, i, 447b. The same redactive elements that Cajetan saw in the authorship of Moses, are also recognised in the historical books: ‘Intentio enim authoris huius libri, ut manifestae repetitiones subiunctae testantur, fuit iungere illa duo tempora, videlicet tempus Iosuae et tempus senum, et fere pro uno tempore supputare, et propterea gesta tempore senum iungit gestis tempore Iosuae, tanquam sub uno contextu’. On Judg 1.10, ii, 35b. See also on Judg 1.17, ii, 35b; on Judg 1.20, ii, 36a. Yet all of this is within the legitmate scope of the sacred author: ‘[…] sed revera non est extra propositum authoris’. On Judg 2.6, ii, 37a. On Mk, Intro, iv, 133a. On Mk 10.11, iv, 155a. See Smalley, The Gospels in the Schools, pp. 269–271.

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

189

follows immediately (Mt 26.14–16). He has done this in order to show the close link between the two events: it was because Judas was so incensed that the expensive ointment was not sold to contribute to the purse (from which he would then have stolen) that he decided to ‘sell’ Jesus to compensate himself.116 For Cajetan, each gospel needs to be read in the light of the others. This is most important for John. Having read the other gospels himself, John assumes the same knowledge on the part of his readers.117 Where Matthew and Mark recall certain words of Jesus, John tells us when and where they were uttered,118 although he is also seen to rearrange material for reasons of clarity.119 Most often it is John who provides what the other evangelists have omitted; at other times he compresses or omits what the others have included.120 For example, in answering the charge of sabbath-breaking, the synoptics report Jesus’s words of reproach on the double standards of the Pharisees; John, however, recounts the words of Jesus, that just as his Father goes on working so he goes on working; this is because John wishes to disclose the divinity of Jesus.121 Cajetan underlines that John’s attention to historical detail reflects his theological purpose. Because John is dealing with such challenging and unheard of doctrinal matters (namely, the divinity of the messiah), he describes the circumstances of Jesus’s teaching and signs with the greatest detail, that they may be more convincing. If he had not, readers might doubt that they were authentic. Cajetan recalls that Plato passed off some of his own doctrines as the teachings of Socrates and Parmenides. John does not wish to be accused of the same tactic.122 116

117 118 119

120 121 122

‘Commemoratio haec unctionis factae sabbato praecedenti fit ad insinuandum occasionem qua motus est Iudas ad vendendum Iesus’. On Mt 26.6, iv, 116b. Mark does likewise, on Mk 14.3, iv, 162b–163a. ‘Avaritiam evangelista scribit causam proditionis, ad redimendum unguentum precio magistri; sufferre non poterat quod tanta materia furti sibi subtracta esset’. On Mt 26.15, iv, 117b. ‘[…] alii non malo animo aegre tulerunt factum hoc, sed pietatis intentione; Iudas autem tam maligno animo ut inde occasionem sumpserit vendendi Iesum’. On Jn 12.5, iv, 372b. On Jn 11.2, iv, 366a. On Jn 13.36, iv, 386a. ‘Adverte Ioannem Evangelistam iunxisse haec gesta et dicta in festo dedicationis antedictis in parabola ovium, pastoris, furis et mercenarii, quoniam haec supplent declarationem illius parabolae’. On Jn 10.27, iv, 363a. On Jn 2.23, iv, 299b; on Jn 3.3, iv, 300b; on Jn 11.2, iv, 366b; on Jn 12.3, iv, 372a–b; on Jn 20.30, iv, 425b. On Jn 5.17, iv, 317b. ‘Singularis autem modus huius evangelistae est quod narrat etiam minutulas circumstantias rerum gestarum: ne quispiam putaret quod ipse fuerit author doctrinae talis ac tantae

190

chapter 6

Having said this, Cajetan seems to attribute to the evangelist no less a degree of creativity than he has already noted in Moses. As with Moses’s use of different names for God, John chooses carefully the name or title he will use for Jesus. In Jn 4.1, John reports that Jesus knew that the Pharisees were aware of his activities; he begins, ‘When the Lord knew’. For Cajetan this choice of word is deliberate and of theological significance, revealing John’s understanding of Jesus’s infused knowledge.123 He makes a similar observation two chapters later when John tells us that, before feeding the multitude, ‘the Lord gave thanks’. Attention to vocabulary leads to a theological conclusion: the (divine) Lord gave thanks (in his human nature); John testifies to the mystery of the incarnation revealed in this miracle.124 In another text, the style of John, who has a habit of repeating words to stress the most important moments, is reflected even in the words of Jesus (‘Truly, truly, I say to you’, Jn 1.51).125 Evidently, this degree of authorial intrusion is excusable and does not put John in the same camp as Plato. For Cajetan, the differences among gospel accounts are the result of deliberate choices made by the gospel writers, for stylistic, narrative, or theological reasons. He stresses the initiative of the human authors who select, edit, and rearrange material for the best effect. (The way the commentator then harmonises those accounts will be examined in the next chapter.) If Cajetan’s remarks about Moses and the evangelists reflect his understanding of the craft of authorship, his remarks concerning Paul reflect his views on

123

124

125

circa quem liber hic fere ex integro occupatur: quemadmodum Plato fingit Socratem aut Parmenidem docentem, quae tamen ipse Plato docet. Ad excludendum, inquam, hunc errorem a mentibus legentium hoc Evangelium, et significandum quod Iesus in veritate haec docuit, refert per singula minutissimas circumstantias historiae: ut qua occasione, ubi, quando, quo interrogante, &c., secundum veritatem historiae Iesus docuerit, significet. Propter quod forte illas solas res gestas evangelista narrat quae spectant vel ad continuationem temporum, occasionum, &c., vel ad omissa ab aliis Evangelistis’. On Jn, Intro, iv, 279a; see also on Jn 13.36, iv, 386a. ‘Quia Ioannes Evangelista studuisse videtur sermoni formali, significetur non dicit Iesus, sed Dominus, ad significandum quod non ex audito, sed ex ea quam secum attulit notitia cognovit hoc factum in loco distante. […] Sic autem Iesus de novo cognovit singulari gesta apud Pharisaeos secundum scientiam sibi congenitam, quae a Theologis appellatur scientia infusa’. On Jn 4.1, iv, 310a. Note also of Jesus: ‘formalissimus simul et suavissimus doctor Iesus’. On Jn 5.19, iv, 318a. ‘Non nominat Iesum sed Dominum appellat, ad explicandum utramque naturam: divinam dicendo Dominum, humanam dicendo quod gratias egit. Utriusque enim opus in miraculo illo apparuit’. On Jn 6.23, iv, 327b. ‘Ioannes Evangelista consuevit repetere amen in verbis Christi propter excellentiam materiam. Tractat enim mysteria valde magna’. On Jn 1.51, iv, 296b.

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

191

preaching and teaching the Christian faith. Cajetan clearly sympathises with Paul’s anxieties about the place of rhetoric and philosophy in the service of the gospel. Paul is concerned that the faith of the Colossians could be threatened by false preachers practised in the arts of eloquence.126 Writing to the Corinthians, he distances himself from those who use eloquence (sapientia sermonis) and philosophy (sapientia rerum) in their teaching. For Cajetan, these are both purely human forms of wisdom, one of knowing, the other of speaking. Both should be avoided in preaching.127 The truth and persuasive power of the gospel cannot be replaced with something less. This exclusion is to be understood, however, in moderate terms (sobrie).128 Indeed, Cajetan seems to interpret Paul’s misgivings about philosophy as primarily methodological (preaching is about narrative, not rational proofs);129 there is a time and a place for human wisdom, both philosophy and eloquence, in the service of the gospel.130 Cajetan supports his moderate position with reference to Paul himself. Compared to Paul, the gospel writers wrote in a style free from all artifice:131 Paul excels as a philosopher and orator. Time and again, Paul’s style is acknowledged to be artful and astute:132 he uses a rhetorical question rather than expressly 126

127

128

129 130 131 132

‘Prima certationis materia describitur oratoria persuasio, arte dicendi fulta. Unde coniicimus quod erant tunc temporis quod dicendi arte fulti nitebantur abducere Christianos a puritate fidei’. On Col 2.4, v, 265b. ‘Et intendit excludere utranque sapientiam ab evangelica praedicatione. Appellatur sapientia sermonis ars dicendi, qualis est ars oratoria, et huiusmodi artes quibus constuitur ornata locutio et vis dicendi exercetur. Sapientia autem rerum vocatur sapientia humanarum scientiarum, de rebus coelorum, elementorum, mistorum, et reliquorum huiusmodi, quae philosophiae scientiae docent’. On 1 Cor 1.17, v, 87a. ‘Sobrie vero intelligi haec excludi ab evangelica praedicatione, quoniam intelliguntur non totaliter excludi, sed ut substantia illius. Sacrilegium est subiectum praedicationis evangelicae efficere doctrinam philosophicam, quam vim praedicationis evangelicae constituere in vi dicendi, in composita, ornata et pulchra locutione’. On 1Cor 1.17, v, 87a. Thirty years earlier, Cajetan had preached self-consciously eloquent, even Ciceronian, sermons to the papal court; the subject matter for one of them is the philosophical demonstrability of the immortality of the soul. ‘Doctrina philosophica procedit per rationem demonstrativum, quae facit evidentiam rerum. Praedicatio autem per narrationem’. On 1 Cor 1.21, v, 88b. ‘Uti autem quandoque eloquentiam sermonis, aut doctrina philosophica ad servitium evangelicae doctrinae pro loco et tempore, non est prohibitum’. On 1Cor 1.17, v, 87a. ‘Evangelistae nudam narrationem gestorum scripserunt, omissa arte dicendi’. On 1Cor 1.17, v, 87a. ‘Arte utitur Paulus’, on 1 Cor 3.1, v, 158b. ‘Optimus philosophus Paulus conformiter ad philosophos in naturalibus loquitur’. On 1 Cor 12.13, v, 129a. This estimation of Paul contrasts with that of Erasmus, for whom Paul was basically a ‘rustic’ capable of only occa-

192

chapter 6

blame the Corinthians (‘Shall I commend you in this?’, 1 Cor 11.22);133 he combines arguments from custom with those of reason, in order to make his case more persuasive;134 he shrewdly praises the Corinthians for their obedience to previous commands, before giving them new commands;135 he even admits to using praise of others and envy to motivate generosity.136 In his comments on Paul’s most carefully constructed piece of writing, the letter to the Romans, Cajetan repeatedly notes how Paul carefully balances praise and blame towards the Jews and the Gentiles, to maximise the impact of his preaching.137 Cajetan commends Paul for abandoning all such artifice when speaking to the simple, but even this is acknowledged as the tactic of an expert, knowing how to accommodate his speech to his audience (especially when his enemies, the pseudo-apostles, did the opposite).138 For Cajetan, Paul is a skilled orator, free to choose his style, avoiding rhetoric when convenient but happily using all kinds of rhetorical devices when these can be of service to the preaching of the gospel. Cajetan remarks with amazement at the display of oratory in the

133

134

135

136 137

138

sional rhetorical flair; see Erika Rummel, Erasmus’s Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), pp. 99–100, 140–141. ‘Ut magis Corinthii suspiciant monitionem Pauli, non vult expresse vituperare eos, sed proponit, quid dicam vobis? Et dicendum subiungit, nunquid laudabo vos in hoc? cum potuisset dicere, vituperabo vos in hoc’. On 1 Cor 11.22, v, 124b–125a. ‘Sciens Paulus has accomodationes, tum ad caput mysticum, tum ad naturalem comam, non esse rationes cogentes, et non omnibus forte satisfacturas, utitur ratione efficaciore, non sine reprehensione eorum qui obstarent’. On 1Cor 11.16, v, 123b. ‘Prudenter autem traditurus novum documentum laudat quod servaverint olim a se datas instructiones, tanquam per hoc praeparans eos ad servandum nova documenta quae subingit’. On 1 Cor 11.2, v, 121b. Likewise the Romans, ‘Adiungit dilecti ad demulcendum Romanos in hoc praecepto communiter contrario humano impetui’. On Rom 12.19, v, 72a. ‘Non parva sunt haec calcaria laudis, quod ex ipsis Corinthiis orta est sancta aemulatio provocans multos ad simile opus’. On 2 Cor 9.2, v, 184b. ‘Ubi licet intueri artem Pauli simul declarantis propositam materiam et exequentis officia modo deprimendi, modo erigendi, tum Gentiles, tum Iudaeos’. On Rom 2.14, v, 11b. ‘Ubi etiam nota artem Pauli quod ad erigendas gentes deprimendosque Iudaeos respectu divini iudicii penes opera, affert mala opera Iudaeorum et e diverso bona opera Gentilium. Ita quod quoad opera bona gentibus, quoad mala vero utitur Iudaeis. Et rationabiliter, quia difficile apparebat laudare Gentes de bono opere’. On Rom 2.17, v, 12b. ‘Ruinam itaque Iudaeorum communiter paucis exceptis proponit condolendo, ne videatur ex malo ad Iudaeos affectu loqui’. On Rom 9.1, v, 54a. ‘Paulus vero utebatur plebeio sermone. Et recta ratione plebibus loquebatur plebeio sermone, accomodans se omnibus’. On 2 Cor 11.6, v, 191b.

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

193

shortest and most personal of Paul’s epistles, the letter to Philemon.139 Just as Moses was seen to use an artful narrative style for the benefit of his reader, so Paul is seen to make effective use of the art of persuasion. Cajetan’s reflections on scripture, recognising the artfulness of the authors, also assume a responsiveness on the part of the reader. For example, the evangelists do not tell us everything; they leave some scope for the reader’s imagination. Cajetan’s pursuit of the literal sense leads him to comment not only on what is in the text, but also on what is absent. He supplements the gospel narrative, filling in background detail, providing missing dialogue, suggesting what people were doing ‘offstage’ before or after a scene, even trying to visualise posture and attitude.140 Commenting on the conversation between Jesus and the man born blind, Cajetan suggests that John has clearly compressed the dialogue. He speculates on what one of the disciples might have said to the man to encourage him to respond to Jesus’s questions; he even offers some additional sample dialogue. The scene, he concludes, would have been rather odd without some such dialogue.141 Similarly, when Judas goes to the chief priests and asks, ‘What will you give me if I deliver him to you?’ (Mt 26.15), Cajetan suggests that these words summarise a much fuller speech. We know that Judas is a liar; Cajetan suggests that the occasion of the betrayal (the anointing at Bethany) may also have presented Judas with an excuse. He supposes that Judas would have justified himself in the light of Jesus’s behaviour in these or similar words: ‘I used to think that Jesus was a spiritual man but now I have changed my opinion of him; I am scandalised by his sensual behaviour, by the way he allowed himself to be anointed at this woman’s hands’. Even though the gospels give no clearer evidence elsewhere, for Cajetan, this calumny is implicit in the accounts. It is just the kind of camouflage people employ when they want to draw attention away from their own wickedness.142 One last example: God

139 140

141

142

‘Si quis supputare velit loca quibus utitur Paulus in hac epistola pro re tam minima obstupescet; et nulli oratori imparem Paulum putabit’. On Philem 1.21, v, 328a. ‘Non solum sedebat sed quod sedebat more fatigati innixus fonti, puta applicato brachio super labium fontis ad sustinendum caput. Sic enim solent fatigati sedere’. On Jn 4.6, iv, 310b. ‘Bono animo esto, permitte luto quod facit seu fecit Iesus ungi oculos tuos. […] A ratione humana alienum est quod res sic nude gesta sit, cum solis verbis Evangelistae’. On Jn 9.11, iv, 355b. Similar suggestions are made regarding the temptations in the desert, on Mt 4.3, iv, 16b. ‘Et vere Iudas calumniator seu delator fuit, quoniam detulit Iesum et calumniatus est Iesum tanquam malus quando vendidit ipsum. Quod quamvis evangelistis explicatum constat hoc in loco explicari: expresse subiugente evangelista quod propter Iudam prodi-

194

chapter 6

appoints the left-handed Benjamite Ehud to deliver the Jews from the tyrannical Moabite king Eglon (Judg 3.12–26). As Ehud approaches the king, he claims to have a message for him from God. This, says Cajetan, is a very deliberate form of words (Cajetan calls it a fictio): first, claiming to be a messenger from God, Ehud may remain standing rather than kneel before the king; and second, receiving God’s emissary, the king rises to his feet and makes some mark of reverence. The result—both men standing and the king perhaps with head bowed—means that Ehud is perfectly placed to slay Eglon with a single blow of his sword, which he has concealed on his right thigh.143 Although at first sight Cajetan’s avowed approach to exegesis seems minimalist (commenting according to the literal sense alone), the resulting commentary is wide-ranging and diverse. Cajetan works with a comprehensive, though never explicitly defined, concept of the literal sense. Without ever obscuring the divine authorship of scripture, he gives full attention to the inspired human author, allowing to that author all the creativity of a secular poet, orator, or chronicler. In order to penetrate the meaning of the text, the commentator must be skilled in a variety of disciplines: language, history, geography, and natural science, as well as philosophy and theology; exegesis demands a lively imagination, a feel for character and motive, and a sense of

143

turum Iesum dixerat haec de Iuda. […] Iudas iam erat calumniator, etiam antequam calumniaretur Iesum quod sensualis esset, utpote qui unguenti pretiosi unctionibus delectaretur, et hoc a muliere pulchra. Hanc enim calumniam implicite elicimus ex evangelio’. On Jn 6.71, iv, 338a–b. ‘Adverte hic, quod evangelista narrat substantialia, praetermittens circumstantias palliantes. Sicut enim narrando tentationes Christi scripsit nudas conclusiones, Si filius Dei es, dic ut lapides isti panes fiant, &c., ita modo scribit nudam petitionem, Quid vultis mihi dare, &c. Rationi consentaneum est, ut Iudas se scandalizatum dixerit de magistro suo, et quod hactenus putaverit ipsum esse spiritualem virum, sed quod nunc perdidit bonam opinionem de illo, quia vidit ipsum in tanta sensualitate quod unguento preciosissimo mulieribus manibus usus est, non solum in capite, sed etiam in pedibus. Naturale siquidem est hominibus, sub aliquo colore palliare factum iniquitatis propriae, et praecipue talis scilicet offerendo proditionem proprii magistri’. On Mt 26.15, iv, 117b. ‘Nomen Elohim scribitur hic. Et finxit Aioth [= Ehud], relaturum se verbum, tum ex parte Dei iudicantis, et gubernantis, multiplici ratione, tum ex parte ipsius Aioth, ut non genuflexus, sed stans alloqueretur Regem, ut commodious posset occidere eum: nuncius enim Dei quanto honore afficeretur, testator assurrectio Regis. Et haec fuit praecipua cause huius fictionis, quam comitabatur situs Regis facilior ad hoc, ut unico ictu vehementius percuteretur stans, quam sedens: necnon quod dum Rex attendit ad exhibendam Deo reverentiam, minus advertat ad manum percussoris’. On Judg 3.20, ii, 40a–b [mistakenly printed as page ‘36’].

cajetan’s literal sense: words, context, style

195

narrative and rhetoric. Cajetan may have encountered these qualities in some measure in the biblical commentaries of Aquinas; but they were cultivated before his eyes (and ears) in Renaissance art, rhetoric, ceremonial, and pageant. He had ruled out the use of the mystical sense on the grounds that it was useful only for edification, not for doctrine. Yet, in his use of the literal sense, doctrine has not been the only yield; he has presented much ‘for edification’, for imitation and thanksgiving, for praise and blame. Cajetan’s ‘thick’ literal sense has uncovered a wealth of instruction in the Bible, in Hebrew and Greek, by Jews and Gentiles, from Moses to Paul. For the Christian tradition, this diversity combines into a single, harmonious symphony: the books of the Bible are a single corpus having God as their ultimate author. Accordingly, in and among the diversity, the commentator must demonstrate the intrinsic theological unity and harmony of God’s inspired word.

chapter 7

Cajetan’s Literal Sense: The Harmony and Sufficiency of Scripture Notwithstanding the wide variety of time, place, and culture in which the biblical books arose and the differences in their style and tone, the believer professes an underlying consistency in the Bible. This consistency rules out the possibility of any internal contradiction; each part of the divinely-inspired text will agree with every other part. Implicit throughout Cajetan’s approach to the unity and harmony of scripture is the axiom that scripture is the best interpreter of scripture. In one instance, this principle is stated explicitly: tempting Jesus in the desert, the devil cites the authority of scripture; the reply that Jesus gives (‘It is also written’) shows that the devil has taken one text alone, out of the context of the whole of scripture. He has failed to recognise that scripture must agree with scripture.1 On the face of it, this resembles Luther’s position in his 1521 response (Assertio omnium articulorum) to the papal condemnation of his teaching. Scripture, he said, is its own interpreter: ‘Sacra scriptura sui ipsius interpres’. In 1523, John Fisher wrote against this position (in Assertio luteranae confutatio), asserting that difficult passages in scripture actually give rise to disputations and controversies rather than resolve them peaceably. Fisher assigned to the fathers and general councils the role of normative interpretation, with the papacy being the final arbiter of doctrinal controversies.2 Cajetan’s exegetical practice falls somewhere between these two positions. He affirmed the principal of scriptural harmony: the four gospels tell the one story of Christ and agree on all the details; the psalms of the Old Testament can be effectively integrated into the message of the New Testament. Outside of scripture, Cajetan welcomed data from a wide range of what might be called ‘informational sources’, such as Jewish history, philology, geography and so on. But he severely limited the impact of what might be called ‘interpretational’

1 ‘Rursum scriptum est. Scripturam citasti; scito hanc scripturam non esse solam, et oportere scripturam scripturae consentire’. On Mt 4.7, iv, 17a. 2 Jared Wicks, ‘Catholic Old Testament Interpretation in the Reformation and Early Confessional Eras’, in Magne Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), pp. 617–648, at p. 629.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325098_009

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

197

sources, especially apocryphal, mystical, and prophetic texts. The contribution of philosophical reasoning to the understanding of biblical revelation is handled with caution. Ecclesiastical traditions could exercise a guiding role in interpretation (for example, the practice of not giving communion to infants), but often humanism exercises a solvent effect on such traditions (for example, eliminating conventional proof texts on the sacraments). To those who feared that Cajetan was cutting off the branch he was sitting on, he replied by securing his safety rope tighter than ever to the papacy. Cajetan stands on less solid ground than Fisher, but he eludes the vertiginous free-fall of Luther.

Harmonising the Gospels As we have seen, Cajetan recognises in the evangelists a degree of freedom in the editing and arranging of material; each account offers a selective view of events in the life of Jesus. This raises the question of consistency: do the four gospels, for all their differences, basically tell the same story? Faith says yes; scholarship might be less sure. Cajetan’s usual method, where the gospels seem to disagree about the words of Jesus, or the location or timing of an incident, is to produce a harmonised account by conflating the individual accounts. For example, the insurmountable differences in the details in the accounts of the passion force Cajetan to conclude that there were at least seven occasions on which Peter denied his Lord: three different times to a woman (Jn, Mk, Lk), twice to a man in Annas’s house (Jn), twice to a man in Caiaphas’s house (Lk). Cajetan asks his reader not to be childish but to concede that Jesus said three times, not three times only.3 There were at least two cleansings of the temple, one at the beginning of the public ministry (recorded in John) and one after Palm Sunday (recorded in the synoptics).4 In both of these cases, the harmonised text is the longer: the conflation of the individual accounts seemingly engenders more events and more characters. Cajetan will have found examples of this way of harmonising different gospel accounts in the Christian tradition.5 3 ‘Puerile autem est ambigere de multiplicato negationum numero, ex eo quod Iesus dixerat ter. Qui enim plusquam ter negat, constat quod ter negat’. On Jn 18.23, iv, 414b–415a. 4 ‘Et adverte quod ista eiectio fuit prima inter scriptis ab evangelistis. Nam ista facta est paulo post miraculum in nuptiis, antequam tot miracula in Galilaea faceret. Alii autem evangelistae narrant gesta similia paulo ante passionem Christi’. On Jn 2.16, iv, 299a. 5 For example, Augustine on Peter’s denials; see Richard W. Southern, Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe (2 vols., Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), vol. 1, pp. 122–125.

198

chapter 7

Traditional exegesis also knew the reverse procedure: combining seemingly different characters or events to produce a more restricted narrative. The chief example of this, a cause of much dispute in the early sixteenth century, was the case of Mary Magdalene: Was the sinner who anointed Jesus’s feet (Lk 7.36– 50) to be identified with Mary Magdalene, from whom Jesus cast out seven demons (Lk 8.3), and with Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, who anointed Jesus at Bethany (Jn 12.1–7)? While the Greeks, following Origen, generally held the three women to be three different individuals, the Western Church, since Gregory the Great, tended to see them as one and the same person. This was defended among the Dominicans, for whom Mary Magdalene, the apostle of the apostles, was a patron saint. When this Western conflation was contested by Lefèvre, initially in 1518, the ensuing row drew in a number of eminent scholars and churchmen.6 In the Ientacula and later in the biblical commentaries, Cajetan defended the traditional Western interpretation. Indeed, he suggests that its origins may well go back to apostolic times.7 While few of the arguments that Cajetan uses are original, it is characteristic of his method that most of them approach the problem from a literary or narrative point of view. First, he explains the reason why Luke does not name the woman who anoints Jesus in Lk 7 but does name Mary Magdalene in Lk 8: it is a feature of Luke’s style that he tactfully refrains from naming her in the first instance, when she is described as a sinner, in order not to dishonour her. (Luke’s intention is exactly the same when he alters the name of Matthew, the tax collector, to Levi, Lk 5.27).8 Similarly, when Luke does name her in the following chapter, he disguises her former disgrace with a circumlocution, saying that seven demons had been cast out of her

6 Jacques Lefèvre d’ Étaples, Jacques Lefèvre d’ Etaples and the Three Maries Debates, ed. and trans. Sheila M. Porrer (Geneva: Droz, 2009); A. Hufstader, ‘Lefèvre d’Etaples and the Magdalen’, Studies in the Renaissance 16 (1969): pp. 31–60; Guy Bedouelle, Lefèvre d’Étaples et l’Intelligence des Écritures (Geneva: Droz, 1976), pp. 190–195; Richard Rex, The Theology of John Fisher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 65–77; Massaut, Jean-Pierre, ‘Histoire et Allégorie dans les Évangiles d’ après Lefèvre d’ Étaples et Clichtove’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’ exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 186–201. 7 ‘Sic enim accepimus a Patribus nostris, et illi ab avis, et illi ab atavis, &c. ita quod usus iste ab apostolorum tempore videtur incepisse’. On Lk 8.2, iv, 206b. 8 ‘Nomen mulieris huius tacetur a Luca propter honorem mulieris, quum describitur peccatrix, quam tamen Ioannes duodecimo nominat Mariam, describendo eam a laudabili officio’. On Lk 7.37, iv, 205a. ‘Pro reverentia evangelistae et apostoli, Lucas Matthaeum nominat Levi, ne Matthaeum publicanum dicat’. On Lk 5.27, iv, 197a.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

199

(rather than mentioning the ‘totality of vices’ to which she had been subject on account of those demons).9 Having connected the woman in Lk 7 with Mary Magdalene, Cajetan has to show that she is also Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. This he does by comparing the first anointing (Lk 7) and that performed by Mary in Bethany (Jn 12). In both accounts the woman wipes Jesus’s feet with her hair; this is such a distinctive action that it suggests that the same woman was involved in both cases.10 In John’s gospel only, the woman who carried out the anointing at Bethany is identified as Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus; she is not named in the parallel passage in Matthew 26.6–13 (nor in Mark 14.3–9). To harmonise these two accounts of the same incident, apparent contradictions of detail have to be resolved. First of all, the different gestures of pouring and anointing, on the head and the feet, are conflated. The different chronology is then explained, as has been seen in the previous chapter, by Matthew’s decision to recount the anointing immediately before Judas’s betrayal. The element most resistant to this method, however, is the location. Matthew states that the meal took place at the house of Simon the leper, but John appears to suggest that the hosts were Martha and Mary. Cajetan’s ingenious solution, gathering material from all of the gospels (‘collatis narratis ab omnibus evangelistis’), is to venture that Simon the leper was probably related to Martha and Mary and that they shared a kind of semi-detached house in Bethany. Thus they hosted the meal jointly. The process of assimilation is complete when Cajetan identifies Simon the Pharisee (who hosted the meal in Lk 7) with Simon the leper (of Matthew 26), thus explaining how Mary, a woman with a notorious reputation, managed to gain entry to a Pharisee’s house.11 Cajetan had already dealt with the question of Mary Magdalene in synthesis in the Ientacula. One argument he uses there, but does not reproduce in 9

10 11

‘Perseverat Lucas in abstinentia a turpibus adiectivis huius mulieris. Noluit dicere quae subiecta fuerat universis vitiis, sed excusando quodammodo eam et demones accusando, dicit de qua exierant septem daemonia; septem vitia quibus possidebatur a daemoniis. Septenarius enim numerus universitatis est index Hebraeo more’. On Lk 8.3, iv, 207a. ‘Hinc insinuatur hanc fuisse peccatricem quae olim simili capillorum officio veniam meruit’. On Jn 12.3, iv, 372b. ‘Hinc coniicitur domum illam fuisse Simoni leproso et Mariae ac Marthae, distincta contignationibus, ut in altera Simon, in altera illae habitarent. Sanguine enim iunctos crediderim, ex eo quod Martha ministrabat ibi, et ex eo quod Maria ibi veniam olim promeruit’. On Jn 12.1, iv, 372a. ‘[…] praecipue cum Pharisae huiusmodi consortia horrerent, aut horrere simularent’. On Lk 7.37, iv, 205b. The identification of the two Simons, and therefore of the two houses (in Lk 7 and Jn 12), does not appear in the standard medieval Magdalene exegesis.

200

chapter 7

his gospel commentaries, further instances his liking for narrative patterns. As a sinner, Mary touched the feet of Jesus and received forgiveness for her sins; encouraged by this, she later poured ointment on his head; and in her joy at seeing him alive on Easter morning, she sought to embrace him. This progression in confidence and boldness (‘fiducia’) is that of one person.12 What is striking about this line of thought is not that it convinces, but that such an argument (from what might be called ‘psychological verisimilitude’), is thought to be worth advancing in the first place.13 A final reason that Cajetan adduces to confirm the truth of his case is the testimony of the liturgy: Jesus says that what the unnamed woman did in anointing him for his burial (in Mt 26) will be remembered wherever the gospel is preached. This is fulfilled, says Cajetan, in the liturgy of the Church, when the feast of Mary Magdalene is celebrated.14 The task of harmonising the gospels is undertaken in order to account for apparent inconsistencies among the four gospels, each of which is held to be true; if the evangelists are referring to the same historical events, and were each inspired by God, then their accounts must ultimately tell one single story, not four different ones. Cajetan’s exegesis has been indebted to the traditional solutions of Augustine and others, applied with imagination. A more complicated issue arises with the psalms, where consistency across the Old and New Testaments is at stake.

12

13

14

‘Et haec dicta sunt ut percipiatur quod unamet personae fuit quae primo pro remissione peccatorum lachrymis rigavit pedes eius. Postea animaequior facta ad caput ungendum ascendit, et post resurrectionem ardens magistri amore in amplexus ruere voluit. Huiusmodi enim fiduciae progressus identitatem personae monstrat. Et quum constet quod Maria Magdalena fuit quae fecit hunc ultimum actum, et quod soror Lazari fuit quae fecit penultimum, et quod peccatrix mulier quae fecit primum. Consequens ex hoc et tot aliis antedictis est ut ex evangelicis dictis credamus unam et eandem esse Mariam Magdalenam, sororem Lazari, quae erat in civitate peccatrix, ut ecclesiasticum etiam officium testatur’. Ientacula xii.2, v, 467a. On the unconventional description of Mary Magdalene standing before the risen Jesus, both in Cajetan’s exegesis and in a Michelangelo cartoon of 1531, see Marjorie O’Rourke Boyle, Senses of Touch: Human Dignity and Deformity from Michelangelo to Calvin (Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 115–116. ‘Non sat fuit Iesu declarare quod mulieris opus bonum quoad intentio bona fuit sed declaravit quod tam laudabiliter fecit ut in toto mundo in memoriam illius commemorandum sit hoc quod fecit. Et quia hoc ecclesia commemorat in laudem Mariae Magdalenae, habes hinc aliud argumentum ultra collecta in Ientaculis nostris, quod Maria Magdalena est illamet quae est soror Lazari de qua textus iste loquitur’. On Mt 26.13, iv, 117a–b.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

201

Psalms in Old and New Testament Cajetan acknowledges the considerable freedom shown by the New Testament writers towards Old Testament texts: they quote from the Septuagint and not from the Hebrew;15 or perhaps from some other translation;16 they quote in paraphrase;17 they make adjustments to texts;18 they gloss as they quote.19 In all of these cases, Cajetan insists that the New Testament writers are working with the literal sense of the Old Testament. A notorious controversy, again involving Lefèvre, exposed the potential for disagreement in this area. The relevant details of this controversy can be summarised briefly.20 Hebrews 2.7 quotes Ps 8.6 according to the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew. Thus the Vulgate renders Heb 2.7 as, ‘minuisti eum paulominus ab angelis’ (‘You have made him a little lower than the angels’); Lefèvre, on the other hand, citing Agostino Giustiniani’s Octuplex Psalter as support, maintained that a translation faithful to the Hebrew would read, ‘minuisti eum paulominus a Deo’ (‘You have made him a little lower than God’).21 The ambiguity arises from the Hebrew language itself. As has been already noted, Elohim is a plural word that can be taken in the singular; it can mean ‘God’ or ‘angels’ or ‘gods’ or ‘judges’. Paul, Lefèvre insists, wrote the letter to the Hebrews in Hebrew; the subsequent translation into Greek introduced the error by citing the Septuagint. The Church, therefore, has the duty to reverse this error. The

15 16 17 18

19 20

21

On Ps 40.6, iii, 146b. On Jas 4.6, v, 369a. On Jn 12.40, iv, 378b; on Eph 4.8, v, 233b; on Rom 15.10, v, 80a. On Mk 1.2, iv, 133b. Also, ‘Sciebat Petrus quod in Exodo 19[.6] dicitur regnum sacerdotale. Vertit tamen ipso dicendo regale sacerdotium, quia tempore prisco regnum erat praecipuum formatum sacerdotio ad offerendum uni Deo. Tempore autem revelatae gratiae sacerdotium est praecipuum quo Christus obtulit seipsum, regnum vero spirituale est’. On 1Pet 2.9, v, 374b. See also Ientacula iii.2, v, 427b–428a. On Mt 21.5, iv, 93a. Helmut Feld, ‘Der Humanisten-Streit um Hebräer 2,7 (Psalm 8,6)’, in arg 61 (1970): pp. 5– 35; Bedouelle, Lefèvre d’Étaples et l’ Intelligence des Écritures, pp. 218–223; Bedouelle, ‘La Lecture Christologique du Psautier dans le Quincuplex Psalterium de Lefèvre d’Etaples’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’ exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 133–143; Jean-Pierre Massaut, ‘Histoire et Allégorie dans les Évangiles d’après Lefèvre d’Étaples et Clichtove’, in Fatio and Fraenkel, op. cit., pp. 186–201. This occasioned an ‘ill-tempered and nasty’ attack on Giustiniani from Erasmus; see Paul F. Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism and the Papacy, 1515–1535’, in Erika Rummel (ed.), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 238– 239.

202

chapter 7

reason for Lefèvre’s disquiet is theological: Christ, divine and human, can certainly be said to be a little (or ‘for a short while’) lower than God; but to say that he became lower than the angels is inadmissible, since it makes the master lower than his servants. Erasmus, however, disagreed with Lefèvre; reading Hebrews as it stands in Greek, and also arguing theologically, he reads the text as speaking of the self-emptying of Christ on the cross. The scriptures speak of the abasement of Christ, who became, in his passion, ‘a worm and no man’ (Ps 22.6).22 Although Cajetan does not make explicit reference to this debate, Lefèvre’s commentaries on Paul were known to him, and Erasmus’s Annotationes of 1519 would have provided him with at least one view of the controversy itself. Cajetan observes, first of all, that the two versions, Heb 2.7 and Ps 8.6, differ. He uses this to support his contention, contrary to Lefèvre, that Hebrews was written in Greek: the author quoted the Septuagint because he was composing the letter in Greek. Discussing the theological implications of the verse, however, and taking both biblical authors into account (the Psalmist and the author of Hebrews), he gives ground to both humanists. Concurring with Lefèvre, he speaks of the prophetic intention of the text in the psalm; this, he says, is the more formal theological statement about Christ in his being (esse): in his incarnation he became a little lower than God. With Erasmus, however, he argues that the intention of the author of Hebrews is to speak of the abasement of Christ in his passion, when he was ‘scorned by men and despised by the people’ (Ps 22.6). Disagreeing with both, however, Cajetan argues that the word paulominus does not relate to the degree of his humiliation (‘a little less’), nor the duration of it (‘for a short while’), but to that part of him, the smallest part, in which he was humbled: namely, his body and the lower part of his soul. This is the ‘little’ part of him, that which became lower than the angels; and not just a little, but a great deal lower, since he was brought not only lower than the angels but lower than all, despised and rejected by all people.23

22 23

Reeve, iii, pp. 706–713. ‘Minuisti eum paulominus ab angelis. Et hinc apparent authorem huius epistolae Graece scripsisse, utpote secutum translationem 70. interpretum, qui sic transtulerunt. In Hebraeo habetur, minuisti eum paulominus a Deo. Et sic transtulit Hieronymus in Psalterio secundum Hebraicam veritatem. Et est formalior locutio prophetae, et vera secundum esse substantiale. Paulominus a Deo, minutus est Christus secundum esse substantiale, quoniam est Deus personaliter; Deus autem est Deus et naturaliter et personaliter. Paululum ergo minus est imminutus a Deo, quia est quidem Deus secundum esse personale (quod constat esse substantiale) non autem est Deus secundum naturam seu essentiam.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

203

Completely absent from this note is any specific criticism of the parties involved, or any general condemnation of humanist scholars engaging in theological debate; undoubtedly acknowledging the argument, Cajetan remains irenic, respectful, and conciliatory. Also absent is any criticism of the author of Hebrews, even though the comments of Lefèvre might have suggested this; theological issues raised by a recent controversy appear to have seized Cajetan’s attention and dominated his purpose at this point. Signs of Lefèvre’s influence on Cajetan’s exegesis of the psalms are not limited to this instance. Indeed, Cajetan’s whole approach to the literal sense of the Psalter can be seen as a reply to that of Lefèvre. Lefèvre had approached the Psalter with concerns not dissimilar to those of Cajetan: what help could he give to Christians who pray the psalms? His answer was to cut through the complexities of the fourfold exegesis and propose one, simple method of interpretation and apply it consistently. For Lefèvre, the whole Psalter points to Christ. The literal sense of the psalms is the spiritual sense—more precisely, the messianic or prophetic sense. There must be no distinction between the human author’s intention and the divine intention; they are one and the same and they refer to Christ in almost every one of the psalms. There are just two exceptions where a messianic interpretation is impossible (Ps 7 and Ps 51); in these two psalms, Lefèvre finds the text to speak so clearly about David that he follows a historical-literal interpretation.24 Although Lefèvre recognises the historical sense, this is said to be an improper literal sense, even spoken of dismissively as the ‘rabbinical’ sense.25

24 25

Verum, secundum intentionem authoris huius epistolae loquendo, minutus est paulominus ab angelis, pro quanto secundum id quod est paulum, minutus est ab angelis. Ita quod adverbium non minorationem respicit, sed rem in qua minoratus est. Est enim minoratus secundum corpus et partem animi inferiorem. Et totum hoc est paulum, est enim minuta pars Christi, utpote quae continet tanquam corpus et partem animi inferioribus intendentem. Et in hoc paulo imminutus est ab angelis, non paulum sed valde multum, imo et minoratus est valde ab hominibus. Nam factus est opprobrium hominum et abiectio plebis, et tristitia maxima habuit in animo, cruciatusque in corpore’. On Heb 2.7, v, 334a. See Bedouelle, ‘La Lecture Christologique du Psautier,’ pp. 138–139. See the Preface to Quincuplex Psalterium, in Eugene F. Rice, Jr. (ed.), Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples and Related Texts (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972), pp. 192–197. An English translation of this preface is included in Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (London: Lutterworth, 1966), pp. 297–301. The Christological interpretation of the Psalter was commonplace in Christian tradition and is reflected not only in Lefèvre but also in Cajetan’s contemporaries Felix de Prato and Agostino Giustiniani; see Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism’, pp. 231, 236.

204

chapter 7

Cajetan concurs with Lefèvre that the New Testament discloses new meanings in the Old Testament.26 Likewise, he recognises the need to bring some orderliness into the exegesis of the psalms. However, the way he goes about this, as expounded in his introduction to the commentary on the Psalms, is quite distinct. Cajetan states that he will begin his remarks on each psalm with a determination of the theme (‘materia’) of that psalm. He argues that, in accordance with standard literary practice, each psalm is one discrete unit: keeping to a single literary genre throughout, not leaping from one genre to another.27 He remarks significantly that divine wisdom does not disregard such human conventions when moving the prophet to write.28 Disagreeing with Lefèvre, Cajetan argues that, while for some of the psalms the literal sense will be messianic (equivalent to Lefèvre’s spiritual-literal sense), for others the literal sense will be about David (equivalent to Lefèvre’s historical-literal sense, his ‘rabbinical’ sense). Each psalm must be examined in order to discover whether or not it speaks literally of the messiah. Principles are offered that will allow the exegete to decide this matter. Cajetan then presents four methods of inquiry for determining the theme of a psalm (he sees this as work in progress and asks others to make up his defects).29 His first and fourth methods concentrate on the text itself and can be dealt with briefly. The first looks to the title, when this clearly indicates the theme. If every psalm had such a title then no further inquiry would be necessary.30 The fourth method, if all else fails, is the general setting of the psalm.31

26 27 28

29 30 31

‘Et hic verus literalis sensus est, sed latuit donec Spiritus sanctus docuit apostolos Christi’. On Gen 17.4, i, 75a. ‘[…] non saltat de genere in genus’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3a. ‘Exigit quidem materiae subiectae ipsa unius cantici ratio, probat communis usus scribentium exposcitque divina sapientia disponens omnia suaviter ac per hoc movens prophetam ad scribendum, prout homini congruit scribere unum canticum, quod est servare unitatem materiae in uno eademque cantico’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3a. This principle is typical of both humanism and Antiochene exegesis; see Guy Bedouelle and Bernard Roussel (eds.), Le Temps des Réformes et la Bible (Paris: Beauchesne, 1989), pp. 102–103; Frances Young, ‘The Rhetorical Schools and their Influence on Patristic Exegesis’, in Rowan Williams (ed.), The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in honour of Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 182–199, at p. 191. ‘Suppleant alii quaeso defectum meum’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3b. ‘[…] si omnes psalmi tales haberent titulos’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3a–b. ‘Colligendo materiam ex contextu psalmi. Ubi enim quaelibet aliarum dictarum viarum decerit, hanc inquirere oportet materiam psalmi’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3b.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

205

Cajetan’s preferred approach is to consult the New Testament and this he does in two ways: arguing from authority (second method) and from practice (third method). If the New Testament makes use of a psalm and claims a particular understanding of that psalm, then this authority determines its literal meaning. For example, Jesus tells the Pharisees that Psalm 110 is about the messiah (in Mt 22.44); Cajetan’s exegesis therefore takes this as the clear theme of the psalm.32 This second method, combined with the principle that each psalm has a single theme, rules out any literal interpretation of Psalm 110 other than that given by Jesus in the gospel. There is one exception to this rule: Psalm 68 is applied to the messiah in Ephesians, but it clearly refers to a sequence of Old Testament events. Cajetan therefore deduces that the apostolic usage of it is according to the mystical sense and that the literal sense refers to Moses.33 Where such explicit New Testament authority is lacking, Cajetan appeals to a recurring principle in the New Testament, namely, that the literal meaning of a psalm cannot refer both to Christ and to David (third method). Cajetan calls this methodological principle the ‘apostolic rule’ (regula apostolica) since it is articulated by both Peter and Paul: according to Peter, David did not ascend into the heavens, therefore his words in Psalm 110 refer not to himself but to Jesus (Acts 2.34–35); according to Paul, David was not spared corruption, therefore his words in Psalm 16 refer not to himself, but to the risen Jesus (Acts 13.35).34 For Cajetan, if the words of a psalm are true of David, then that psalm may not be interpreted Christologically; but if the words of a psalm cannot be verified of David, that psalm must refer to Christ.35 Once again, the principle that each psalm has a single theme means that if the regula apostolica determines the literal sense of a psalm to be about Christ, then this messianic interpretation is the only literal sense admissible; the psalm says nothing about David. If the literal sense is about David and the New Testament applies the text to Christ,

32 33 34

35

‘[…] clara est inde materia psalmi illius et sic de similibus’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3b. On Ps 68, Intro, iii, 231a and on Eph 4.8, v, 233a. A bending of this otherwise strictly applied rule is invoked in the confused and confusing discussion of the literal meaning of the prophecy of Balaam, which is seen to be fulfilled in part by David and in part by the messiah: ‘Adverte prudens lector quod apud me nullum est inconveniens in prophetis intelligere mixtionem’, on Num 24.19, i, 406a. ‘Quo fit, ut ex horum apostolorum usu regulam didicerimus: quod psalmus quilibet Davidis ea de ipso dicens, quae de eo non verificantur, sed de Christo, intelligendus sit ad litteram de Messia. Et per locum ab opposito, quilibet Davidis psalmus in prima persona ea dicens de ipso quae de ipsomet verificantur, intelligendus est ad litteram de ipso Davide’. On Pss, Prooemium, iii, 3b.

206

chapter 7

then this must be understood as a mystical usage by the apostles.36 Cajetan reverses the presumption of Lefèvre, who argued that all psalms are about Christ, except where this is impossible. A curious case for Cajetan is that of Psalm 70. This psalm is identical to the last part of Psalm 40 (in modern editions, Ps 40.13–17 = Ps 70). In the case of Psalm 70, Cajetan asserts that these verses are literally about David, while in Psalm 40, because of the additional material which cannot be verified of David, he concludes that the same verses are literally about Christ. For Cajetan, the prophet is free to use the same words twice, speaking in his own person in one case and prophetically in the other.37 In all, appealing to the authority of the New Testament and applying the apostolic rule (his second and third methods), Cajetan finds about a third of the psalms to be about Jesus Christ according to the literal sense.38 Thus, in these cases at least, he concurs with Lefèvre’s conclusions, if not with his terminology. Cajetan is helped to this conclusion in a number of cases by the Jewish tradition, noting that the Targum indicates that these psalms are about the messiah.39 These psalms speak directly of Christ, and material from them may be used to augment the gospel picture of Christ, his teaching, his sufferings, his second coming—even his physical appearance. Speaking in the person of Christ, the psalmist tells how he has fasted and that his body has become gaunt, which, for Cajetan, is completely consistent with Jesus’s life of preaching and action, fasting, walking everywhere, and nights spent in prayer.40 For the rest, Cajetan is content with the historical-literal sense. This is no mere antiquarianism but a position with considerable significance for 36 37

38

39

40

‘Quando enim clare constant altera historia sensus literalis, indubie affirmandum est apostolus mystico sensu uti’. On Ps 19, Intro, iii, 69a. ‘Uter autem eorum prius editus fuerit nescitur. Nec inconvenit diversam esse materiam istius psalmi et illius particulae, quoniam eisdem verbis in diversis locis licuit prophetae uti, modo in persona Christi, modo in persona propria’. On Ps 70, Intro, iii, 243a. In a considerable number of cases, however, the decisive New Testament text occurs in Hebrews. How Cajetan might have proceeded had he worked on the New Testament commentaries first, before coming to the Psalter, is a matter for speculation. Cajetan refers to the Targum’s glosses to support a messianic reading of a psalm, on Ps 21, Intro, iii, 75a; on Ps 61, Intro, iii, 214a; on Ps 45, Intro, iii, 162a; on Ps 72, Intro, 249a. See a similar case, on Gen 49.10, i, 149a. ‘Christum ieunasse non solum post baptismum una quadragesima sed frequenter, ex evangelio habetur. […] Macrum autem fuisse, quamvis non alibi legitur, multitudo tam officiorum, praedicando, pernoctando in oratione, ieiunando, pedibus iter agendo, hoc suadet’. On Ps 109.24, iii, 373b. (Cajetan himself was short and slight, and never enjoyed good health, dbi 39, p. 573.)

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

207

prayer and liturgy. In an important note on Psalm 3, the first of the historical psalms, Cajetan explains how the historical-literal sense of the psalms can serve the faith of Christians. He reminds readers of a practice found among legislators whereby a law is promulgated not in a prescriptive form but by means of a narrative; the deed described embodies the disposition required by the new law.41 Likewise, the Holy Spirit has arranged the psalms so that the deeds of the holy men and women of the Old Testament are narrated in the form of divine praise. In this way, those who recite them learn both how the Spirit guided the saints of old and how the same Spirit will guide believers today, forming in them the same mind and heart.42 In this description of the mechanics of prayer, there is no sign of any doctrine of illumination, ecstasy, or special revelation. Using a comparison drawn from the public proclamation of law in civil life, Cajetan understands the effect of praying the psalms in overtly rhetorical terms: moved by the words of the sacred text and inspired by the deeds of others, the intellect and the emotions are persuaded to take on new thoughts and feelings, guiding the person to act in a new way. For Cajetan there is nothing irrelevant in the history and religious experience of the people of the old covenant, nor in the human experience of the inspired poet.

41

42

A similar approach is used by Prierias, to argue that the actual practice of indulgences has the force of law: ‘In this sense habit acquires the force of law, for the will of the prince expresses itself in deeds which he allows or arranges to have done’. Cited in Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil, trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart (New Haven, ct: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 194. ‘Et est ipse primum psalmum historialis. Ubi pro regula generali omnium historialium adverte: […] Quod quemadmodum in iure conduntur leges recitando rem gestam ab aliquo, non ut res illa gesta historiae commendetur, sed ut ex dispositione quam princeps in illa res gesta promulgat, habeatur iudicium legitimum de omnibus similibus, ita Spiritus sanctus redegit multas res gestas a patribus veteris testamenti in psalmos per modum divinae laudis, non ut sciantur illae res gestae (quoniam iam scriptae erant in libris historialibus, puta in Genesi, Exodo, libris Regum, &c.) sed ut hinc discamus qualiter Spiritus sanctus movit iustorum animos in illis rebus gestis, et qualiter nos in similibus positi meditationes affectusque nostros regulare debemus. Ita quod in huiusmodi historialibus psalmis pascit Spiritus sanctus ex sensu literali tam intellectum quam affectum vacantium divinis laudibus, formatque nostros animos quasi personarum loquentium per ipsos psalmos, quasi in corpus iuris’. On Ps 3.1, iii, 13b–14a.

208

chapter 7

Tradition For Cajetan, scripture is a harmonious unity where each part illuminates the whole, contributing to the integrity of the message of divine revelation. At the same time, Cajetan does not believe that biblical exegesis happens in isolation. He is part of an ecclesial community with normative doctrinal statements and established liturgical practices.43 Authoritative decrees, for example those concerning the fundamental dogmas of the creed, are guaranteed by the Holy Spirit and can be used to determine the meaning of ambiguous expressions in scripture. Where a doctrinal question has been determined, that conclusion becomes binding on the exegete. For example, notwithstanding the opinion of Erasmus, Cajetan continues to read 1Cor 3.12–15 in support of the doctrine of purgatory.44 And although he is aware of the difficulties with the Vulgate’s translation of Rom 5.12, and accepts Erasmus’s suggested correction (with the additional authority of Cicero), he nevertheless uses the new translation to ground the doctrine of original sin, a procedure Erasmus expressly rejected.45 Alongside the written scriptures, Cajetan also acknowledges the existence of faithful oral tradition. The psalmist alludes to the process of oral tradition, stating that God’s mighty works shall be praised from one generation to the next.46 For Cajetan, the New Testament authorises a belief in oral traditions deriving from the apostles themselves. When Paul tells the Thessalonians of traditions passed on by word of mouth, Cajetan gives a list of such apostolic traditions handed on outside of scripture: the Apostles’ Creed, the sign of the cross, Sunday observance, the sacrifice of the mass.47 The last item in Cajetan’s 43

44

45

46 47

For Cajetan’s contribution to the Church-Scripture-Tradition debate, see Johannes Beumer, ‘Suffizienz und Insuffizienz der heiligen Schrift nach Kardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetan’, Gregorianum 45 (1964): pp. 816–824; George H. Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (Burns and Oates: London, 1959), pp. 114–116. ‘Quod secundum planum suavemque literae sensum significat poenam aliquam purgatoriam post hanc vitam’. On 1 Cor 3.15, v, 95b; compare Reeve, ii, pp. 446–447. See Jerry Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 185. ‘Ut idem sit sensus legendo propter quod et in quo. Testis Cicero, qui has iunctas dictiones interpretatur in eo quod. […] Ita quod significatur mors communis omnibus ratione peccati communis omnibus’. On Rom 5.12, v, 26b (Cajetan gives no source for his apparently original reference to Cicero); compare Reeve, ii, pp. 366–373 (= 1535 annotation) and Appendix a, following p. 564 (= earlier versions, excised in 1535). See Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ, pp. 170–173. ‘Describitur consequenter modus quodivina haec notitia perseveravit: scilicet non per scripturas sed per traditionem’. On Ps 145.4, iii, 483b. See also on Judg 2.16, ii, 38a. ‘Ubi et nota prudens lector, adversus exigentes scripturam de omnibus traditionibus

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

209

list refers to the teaching on Eucharist doctrine and practice that Paul ‘received from the Lord’ and ‘handed on’ to the Corinthians—first of all by oral tradition then subsequently in writing (1Cor 11.23); the Greeks still use the same formula for the Eucharistic consecration in the liturgies today.48 Cajetan’s list of such traditions resembles a similar list given by St. Basil which includes signing with the cross at baptism, blessing baptismal water, facing East to pray, renouncing the devil, anointing with oil, and the words of consecration at the Eucharist.49 Basil’s list was incorporated into canon law.50 Though these practices are not theologically insignificant, none of these examples constitutes a substantial doctrinal authority.51 Some narrative oral traditions known to the first Christians found their way into the New Testament: the trembling of Moses, though unmentioned in the Pentateuch, is adverted to in both Acts (7.32) and Hebrews (12.21). Even some words of Jesus, unrecorded in the gospels, are quoted in Acts (20.35).52 Liturgical traditions, too, can exercise a normative influence on exegesis, as has already been seen in the case of Mary Magdalene and the Latin practice of not giving communion to infants. In a number of cases, Cajetan uses New Testament texts to draw clear conclusions reinforcing sacramental practice and

48

49 50

51 52

apostolicis. Ecce Paulus aperte dicit traditiones per sermonem. Tali enim modo habemus Symbolum Apostolorum, habemus signare nos signo crucis, habemus festivitatem diei Dominicae, sacrificium altaris, &c’. On 2 Thess 2.14, v, 288b. ‘Nota ex isto textu clare habere Paulum docuisse Corinthios de ritu et usu eucharistiae antequam scriberet eis hanc epistolam. Et nisi Paulus hoc testificaretur, non crederent Lutherani doctrinam Pauli fuisse, et tamen in rei veritate fuisset doctrina Pauli. Et usque adeo haec Pauli traditio apud Graecos perseverat, ut usque in hodiernum diem in sacrificio missae Graeci utantur his Pauli verbis consecrando corpus Christi, hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis frangitur’. On 1 Cor 11.23, v, 125a. Erasmus also prefers frangitur to tradetur, Reeve, ii, pp. 492–493. See also Instructio nuntii circa errores libelli de cena Domini, sive de erroribus contingentibus in eucharistiae sacramento, ed. A.F. von Gunten (Rome: Angelicum, 1962), pp. 61–62. Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit, trans. David Anderson (Crestwood, ny: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), § 66, pp. 98–101. Gratian, The Treatise on Laws (Decretum dd. 1–20), trans. Augustine Thompson, with the Ordinary Gloss, trans. James Gordley, intro. Katherine Christensen (Washington, dc: Catholic University of America Press, 1993), pp. 38–39. Aquinas includes the adoration of images of Christ among such oral apostolic traditions, st iii, 25, 3, ad 4. On this topic, see Timothy Ward, Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of Scripture (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002), especially pp. 20–47. ‘Ex eisdem traditionibus hausit Stephanus tremorem Moysi, ex quibus hausit author epistolae ad Hebraeos duodecim’. On Acts 7.32, iv, 445b. See also on Heb 12.21, v, 358b. ‘Sententia haec in nullo invenitur evangelista’. On Acts 20.35, iv, 472b.

210

chapter 7

theology. For example, in Acts 8, the gift of the Holy Spirit, given through the laying-on of hands, is reserved to the apostles, to the exclusion of Philip. This is because, according to Cajetan, the apostles alone were bishops, and bishops alone are the proper ministers of confirmation. Cajetan here makes reference to a historic debate on this theme: he concludes that Philip was not a priest and that the apostles only were priests at this time.53 Other comments on New Testament liturgical prescriptions indicate how seriously he took the apostolic tradition in this matter: Paul says that a man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonours his head (1Cor 11.4). Cajetan notes that this law is obeyed when a priest recites the collect, or a deacon or a subdeacon reads the epistle or the gospel; in other words, when one prays or prophesies on behalf of all. He also argues that it is not disobeyed when monks recite the psalms precisely with their heads covered, since this form of antiphonal prayer postdates Paul’s teaching and is not subject to this ruling.54 Seldom, however, is Cajetan as certain as this. More frequently, the close and unprejudiced reading of a text will determine what cannot be concluded from it. Discussing the Seven of Acts 6 (said to be ‘deacons’ from the time of Irenaeus),55 Cajetan distinguishes them from the ordained diaconate. It is evident from the context that they are deacons of the table, not of the altar; they are responsible for a ministry of caring for the needy, not for prayer and the Word of God.56 When the apostles lay hands on them, this act does not constitute a rite of ordination. They are given grace for a specific purpose, but they are not ‘consecrated’ deacons.57 A similar instance of readiness to scrutinise conventional proof texts is shown concerning the sacrament of ‘extreme unction’. When Jesus tells his dis53

54 55 56

57

‘Adverte quod cum hoc quod apostolis reservata legitur manuum impositio, et inde sumitur quod episcoporum ex officio est imponere manus in sacramento confirmationis, concurrit quod Phillipus nec sacerdos erat, sed soli apostoli tunc erant sacerdotes. Quod ideo annotaverim, ut appareat magis sobrie docuisse beatum Gregorium in epistola Ianuarium Carali. (et recitatur in Decret. Dist. 95 c.pervenit) quam Innocentium Tertium in Cap. 4 de consuet’. On Acts 8.17, iv, 448a. The issue is discussed by Aquinas, st iii, 72, 11. On 1Cor 11.4, v, 122a. See Aidan Nichols, Holy Order: Apostolic Priesthood from the New Testament to the Second Vatican Council (Dublin: Veritas, 1990), p. 19. ‘Omni ex parte liquet quod septem eligendi erant diaconi, hoc est ministri non altaris, sed mensarum. Nam diaconos altaris spectaret vacare orationi et verbo Dei’. On Acts 6.4–6, iv, 443b. ‘Non consecrando eos in diaconos, cum nulla de hoc ministerio fiat mentio, sed per manuum impositionem confertur eis gratia spiritus ad exequendum iniunctum officium superintendendi ministris mensarum’. On Acts 6.4–6, iv, 443b.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

211

ciples to anoint the sick with oil, Cajetan says that this is not the sacrament of extreme unction itself, but a sort of beginning of it (‘sed initio quoddam’), since the oil is used for healing, not for the anointing of the dying.58 The anointing mentioned in the epistle of James is likewise distanced from sacramental last rites. This anointing is given to benefit the sick, not the sick unto death. Furthermore, the reference to the forgiveness of sins is too weak and the role of the ministers appears confused.59 The sacrament of extreme unction tends to forgive sins directly (not conditionally, as here), and James’s description of a plurality of priests praying and anointing is foreign to the sacramental rite of extreme unction.60 Cajetan’s procedure is noteworthy: he observes that the sacramental rite as practised does not correspond to the scripture texts traditionally taken as instituting that rite. Therefore he re-evaluates the proof texts, claiming that they refer to some rite other than the sacramental rites. Thus he leaves the prevailing sacramental practice intact but without the traditional security regarding their institution. An alternative option, which would allow the interpretation of the sacramental rites to be changed in the light of a re-reading of relevant texts, is not contemplated in this case.61 On Easter night, he sees the institution of the sacrament of penance, but confesses that Jesus leaves the mode in which that sacrament is to be celebrated to the decision of the apostles, laying down only that the form of penance and remission of sins should be appropriate to the sin (public penance for public

58

59

60

61

‘Credendum est praeceptu Iesu eos hoc fecisse; non enim fas est credere ex proprio sensu usus fuisse unctione. Verum haec unctio non sacramentalis intelligitur (qualis est unctio extrema qua utitur ecclesia) sed initium quoddam. […] Unde apparet quod oleo utebantur ad sanandum, non ad sacramentum ministrandum. Apparet quoque quod statim sequebatur sanitas, alioquin non fuisset cognita virtus olei sanantis’. Mk 6.13, iv, 145b. ‘Nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu verba haec loquuntur de sacramentali unctione extremae unctionis, sed magis de unctione quam instituit Dominus Iesus in Evangelio, a discipulis exercendam in aegrotis. Textum enim non dicit infirmatur quis ad mortem, sed absolute, infirmatur quis, et effectum dicit infirmi alleviationem’. On Jas 5.15, v, 370b. ‘[…] et de remissione peccatorum non nisi conditionaliter loquitur, cum extrema unctio non nisi prope articulum mortis detur, et directe, ut eius forma sonat, tendit ad remissionem peccatorum. Praeter hoc quod Iacobus ad unum aegrum multos presbyteros tum orantes, tum unguentes, mandat vocari, quod ab extrema unctionis ritu alienum est’. On Jas 5.15, v, 370b. However, such an alternative is contemplated by other reformers, for example, the bishops at Vatican ii, Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia, § 73, Tanner, p. 834.

212

chapter 7

sin, private for private).62 Responding to criticism about this passage, he is more emphatic: instituting the sacrament of penance, Jesus did not restrict the Church to the private, auricular form; a thoroughly public ceremony for public sinners (public confession, absolution, and penance) is in accord with Jesus’s teaching.63 It is, however, in his discussions on marriage that Cajetan raises the most striking challenges to Catholic tradition.64 The issue of divorce and remarriage exercises him at length, in particular regarding Matthew 19.9: ‘Whoever divorces his wife, except on account of fornication, and marries another, commits adultery’. This passage provokes a long and detailed note and Cajetan refers his readers back to this note when questions of marriage arise in other places.65 The positive assertion of the text is clear enough: the man who leaves his innocent wife and marries another is guilty of adultery. But what of the exception, the man who leaves his wife on account of fornication and marries another? Cajetan’s first answer is that the text does not directly concern itself with such a case. But surely Jesus here admits a real exception? Cajetan treads a fine line; he wants to say that the plain sense of the text acquits such a man of adultery, yet the overwhelming burden of theological and canonical opinion is against him. Cajetan wonders if he dare oppose such a weighty tradition (this torrens doctorum), and he tries to make the case for the traditional view.66 Nonetheless, in eventually taking a position, he finds the plain meaning of the text clearly against that tradition: Jesus’s teaching is that a man whose wife commits adultery can divorce her and marry another, saving a definitive judgment of the Church in this matter which, he says, is still lacking. Backing

62

63

64

65 66

‘Christus in sacramento paenitentiae instituit confessionem voluntariam peccati, sed modum confitendi et similiter absolvendi, an ad aurem, an publice, ecclesiae usui reliquit, iuxta tamen qualitatem peccati publici vel occulti. Nam conformis debet peccato tam paenitentia quam remissio’. On Jn 20.23, iv, 424b. ‘Confessio instituita a Christo non restingitur ad hunc modum confitendi, quia extenditur etiam ad confessionem publicam. Satisfacit enim praecepto Christi qui publice peccavit, publice confitetur, publice absolvitur et publice satisfacit’. Responsiones, v, 470. Raymond F. Collins, Divorce in the New Testament (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 201; V. Norskov Olsen, The New Testament Logia on Divorce: A Study of their Interpretation from Erasmus to Milton (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971), pp. 33–36; A.F. von Gunten, ‘La doctrine de Cajétan sur l’ indissolubilité du mariage’, Angelicum 43 (1966): pp. 62–72. On Mt 5.32, iv, 28b; on Mk 10.2, iv, 154b; on 1 Cor 7.11, iv, 106a; on Eph 5.31–33, v, 241b–242a. ‘Respondeo sic sonare textum secundum planum literae sensum. Sed quoniam non audeo opponere me contra torrentem doctorum, et iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum, ideo dixi textum nihil disponere de dimittente fornicariam’. On Mt 19.9, iv, 86a.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

213

up his conclusion, he is able to find loopholes and supporting evidence from among the papacy’s own inconsistent judgments in these matters.67 The other text that gives rise to detailed comment is the so-called ‘Pauline privilege’. In certain circumstances, Paul allowed a Christian to separate from a non-believing spouse: ‘If the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound’ (1 Cor 7.15). Cajetan immediately notes that Paul’s ruling does not speak of a dissolution of the marriage bond, just separation. Cajetan acknowledges that ecclesial tradition presumes the dissolution of the bond, since it envisages and allows the possibility of remarriage, but this, he insists, is to go beyond what is in the text as it stands. Paul speaks only of being free from conjugal obligations, nothing more.68 Cajetan expresses his amazement that this text of Paul, which does not speak of the dissolution of the bond, is now used by the ‘torrent of doctors’ precisely to support the dissolution of the bond, while the text from Matthew, in which Jesus speaks plainly of grounds for divorce, is not.69 Cajetan does not want to deny the Pauline privilege—the text is indeed patient of the interpretation that the tradition of the Church has always given it70—but he simply asks that the same generosity of interpretation be allowed for the plainer words uttered by Jesus himself in the gospel. Cajetan considers two ways in which these texts, the Matthaean exception and the Pauline privilege, might be harmonised. A first way would have to acknowledge that the exception Jesus gives for divorce is only apparently the sole exception; there may be others and Paul gives one such example. Cajetan, however, prefers a harmonisation that follows his plain reading of the texts: he attributes to the words of Christ the force of a sole exception and, therefore, 67

68 69

70

‘Intelligo igitur ex hac Domini Iesu Christi lege, licitum esse Christiano dimittere uxorem ob fornicationem carnalem ipsius uxoris, et posse ducere alia uxorem, salva semper ecclesiae diffinitione, quae hactenus non apparet. Nam decretales pontificiae de hac materia, non sunt diffinitivae fidei, sed iudiciales facti. Profitentur autem ipsimet pontifices, ut patet in capite quanto, De divorciis et in capite Licet, de sponsa lib. duorum, Romanos pontifices aliquando in his iudiciis matrimoniorum errasse’. On Mt 19.9, iv, 86a. Von Gunten, ‘La doctrine de Cajétan sur l’ indissolubilité du mariage’, has identified these texts. ‘Sed hinc non convincitur quod sit solutum vinculum coniugale, sicut non solvitur vinculum filiale aut paternum’. On 1 Cor 7.15, v, 107a. ‘Non solum miror, sed stupeo quod Christo clare excipiente causam fornicationis, torrens doctorum non admittit illam mariti libertatem; Paulo autem non clare dicente, interpretata sit solutio coniugii ex causa alia ab explicitata a Christo et sola excepta’. On 1Cor 7.15, v, 107a. ‘Quia tamen antiquo ecclesiae usu sensum communem textus huius firmatum credo, et textus capax est huius sensus […]’. On 1 Cor 7.15, v, 107a.

214

chapter 7

restricts the meaning of the Pauline text to separation without dissolution of the bond.71 The resulting position clearly implies that the traditions of the Church are flawed, when measured against the plain meaning of relevant biblical texts. Cajetan accepts the Pauline privilege, according to the standard usage of the Church, but grudgingly, preferring to exclude dissolution of the bond. He also argues that the grounds for divorce on account of the infidelity of the wife are clearly established in the gospel, to the extent that he cannot see how Roman judgments contradicting this can be taken as definitive.72 The plain meaning of the text of scripture ought to be able to correct the formal teaching and practice of the Church, saving only judgments from the highest level. The lack of symmetry in New Testament teaching is also addressed. Paul allows the freedom of separation to both spouses; Jesus speaks only of the husband’s freedom to leave an adulterous wife. Cajetan offers possible explanations for the unequal estimate of infidelity: in addition to the fact that a woman’s infidelity is, apparently, naturally more abhorrent, it also undermines the certainty of paternity. Infidelity itself, however, is condemned equally for husband and wife by Paul.73 Absent from Cajetan’s entire treatment of the indissolubility of marriage is the decisive issue of sacramentality.74 Cajetan could have invoked this principle in order to harmonise the two texts: the marriage envisaged by Jesus, apparently a marriage between believers, is sacramental (and for that reason, in the tradition of the Church, indissoluble), whereas the marriage envisaged by Paul is not. The reason for this would seem to be, once again, his reluctance to make use of an apparently discredited proof text. The conventional proof text of the sacramentality of marriage is found in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Speaking 71

72 73

74

‘Christus enim solam fornicationis causam excipit. Paulus alteram docens causam, docet non esse solam fornicationis causam. Paulus, dico, ut communiter exponitur, quia, ut dictum est, et textus sonat, Paulus non sonat solutionem coniugii’. On 1Cor 7.15, v, 107a. For Catharinus’s inability to refute this opinion (‘nesciabam etiam idonee confutare’), see von Gunten, ‘La doctrine de Cajétan sur l’ indissolubilité du mariage’, p. 71, n. 13. ‘Imparem enim Dominus iudicat maritum et uxorem quoad fornicationem, quia impar est secundum naturalem horrorem, et repugnantiam ad certitudinem patris prolis. Infidelitas autem, quae animam spectat, paris censetur iuris in utroque coniuge a Paulo’. On 1Cor 7.15, v, 107a. ‘Non loquimur nunc de sacramento ecclesiae, sed de coniugio absolute, de quo loquitur textus’. On Mt 19.5, iv, 85a; ‘Adverte hic quod Dominus Iesus inseparabilitatem coniugii probat ex institutione divine ab initio mundi, seclusa ratione sacramenti ecclesiastici. Oportebit enim haec recolere in expositione epistolae Pauli ad Corinthos, Si infidelis discedit, discedat &c. [1 Cor 7.15]’. On Mt 19.6, iv, 85b.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

215

of the union of man and wife, Paul writes: ‘This is a great mystery [Vulgate = sacramentum], and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church.’ (Eph 5.32). Cajetan first of all examines the Greek and immediately dismisses the Vulgate translation. The Greek is best translated as mysterium.75 (In this, Cajetan is evidently indebted to, though far more blunt than, Erasmus.)76 Paul is saying that marriage is a great mystery, not a great sacrament. The reference to the nuptial mystery of Christ and the Church is made by using the mystical or spiritual sense and may only be read as edifying faith, not grounding doctrine. Cajetan cannot have been unaware that this very spiritual sense was the basis of a recent definition of the sacramentality of marriage.77 Nevertheless, he argues that the climax of this passage cannot be the use of the spiritual sense. Paul’s main purpose, the literal sense of the text, is to encourage Christian husbands to love their wives.78 Passing over the notion of sacramentality, Cajetan prefers to establish the indissolubility of marriage in creation. At the beginning, all marriage, not only Christian marriage, was established by God. Commenting on texts of Genesis (1.27, 2.24) Jesus taught that what God had joined together, no one could put asunder (Mk 10.9). In the texts discussed above, Cajetan finds both Paul and Jesus proposing exceptions from this divine law of indissolubility. Clearly, this can only be done with divine approval. Cajetan’s only option is to explain that, in making these exceptions, Jesus acts by his power as God, and Paul by divine authority or inspiration.79 With this argument, Cajetan both strengthens and weakens his case: God has made all marriages, not just the sacramental marriages of the New Testament, essentially indissoluble. Therefore God’s initiative must be invoked for each case of dissolution, both the exception for adultery given by Jesus and the

75 76 77

78

79

‘Non habes ex hoc loco prudens lector a Paulo coniugium esse sacramentum. Non enim dicit sacramentum, sed mysterium hoc magnum est’. On Eph 5.32, v, 241b. Reeve, iii, p. 615. Council of Florence (1439), Decretum pro Armeniis, ‘Septimum est sacramentum matrimonii, quod est signum coniunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae secundum Apostloum dicentem, Sacramentum hoc magnum est: ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia’. Tanner, p. 550. ‘Accumulat Paulus magnitudini mysterii secundum sensum literalem, magnitudinem secundum sensum spiritualem, referendo haec ad Christum et ecclesiam’. On Eph 5.32, v, 241b–242a. ‘Quamvis ego referam haec ad Christum et ecclesiam, veruntamen iuxta sensum literae, unusquisque diligat uxorem suam sicut seipsum’. On Eph 5.33, v, 242a. ‘[…] auctoritate proculdubio divina, qua sola separari potest quod Deus coniunxit, iuxta verbum Domini de coniugio non Christianorum, sed ab initio mundi instituto, quod Deus coniunxit, homo non separet’. On 1 Cor 7.15, v, 107a.

216

chapter 7

Pauline privilege as commonly understood. In doing this, Cajetan has implicitly formulated a new axiom, modifying that found in scripture: ‘What God has joined together, God alone can separate’.

Apocrypha, Cabala, Poetic Theology Cajetan relies on scripture to interpret itself and often contents himself with ignorance when questions remain unanswered. For example, we are not told why the healing waters were moved by the ministry of an angel at the sheep pool;80 nor at what time Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ;81 and although Genesis does not tell us about the deeds of Cain and Abel, it is sufficient that John tells us that Cain’s deeds were evil and Abel’s deeds were good.82 In these cases, Cajetan seems to be ruling out any appeal to apocryphal sources. In other cases, this proscription is stated explicitly. John, for example, tells us that the miracle at Cana was the first of Jesus’s signs; any account of earlier miracles is therefore apocryphal.83 If the context provides a reasonable interpretation, the commentator has no need to consult apocryphal material.84 This insistence can be detected in other works; in the Summa commentary, Cajetan notes in passing that since scripture never tells us that the Virgin Mary gave formal religious instruction, or that Christ spoke in tongues, then these things must not be affirmed.85 Each of these examples shows Cajetan’s determination to deny any definitive contribution to theology from the apocrypha. This caution about non-authoritative sources is also evident in a number of other areas. Although Cajetan is very keen to show himself a student of Hebrew tradition, and has a high regard for the philological value of Jewish sources, he is 80 81 82 83 84

85

‘Scriptum non est authentice’. On Jn 5.4, iv, 316b. ‘Textus iste sufficit ad testificandum quod sic fuit nec oportet testimonium ex Genesi quaerere’. On Jn 8.56, iv, 354a. On 1Jn 3.12, v, 394vb. On Jn 2.11, iv, 298a. ‘Et hic sensus, quia nullo eget adminiculo apocrypho, sed libertati literae innititur […] complectendus est, utpote cui tam contextus literae quam ratio valde quadrat’. On 2Kings 4.2, ii, 136b. See also on 2 Kings 5.6, ii, 138a: ‘Et hic sensus et quadrat literae, et quadrat dispositioni habitantium in Ierusalem, et quadrat rationi rectae, et nullo eget adminiculo apocrypho’. ‘[…] quia theologia solida fundatur super scriptura sacra, et nullibi in ea reperitur Beatam Virginem docuisse, sicut nec Christum locutum linguis […], affirmandum est Beatam Virginem non docuisse’. On st iii, 27, 5 [iv]. For further examples, see Jared Wicks, Cajetan und die Anfänge der Reformation (Münster: Aschendorff, 1983), pp. 122–123.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

217

cautious with other material these texts contain. Even when he is inclined to follow textual amendments suggested by the Talmud, he is careful not to seem too credulous.86 Moreover, he warns his readers not to take anything simply on the authority of Josephus.87 Jewish legendary traditions that enlarge on biblical narratives may be noted, but they are not followed up.88 What of the cabala, that mystical teaching deriving ultimately, so it was said, from Moses? Cajetan’s scripture commentaries make a single mention of the cabala, one that is entirely unsympathetic. The text that occasions Cajetan’s remarks is an admonition of Paul to Timothy (1Tim 6.20–21): O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith. For Cajetan, this is not a reference to knowledge in general, since nothing that is true can be an enemy of the gospel. Paul is being more specific: this particular knowledge that Paul has in mind is ‘falsely so-called’; it has been embraced by Christians, endangering their faith; and it is not to be totally avoided, but only insofar as it is profane and meaningless chatter and an obstacle to pastoral care. Cajetan concludes that he knows of no scientia that fits this description other than the cabala.89 Looking beyond explicitly Judaeo-Christian tradition, many of Cajetan’s contemporaries sought elements of divine revelation in the oracles of the sibyls. Sibyls are depicted most famously in the Sistine Chapel, but also on the ceiling of the Carafa Chapel, dedicated to St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Dominican church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome. Here again, Cajetan is extremely

86 87

88

89

‘Haec dixerim, non ut adhibeatur fides Talmudistis […]’. On Job 7.20, ii, 430a. ‘Et hoc adversus meam institutionem, neminem arguendi, tacuissem, nisi utilem admodum credidissem studiosis sacrae scripturae cautelam ab authoritate Iosephi’. On 3Kings 11.42, ii, 203b. For example, some say that Rebekah consulted Melchizedek when she was expecting the twins, Jacob and Esau, ‘taceo incerta dicta ab Hebraeis de Melchisedech’. On Gen 25.22, i, 101b. ‘Et si colligeris haec omnia (videlicet quod falso nominatur scientia; quod complexa est a fidelibus cum periculo profitentiam illam, ita quod quidam illam profitentes abberrarunt a fide; et quod Paulus non dicit illam omnino vitandam, sed dicit illius vitandas esse duas partes, scilicet prophanis vacuitates vocum et oppositiones ad custodiendum depositum gregem), suspicaberis forte mecum cabalisticam pingi scientiam. Meae suspicioni alia non occurit scientia his picta coloribus’. On 1 Tim 6.21, v, 307b.

218

chapter 7

cautious. When Aquinas mentions the sibyls in the Summa, Cajetan passes on in silence.90 The sole mention of sibyls in the scripture commentaries occurs as Cajetan wonders how the magi knew about the star that led them to the messiah. Without any sign of enthusiasm, he suggests that perhaps they were told by Balaam, or the oriental prince, Job, or some sibyl, or someone else.91 Equally circumspect is the way Cajetan quotes the words of the Cumaean Sibyl from Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue. These words were said to foretell the coming of a child from heaven, born of a virgin, who would usher in a golden age; they were frequently interpreted as a prophecy relating to the advent of Christ.92 Cajetan, on the other hand, simply gives them as an example of how poets use a figure of speech: a human individual is said to be ‘heavenly’; likewise Moses speaks of the ‘giants’ in the first chapters of Genesis as ‘heavenly’, using the same figure of speech. Virgil’s prophecy of the coming messiah proves to be, in Cajetan’s view, simply an example of figurative poetry.93 Perhaps in a subtle but deliberate way, Cajetan is subverting Virgil’s status as a Christian prophet (and, by association, that of the Cumaean Sibyl). The cabala and the sibylline oracles were central elements in Roman ‘poetic theology’ as practised and preached by a number of Cajetan’s contemporaries, including men in influential positions at court (for example, Giles of Viterbo and Pietro Galatino). Cajetan evidently found their theological methods wayward and fanciful. It is possible that his unease with mystical or spiritual exegesis stems from the same cause. Earlier, I claimed that the renewal of preaching

90 91

92

93

st ii-ii, 2, 7 ad 3. ‘Potest tamen fuisse quod traditiones Balaam alio seu clarior modo haberetur apud istos, aperte quod significantes quod orietur stella ad indicandum nativitatem messiae. Potuit quoque talis traditio fuisse a Iob, qui manifeste cognivit mysterium messiae, et fuit princeps orientalis, ut patet Iob, 1. Sed sive a Balaam, sive a Iob, sive a Sybilla aliqua, sive a quocunque alio, credendum est huiusmodi antiquam traditionem fuisse, quod orietur nova stella, nulla ex coelestibus stellis in nativitate messiae. Et sic magi sequaces huiusmodi antiquae traditionis, videntes novam stellam cognoverunt Christum natum’. On Mt 2.2, iv, 9a. Charles Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome (2nd edn., Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1998), pp. 308–309, 311–312; Jasper Griffin, Virgil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 27–29. ‘Suspicor ergo Mosen vulgato nomine usum, quo gigantes tanquam lapsi a coelo appellata sunt; tanquam sint magis divini quam humani generis. Pleni sunt poetae huiusmodi locutionis modo, unde et Virgilius, Iam nova progenies caelo dimittitur alto[Ecl. iv, l. 7]’. On Gen 6.4, i, 40b. The other quotation from Virgil is the description of a horse’s excitement at the sound of battle (Georg., iii, lines 83–85); Cajetan, not unreasonably, notes the similarities between Virgil’s description and that in the book of Job, on Job 39.20, ii, 542a.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

219

was among the reasons for Cajetan’s entry into biblical scholarship. A qualification of that motive may be ventured here: Cajetan may have produced these works, concentrating on the literal sense of the canonical scriptures, as an antidote to the rather heady excesses of Roman oratory and as a means of promoting preaching that was more sober and methodologically more accountable. Cajetan was not alone in this attitude. Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola did not share his uncle’s fascination for the cabala, nor for the alleged hidden concordance between Neoplatonism and Christianity. His reform thought is encapsulated in an oration written for, though not delivered at, the Fifth Lateran Council. In it, he advocated a strictly scriptural faith and ruled out any appeal to hermetic literature or to the ‘ancient theologians’ such as Zoroaster, Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato (prisci theologi); he placed the authentic scriptures over all theological traditions.94 Notwithstanding Pico’s fideism and scepticism, the parallels between his thought and that of Cajetan are more than superficial.95

Philosophy While Cajetan’s attitude to ‘poetic theology’ is sceptical, his appraisal of the usefulness to exegesis of reason and philosophy is more positive. He does not unlearn his knowledge of theological and philosophical speculation when he reads the sacred page. He makes regular use of philosophers, calling on their authority and citing their opinions. Very rarely does he speak harshly of philosophers, taken as a group.96 He refers to them openly, for illumination 94 95

96

Charles Schmitt, ‘Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola and the Fifth Lateran Council’, arg 61 (1970): pp. 161–178. The fact that Pico’s critique of theology and the prevailing moral condition of the Church was fundamentally Savonarolan in inspiration suggests that the influence of Savonarola on Cajetan is worthy of closer attention than it has yet received. For some pointers, see Romeo De Maio, ‘Savonarola, Oliviero Carafa, Tommaso de Vio e la Disputa di Raffaello’, in afp 38 (1968) pp. 149–165; Lorenzo Polizzotto, The Elect Nation: The Savonarolan Movement in Florence 1494–1545 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 178, 199, 305–306; Tamar Herzig, Savonarola’s Women: Visions and Reform in Renaissance Italy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), pp. 141–142; Nelson Minnich, ‘Prophecy and the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517)’, in Marjorie Reeves (ed.), Prophetic Rome in the High Renaissance Period (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pp. 63–87; Ronald C. Finucane, Contested Canonizations: The Last Medieval Saints, 1482–1523 (Washington, dc: Catholic University of America Press, 2011), pp. 184–185. On Eph 4.17, v, 236a.

220

chapter 7

not only concerning ethics and metaphysics, but also on physics, astronomy, medicine, biology, and natural history. For example, commenting on the formation of Eve from Adam’s rib, he argues that Moses uses the metaphor of the rib to convey much the same meaning as philosophers do with the notion of woman as a defective male (vir laesus).97 At other times, the reference is more allusive. A striking example of this occurs early in his commentary on Genesis. Here Cajetan gives an indication of the way both humanist and scholastic doctrinal positions can be brought to the service of literal interpretation. He asks how it is that Adam, being in the image and likeness of God (that is, having an intellectual soul) nevertheless has an earthly body. His answer turns on the meaning he gives to ‘dust of the earth’ (Gen 2.7): unlike vapour or smoke, which rise, dust is heavy and mortal, testifying to the earthly nature of human beings. Reversing the conventional connotations, however, Cajetan then remarks that, within material creation, dust is the finest, most subtle of elements. The human body is the most refined in all creation.98 Cajetan is not the first to exult in being made from dust—there are echoes in humanist literature and preaching—but there is no obvious precedent for his particular exegesis of Gen 2.7.99 He asserts that such a super-subtle earthly body is perfectly apt for a being with an immortal soul. In so doing, he has assimilated into his discussion of the body much that Giovanni Pico della Mirandola says of the ‘spirit’ as the intermediate term between earthly body and heavenly soul.100 Cajetan goes on to demonstrate the refinement of the human body by importing two ideas from Aquinas: the sophistication of the human sense of

97 98

99

100

On Gen 2.21, i, 22b–23b. ‘Prima difficultas est circa corpus hominis: quo pacto homo secundum animam est ad imaginem Dei factus (hoc est, habens animam intellectivam) et tamen habens corpus terrestre. Hanc solvendo difficultatem, dixit, quod, quamvis corpus hominis sit sumptum ex terra, formatum inde est ex pulvere terrae. Et dicit, de pulvere terrae, ad differentiam tam vaporis, qui elevatur ex aquis, quam fumi, qui elevatur ex igne: gravitas enim corporis humani testatur illud esse terrestre, verum non ex terrestri grosso sed ex terrestri subtilissimo, significato nomine pulveris: significatur enim per hoc quod terra redacta in supremam subtilitatem, ad quam potest perduci, est illa, ex qua constat corpus humanum’. On Gen 2.7, i, 16b–17a. See also on Eccl 12.7, iii, 632a. See John O’Malley, ‘An Ash Wednesday Sermon on the Dignity of Man for Pope Julius ii, 1513’, in Sergio Bertelli and Gloria Ramakus (eds.), Essays Presented to Myron P. Gilmore (2 vols., Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1978), vol. 1, pp. 193–207. Charles Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Renaissance Thought (2 vols., London: Constable, 1970), vol. 2, pp. 513–514.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

221

touch, and upright posture.101 These two factors demonstrate the harmony and integrity in which the body is constituted. It is a most perfectly balanced and composed organ of sense. Cajetan here again echoes Pico, who viewed human nature as a microcosm, containing all creation.102 It is thoroughly fitting that this is the sort of body that has a rational soul.103 For Cajetan, this is the literal sense intended by Moses its author. Philosophy in itself is therefore no enemy of Christianity. But philosophical reflection has a limit: philosophy becomes an enemy to faith when it oversteps the limits of its own proper competence, when it sets too much store by human traditions, or when it subjects the truths of faith to the judgment of the stars and the elements.104 Philosophers discover the glory of God by reading the heavens,

101

102

103

104

‘Quod manifestat tum perfectissimus in homine tactus, tum statura recta solius hominis: nam subtilissimum terrae optime commiscetur reliquis elementis ad constituendum vere medium, quale oportet organum perfectissimi tactus esse, ut, quantum natura patitur, discernat differentias omnes tangibilium. Et similiter subtilissimum terrae prima cause ex parte materiae est quod homo sit rectae staturae: quantumcunque enim calor moveret sursum, si terrestre grossum non moveretur sursum, statura recta, aut non esset, aut cum discrimine esset’. On Gen 2.7, i, 17a. For Aquinas on touch and upright posture, st i, 91, 3 ad 1 and ad 3. ‘Et propterea Moses sapientissimus hominem ex pulvere terrae formatum descripsit: ut hinc haberetur quod corpus hominis est reductum ad aequalitatem remotissimam a contrariis, qualem exigit terra subtilissima optime mixta’. On Gen 2.7, i, 17a. Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness, pp. 518–520. See also Paul Oskar Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964), pp. 66–67. ‘[…] ac per hoc est consonum animae ad imaginem Dei: et similiter haberetur ex hac eadem materiali causa differentia corporis humani a corporibus reliquorum animantium quoad rectitudinem staturae consurgentem ex subtilissima terra, commixta tanquam ex materia: ex hinc etiam ipsa elevatio capitis, congruum manifestaret corpus rationali animae: cerebrum enim non nisi elevatum idoneum est ad spiritualia phantasmata ministrandum intellectuali animae’. On Gen 2.7, i, 17a. ‘Aut enim inanis fallacia iungitur philosophiae ex traditione hominum, puta ex secta Stoicorum vel Peripateticorum, et huiusmodi. Aut ex elementis mundi, hoc est, ex metiri et iudicare ea quae sunt Christianae fidei secundum elementa mundi, hoc est, causas coelestes et elementares et compositorum ex his. Hoc enim inanis est fallaciae, pro quanto iudicium quod ex huiusmodi causis haberi potest non se extendit ad excelsa Christi mysteria, quae fide tenemus. Nam Christi mysteria spiritualia sunt, et independentia ab elementis constituentibus mundum. […] Philosophia secundum elementa mundi, si sistit in propriis, non adversatur Christo, sed est secundum Christum, in quo sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et cognitionis. Sed si praesumit in excelsiora (qualia sunt mysteria fidei Christianae) non secundum Christum, sed adversus Christum est, utpote quae inani innititur fallaciae’. On Col 2.8, v, 266a.

222

chapter 7

but the truth that the heavens disclose is paltry compared to the knowledge given through the law of God.105 An explicit encounter between philosophy and theology occurs in Cajetan’s commentary on Job. Following Aquinas, Cajetan presents this book as a ‘disputation’ on the ways of God.106 Much of the debate is determined by Cajetan’s distinction between Job (who has faith in divine revelation) and his companions (who speak as philosophers). God has revealed to Job the purpose of his affliction (namely, to test him) and the mysteries of divine judgment after death, which are unknown to his companions.107 Cajetan finds justification for this not only in the long speeches, but also in occasionally odd details: when Job ‘smiled’, Cajetan remarks that this was not the smile of a fool but of one who knows mysteries concealed from others.108 According to Cajetan, for human

105

106

107

108

‘Materia Psalmi est comparatio notitiae divinorum quam habemus ex coelis, ad divinorum ex lege divina’. On Ps 19, Intro, iii, 69a. ‘[…] unde apparet quam imperfecta est notitia quam genus humanum habet de divinis ex coelestibus corporibus’. On Ps 19.6, iii, 70b. ‘Parum aut nihil genus humanum notitiae divinae accepit’. On Ps 19.7, iii, 70b. ‘Ex huiusmodi namque cognitione nomen ei imposuit, ut litera dicit. Mirum autem est, si ex astris hoc cognoverit, pensata nativitate Noe; de divina autem revelatione scriptura nihil dicit. Et tamen altero istorum modorum cognovit, nisi somnium, aut eiusmodi signum aliquod causa nominis fuerit’. On Gen 5.29, i, 39a. Expositio super Iob ad litteram, Leonine, xxvi. The growing literature on Aquinas’s exposition of Job invites a detailed comparison between his text and that of Cajetan, a task beyond the scope of this book. See Marcos F., Manzanedo, ‘La antropologia filosòfica en el comentario tomista al libro de Job’, Angelicum 62 (1985): pp. 419–471. Thomas Aquinas, The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, trans. Anthony Damico with interpretative essay and notes by Martin D. Yaffe (Atlanta: Scolars Press, 1989); Eleonore Stump, ‘Biblical Commentary and Philosophy’, in Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1993), pp. 252–268; P. Zerafa, ‘Il commento di san Tommaso al libro di Giobbe tra esegesi antica e esegesi contemporanea’, Angelicum 71 (1994): pp. 481–508; Susan E. Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Calvin’s Exegesis of Job from Medieval and Modern Perspectives (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); John Yocum, ‘Aquinas’ Literal Exposition on Job’, in Thomas Weinandy, Daniel A. Keating, and John Yocum (eds.), Aquinas on Scripture: An Introduction to His Biblical Commentaries (London: t&t Clark, 2005), pp. 21–42. ‘Et ut melius intelligas subiuncta, adverte quod Iob in hac inquisitione manifestat revelatam sibi fuisse a Deo causam afflictionis suae, et modum, videlicet mediante Satana expetente Iobem ad hoc ut peccaret’. On Job 10.2, ii, 438b. See also on Job 6.3, ii, 421a; on Job 19.27, ii, 469a; on Job 21.19, ii, 475b; 28.21, ii, 497b; on Job 37.24, ii, 531b; on Job 38.2, ii, 532a; on Job 42.3, ii, 555a. ‘[…] tanquam habens mysterium’. On Job 29.24, ii, 501b.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

223

nature to see God, it must be raised to communion with God and made like to God. Only those who are like to God can see God as he is.109 In heaven, the sight of God will be such that there will be no need of explanations.110 Until then, knowledge, even the knowledge of faith, is limited. There is no suggestion from Cajetan that revelation teaches everything; there are things which, unknown to reason, are also unknown to faith. Jesus, he says, has revealed what he has heard from the Father, because what he has heard can be told; the things he has seen, however, cannot be put into words.111 What, therefore, is unknown to philosophy? Cajetan speaks of those mysteries that philosophers, Christian and non-Christian, have tried to fathom by their own reason: the mysteries of God, of humanity, and of what happens after death. Philosophy cannot know the doctrine and persons of the Trinity;112 the original state of pre-lapsarian humanity;113 the incarnation, the resurrection and ascension of Christ;114 divine providence and predestination;115 God’s will-

109

110

111

112 113

114

115

‘Incommunicabilis enim est visio Dei cuicunque creaturae, tam factae quam factibili, in suis naturalibus quantumcunque excellentibus. Et propterea oportet videntem Deum assumptum esse ad communionem divini ordinis, et similem Deo effectum lumine gloriae. Et sic divinae naturae facti consortes (quod est esse similes Deo similitudine divini ordinis) vident Deum sicuti est’. On 1 Jn 3.2, v, 394ra. ‘Effectus proprius Novi Testamenti post hanc vitam, describitur exclusio doctrinae humanae, non ad quodcunque, sed ad cognoscendum Deum, In coelesti enim patria quamvis unus instruatur ab alio de aliquibus mysteriis, non tamen de notitia Dei. […] Erunt enim ibi magni et parvi, beati et magis beati, sed videre Deum erit commune omnibus’. On Heb 8.11, v, 346a. ‘Quoniam quae ipse Iesus secundam animam vidit in Deo veritatis fonte, non sunt sermone explicabilia; quae autem audivit, sicut vocibus significatur audita, ita sermone quoque possunt mundo explicari’. On Jn 8.26, iv, 348b. ‘Notitia Patris et Filii ita est propria divinis personis, quod nulli communicatur naturaliter, sed tantum per revelationem’. On Mt 11.27, iv, 57b; see also on Num 14.17, i, 373b. ‘Non est sermo de creato homine in gratuito dono rectitudinis originalis, sed de homine facto a Deo in naturali rectitudine animi. Talem enim rectitudinem concionantis disputatio invenit sub naturali lumine intellectus humani discurrendo. Iustitiam autem originalis iustitiae credimus et non inquirendo invenimus’. On Eccl 7.30, iii, 620b. ‘Divitiae Christi impervestigabiles dona sunt Christi quae excedunt omnem naturalem inquisitionem. Nullus enim inquirere potest, Verbum caro factum est [Jn 1.14], Christus resurrexit et sedet ad dexteram Dei [Acts 2.34, Col 3.1], et huiusmodi. Et tamen haec sunt quae Paulus evangelizabat inter gentes’. On Eph 3.8, v, 230b. The nickname of James and John, ‘Sons of thunder’, is explained in part by the fact that, in his gospel, John thundered, ‘In principio erat Verbum, et, Verbum caro factum est’. On Mk 3.17, iv, 139b. ‘Nulla siquidem est alia via sciendi hanc veritatem nisi divina revelatio. […] Non suffecit prophetae demonstrare viam sciendi hoc esse sacram scripturam, sed ad specialia descen-

224

chapter 7

ingness, indeed delight, in forgiving sinners;116 the condition of the risen and glorified human body,117 eternal reward and eternal damnation and the measure of the pains of hell.118 In his later years, Cajetan seems to have grown in scepticism about the abilities of unaided reason to grasp the deeper mysteries of life. This can be seen particularly in his treatment of three topics in the biblical commentaries: the immortality of the soul, predestination, and the priority of will over intellect. The Immortality of the Soul The clearest evidence that Cajetan grew less confident in the power of reason over time is his teaching on the immortality of the soul. There are three stages to the evolution of his thought on this matter.119 In the first stage, he accepts the position of Aquinas, which was that Aristotle both held that the soul is immortal and proved it in a philosophically cogent way. In the sermon De immortalitate animarum, preached before Julius ii in 1501, and in the commentary on the Prima pars, Cajetan reproduced Aquinas’s arguments in favour

116 117 118

119

dit, aperiens viam veritatis patere ex fine eorum; ex finibus siquidem bonorum et malorum solvenda est quaestio’. On Ps 73.17, iii, 254a. ‘Novit enim solus Iesus quam acceptum gratumque sit Deo remittere aliis offensas, et ideo ipse solus potuit revelare hoc’. On Mt 6.15, iv, 34b. ‘Sed haec nostram notitiam excedunt, utpote qui eandem carnis naturam translatum in impassibilitatem et gloriam nunquam vidimus, in se aut in suo simili’. On Jn 20.27, iv, 425a. ‘Nisi enim Deus revelasset ea quae sunt providentiae eius, et aeternae vitae, aeternique supplicii, ignoraremus et nec scire nec intelligere secundum Deum esset in nobis’. On Prov 2.6, iii, 510b–511a. ‘Sed quantum potest iustitia divina nullus scit naturali notitia, tum quia nullus naturaliter scit poenas alterius vitae, tum quia multo plus potest iustitia divina quam in inferno punire’. On Ps 90.11, iii, 310a. M.-H. Laurent, ‘Le Commentaire de Cajétan sur le De Anima’, Introduction to I. Coquelle (ed.), Thomas De Vio Cardinal Caietanus (1469–1534) Scripta Philosophica. Commentaria in De Anima Aristotelis (2 vols., Rome: Angelicum, 1938–1939), vol. 1, pp. vii–lii; J. BeldaPlans, ‘Cajetano y la controversia sobre la immortalidad del alma humana’, Scripta theologica, xvi (1984): pp. 417–422; Etienne Gilson, ‘Autour de Pomponazzi’, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age 28 (1961) pp. 163–279; G. di Napoli, L’immortalita dell’anima nel Rinascimento (Turin 1963), including a chapter entitled, ‘Il Gaetano dal tomismo all’agnosticismo’, pp. 214–226; Brian P. Copenhaver and Charles B. Schmitt, Renaissance Philosophy. A History of Western Philosophy, vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 106–111; Antonio Petagine, ‘Aristotelismo e immortalità dell’anima. La proposta di Tommaso d’Aquino’, Lo Sguardo 5 (2011): pp. 1–19. For a different interpretation of Cajetan’s views, see Barbara Hallensleben, Communicatio. Anthropologie und Gnadenlehre bei Thomas de Vio Cajetan (Münster: Aschendorff, 1985), pp. 187–204.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

225

of the philosophical demonstrability of the immortality of the soul. In neither of these works does he show any hesitation in accepting Aquinas’s interpretation of Aristotle.120 In a second stage, seen in the commentary on Aristotle’s De anima (c. 1509, published 1510), Cajetan agrees with the conclusions but not with the arguments of Aquinas. Better Latin translations of Aristotle, based on better Greek editions, led him to question the accuracy of Aquinas’s interpretation of Aristotle. (In the opinion of modern scholars, he was right to do so.)121 A similar position may lie behind his decision to vote non placet during the Fifth Lateran Council on the proposed requirement that philosophers should be obliged to teach the truths of faith. The decree Apostolici regiminis (1513) condemned Averroist theories on the human soul and obliged professors of philosophy to promote the position defined by the Church.122 This was a step beyond the mere ban of contentious public debate instituted by Bishop Barozzi in Padua: Cajetan objected to the idea that philosophers should be required to provide proofs for the data of revealed religion.123 The third stage is marked by the biblical commentaries, in which he shows a more forthright dismissal of the arguments produced. In his commentary on Romans (1528), he lists the doctrines that remain inaccessible to reason and are known only by faith: Trinity, incarnation, the immortality of the soul, and so on (‘et similia’).124 He expands on that assertion in the commentary on Ecclesiastes (1534). Solomon, argues Cajetan, is debating with philosophers, thinkers who have no access to divine revelation. Initially, he takes their side, arguing with them against the immortality of the soul. This is a perfectly valid procedure: as a philosopher using his unaided reason, Solomon establishes that the immortality of the soul cannot be proven. Only in the light of divine 120

121 122 123 124

De immortalitate animarum (3 December 1503), Opuscula, iii, 186a–188a; on st i, 75, 2, [xvii] and on st i, 75, 6, [i–xv]. An English translation of Oratio de immortalitate animarum is available as, ‘On the Immortality of Minds’, trans. J. Sheridan, in L. Kennedy (ed.), Renaissance Philosophy (The Hague: Mouton, 1973), pp. 41–54. See also John W. O’Malley, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: Rhetoric, Doctrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, ca.1450–1521 (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1979), pp. 108–110 and Jared Wicks, ‘Thomism between Renaissance and Reformation: the Case of Cajetan’, arg 68 (1977), pp. 9–33, at pp. 17–18. Jonathan Barnes, Aristotle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 67. Tanner, pp. 605–606. Eric A. Constant, ‘A Reinterpretation of the Fifth Lateran Council Decree Apostolici regiminis (1513)’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 33 (2002): pp. 353–379. ‘[…] sicut nescio mysterium Trinitatis, sicut nescio animam immortalem, sicut nescio Verbum caro factum est, et similia, quae tamen omnia credo’. On Rom 9.23, v, 58b.

226

chapter 7

revelation can Solomon assert the truth of the immortality of the soul. For Cajetan, only probable arguments can be found; perhaps casting a critical eye over his own earlier attempts, he says that no philosophical proof has ever been convincing.125 As a consequence of this position, Cajetan is committed to finding clear evidence for the immortality of the soul in scripture. He shows himself imaginative and persevering in searching out Old Testament texts in particular that establish this doctrine as a doctrine of faith. The commandment about taking the Lord’s name in vain has a threat attached, ‘For the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain’ (Ex 20.7). Cajetan says that, even if we don’t see this carried out in this life, we will do hereafter. He adds dryly that this ought to be noted by those who do not accept that the books of Moses teach life after death.126 And on the text, ‘No one shall see [God] and live’, he explains that this is because we will see God only after we have died.127 King David, speaking of his dead son, says ‘I shall go to him, but he will not return to me’. For Cajetan, this proves the continuing existence of his soul after death; David could not ‘go to’ someone whose soul had already been extinguished.128 Moses writes that Abraham died and was ‘gathered to his people’. Cajetan remarks that, since Abraham’s body was buried alongside that of Sarah alone, his soul must be that which is ‘gathered to his people’. He insists on this in order to stop the mouths of the impudent who say that the Old Testament does not contain a single word about life after death. Furthermore, Cajetan notes that the text has the word ‘peoples’, in the plural; he argues from this that the righteous dead, 125

126

127

128

‘Et quamvis argumentando loquatur, dicit tamen verum negando scientiam immortalitatis animae nostrae. Nullus enim philosophus hactenus demonstravit animam hominis esse immortalem. Nulla apparet demonstrativa ratio. Sed fide hoc credimus, et rationibus probabilibus consonat’. On Eccl 3.21, iii, 609a. See also on Eccl 12.7, iii, 632a. ‘Et quoniam futurum hoc iudicium divinum raro impletum videmus in hac vita, consequens est, ut verificatio istius literae divinum iudicium post hanc vitam comprehendat. Quod annotare debent illi qui negant in libris Moses contineri aliquid futurae post mortem vitae’. On Ex 20.7, i, 208b. ‘Nota, qui temere negas in libris Mosis mentionem fieri futurae felicitatis, haec verba divina. […] Adiungendo ergo, et vivet, insinuat quod adempta hominis vita poterit homo videre ipsum, ac per hoc proculdubio secundum animam manens. Sic enim omnia quadrat et ratio perfecta redditur quare Moses vivens vita corporali ista non poterit videre faciem Dei, quia nullus homo potest hanc visionem assequi vivendo’. On Ex 33.20, i, 259b. ‘Ubi, prudens lector, adversus dicentes non haberi immortalitatem animae in libris Veteris Testamenti, habes professionem Davidis, quod ipse pergit ad filium, proculdubio per mortem. Nec esset verum ipsum pergere ad filium, si anima filii extincta fuisset. Ad eum enim, qui non est, nullus pergit’. On 2 Kings 12.23, ii, 150b.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

227

whatever their nation, seem to be gathered together from many nations into a single company. Abraham joins them and they become his peoples.129 Cajetan draws the same conclusions concerning Jacob and Aaron.130 In the case of Ishmael, Moses tells us that he was gathered to his ‘kindred’. Cajetan remarks that, whether good or bad, his soul was gathered with those similar to his.131 When God is acknowledged as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Cajetan once again infers a belief in the immortality of the soul. In the gospel, Jesus will use this text not only to establish the immortality of the soul but also as the foundation for his teaching on the future resurrection of the body.132 The testimony of scripture places these two doctrines together. Cajetan criticises those philosophers who hold that the soul is immortal yet do not extrapolate from that doctrine to the resurrection of the body.133 Thus, on this matter, Cajetan wages a campaign on two fronts: on the one, he denies to philosophy the competence to prove the immortality of the soul, while on the other he argues that the immortality of the soul is a doctrine with a solid biblical foundation.

129

130

131

132

133

‘Et haec ideo perpende, ut obmutescere facias impudentium hominum temeritatem, qui audent dicere nec ullum verbum in libris Mosi haberi de vita hominum post mortem. Patet hic clare immortalitatis animae non solus Abrahae, sed multorum populorum quibus adiunctis est Abraham. Et dixit, in numero plurali, populos, ad significandum quod ex quibuscunque mundi nationibus mortui iusti simul in alia vita conveniebant cum quocunque iusto mortuo adveniente, tanquam populus proprius illius. Quale ad literam significatur quod Abraham congregatus est ad societatem iustorum omnium, qui mortui fuerant’. On Gen 25.8, i, 100b. ‘Clarum est quod de Iahacob secundum animam dicit Moses, et aggregatus est ad populos suos. Nam de mortuo et non sepulto manifeste loquitur, immortalitatem animae per haec manifestans’. On Gen 49.32, i, 152b. ‘Immortalitas igitur animae, populique multi, in alia vita clare significatur in litera hac’. On Num 20.24, i, 393a. ‘Quae expone ut supra, intelligendo tamen per populos eius, animas defunctorum undecunque similes in bonitate vel malitia Ismaeli, secundum animam. Significatur enim quod secundum animam congregatus est ad sibi similes, ex quocunque populo fuerint, defunctorum animas’. On Gen 25.17, i, 101a. ‘Manifestare dignatus est Dominus Iesus Evangelio in his verbis contineri mysterium resurrectionis, quatenus continetur in eis immortalitas animarum Abrahae, Ishac et Iahacob’. On Ex 3.6, i, 157b. ‘[Secundo] quod licet immortalitas animae non convincat philosophos quod futura sit resurrectio mortuorum. Convincit tamen cultores Dei expectantes caelestis patriae beatitudinem perfectam, quia non essent perfecte beate animae nisi unitae corporibus bearentur; maneret enim pars separata semper a suo toto, unde in Apocalyps. [6.11] acceptis singulis stolis clamant expectando corpora sua. Et propter hanc rationem scriptura ista

228

chapter 7

Predestination A second topic further illustrates Cajetan’s view of the limited abilities of reason: even when presented with revealed truth, the human mind struggles to understand the ways of God. In his exposition of the doctrine of predestination, as revealed by God through Paul, Cajetan is at once dogmatic and agnostic. He makes a number of clear assertions about the reality of the predestination of the elect, circumscribing the entire treatment with a remarkable and personal statement of ignorance. Paul’s explanation of the case of Jacob and Esau has raised difficulties for many commentators.134 Paul first cites Genesis 25.23, ‘the elder shall serve the younger’, as proof that God’s choice alone is definitive, since he makes this choice before they were born. Cajetan insists that this text has to be taken at face value; it cannot be argued away: Jacob is chosen ahead of Esau, not by works but by the will of God.135 God chooses solely according to his purpose and not in the light of foreseen merit.136 This is perhaps an oblique reference to theologians of the via moderna, most notably Gabriel Biel, though he may also be thinking of contested views on predestination current within his own order.137 Paul goes on to cite Malachi: ‘Jacob I loved, Esau I hated’ (Mal 1.2–3). The text seems to urge that even reprobation is by God’s choice alone and not according to works.

134

135

136

137

continet non solum animas mortuorum viventes, sed animas colentes Deum, dicendo, Ego sum Deus Abraham, &c., ut ex ipso cultu resurrectionis fides, quae ex vita animarum initium habet, compleatur’. On Mt 22.32, iv, 99b. On the widespread influence of Florentine Platonism at this time, see John Monfasani, ‘Aristotelians, Platonists, and the Missing Ockhamists: Philosophical Liberty in Pre-Reformation Italy’, Renaissance Quarterly 46 (1993): pp. 247–276. See David Steinmetz, ‘Calvin among the Thomists’, in Mark Burrows and Paul Rorem (eds.), Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 198–214, reprinted in David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995), chapter 10, pp. 141–156. Steinmetz considers Romans 9 in the commentaries of Aquinas and Calvin together with several ‘Thomists’ who lie between them, including Cajetan. ‘Non eget expositione locus iste, sed applicatione mentis, ad quam ipsemet Paulus explicavit rationem. Nihil enim aliud ex hac authoritate Paulus intendit, nisi quod hinc apparet, quod non ex operibus nostris, sed ex voluntate Dei eligentis et vocantis, unus eligitur et alter reprobatur’. On Rom 9.13, v, 56a. ‘Dixit haec ad confutandum dogma eorum qui primum salutis nostrae locum tribuunt divinae praescientiae futurorum, qui praescientiam meritorum ponunt rationem definitionis divinae; ad confutandum inquam haec, primum nostrae salutis locum tribuit divino proposito, dicendo, iis qui secundum propositum’. On Rom 8.29, v, 51b. See Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

229

Here Cajetan appears to have a scruple. No one, he insists, is ever damned except by his own works. Toning down the language of God’s ‘hatred’ for Esau (and for the reprobate in general), Cajetan defines it in terms of a denial of grace. The reprobate are those who, out of God’s inscrutable free choice, are denied grace and who are, therefore, left to their natural powers (in suis naturalibus). This withholding of grace does not compel anyone to sin and no one is damned until he actually sins, but the fall into sin is, in some real sense, ‘permitted’.138 Cajetan certainly believes that, even without grace, morally good actions are possible. But they are of no supernatural merit. No one can be saved without grace. Furthermore, he rules out the possibility of keeping the whole law without grace.139 Cajetan defends this position against the charge of injustice: God, in his supreme liberty, cannot be held to act in one way rather than another; to some, he gives grace as he chooses; from some, he withholds grace, leaving them to themselves, as he chooses.140 Cajetan is aware that this is both a solution and no solution at all. He has tried to explain Paul’s thought, but he has done little more than spell out the dilemma. He is left with profoundly unsettling questions. In an unusual apologia, he concludes that the truths of theology must be taken together; the issue of predestination should not be separated from other aspects of a theology of grace and redemption, namely, that we have free will; that, faciendo quod ex nobis est, we will be saved by God’s grace; and that adults are damned or saved by their merits.141 The limits of human knowledge and of human penetration into divine revelation have to be acknowledged and accepted. Cajetan imagines the reader pressing him further, wanting to see how these

138

139 140 141

Theology (2nd edn., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1967), pp. 175 and 190. Michael Tavuzzi, ‘Chrysostomus Javelli o.p. (ca.1470–1538), Part i’, Angelicum 67 (1990): pp. 457–482, at p. 481. ‘Nec sententia siquidem, nec executio damnationis sit antequam huius modi reprobi peccent’. On Rom 9.13, v, 56a. ‘Sed in electione velle divinum habet pro volito hominem cum gratuito auxilio usque ad aeternam gloriam, in reprobatione autem habet pro volito hominem cum dimissione suiipsius in suis naturalibus. In hoc enim volito clauditur negatio gratuito auxilio ad vitam aeternam, clauditur permissio casus’. On Rom 9.18, v, 56b–57a. On Rom 2.14–15, v, 11b–12a. See Denis R. Janz, Luther and Late-Medieval Thomism (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1983), p. 145. ‘Ex sua mera libertate pendet velle dare gratuitum bonum aliquibus, et velle non dare aliquibus, sed permittere eos in suis naturalibus’. On Rom 9.13, v, 56a. ‘Quocirca ad curiositatem dico illa esse vera ex parte divinae electionis seu reprobationis, sed non esse vera sola, sed associata aliis veritatibus ex parte nostri, scilicet quod sumus liberi arbitrii, quod faciendo quod ex nobis est, erimus per divinam gratiam salvi, et quod nostris meritis salvamur aut damnamur nos adulti’. On Rom 9.23, v, 58b.

230

chapter 7

truths combine and he confesses, with a shrug of the shoulders, that he cannot do it; he knows that truth cannot contradict truth, but he does not know how to fit them together—as with the mystery of the Trinity, the immortality of the soul, and the incarnation, all of which he believes.142 Some things are only to be known hereafter. His lot, he says, is to do what he can here, to use his free will and other means given him by God to reach eternal life; only then will he see the mystery of his own election. This confession of ignorance, he adds, quietens his mind.143 The first theme discussed in this section, the immortality of the soul, showed the limits Cajetan set to the abilities of unaided human reason and the need for revelation as a pre-condition for faith. This second theme, however, illustrates the limited ability of the human mind to grasp even the truth revealed in scripture. Cajetan never gave up the serious intellectual pursuit of theology; nevertheless, he approached scripture seeking truth, knowing that he would find mystery. Though this realisation quietens the mind, it raises a question about the place of knowledge and wisdom in the Christian journey to God. The Priority of Will over Intellect In the late-medieval period, scholastic thinkers asked about the relationship between the intellect and the will, and which was to be considered prior. The humanists took an unusual interest in this typically scholastic question and, in their tendency to place the emphasis on the will (‘voluntarism’), they formed an unusual alliance with so-called ‘nominalists’ and Scotists, in opposition to the prevailing opinion of the Thomists who favoured the priority of the intellect.144 For example, in the 1470s, in the course of a gracious debate encouraged 142

143

144

‘Et cum obiicies, coniunge haec verba simul, respondeo me scire quod verum vero non est contrarium, sed nescire haec iungere, sicut nescio mysterium Trinitatis, sicut nescio animam immortalem, sicut nescio Verbum caro factum est, et similia, quae tamen omnia credo. Et sicut credo reliqua fidei mysteria, ita credo et haec mysteria praedestinationis et reprobationis’. On Rom 9.23, v, 58b. ‘Meum est tenere quod mihi certum est (scilicet uti libero arbitrio et reliquis bonis mihi a Deo concessis omni studio ad consequendam vitam aeternam) et expectare ut videam, in patria, mysterium divinae electionis mihi modo ignotum, sicut et reliqua fidei mysteria. Haec ignorantia quietat intellectum meum’. On Rom 9.23, v, 58b. See R. GarrigouLagrange, ‘Le sens du mystère chez Cajétan’, Angelicum xii (1935): pp. 3–18, who draws attention to a similar confession in Cajetan’s commentary on Aquinas, on st i, 22, 4, [viii]. Charles Trinkaus, ‘Erasmus, Augustine and the Nominalists’, arg 67 (1976): pp. 5–32; Trinkaus, ‘The Religious Thought of the Italian Humanists: Anticipation of the Reformers or Autonomy?’, in Heiko Oberman and Charles Trinkaus (eds.), The Pursuit of Holiness

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

231

by Lorenzo de’Medici, the Dominican Vincenzo Bandello used arguments from Aquinas against those of the Platonist Marsilio Ficino, who defended the priority of the will. Bandello had held a number of offices in Northern Italy during Cajetan’s early years and was Dominican Master General during Cajetan’s term as Procurator General.145 There are signs in Cajetan’s biblical commentaries that he was not entirely in sympathy with the conventional Thomist opinion, and that he was drawn towards a voluntarist outlook. Certain prescriptions in nature, in the law, and in the Church are said to be the way they are because of the will of God, which is the first reason of all things.146 Sometimes little more can be said than, ‘it is God’s will’. Similarly, if the will of God is the first cause of the law, then the will of God can also be the reason for departures from the law. For example, Elisha cuts down the fruit trees of the Moabites, a form of punishment prohibited in the law (in Dt 20.19). But if God wills to punish the Moabites in this way, so be it; he is not bound to the law of Moses, since he is Lord of the law.147 Cajetan marvels that the kingdom is taken away from Saul on account of one sin (his reluctance to destroy the Amalekites, as instructed by God); but the kingdom is then given to David, who, though guilty of far greater sins, receives no such exacting judgment.148 The will of God and the judgments of God are inscrutable. Concerning humanity, Cajetan appears more clearly to favour the priority of the will over the intellect. In the Summa, Aquinas addresses the relation-

145

146

147 148

in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 339–366; Paul Oskar Kristeller, Medieval Aspects of Renaissance Learning (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974, re-issued with new preface, 1992), p. 82, n. 185. Kristeller, Medieval Aspects, pp. 79–90, discusses the debate in detail. In an appendix to the original French edition, he reproduces the text of Bandello’s principal treatise, Le Thomisme et la pensée italienne de la Renaissance (Montreal: Inst. d’Études Médiévales, 1967), pp. 187–278. On Bandello, see dbi 5, pp. 666–667. On circumcision: ‘Quare enim Deus elegerit hoc signum, et in tali membro, sola Dei libertas ratio sufficiens est’. On Gen 17.11, i, 76a. On the structure of the natural and of the mystical body: ‘Ne ultra molestus sis quaerendo, voluntas Dei, quae vere est prima omnium ratio, assignatur pro ratione tam naturalium quam mysticorum membrorum’. On 1Cor 12.18, v, 129b. ‘Deus enim non alligavit suam iustitiam legi, quam per Mosem promulgavit, sed est Dominus legis’. On 4 Kings 3.19, ii, 231b. ‘Mirabilia sunt iudicia Dei, quod unicum ac non gravissimum peccatum Saulis imputatum illi sit ad tam gravem poenam, et multa maiora peccata Davidis non fuerint ad huiusmodi poenam imputata’. On 1 Kings 28.18, ii, 125b. David’s manifold sin is discussed on 1Kings 28.2, ii, 124a–b.

232

chapter 7

ship between the human will and intellect, and argues for the higher role of the intellect. Cajetan’s comments on these articles, more than five times the length of the articles themselves, hint at his lack of confidence in Aquinas’s conclusions.149 The pattern continues in the biblical commentaries, where he finds particular support in a text from John’s gospel (Jn 7.16–17): Jesus answered, ‘My teaching is not my own but his who sent me. Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.’ Cajetan takes up the emphasis on the will in the gospel text and stresses that what is sought is not great learning, or teaching, or great ingenuity, but just willing, doing the will of God. The one who has the right will is best disposed to learn the truth about Jesus.150 This emphasis in Cajetan’s remarks might be explained simply as an encouragement to the faithful to be obedient and no more, but when taken together with other texts, the trajectory is unmistakable. Cajetan’s clearest departure from the prevailing view among the Thomists of his day concerns the question of humanity’s ultimate likeness to God: Is this likeness most especially in the intellect, as Aquinas taught, or in the will? Another Johannine text, linking the love of God and divine filiation, draws Cajetan’s opinion (1Jn 4.7): Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God and whoever loves God is born of God and knows God. The text describes the love which is constitutive of the children of God. This love is a ‘kind of form’ which assimilates men and women to God, making them sons and daughters of the Father. The likeness to God is instanced in love, and knowledge of God flows from love of God. Cajetan insists that this text refutes the opinion (the ‘dogmata’) of those who hold that humanity’s greatest likeness to God is in knowing. We could not say, for example, ‘knowledge is of God; whoever knows is born of God’. Love alone distinguishes the children of God from the children of perdition.151 149 150

151

On st i, 82, 3 and 4. ‘Nec exigit ut litteras didicerint aut discant, non magnitudinem ingenii, non longum studium, sed solam voluntatem. […] Ecce quod exigit, volendum: scilicet facere voluntatem Dei, factis exequi quod vult Deus. […] Amplissima schola ad cognoscendum, omnibus patet sola bona voluntate’. On Jn 7.17, iv, 340a. ‘Dilectio non qualitercunque est ex Deo, sed tanquam forma constitutiva filiorum Dei,

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

233

With this statement, Cajetan aligns himself with Scotus and the FranciscanAugustinian tradition in general.152 He was not the only person associated with the Dominicans to do so: in a description of the use of scripture in prayer, and in his moral teaching in general, Adriano Castellesi (Dominican Cardinal Protector) had stressed the priority of the will and the secondary role of the intellect. Castellesi drew inspiration from the Latin fathers, chiefly Augustine,153 and it is likely that Augustine was the greater influence on Cajetan—though his lengthy engagement with the Scotists in Padua should also be taken into consideration. Cajetan quotes favourably the opening lines of Augustine’s Confessions, about the restless heart seeking rest in God.154 For Cajetan, to speak of the priority of the will is to speak of the priority of love. If the greatest likeness to God is in love, then the journey to God will be one of love. Cajetan’s comments on the centrality of love in Church ministry was seen earlier; in his exegesis of the Ten Commandments, he insists that they are all, implicitly, commandments to love; they begin and end in the heart.155 In each of the three cases considered here in detail—the immortality of the soul, predestination, and the priority of the will over the intellect—Cajetan takes up positions to the agnostic or sceptical side of the Thomistic orthodoxy of his day. He limits the scope of knowledge accessible to human reasoning alone and leans more heavily on scriptural revelation. Within the realm of scholasticism, this moves Cajetan somewhat in the direction of Scotus. Outside the realm of scholasticism, it places him among the Renaissance humanists. It may be impossible to disentangle these two strands in Cajetan’s biblical exegesis, since both were woven into the fabric of Renaissance Roman intellectual culture.

152 153 154

155

tanquam forma assimilitiva hominum Deo ut filiorum Patri. Et in hoc Ioannes confutat philosophorum dogmata tradentium quod penes scire maxime attenditur similitudo hominum ad Deum. Dilectio, inquit Ioannes, est ex Deo, sic quod omnis qui diligit fratrem suum natus est ex Deo. Non potes haec verificare de aliis quae sunt a Deo, non potes vere dicere, scientia est ex Deo, sic quod omnis qui scit natus est ex Deo, et sic de aliis qui sunt ex Deo. Sed de sola dilectione verificatur et propterea sola dilectio dividit inter filios Dei et filios perditionis’. On 1 Jn 4.7, v, 396ra. Kristeller, Medieval Aspects, pp. 81–82, nn. 183–184. See John F. D’Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), pp. 175, 177–178, 181. ‘Fecisti, inquit Augustinus, nos Domine ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te’. On Ps 100.3, iii, 335b. Augustine, Confessiones, i, 1, 1, ed. and commentary James J. O’Donnell (3 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), vol. 1, p. 4. On Ex 20.2, i, 206a; on Ex 20.6, i, 208a; on Ex 20.17, i, 210a.

234

chapter 7

Sola Scriptura? Cajetan’s approach to the literal sense involves a measured dance between the text of scripture itself and a broad intellectual background of historical and philological research, philosophical and theological reflection, long-established doctrines, liturgical practices, and solemn dogmatic definitions by popes and councils. The issue of the relation between these elements would severely divide Christians in the sixteenth century. For Cajetan this is nothing new. Cajetan recognises that there have been divisions and factions in the Church from the beginning. The church in Corinth had splintered amidst cries of, ‘I am for Paul’, ‘I am for Cephas’, ‘I am for Apollos’, ‘I am for Christ’ (1 Cor 1.12). Cajetan’s explanation is notable for its tact and subtlety. He claims that Paul does not name genuine names; he is too tactful and he has no desire to provoke the faction fighting any further (which calls to mind Cajetan’s own practice). He wants to encourage the Corinthians to come to their senses. Therefore, according to Cajetan, Paul allots substitute names to the leaders of the Corinthian factions, using names that were known and respected by all, names that were clearly not those of the factional leaders themselves: Paul, Cephas, Apollos, Christ.156 Paul further shows his restraint by not mentioning the doctrines over which they were divided. Cajetan does not try to guess, but suggests that the divisions in Corinth were not unlike the hostile divisions that can obtain between different religious orders, with their different traditions.157 It is this kind of factionalism that Paul discreetly conceals under the names of the saints.158 It is factionalism of a recognisably medieval and early modern kind. Paul also uses the name of Christ for the leader of one of the factions because, says Cajetan, he wishes to show that such factionalism in itself is sinful, how-

156 157

158

On 1Cor 1.12, v, 86a. ‘Tacendo dogmata et nomina, factiones et inflationes tantum scribendo, insinuat quod talia erant huiusmodi dissidia qualia saepe apparent in ecclesia inter diversarum religionum professores, dum gloriantur in patribus, aut praefert quisque statum religionis suae, et hinc lites, rixae et reliqua, quae melius est non videre. Huiusmodi enim dissidia ad literam arguit Paulus in prima parte epistolae huius, et propterea in personas sanctas transfigurat capita’. On 1 Cor 1.13, v, 86b. Also, ‘Erant enim inter Corinthios haec mala sequendo glorias diversorum praeceptorum, sicuti utinam non videremus inter religiosos diversarum religionum’. On 1 Cor 3.3, v, 93b. Luther also used this text to disavow the term ‘Lutherans’, Guy Bedouelle, The Reform of Catholicism, 1480–1620, trans. James K. Farge (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2008), p. 31.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

235

ever esteemed the figurehead claimed by the factionalists. In this case, they make the head of the whole body into the head of their own faction. He goes on to suggest that this particular faction could be taken to mean those who claim the sole authority of the gospel, spurning the traditions of the fathers.159 These remarks were penned in the autumn of 1528. At that point, Cajetan is seen to criticise a sola scriptura position for disregarding the patristic consensus. However, within a couple of years he comes close to defending that very position himself. In this preface to his commentary on the Pentateuch, he adopts a defensive tone, anticipating criticism of his latest work. He asks his reader to be patient with his temerity in standing apart from traditional thought. He asks the reader to weigh everything he says against scripture, the Christian faith, and the documents and customs of the Church. If the reader comes across a new interpretation (novus sensus) that is consonant with the text of scripture (consonus) and not dissonant with the teaching of the Church (non dissonus), he asks that this interpretation be judged impartially, even if it is different from that of the whole torrent of holy doctors (‘a torrente doctorum sacrorum alienus’).160 The distinction is vital: his interpretations may be different from traditional exegesis, but they do not contradict it. It is possible to read this as a pre-emptive defence of his commentary on Adam’s rib, to be found in the same volume, but Cajetan had already recognised in his earlier gospel and epistle commentaries that his views on marriage differed from those of the torrent of the holy doctors. To defend his apparent marginalising of the holy doctors, he calls upon their most eminent representative in the West. Augustine says that scripture has a unique authority: when scripture says something is true, it is true simply because scripture says so. All other truth claims are to be weighed vigilantly, no matter the holiness and learning of the one uttering them. Cajetan believes that he has found new meanings in scripture. But he hopes that the

159

160

‘Imo et Christum caput factionis unius introducit, dicendo, ego autem Christi [1.12] ut intelligamus factionem etiam illorum non esse exemptum a peccato, qui quamvis verum caput tamen ut factionis cuiusdam caput praeferunt. Quales sunt qui se aliis praeferunt, quia in solo evangelio consistunt, tanquam spernentes quaecunque adiuncta a sanctis patribus’. On 1Cor 1.13, v, 86b. ‘Scripturus super quinque libros Mosi iuxta sensum literalem, novumque scripturae sensum quandoque illaturus, sub sanctae matris ecclesiae ac apostolicae sedis censura, rogo lectores ne preacipites detestentur aliquid, sed librent omnia apud sacram scripturam, apud Christianae fidei veritatem, apud catholicae ecclesiae documenta ac mores. Etsi quando occurrerit novus sensus textui consonus, nec a sacra scriptura, nec ab ecclesiae doctrina dissonus, quamvis a torrente doctorum sacrorum alienus, aequos se praebeant censores’. On Pentateuch, Preface, i, facing 1.

236

chapter 7

reader, on seeing that his interpretations square with the text and the context of the whole of scripture, should praise God, who has not limited the meaning of scripture to what has already been written by the early doctors—otherwise biblical exposition would just be copying from one book into a notebook.161 This is a significant, if small, step away from an earlier position Cajetan had taken regarding the freedom of the exegete. Writing against Luther in 1521, he had argued that scripture is rightly understood in the sense given by the authoritative councils of the Church and the teaching of the holy doctors (sancti doctores).162 This view echoed the teaching of Lateran v on preaching: the bull Supernae maiestatis praesidio (1516) insisted that sermons be based on scripture and that these sermons should be consistent with the fathers and doctors of the Church. The Council of Trent would take the same line.163 Cajetan seems to agree in his 1528 commentary on 1 Corinthians, at least in principle; but by 1531, in his Pentateuch preface, he finds that he cannot defend that principle any longer because his own practice has contravened it. Now he seems to concede a measure of independent authority to critical scholarship vis-à-vis Church tradition. The preface to the Pentateuch, together with the practice of the biblical commentaries, constitutes a new emphasis on the primacy of scripture. Is this a sola scriptura approach? There is certainly common ground: a preference for the hebraica (and graeca) veritas, for the canon of the Hebrew

161

162

163

‘Meminerint ius suum unicuique tribuere, solis Sacrae Scripturae authoribus reservata est authoritas hec. Ut ideo credamus sic esse quia ipsi ita scripserunt. Alios autem (inquit Augustinus) its lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate doctrinaque praepolleant, non ideo credam sic esse quia ipsi ita scripserunt. Nullus itaque detestetur novum sacrae scripturae sensum, ex hoc quod dissonat a priscis doctoribus: sed scrutetur perspicacius textum ac contextum scripturae, et si quadrare invenerit laudet deum: qui non alligavit expositionem scripturarum sacrarum priscorum doctorum sensibus, sed scripturae ipsae integrae sub catholicae ecclesiae censura. Alioquin spes nobis ac posteris tolleretur exponendi scripturam sacram, nisi transferendo (ut aiunt) de libro in quinternum’. On Pentateuch, Preface, i, facing 1. ‘Haeretici atque schismaticorum proprium est sacra uti scriptura, secundum sensum tamen quo ipsi faciunt illam sonare. Christianorum autem, qui vere catholici sunt, sapientia sacram scripturam intelligit secundum sensum, quem sancti doctores, quem sacra concilia apostolica authoritate roborata interpretantur’. De divina institutione pontificatus Romani pontificis, Opuscula, iii, 67b. See Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church?, p. 115; Johannes Beumer gives a selection of cognate texts, taken, however, without regard for their relative chronology, ‘Suffizienz und Insuffizienz der heiligen Schrift nach Kardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetan’, Gregorianum 45 (1964): pp. 816–824. Tanner, pp. 634–638.

cajetan’s literal sense: harmony and sufficiency of scripture

237

Bible, together with the relativising of the authority of the Vulgate and the fathers of the Church. But Cajetan does not seek the radical emancipation of the reformers. On all the categorical Reformation positions—sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fides—Cajetan stands by the Catholic ‘both/and’. He works to defend but also to purify the Catholic tradition on faith and works, on divine grace and human co-operation, and on scripture and the Church. The dedication letters of most of Cajetan’s biblical works round off with a statement submitting his work to the pope. The striking thing about the Pentateuch preface is that the reference to ‘the judgment of holy Mother Church and the Apostolic See’ is in the very first sentence. Precisely at the moment where he eases the burden of patristic tradition on the biblical exegete, he tightens the tether to the papacy. For Cajetan, the search for the literal sense of scripture has not been spurred on by revelations or visions or mystical contemplation, but by the sober and patient labours of history, grammar, and philology. Nevertheless, the outcome of that search is not guaranteed by scholarship alone, however humble and pious. It is guaranteed by divinely-warranted apostolic succession shown forth most perspicaciously in the living judgment of the successor of Peter. Cajetan’s method was a hybrid: he employed ‘scholastic’ methods of textual division (e.g., his approach to the structure of the psalms), as well as ‘humanist’ methods of textual criticism (e.g., correcting the Vulgate in the light of Hebrew and Greek sources); he allowed the dogmas of the Church to determine his reading of problematic verses (e.g., Rom 5.12 on original sin), while also allowing the clear sense of the text to challenge long-established customs (e.g., on marriage); he revered Aquinas as a master and teacher without parallel, and he held Erasmus in great respect and deferred to his linguistic acumen and scriptural sensitivity; he drew on the teachings of the Christian fathers (though perhaps not as conspicuously as his detractors would have liked) while also sitting at the feet of the rabbis; he was capable of venturing bold and imaginative interpretations of the ancient text, all the while submitting his writings to the judgment of the papacy. Cajetan’s methodological blend (which was not untypical of high Renaissance Rome) was in service of his guiding pastoral motive: to use the most adequate tools available in order to open up the Bible, and to make the inspired word accessible to the learned reader and to preachers and teachers of the Christian faith. As soon as Cajetan’s biblical commentaries appeared in print, both motive and method came under close scrutiny: the torrent of reviewers was against him.

chapter 8

‘Applauded Neither by Heretics Nor by Catholics’1 For at least a century, no one perceived Cajetan’s biblical commentaries as attacks on Protestantism. Indeed, the most vocal reactions came from Catholics who, voicing disappointment mixed with disbelief, placed Cajetan in the very company of dangerous innovators such as Lorenzo Valla, Erasmus, Lefèvre, and Luther.2 The root cause of this exasperation was Cajetan’s independence of mind and his willingness to flout time-honoured exegetical principles and approaches. The charge sheet can be summarised as follows: he used the Greek and Hebrew sources to correct the Vulgate; he concentrated exclusively on the literal sense; he ignored the fathers; he attacked the biblical canon. By the 1530s, these were seen as Protestant positions: not only had Cajetan failed to tackle the enemies of the Church, he had gone over to their side.

Initial Reactions (1532–1533) Cajetan’s fiercest and most persevering critic was Dominican Ambrosius Catharinus (1484–1553).3 In a letter of c. 1532 to Clement vii, he indicated that he had been seeking to have Cajetan’s biblical commentaries censured, and complained that the Master of the Sacred Palace (fellow Dominican Tom-

1 ‘[…] certamente que’commentarii non conseguirono applause nè dagli eretici, nè da’Cattolici’, Sforza Pallavicino, Istoria del Concilio di Trento (Rome, 1664), p. 648. 2 Reginaldo Fei, ‘Fra Tomaso Gaetano (1468–1534): “uomo delle singolari opinioni”’, Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica, Supplement to xxvii (1935): pp. 127–147; Thomas A. Collins, ‘The Cajetan Controversy’, American Ecclesiastical Review 128 (1953): pp. 90–100; Ulrich Horst, ‘Der Streit um die Hl. Schrift zwischen Kardinal Cajetan und Ambrosius Catharinus’, in Leo Scheffczyk, Werner Dettloff, and Richard Heinzmann (eds.), Wahrheit und Verkündigung. Michael Schmaus zum 70. Geburtstag (2 vols., Paderborn, Schöningh, 1967), vol. 1, pp. 551–577; Allen K. Jenkins and Patrick Preston, Biblical Scholarship and the Church: A Sixteenth-Century Crisis of Authority (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). 3 Catharinus’s first career was as a professor of law in Siena and at the Sapienza in Rome. Originally called Lancelotto Politi, he took the names Ambrosius Catharinus when he entered the Dominican order at San Marco in Florence, at the age of 33. He was a vigorous opponent of the Protestant Reformation. He participated in the Council of Trent at the request of papal

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325098_010

‘applauded neither by heretics nor by catholics’

239

maso Badia) was dragging his feet over the matter.4 Catharinus’s criticisms of Cajetan’s biblical commentaries apparently fell on deaf ears. He left Rome for France where his presence is registered at the Sorbonne in 1535. The Sorbonne theologians had begun their own investigation of Cajetan, initially prompted by the proposed publication in Paris of his commentaries on the Psalms and New Testament (published earlier in Venice). This was a slow process involving at first five masters and then twenty, combing through the texts for errors. On hearing of this, Clement vii issued instructions that the Paris theologians were to send any allegations against Cajetan to Rome, and he forbade them from publishing any condemnation of Cajetan without his permission.5 With these conditions in mind, the Faculty continued to investigate, and eventually in May 1533 the documentation was approved to be sent to Rome. Although none of the original documents is extant, copies seem to have circulated, including one later printed in Wittenberg.6 The cover letter addressed to Cajetan begins by recounting the great hope of the Parisian theologians that Cajetan would be one from Rome who would stand up and be counted against strange and exotic doctrines.7 But these hopes had been dashed. Instead they find that he has begged editions of the Psalms from the Jews rather than use the Roman Psalter,8 he has drawn on Erasmus and Lefèvre (some say even Luther), and he has shown little respect for the Vulgate.

4 5

6

7

8

legate, Cardinal del Monte, a former pupil. He was an untypical Dominican; ‘his importunate advocacy of [the Immaculate Conception], particularly at Siena 1527–1532, caused much resentment in the order and led to his virtual exile in France between 1532 and 1538’, Jenkins and Preston, Biblical Scholarship, p. 151. Jenkins and Preston, Biblical Scholarship, pp. 157–158. The instruction is dated 23 September 1532, see James K. Farge, Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France: The Faculty of Theology of Paris, 1500–1543 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), p. 231; M.H. Laurent, ‘Quelques documents des archives Vaticanes (1517–1534)’, Revue Thomiste xvii (1934–1935): pp. 50–148, at pp. 120–122. In addition, Laurent speculates that, for diplomatic reasons, the King of France would also have opposed a censure of a theologian who enjoyed the pope’s protection, ‘Quelques documents’, pp. 119–120. Epistola theologorum Parisiensium ad Cardinalem Coetanum [sic] reprehensoria (Wittenberg: Nicolaus Schirlentz, 1534). This rare document is now available online: http://daten.digitale -sammlungen.de/~db/0003/bsb00035072/image_1, accessed 4 August 2012. See Laurent, ‘Quelques documents’, pp. 115–116. ‘[…] spem huic nostro Collegio non modicum fecerant unum esse apud romanos qui adversus exoticas et peregrinas doctrinas murum se pro Israel opponeret [Ezek 13.5]’, Epistola theologorum Parisiensium, p. a2r. See also quotation in introduction, p. 3, n. 6. ‘[…] quod mendicatam a Iudaeis aliquot in psalmos aeditionem non romanum psalterium enarrandum proponeres’, Epistola theologorum Parisiensium, p. a2v.

240

chapter 8

Knowledge of the Parisian censures also reached Mainz, coming to the attention of the regent of the Dominican studium, Johann Dietenberger. Concerned about the stir this was causing, he sent to Cajetan a document citing errors excerpted from his works by Parisian theologians, and asking him to address the scandal and to set the record straight.9

Cajetan’s Response (1533) Cajetan wrote to Dietenberger with his response to the document, which he called a schedulam, a sheet of paper.10 He mocks the anonymous author for hiding behind the plural ‘theologians of Paris’, trying to impress and intimidate his readers. Cajetan was certainly aware that some of his views would be challenged and he admits as much in his introduction to the Pentateuch. But while his tone there appeals to the reader’s broad-mindedness, the tone of the Responsiones is curt and impatient. The response takes several approaches. In some cases, Cajetan claims that the censured proposition is not his, his words have been misquoted, or taken out of context. For example, he did not say that prayers should be in the vernacular, but that public prayers, with the people in attendance, should be said in the vernacular. In other cases, he admits that the censured proposition is his, but that it is also Paul’s or Jerome’s, and must therefore stand. For example, he shows no sign of qualifying or broadening the basis of his case on the canon, but rather redoubles his earlier insistence that whoever follows Jerome proceeds most securely.11 In the case of marriage and separation, he says that he indeed 9

10

11

The source is unclear: from Cajetan’s reply (see note following), Dietenberger seems not to have sent the cover letter (if he had it in the first place) and Cajetan replies to only sixteen articles (‘Articuli aliquot pro erroneis a theologis Parisiensibus ex libris Caietani excerpti’), not all of which correspond to those in the list of twenty-four in the Wittenberg publication, see Jenkins and Preston Biblical Scholarship, pp. 173–175. On Dietenberger, see Ulrich Horst, ‘Das Verhältnis von Schrift und Kirche nach Johannes Dietenberger’, Theologie und Philosophie 46 (1971): pp. 223–247; Erika Rummel, Erasmus and his Catholic Critics: 1515–1536 (2 vols., Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1989), vol. 2, pp. 25–27; cwe Contemps, 1, 391–392. Responsiones, v, 469–471. Dated 30 December 1534 (= 1533, Nativity dating being used in Rome). A critical edition of Cajetan’s response is provided in James K. Farge (ed.), Registre des conclusions de la Faculté de théologie de l’ Université de Paris du 26 novembre 1533 au 1er mars 1550 (Paris: Klincksieck, 1994), pp. 426–434. An English translation is provided in Jenkins and Preston, Biblical Scholarship, pp. 273–277. ‘Advertendum est autem circa hunc articulum, praecedentium et similes, quod ego nullam bibliae partem reieci, nisi quas reiecit beatissimus Hieronymus, et nullam partem,

‘applauded neither by heretics nor by catholics’

241

discussed these questions in his commentaries, but left the judgment to the Church.12 In a couple of cases—he had wondered whether Paul was married, or whether Joseph was a widower when he married the Blessed Virgin—his indignation is obvious.13 Cajetan, who had never responded well to the invitation to become a heresy-hunter, could barely conceal his astonishment at those who now made him a heretic. The opening paragraph of this document is invaluable for its insight into the writer. It combines administrative efficiency, scholastic distinctions, conspiracy theory, sarcasm, and indignation: Included in your letters, you sent me a small leaf of paper capable of causing offence to our brothers, and asking me to make provision against the offence by declaring the truth. Wishing to satisfy your request I am sending you the reply to the small leaf of paper that I have received from you which contains the 16 articles, the title of which is: Some articles excerpted as erroneous by the theologians of Paris from the books of Cajetan. In the first place, the title is false since many of the articles are not in my books. Next the title shows that the author is uncertain [and therefore of dubious canonicity!]. From the fact that it is said to be by Parisian theologians, we do not know who those theologians are, for there are innumerable theologians in Paris, two suffice for the correct use of the plural number. Consequently many people suspect that this title is the work of a deceptive mind, so that he who has put this title has said one thing and means another, for he said ‘by the Parisian theologians’ but he meant those who

12 13

aut particulam, in dubium verti, nisi illas de quibus dubitat Hieronymus. Secutus sum Hieronymus, et ex illius verbis deduci consentanea sermone eius. Hieronymus enim universae ecclesiae lumen est ad discernendum partes et particulas sacrae scripturae ab iis quae non sunt partes, nec particulae eius, et ad discernendum partes seu particulas certas a dubiis. Cur itaque accusor sequens beatissimum Hieronymum? Accusando siquidem in istis me, accusant Hieronymum, qui est principalis author huiusmodi dubiorum’. Responsiones, v, 470. ‘Ubi dumtaxat disputavi de hac materia, et reliqui definiendum ab ecclesia’ Responsiones, v, 469. ‘Ex hoc autem articulo et multis aliis praerecitatis, facile patere potest quod articuli isti indigni sunt teologis, indigni et responsione; utpote vel impositi, vel alieni a materia erroris. Nullus siquidem error incurritur putando Paulum habuisse uxorem, vel non habuisse uxorem; nullus error est putare Ioseph habuisse, vel non habuisse aliam uxorem ante beatam virginem; nullus error est epistolam Ioan. esse correctam, vel non correctam iuxta textum Graecum; nullus error est dubitare de illis, de quibus dubitavit beatus Hieronymus; et id genus multa in articulis schedulae istius contenta. Pro consolatione itaque tua et Germanorum, honorande magister […]’ Responsiones, v, 471.

242

chapter 8

read and listen at random to be deceived by understanding the whole school of theologians at Paris. Nor is this suspicion without justification, since whoever he was, he imposed on me many things which I did not write, and that imposition is a sign of an evil mind. May God Almighty have mercy on him whoever he may have been. I shall reply as if to a book of good repute.14

Post Mortem (1534–1544) The Wittenberg publication of the Parisian censures contains an anonymous fiery postscript addressed to the theologians of Paris—perhaps written by Luther himself, perhaps by Melanchthon.15 The author judges severely those who made themselves judges over Cajetan, condemning them for their arrogance, hypocrisy, stupidity, and envy. And while he does not wish to see grammar take precedence over theology, he defends the use of Greek and Hebrew sources and the freedom of the Christian to use versions of the Bible other than the Vulgate. While it says nothing directly of Cajetan (‘sane de Caietano nihil iudicamus’),16 the postscript implicitly defends Cajetan’s approach to the Bible in some of its basic principles. According to those who took down his Table

14

15

16

‘Misisti ad me conclusam in tuis literis schedulam, scandalosam apud Germanos, rogans ut scandalo providere velim, declarando veritatem. Precibus itaque tuis satisfacere cupiens, responsionem mitto ad receptam a te schedulam sexdecim articulorum quorum titulus est: articuli aliquot pro erroneis, a teologis Parisiensibus ex libris Caietani excerpti. Titulus iste in primis falsum est, quoniam multi subscripti articuli non sunt in libris meis. Et deinde titulus iste, incertum manifestat authorem. Ex eo enim quod dicitur, a teologis Parisiensibus, non explicatur qui sunt isti teologi. Nam innumerabiles sunt teologi Parisienses, et ad verificandum numerum pluralem sufficiunt duo. Quocirca multi suspicantur animo fallaci scriptum hunc titulum, ita quod ille qui titulum hunc apposuit, aliud dixerit et aliud intenderit. Dixit enim, a teologis Parisiensibus; intendit autem ut passim legentes et audientes fallantur, intelligendo ab universa theologorum schola Parisius. Nec temere suspicantur, quoniam quisquis ille fuerit, imponit mihi multa quae non scripsi; ipsa enim impositio, signum est mali animi. Propterea vos quidem estote cauti ut non fallamini ex hoc titulo; illius vero quisquis fuerit ille, misereatur omnipotens Deus. Ego autem tanquam ad libellum famosum respondebo’. Responsiones, v, 469. Translation from Jenkins and Preston, Biblical Scholarship, pp. 273–274. Epistola theologorum Parisiensium, pp. b2v–[b6]r. The postscript is included in Luther’s works, wa vol. 60, pp. 123–130; for Cochlaeus’s view that the author was Melanchthon, see Laurent, ‘Quelques documents’, pp. 120–121. Epistola theologorum Parisiensium, p. b3v.

‘applauded neither by heretics nor by catholics’

243

Talk, Luther allegedly joked that Cajetan had eventually become a Lutheran himself (‘Caietanus postremo factus est Lutheranus’).17 This remark may be linked to the appearance of the Parisian censures in Wittenberg, though the supposed date, if accurate, is too early (this section of the Table Talk is dated 10 to 28 September 1532). It could perhaps more feasibly be a reaction to Cajetan’s proposed Concessions to the Lutherans proposed in 1531. Meanwhile in Geneva, there were twelve volumes of Cajetan’s works in the library of Calvin’s Academy, the majority being works of biblical exegesis. This made Cajetan the ‘most read Catholic in Geneva’ (though the nature and scope of any influence of Cajetan on Calvin is yet to be established).18 Perhaps the modest conclusion that can be drawn from these few traces is that Catholics and Protestants seem to have agreed that Cajetan’s biblical works were not doing a great deal in the cause of Counter-Reformation. Cajetan died in August 1534, within a year of his response to Dietenberger. Pope Clement vii, his defender, died the following month. Cajetan’s Catholic critics continued their campaign: Ambrosius Catharinus expanded his original brief report into a fuller set of Annotationes on Cajetan’s work, addressed principally to the Dominican Master General and masters of theology—in other words, the chief scholars and teachers in the order. Catharinus was under instructions to publish nothing against Cajetan without approval; this approval was provided by the Paris theologians in 1535.19 A second, amplified edition of Catharinus’s Annotationes was published in 1542, which, in addition to the biblical commentaries, took in errors drawn from other works, notably Cajetan’s treatises on the Immaculate Conception and on the papacy.20 The evidence 17

18

19

20

D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesametausgabe: Tischreden (Weimar: Böhlau, 1912–), vol. 2, 2668a–b. The phrase is reported twice, at the end of two separate accounts of the Augsburg meeting in 1518, and in both cases naming Cajetan ‘Sylvester’, presumably confusing him with Prierias, Luther’s other early Dominican adversary (Silvestro Mazzolini da Prierio): ‘Porro ille Sylvester Caietanus postremo factus est Lutheranus’ (2668a, p. 596), ‘Et ille cardinalis Sylvester Caietanus factus est postremo Lutheranus’ (2668b, p. 597). Alexandre Ganoczy, La Bibliotheque de l’ Academie de Calvin: Le Catalogue de 1572 et ses Enseignements (Geneva: Droz, 1969), p. 95; Jean François Gilmont, John Calvin and the Printed Book (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2005), p. 141. Ambrosius Catharinus, Annotationes fratris Ambrosii Catharini Politi Senensis euisdem ordinis in excerpta quaedam de commentariis Reverendissimi Cardinalis Caietani S. Xisti, dogmata (Paris: Colinaeus, 1535). On the approval, see Laurent, ‘Quelques documents’, p. 113; Farge, Orthodoxy and Reform, p. 232. Ambrosius Catharinus, Annotationes in commentaria Caietani denuo multo locupletiores et castigatores redditae (Lyon: Bonhomme, 1542). See also Jenkins and Preston, Biblical Scholarship, p. 166; Patrick Preston, ‘Cardinal Cajetan and Fra Ambrosius Catharinus in

244

chapter 8

is multiplied, now filling two volumes, but the basic charge is one: under the influence of humanist innovators like Erasmus, Cajetan has undermined the authority of the Church—and this is especially pernicious at a time when the Church is assailed by heretics and traitors.21 Not to be outdone, the theologians of Paris published their own, new censure of Cajetan’s biblical commentaries in 1544.22

The Council of Trent (1545–1563) The problematic issues raised by Cajetan’s critics were all addressed at the Council of Trent (1545–1563).23 On the biblical canon, Trent decided to reproduce the list of books prepared for the Council of Florence in the decree for the Copts, and to do so ‘purely and simply’ without any further distinction.24 There was a proposal to recognise some books as foundational for faith (canon fidei) and others, though not foundational for faith, as useful for edification (canon morum). This position was set out in Seripando’s position paper De libris sacrae scripturae,25 and is clearly indebted to Cajetan’s version of Jerome. Though the proposal was eventually rejected, it is significant that such views, so vigorously attacked by Catharinus and the Paris theologians, were felt to merit discussion at the Council. Along with the biblical canon, Trent also discussed the status of the Vulgate. The final declaration stated that, among the many Latin texts of the Bible

21 22

23

24 25

the Controversy over the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin in Italy, 1515–1551’, Studies in Church History, 39 (2005): pp. 181–190. Jenkins and Preston, Biblical Scholarship, pp. 166, 209–214, 216–218. Farge provides this document in Registre des conclusions, pp. 435–440, noting that this appears to be a fresh list: only six of the propositions are repeated from the earlier list of May 1533, only four of which had been addressed in Cajetan’s December 1533 response. Jared Wicks, ‘Catholic Old Testament Interpretation in the Reformation and Early Confessional Eras’, in Magne Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), pp. 617–648, at pp. 624–627; Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 239–247; Peter Dunckner, ‘The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15 (1953): pp. 277–299; Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent. Cardinal Seripando, trans. F.C. Eckhoff (St Louis: Herder, 1947), pp. 268–282; Emily Michelson, The Pulpit and the Press in Reformation Italy (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2013), pp. 66–70. Tanner, pp. 663–664. ct 12, pp. 483–488.

‘applauded neither by heretics nor by catholics’

245

in circulation, the Vulgate alone was to be received as ‘authentic’, i.e., as the Church’s official text, authorised for public use in lectures, disputations, and sermons.26 In session, the council fathers discussed and acknowledged the need to revise the Vulgate, so that the Church would have a purer text closer to the Greek and Hebrew, but they decided not to voice this in the decree itself, for fear of giving ammunition to the Church’s enemies. According to Jared Wicks, this omission caused consternation in Rome among the pope’s counsellors, who had expected a clearer statement on the importance of Greek and Hebrew sources.27 Finally, the matter of biblical interpretation was addressed. The council fathers were concerned to banish idiosyncratic, unorthodox, and wilful interpretation of scripture in preaching and teaching. No one, they decreed, may interpret scripture contrary to the sense held by the Church or contrary to the unanimous patristic consensus.28 This blanket prohibition can be read in various ways, aiming at several targets: apocalyptic excess, humanistic fancy, Protestant novelty, and Cajetan.29 These teachings were set out in two decrees of 8 April 1546. Within the Dominican order, harsh criticism of Cajetan’s biblical exegesis continued in the works of Melchior Cano (1509–1560), especially his De locis theologicis, published posthumously in 1563.30 In coming decades Cajetan’s works would be subject to a number of investigations by Roman Congregations, drawing up lists of material to be expunged from his published works. The 1570 edition of his commentary on Aquinas’s Summa was expurgated;31 the process of vetting his exegetical works was begun in 1571 then set aside, then resumed in the 1590s, without a final result. Seemingly, not all those entrusted with this work had the stomach for it.32 Such official investigations, along with the published condemnations of Catharinus, Cano, and others, cast a cloud of suspicion over

26 27 28 29 30 31

32

Tanner, pp. 664–665. Wicks, ‘Catholic Old Testament Interpretation’, pp. 627–629. Tanner, pp. 664–665. Wicks, ‘Catholic Old Testament Interpretation’, p. 630. Reginaldo Fei, ‘Fra Tomaso Gaetano’, pp. 127–147, at 131–134. A.-F. Claverie, ‘Le Commentaire de la Somme Théologique’, Revue Thomiste 39 (1934– 1935): pp. 275–296; Mariano Cordovani, ‘Il Gaetano e l’Edizione Piana’, Angelicum 11 (1934): pp. 561–567. Claus Arnold, ‘Die postume Expurgation der Werke Cajetans und Contarinis und das theologische Profil der römischen Kongregationen von Index und Inquisition (1571–1600)’, in Hubert Wolf (ed.), Inquisition, Index, Zensur: Wissenskulturen der Neuzeit im Widerstreit (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2001), pp. 293–304, especially pp. 298–304.

246

chapter 8

Cajetan’s exegetical works, inevitably muting the praise of any who found them wise or useful. A more comprehensive reception of Cajetan’s exegesis was still decades away.

Opera omnia quotquot in Sacrae Scripturae reperiuntur (1639) Cajetan’s commentaries were reprinted in various combinations throughout the sixteenth century. Despite ten-year monopolies granted by the pope to the first printers in Rome and Venice, fresh editions came on the market very quickly in Paris. There were almost two dozen printings of the biblical commentaries in the 1530s and 1540s, initially in Venice and thereafter in Rome, Lyon, and especially in Paris in the 1540s.33 After the decisive Tridentine decrees of 1546, the New Testament commentaries were published again in Lyon (Gospels, Epistles in 1556 and again in 1558; Ientacula in 1551). There was a handful of printings as the century drew to a close, including editions of Old Testament commentaries published in Rome in the 1590s. The significance of these publications in the reception history of Cajetan’s commentaries remains to be studied in depth. In 1639, the Dominicans of Alcalá (Latin: Complutum) issued a new and nearly complete edition of Cajetan’s biblical commentaries, printed in Lyon. Richard Simon noted two lacunae in this edition.34 First, each title is reduced to ‘commentary’,35 with no mention of corrections from the Hebrew or Greek sources and no mention of the exclusive attention to the literal sense—both so typical of Cajetan’s own titles. The one exception is the Psalms commentary in which the biblical text is said to be rendered word-for-word from the Hebrew (Liber Psalmorum ad verbum ex Hebraeo versorum).36 The second lacuna noted by Simon concerns letters of dedication printed in the original editions, in which Cajetan explicitly laid out his intentions. Perhaps the editors were being cautious in the light of the Tridentine decrees, not wanting to draw attention to Cajetan’s contested principles. A third lacuna, not noted by Simon, is in the text

33

34 35 36

Paul F. Grendler, ‘Italian Biblical Humanism and the Papacy, 1515–1535’, in Erika Rummel (ed.), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus (Leiden: Brill, 2008), p. 254. Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam, 1693), p. 540. Vol. v, title page. Vol. iii, 1.

‘applauded neither by heretics nor by catholics’

247

itself: there are two short passages excised from Cajetan’s commentary which were clearly just too ‘Lutheran’ for seventeenth-century Catholic sensitivities.37 A letter of dedication addressed to Antonio de la Cerda gives the positive reason for publishing this handsome five-volume folio edition: to restore to brightness a gem which had been almost lost, circulating in just a few hands— so that all eyes might see what all had earnestly desired.38

Richard Simon (1638–1712) In his review of commentators on the Old and New Testaments in the 1680s and 90s, French Oratorian priest Richard Simon praised Cajetan’s method and his principles. To give this a credible foundation, he had to deal with Trent: he does this by claiming that the Tridentine decrees were aimed at the novel methods and conclusions of the Protestants; the Council was not rejecting outright the critical approach to the Bible, which has its proper place, nor insisting that all biblical interpretation of whatever purpose must conform to the consensus of the fathers.39 Cajetan’s enterprise, he claims, was not disqualified. Simon is critical of the un-nuanced approach of Catharinus and the theologians of Paris: the former was obstinate and odious, and the latter were still so much in a rage with Erasmus that Cajetan—obviously Erasmus’s willing disciple in these matters— was given the same treatment.40 Simon concedes that at times Cajetan’s methods were bold, even reckless, and that he seemed to show little respect for the fathers. However, Simon invites the reader to look carefully and see that Cajetan is following principles laid out in Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana, a classic and revered text of biblical interpretation. While Cajetan certainly does not bind his interpretations to the fathers, he does submit to the judgment of the Church, and he should not be held to more than that. Simon draws attention to the task in hand: because Cajetan is pursuing critical biblical study, seeking out the most accurate understanding of the letter, then he has less need of the finer points of patristic exegesis because it will not really help him in that task (this is most 37 38

39 40

Both cited above, pp. 111–112. ‘Peregrinabatur usque nunc inter paucorum manus tam eximium opus, et vix erat, qui pretiosissimam gemmam nitori suo redderet, atque in ordinem volumina redigeret, ut versaretur in omnium oculis quod omnium votis avidius petebatur’. (I, n.p.). Other printings of the same edition include instead a dedication to Cardinal Richelieu. Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (Rotterdam, 1685), p. 419. Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament, p. 541.

248

chapter 8

apparent in his commentary on the Psalms).41 For this reason, in his New Testament commentaries, Cajetan is correct to draw more on Erasmus’s Annotations than on the fathers.42 Rather than receive criticism, Cajetan should be praised for pursuing this important task, the literal exegesis of the Bible, which was so neglected in his time.43 On the use of mystical interpretation, Simon rebukes Cajetan for his inconsistency. On the one hand, Cajetan had criticised the author of Hebrews for quoting the Old Testament according to the mystical sense to clinch an argument. On the other hand, Cajetan does not offer the same criticism when this practice occurs in other epistles; he should have reflected further on the apostolic practice, which corresponded to the common practice among the Jews of that time, particularly the Pharisees.44 In other words, had Cajetan really wanted to let scripture be the interpreter of scripture, he should have paid attention to the ways in which this actually happens explicitly among the biblical authors themselves. A better historian would have been less theoretically uncompromising. Implicit here is a reversal of an earlier criticism: Catharinus had accused Cajetan of ‘judaizing’ in his use of Hebrew sources and his exclusive preference for the literal sense; Simon says that, had Cajetan actually followed the Jews more closely, he would have expanded his options to include precisely those mystical interpretations he had deemed unsuitable. Where Simon has other criticisms, they are mainly concerned with Cajetan’s lack of adequate preparation. Cajetan, he says, had the misfortune common to theologians at that time of not knowing biblical languages. This made him too dependant on his expert advisers and sources—who were not always expert— and therefore liable to make their errors his own (such as when he followed Erasmus in claiming that Matthew’s gospel was first written in Greek, not Aramaic as Jerome had established). Simon is nonetheless appreciative: he commends Cajetan for doing all that he could despite his technical shortcomings, bringing great insight to bear on the texts he had prepared.45 At times, Simon notes, Cajetan’s theological background comes to the fore, where he offers reflections that a philologist would never have thought of (for example, reading

41 42 43 44 45

Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, pp. 420–421. Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament, p. 537. Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, p. 421. Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament, p. 541. Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament, pp. 537–539; Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, pp. 420–421.

‘applauded neither by heretics nor by catholics’

249

a passage from John’s gospel as a refutation of the Arians).46 But this meant that his works are something of a hybrid, between scholastic and humanist (not to mention Catholic and Protestant), with the implication that there was no ready audience for them. Simon quotes the Roman historian of Trent, Cardinal Pietro Sforza Pallavicino (1607–1667), who said that Cajetan’s commentaries received applause neither from the heretics nor from the Catholics.47 46 47

Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament, p. 539. Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, p. 421. The quotation is from Pallavicino’s Historia del Concilio di Trento; see n. 1 above.

Conclusion A recurring motif in Cajetan’s career was the concern for the training of preachers and confessors. This pastoral concern explicitly informs many of his treatises; it is also the underlying motivation behind the two extensive works that encompass almost his entire working life: the commentary on the Summa of Aquinas (c. 1497–1520), and the commentaries on the Bible (1523–1534). In turning to scripture commentary, Cajetan was using newly-acquired methods in pursuit of an established aim. His commentaries are best understood as a ‘return to the sources’, in search of truth for the mind and guidance for the conscience—principles fundamental to any reform programme, however unprogrammatic. He began by de-cluttering the page: setting to one side the accumulated glosses of the holy doctors in order to give his attention directly to the biblical text. Next, he evaluated the Latin translation on the basis of Hebrew and Greek sources. Cajetan whole-heartedly embraced a philological approach to the Bible—as he had done decades earlier when commenting on the text of Aristotle. He allowed the skills of the biblical humanists to inform his reading of scripture. While he recognised the limitations of his own knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, Cajetan sought to minimise this handicap by employing expert assistants and using the best published resources. Either directly, or through his secretaries, he had access to many of the biblical editions and translations available at the time; he read and trusted the work of those who collected and assessed the material evidence. One of the consequences of Cajetan’s commitment to textual criticism is his judgment on the biblical canon. His conclusion in favour of a smaller canon is consistent and intrepid. He drew inspiration for this position not only from the moderns but also from the greatest ancient authority on the Bible—demonstrating an extreme case of the widespread Renaissance cult of St. Jerome. For his enemies, humanist learning was at best an irrelevance (the amateurish dabbling of laymen and failed clerics), at worst a harmful toxin to be avoided altogether. For his part, Cajetan recognised its potency and used it as a cleansing agent, purifying the tradition of corrupt readings and erroneous conclusions, bringing to higher sheen the teaching of the Bible. In some cases, ecclesiastical traditions exercised a neutralising effect (such as original sin, purgatory, and the unity of the three Marys). But in many cases, Cajetan allowed the caustic effects of such scholarship to corrode cherished ecclesiastical traditions, not least the biblical canon itself. In theory, Cajetan’s method is quite simple: he reads the text according to the rules of the grammarian, paying attention to the customs of language, defini© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325098_011

conclusion

251

tions of words, verisimilitude, and so on. To inform his reading, he draws occasionally on established ecclesial and liturgical traditions and more frequently on the work of ancient historians and geographers. He excludes all unauthorised or apocryphal texts, and dismisses all supposed new revelations, omens, and prophecies (notwithstanding the immense popularity of this genre in his time). He is cautious of mystical interpretations and of the use of etymology and numerology. He distances himself from more ‘fabulous’ methods, making no use at all of the cabala. For Cajetan, the literal method of exegesis is the most authoritative from the point of view of doctrine: providing the commentator (or the preacher) with the means to refute error, past and present, and to promote sound Christian teaching and moral instruction. In practice, however, the outcome of Cajetan’s method is rather more sophisticated. Cajetan does not work in a cultural or intellectual vacuum. While there are few explicit references to ancient creeds and medieval scholastic debates, these are never far from his mind. This is especially true where biblical texts prompt reflection on the Trinity and the incarnation (such as Ps 2 and Jn 1). Furthermore, the culture of Renaissance Rome was a rhetorical culture and its influence on Cajetan’s exegesis of the literal sense is unmistakable. He emphasises again and again that texts have to be read as units, the parts related to the whole, giving attention to the context. Combined with an understanding of authorship as creative and orderly, Cajetan’s commentaries exhibit a sense of drama and narrative, seeking out details of characterisation and motive. A practised visual imagination and an ear for dialogue enable him to put Paul in the pulpit and the gospels on the stage. Thus the historical characters of the sacred narrative provide examples of sins to be avoided, virtues to be imitated, and heroes to be honoured. This book has provided a focused study of Cajetan’s exegetical motive and method. The results have the potential to complicate established binaries and enrich perspectives in two areas. First, Cajetan in the sixteenth century: his own role as scholar and reformer, his contribution to the intellectual culture of Renaissance Rome, and his place in the story of the Reformation. Second, Cajetan in the history of biblical exegesis, especially in modern Catholicism.

Cajetan in the Sixteenth Century Cajetan Most discussions of Cajetan place him in one or two categories: he was the scholastic philosopher and theologian who commented on Aquinas; and he

252

conclusion

was the Counter-Reformation prelate who confronted Luther in Augsburg in 1518. These categories are apt, but not complete. Cajetan’s scholastic thought is no mere repetition of Aquinas; several hundred years on, he revisited the master’s arguments and evidence, he addressed questions never raised by Aquinas, and he engaged with interlocutors unknown to Aquinas, especially Scotus. To the alarm of some observers, Cajetan’s response was not always defensive. A comprehensive assessment of Cajetan’s scholasticism has to move beyond the question of whether he was an accurate interpreter of Aquinas.1 Above all, however, this study has stressed the importance to Cajetan’s thought of Renaissance humanism. With an enthusiasm that was not universal among Catholic churchmen, Cajetan welcomed the scholarly contribution of the humanists. Though this was chiefly in matters of method, doctrine was not unaffected. He consistently emphasises those elements in Aquinas’s thought that are most compatible with Renaissance humanism; and in virtually every instance where his theology departs from that of Aquinas, it does so in the direction of humanist thought. This ‘humanist Thomism’ may provide the stimulus for wider research into Cajetan’s theology. Biblical translation and commentary became the defining labour of Cajetan’s final ten years, and this creates new alignments: as a biblical humanist, Cajetan joins ranks not only with Erasmus, Ximenes, and Lefèvre, but also with Melanchthon and Calvin. There is scope for more detailed comparative studies, perhaps especially intriguingly with the former Dominican Martin Bucer. And as a religious reformer inspired by the new learning, he merits detailed comparison with the so-called Catholic spirituali such as Contarini and Pole. Renaissance Rome Throughout Cajetan’s lifetime, the Italian peninsula was an arena of sophisticated intellectual endeavour to which Cajetan contributed, first of all in the northern universities. He was called to Rome initially to promote the study of Aquinas and extend Aquinas’s already considerable prestige at the papal court. And when the Medici popes Leo x and Clement vii actively encouraged the work of biblical renewal, Cajetan was among those expected to contribute. Cajetan’s biblical commentaries constitute one of the most significant monu-

1 This is a crucial insight in Hochschild’s interpretation of Cajetan’s teaching on analogy: Joshua P. Hochschild, The Semantics of Analogy: Rereading Cajetan’s De Nominum Analogia (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010).

conclusion

253

ments of the intellectual culture of Renaissance Rome. That culture, however, was not uniform. Cajetan’s outlook stands in contrast to what Charles Stinger has characterised as the unsettling side to Roman myth-making: ‘the megalomaniac element, the grandiosity, and the dreamlike unreality’ that can be summed up as a ‘capacity for self-delusion’.2 Cajetan is less exuberant, less strident; he is more practical and grounded, with greater potential for a ‘sober and measured assessment of reality’.3 With these commentaries he sought to rouse the slumbering clerics, bishops, and friars, to provide a note of alarm and a sense of direction. As a member of the Order of Preachers, Cajetan intended his mature biblical humanism eventually for the pulpit, and so for the well-being of the whole Christian people. Cajetan consistently and publicly submitted his biblical studies to the judgment of the papacy. But papal endorsement of his commentaries was a doubleedged sword: scripture provided an unshakeable foundation for the office of the pope, but it also contained an urgent call for purification. The moral depravity of Rome and its officials does not annul the primacy of Peter’s successor—it only serves to heighten the scandal and deepen the crisis. Cajetan joined his astute voice to the chorus of those calling for reform of the Church ‘in head and members’. The fact that he chose to do this in part though the medium of biblical exegesis offers an intriguing avenue for further exploration of Clementine Rome. The Reformation The Reformation was not a single traumatic moment (October 1517) that brought about a new binary, Protestant–Catholic; it was a long and arduous shifting and realigning. Cajetan’s biblical commentaries constitute one of the most significant monuments of pre-Tridentine Catholic thought, adding depth and texture to our understanding of the period. They demonstrate emphatically the vitality of Catholic biblical scholarship in the early sixteenth century. For some, Cajetan’s methods were not Catholic enough and threatened to destroy the sacred tradition that the popes (and the university theologians) were dedicated to upholding. Furthermore, Cajetan’s timing could not have been worse: when the Church needed to offer a united front before the incursions of error, his work did nothing but give succour to the schismatic Lutherans. The Council of Trent bore witness to a hardening of denomina-

2 Charles Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome (2nd edn., Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1998), p. 338. 3 Ibid.

254

conclusion

tional identity; particularly in its determinations regarding the canon and the Vulgate, it ensured that Cajetan’s more supple biblical work remained outside the Catholic mainstream. The transformation of Cajetan’s image— from papal champion to crypto-Lutheran—merits further attention within the wider context of sixteenth-century Catholicism. His standing among the Protestant reformers was no more distinguished. Luther supposedly teased him for finally seeing the light. And while Calvin may have owned some of Cajetan’s biblical works, he never owned-up to being influenced by them. At the last, Cajetan’s most direct engagement with the Lutherans was a series of apologetic salvoes fired from the safety of the papist encampment. For all his modern methods, Cajetan’s theology was not reformed enough for the reformers: he had not allowed devotion to scripture to untie the scholastic and ecclesiastical knots that bound him. These late works did indeed receive applause, but from Erasmus. And by this point Erasmus had been cut loose by the reformers as a coward lacking the courage of his convictions. If there is more to the reception of Cajetan among the reformers, it remains a story as yet untold. But it will not be a simple tale of binary opposites; it will be a tale of common pursuits and uncommon partnerships.

Cajetan in the History of Biblical Exegesis Cajetan’s biblical commentaries represent a moment in the history of biblical exegesis. They fascinate as much for what he did not do as for what he did. Biblical scholars have gathered together a number of skills and techniques, in a variety of configurations: linguistic skills, manuscript study, archaeology, literal interpretation, the torrent of doctors, definitions of councils and popes, liturgical experience, literary imagination, spiritual interpretation, and so on. Some favoured the spiritual senses (Origen and the Alexandrians in the East, Ambrose and Augustine in the West), others insisted on the primacy of literal interpretation (Chrysostom and the Antiochenes, Andrew of St. Victor, Nicholas of Lyra). In reaction to the allegorising of late-medieval commentators and of his Renaissance Roman contemporaries (and perhaps Savonarola), Cajetan set aside half of the tool-kit and focused exclusively on the literal interpretation and the critical approach to sources. This was at a time when all of the other elements were given much greater prominence in Catholic exegesis. This would remain the status quo for four centuries; it would take direct papal intervention to change it. In 1943, against the backdrop of advances in archaeology and historical research, Pius xii published the encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu on the

conclusion

255

feast of St. Jerome (30 September).4 In this letter, the pope affirms the full use of modern scientific and critical methods in studying and interpreting biblical text. Biblical languages, archaeology, historical sources, Jewish sources—all are not only tolerated but encouraged. Pius xii urged the study of the Bible in its original languages (no longer mandating the Vulgate), and insisted on the importance of textual criticism in gaining the most reliable texts and translations. According to Pius xii, all of these critical tools should then be used to draw out the literal meaning of the text, which is the greatest task imposed on the exegete: Being thoroughly prepared by the knowledge of the ancient languages and by the aids afforded by the art of criticism, let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books. In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal. Aided by the context and by comparison with similar passages, let them therefore by means of their knowledge of languages search out with all diligence the literal meaning of the words. §23

At the same time, the pope laments those commentaries that offer no more than archaeological, philological, and historical information. The broader purpose of biblical study is to build up the faith. Scholars should explain the ‘theological doctrine in faith and morals’ of the biblical text, for the benefit both of those who teach in the academy and those who preach from the pulpit, in order that this teaching ‘may help all the faithful to lead a life that is holy and worthy of a Christian’ (§24). Nevertheless, in a striking passage, the encyclical sets limits around spiritual interpretation, even while acknowledging that this was something practised by Jesus himself and by the apostles: Let Catholic exegetes then disclose and expound this spiritual significance, intended and ordained by God, with that care which the dignity of the divine word demands; but let them scrupulously refrain from propos-

4 http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_ divino-afflante-spiritu.html.

256

conclusion

ing as the genuine meaning of Sacred Scripture other figurative senses. It may indeed be useful, especially in preaching, to illustrate, and present the matters of faith and morals by a broader use of the Sacred Text in the figurative sense, provided this be done with moderation and restraint; it should, however, never be forgotten that this use of the Sacred Scripture is, as it were, extrinsic to it and accidental, and that, especially in these days, it is not free from danger, since the faithful, in particular those who are well-informed in the sciences sacred and profane, wish to know what God has told us in the Sacred Letters rather than what an ingenious orator or writer may suggest by a clever use of the words of Scripture. §27

Pius xii urges a more sober approach to biblical preaching lest ‘those who are well-informed in the sciences sacred and profane’ are scandalised or embarrassed by what they hear from the pulpit. This is a remarkable echo of Cajetan’s own concern that the ‘wise of this world’ would be repelled by biblical exposition that was puerile, ridiculous, and absurd.5 It is intriguing to speculate on the possible influence of Cajetan on this encyclical. The Belgian Dominican Jacques-Marie Vosté (1883–1949) wrote the earliest twentieth-century monograph on Cajetan’s exegesis. In 1939 he became secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and, along with German Jesuit Augustin (later Cardinal) Bea, played a significant role in drafting Divino Afflante Spiritu. Pius xii’s 1943 encyclical laid the foundations for the Second Vatican Council’s approach to scripture, not only in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum (1965) but also in the scriptural orientation of so much of the Council’s teaching. A subsequent landmark of critical exegesis appears in the single-volume Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968, new edition in 1990), edited by Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmeyr, and Roland Murphy and endorsed by Cardinals Bea and Martini. In the space of less than thirty years, the official approach to biblical interpretation in the Catholic Church had undergone a remarkable realignment. The process of realignment did not stop with Pius xii—the tool-kit continues to be shaken up. Over the last half-century there has been a revival of interest in the spiritual interpretation of scripture and in the patristic exegesis that exemplifies this method. This has been inspired in Catholic circles by Jean Daniélou and Henri De Lubac, and encouraged by Hans Urs von Balthasar and Joseph Ratzinger, but it is by no means limited to Catholics. Patristic spiri-

5 See above, pp. 184–185.

conclusion

257

tual interpretation is now widely available, along with the Antiochene current, in the volumes of the Ancient Christian Commentary (edited by Tom Oden) and The Church’s Bible (edited by Robert Louis Wilken). The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) restates the traditional division of literal and spiritual (allegorical, moral, and anagogical) senses of scripture. The reservations of Pius xii have evaporated and the Catechism simply states: ‘The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church’ (§ 115). The most authoritative recent indication of the shift can be seen in the letter of Pope Benedict xvi, Verbum Domini: The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church (2010), which speaks of the ‘need to transcend the letter’: In rediscovering the interplay between the different senses of Scripture it thus becomes essential to grasp the passage from letter to spirit. This is not an automatic, spontaneous passage; rather, the letter needs to be transcended: ‘the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text’.6 §38

The claim is that, if the critical method is not rooted in a living community of faith, it turns the biblical word into a dead letter. Essential to the right reading of the biblical testimony of faith is a corresponding attitude of faith— which makes possible the spiritual reading of the sacred text. The contemporary debate, shaped by nineteenth- and twentieth-century thinking, assumes a polarisation between the scientific, secular, and critical analysis of the academy and the Christian spiritual interpretation of the Churches.7 The biblical humanism of Cajetan and others in the early sixteenth century (Catholic and Protestant) resists this polarisation and complicates the picture: there we find a preference for philology, grammar, and the literal sense firmly embedded in ecclesial practices of teaching, preaching, and worship. Christian biblical humanism offers a different constellation of familiar elements and a different vision of the biblical scholar’s calling. Aware of his own limitations, Cajetan consoled himself by recognizing that he was not working alone: he had assistants, he had books, he was contributing one part to a greater and common good. This is the theme of the opening words of his last and unfinished 6 http://w2.vatican.va/content/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930 _verbum-domini.html. The internal quotation is from a homily by Pope Benedict. 7 See Luke Timothy Johnson and William S. Kurz, The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).

258

conclusion

commentary: he embarks on this work with trepidation, knowing that he is reaching beyond his powers. But he places his trust in divine grace, hoping for even more abundant help than he has received heretofore. He hopes that where he should fail to give the germane sense, others would supply it. The labour of study, translation, interpretation, and communication is not a solo enterprise; it reflects the organic nature of the whole Christian community:8 Cajetan finishes with words of Paul, ‘we are all members, one of another’.9 8 On Cajetan’s insightful ecclesiology, see the remarks of Hamer: ‘L’Eglise est donc une convocation. Toutefois, ceci nous montre simplement l’ origine du rassemblement est son motif. Ce terme ne nous instruit pas encore sur la nature du lien qui désormais unit ces hommes. A ma connaissance, un seul théologien s’ est intéressé a cela: le Cardinal Cajetan, dans un texte ou il commente un passage de s. Thomas sur le schisme (Somme théologique, ii-iiae, q. 39, a. 1). Dans la considération de cette “unité” a laquelle le schisme s’oppose, le commentateur en arrive a définir ce qu’ il appelle l’ unitas collectionis universorum fidelium. Il nous donne la une page pénétrante sur le réseau de relations qui constitue l’Eglise; texte dont je ne connais pas d’équivalent et que les problèmes posés peu de temps plus tard par la Reforme vont repousser dans l’ ombre. Cajetan achève en effet la rédaction de son commentaire sur cette partie de la Somme en février 1517. Quelques mois plus tard, au cours de cette même année, le jour de la Toussaint, Martin Luther procedera a l’ affichage de ses thèses. Il faudra attendre le début du xixe siècle, avec J.-A. Moehler, pour retrouver a nouveau l’attention centrée sur l’aspect le plus profond de l’ unité de l’ Eglise’. Jérôme Hamer op, ‘Ecclésiologie et sociologie’, Social Compass 7 (1960): pp. 325–339, at p. 331. 9 ‘Intentio mea est exponere textum Esaiae iuxta Hebraicam veritatem, prout praecedentes libros veteris Testamenti exposui. Novi quod aggredior opus supra vires ingenii mei, et fateor aggressum temerarium, nisi innixum divinae gratiae, cuius lumen spero affuturum ampliori largitate quam in praeteritis affuerit. In quibus igitur ego defuero veritati germani sensus, rogo, ut alii suppleant: sumus enim alter alterius membra [Rom 12.5],’ on Is Intro, iii, 635a.

Bibliography Cajetan This bibliography contains works of Cajetan cited or referred to in the text. Cajetan et Luther en 1518. Édition, traduction et commentaire des opuscules d’Augsbourg de Cajetan, ed. and trans. Charles Morerod (2 vols., Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 1994). Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy, ed. and trans. Jared Wicks (Washington dc: Catholic University of America, 1978). An English translation of twenty-eight controversial works, 1518–1534. Commentaria in De Anima Aristotelis, ed. I. Coquelle, Scripta Philosophica (2 vols., Rome: Angelicum, 1938–1939). Commentarii illustres planeque insignes in quinque mosaicos libros (Paris: Petit, 1539). Conciliarism and Papalism, ed. and trans. J.H. Burns and Thomas M. Izbicki (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). De comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus, ed. V.M.J. Pollet, Scripta Theologica (Rome: Angelicum, 1936). De divina institutione pontificatus Romani pontificis super totam Ecclesiam a Christo in Petro, ed. Friedrich Lauchert, Corpus catholicorum x (Münster, 1925). Instructio nuntii circa errores libelli de cena Domini, sive de erroribus contingentibus in eucharistiae sacramento, ed. A.F. von Gunten (Rome: Angelicum, 1962). Epistolae Pauli et aliorum apostolorum ad graecam veritatem castigatae iuxta sensum literalem enarratae (Venice: Lucantonio Giunta, 1531). Ientacula Novi Testamenti, literalis expositio (Lyons: Giunta, 1551). Ientacula Novi Testamenti, literalis expositio, in Opera Omnia quotquot in sacrae scripturae expositionem reperiuntur (Lyons: Iacobus et Petrus Prost, 1639), vol. 5, pp. 404– 468. In omnes autenticos Veteris Testamenti historicales libros (Paris: Guillard, 1546). In quattuor Evangelia et Acta Apostolorum ad grecorum codicum veritatem castigata ad sensum quem vocant literalem commentarii (Venice: Lucantonio Giunta, 1530). ‘Le discours de Cajetan au ve Concile de Latran’, ed. and trans. Charles Morerod, Revue Thomiste 105 (2005): pp. 595–638. ‘On the Immortality of Minds’, trans. J. Sheridan, in L. Kennedy (ed.), Renaissance Philosophy (The Hague: Mouton, 1973), pp. 41–54. This is an English translation of ‘Oratio de immortalitate animarum’, Opuscula, iii, 186a–188a. Opera Omnia quotquot in sacrae scripturae expositionem reperiuntur (5 vols., Lyons: Iacobus et Petrus Prost, 1639).

260

bibliography

Opuscula omnia (3 vols., Lyons: Giunta, 1587; facsimile reprinted in one volume, Hildesheim: Olms, 1995). Psalmi Davidici ad Hebraicam veritatem castigati et iuxta sensum quem literalem dicunt ennarati (Venice: Lucantonio Giunta, 1530). Responsiones ad censuras xvi articulorum sub nomine theologorum Parisiensium editas, Magistro Ioanni regenti Moguntini missa, in Opera Omnia quotquot in sacrae scripturae expositionem reperiuntur (Lyons: Iacobus et Petrus Prost, 1639), vol. 5, pp. 469– 471. Summa Theologiae cum commentariis Thomae De Vio Caietani Ordinis Praedicatorum, Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis xiii P. M. edita (vols. 4–12, 1888–1906). Summula peccatorum (Lyons: Giunta, 1551).

Other Primary Sources Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, vol. 4, 1501–1553, ed. Benedict Maria Reichert (Rome, 1901) [= Monumenta Ordinis Praedicatorum Historiae, vol. 9]. Augustine of Hippo, Confessiones, ed. and commentary James J. O’Donnell (3 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). , In Iohannis evangelium tractatus cxxiv, ccsl 36, ed. R. Willems (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954) , The Preaching of Augustine: Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, trans. Francine Cardman, ed. and intro. Jaroslav Pelikan (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973). Aquinas, Thomas, Catena aurea in quatuor evangelia (2 vols., Rome/Turin: Marietti, 1953). , Expositio super Iob ad litteram, Leonine, 26. , Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis xiii P. M. edita (Rome: 1882–). , Summa theologiae, ed. and trans. T. Gilby et al. (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1963–1975). , Super Epistolas Sancti Pauli Lectura, ed. Raphael Cai (8th edn., Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1953). , Super Evangelium Sancti Ioannis Lectura, ed. Raphael Cai (5th edn., Turin/ Rome: Marietti, 1952). , Super Evangelium Sancti Matthaei Lectura, ed. Raphael Cai (5th edn., Turin/ Rome: Marietti, 1951). , The Literal Exposition on Job: A Scriptural Commentary Concerning Providence, trans. Anthony Damico with interpretative essay and notes by Martin D. Yaffe (Atlanta: Scolars Press, 1989).

bibliography

261

Biblia Polyglotta, ed. Diego López Zuñiga et al. (6 vols., Alcalá: Arnao Guillén de Brocar, printed 1514–1517, published 1521–1522). Bucer, Martin, Correspondance de Martin Bucer, ed. Jean Rott (Leiden: Brill, 1979). Cano, Melchior, Opera omnia (Rome, 1900). Castellesi, Adriano, De Vera Philosophia ex quatuor doctoribus ecclesiae (Bologna, 1507, second edition, Rome, 1514). Catharinus, Ambrosius, Annotationes fratris Ambrosii Catharini Politi Senensis euisdem ordinis in excerpta quaedam de commentariis Reverendissimi Cardinalis Caietani S. Xisti, dogmata (Paris: Colinaeus, 1535). , Annotationes in commentaria Caietani denuo multo locupletiores et castigatores redditae (Lyon: Bonhomme, 1542). Concilium Tridentinum: diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova collectio, Societas Gorresiana (13 vols., Freiburg: Herder, 1901–1938; reprinted 1963–1967). Contarini, Gasparo, The Office of a Bishop = De Officio Viri Boni et Probi Episcopi (Milwaukee, wi: Marquette University Press, 2002). Epistola theologorum Parisiensium ad Cardinalem Coetanum [sic] reprehensoria (Wittenberg: Nicolaus Schirlentz, 1534), accessed 4 August 2012, http://daten.digitale -sammlungen.de/~db/0003/bsb00035072/image_1. Erasmus, Desiderius, Opera omnia Erasmi, ed. J. LeClerc (Lugdunum Batavorum, 1703– 1706). , Erasmi Epistolae, ed. P.S. Allen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906– 1958). , Christian Humanism and the Reformation: The Selected Writings of Erasmus, ed. John C. Olin (New York: Fordham University Press, 1987). , Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: Facsimile of the Final Latin Text (1535) with All Earlier Variants (1516, 1519, 1522 and 1527), ed. Anne Reeve, intro. M.A. Screech (vol. 1, London: Duckworth, 1986; vols 2 and 3, Leiden: Brill, 1990 and 1993). Felix de Prato, Biblia sacra hebraea cum utraque Masora et Targum item cum commenatriis rabbinorum (Venice: Bomberg, c. 1516–1517). , Psalterium ex Hebraeo diligentissime ad verbum fere traslatum (Venice: Bomberg, 1515). Giles of Viterbo, Scechina e Libellus de litteris Hebraicis, ed. F. Secret (2 vols., Rome: Centro di Studi Umanistici, 1959). Giustiniani, Agostino, Psalterium Hebraeum, Graecum, Arabicum, et Chaldaeum, cum tribus Latinis interpretationibus et glossis (Genoa: Porro, 1516). Giustiniani, Tommaso and Vincenzo Querini, Lettera al Papa: Libellus ad Leonem x, trans. Germiniano Bianchini (Modena: Artioli, 1995). Guidacerio, Agacio, In Omnes Davidicos Psalmos Argumentum et in primum interpretatio (Rome: Bladus, 1515).

262

bibliography

Jerome, Commentarii in Isaiam, ccsl 73–73a, ed. M. Adriaen (2 vols., Turnhout: Brepols, 1963). , In Hieremiam libri vi, ccsl, 74, ed. S. Reiter (Turnhout: Brepols, 1960). Lefèvre d’ Étaples, Jacques, Commentarii D. Pauli epistolarum (Paris: Estienne, 1512; second edition, Paris: Estienne, 1515). , Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples and Related Texts, ed. Eugene F. Rice, Jr. (New York: Columbia, 1972). , Quincuplex Psalterium (Paris: Estienne, 1509; second edition, Paris: Estienne, 1513). A facsimile of the second edition is reprinted in Travaux d’ Humanisme et Renaissance 170 (Geneva: Droz, 1979). Luther, Martin, Luther’s Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters, ed. and trans. Preserved Smith and Charles M. Jacobs (2 vols., Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1913). , D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesametausgabe: Tischreden (Weimar: Böhlau, 1912–). , Martin Luther: Documents of Modern History, ed. E.G. Rupp and Benjamin Drewery (London: Arnold, 1970). Pagnini, Santi, Psalterium nuper translatum ex Hebraeo, Chaldaeo et Graeco cum commentariis Hebraeorum translatis, et scholiis cum orthodoxa atque catholica expositione (Rome, 1520). , Biblia. Habes in hoc libro utriusque instrumenti novam tranlationem (Lyons: du Ry, 1527–1528). Patrologiae cursus completus (Series Latina), ed. J. Migne (Paris, 1857–1879). Quétif. J., and J. Échard, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum (2 vols., Paris, 1719–1721). Reuchlin, Johannes, De rudimentis hebraicis (Pforzheim: Anshelm, 1506). , De arte cabalistica (Hagenau: Anshelm, 1517). Simon, Richard, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (Rotterdam, 1685). , Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam, 1693). Valla, Lorenzo, Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum, ed. Desiderius Erasmus (Paris: Bade Ascensius, 1505).

Secondary Literature Alberigo, Giuseppe, ‘The Reform of the Episcopate in the Libellus to Leo x by the Camaldolese Hermits Vincenzo Querini and Tommaso Giustiniani’, in Reforming the Church before Modernity: Patterns, Problems, and Approaches, ed. Christopher M. Bellitto and Louis I. Hamilton (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), pp. 139–152. Allgeier, Artur, ‘Les commentaires de Cajétan sur les Psaumes. Contribution à l’ histoire

bibliography

263

de l’ exégèse avant le Concile de Trente’, Revue Thomiste 39 (1934–1935): pp. 410– 443. Alszeghy, Zoltan, Nova creatura. La nozione della grazia nei commentari medievali di S. Paolo (Rome: Gregoriana, 1956). Anderson, Marvin, ‘Thomas Cajetan’s scientia Christi’, Theologische Zeitschrift 26 (1970): pp. 99–108. , ‘Biblical Humanism and Roman Catholic Reform (1501–1542): Contarini, Pole and Giberti’, Concordia Theological Monthly 39 (1968): pp. 686–707. , The Battle for the Gospel: The Bible and Reformation 1444–1589 (Grand Rapids, mi: Baker Book House, 1978). Aranoff, Deena, ‘Elijah Levita: A Jewish Hebraist’, Jewish History 23 (2009): pp. 17–40. Arias Reyero, Maximino, Thomas von Aquin als Exeget. Die Prinzipien seiner Schriftdeutung und seine Lehre von den Schriftsinnen (Einsiedeln: Johannes, 1971). Arnold, Claus, ‘Die postume Expurgation der Werke Cajetans und Contarinis und das theologische Profil der römischen Kongregationen von Index und Inquisition (1571– 1600)’, in Hubert Wolf (ed.), Inquisition, Index, Zensur. Wissenskulturen der Neuzeit im Widerstreit (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2001), pp. 293–304. , Die Römische Zensur der Werke Cajetans und Contarinis (1558–1601): Grenzen die Konfessionalisierung (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2008). d’Ascia, Luca, Erasmo e umanesimo romano (Firenze: Olschki: 1991). Asensio, A. Dominguez, ‘Infallibilidad y potestad magisterial en la polémica anticonciliarista de Cayetano’, in Communio (Sevilla) 14 (1981): pp. 3–50, 205–226. Ashley, Benedict, The Dominicans (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1990). Ashworth, E.J., Studies in Post-Medieval Semantics (Aldershot: Variorum, 1985). Augustijn, Cornelis, Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence, trans. J.C. Grayson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991). Backus, Irena and Higman, Francis (eds.), Théorie et pratique de l’ exégèse, Études de Philosophie et d’ Histoire 43 (Geneva: Droz, 1990). Backus, Irena, ‘Polemic, Exegetical Tradition, and Ontology: Bucer’s Interpretation of John 6:52, 53 and 64 before and after the Wittenberg Concord’, in David Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1990), pp. 167–180. , ‘Le contenu doctrinal des traités sur les indulgences (1517, 1518, 1521–1522) de Thomas de Vio Cajetan’, in Bruno Pinchard and Saverio Ricci (eds.), Rationalisme Analogique et Humanisme Theologique: La Culture de Thomas de Vio ‘Il Gaetano’. Actes du Colloque de Naples 1er–3 Novembre, 1990 (Naples: Vivarium, 1993), pp. 239–252. , ‘Jacques Lefèvre d’ Étaples: A Humanist or a Reformist View of Paul in His Theology?’, in R. Ward Holder (ed.), A Companion to Paul in the Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 61–90.

264

bibliography

Bagchi, David V.N., Luther’s Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists, 1518–1525 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). , ‘Luther’s Catholic Opponents’, in Andrew Pettegree (ed.), The Reformation World (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 97–108. , ‘Luther’s Ninety-five Theses and the Contemporary Criticism of Indulgences’, in Robert Swanson (ed.), Promissory Notes on the Treasury of Merits: Indulgences in the Later Middle Ages (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2006), pp. 331–355. , ‘Recent Studies in the Reformation and Islam’, Reformation 14 (2009): pp. 161– 170. Barnes, Jonathan, Aristotle. Past Masters Series (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982). Bedini, Silvio A., The Pope’s Elephant (Manchester: Carcanet, 1997). Bedouelle, Guy, and Patrick Le Gal (eds.), Le ‘Divorce’ du Roi Henry viii. Etudes et Documents (Geneva: Droz, 1987). Bedouelle, Guy, and Bernard Roussel (eds.), Le Temps des Réformes et la Bible (Paris: Beauchesne, 1989). Bedouelle, Guy, Lefèvre d’ Étaples et l’ Intelligence des Écritures (Geneva: Droz, 1976). , ‘La Lecture Christologique du Psautier dans le Quincuplex Psalterium de Lefèvre d’ Etaples’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’ exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 133–143. , Le Quincuplex Psalterium de Lefèvre d’Etaples: Guide de lecture (Geneva: Droz, 1979). , ‘The Consultations of the Universities and Scholars Concerning the “Great Matter” of King Henry viii’, in David Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1990), pp. 21–36. , The Reform of Catholicism, 1480–1620, trans. James K. Farge (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2008). Belda-Plans, J., ‘Cajetano y la controversia sobre la immortalidad del alma humana’, Scripta theologica 16 (1984): pp. 417–422. Bell, Aubrey F.G., Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, Historic Notes and Monographs. Essays, Studies, and Brief Biographies Issued by the Hispanic Society of America, 9 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925). Benelli, Giuseppe, ‘Di alcune lettere del Gaetano’, afp 5 (1935): pp. 363–375. Beumer, Johannes, ‘Suffizienz und Insuffizienz der heiligen Schrift nach Kardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetan’, Gregorianum 45 (1964): pp. 816–824. Bietenholz, Peter G. (ed.), Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation (3 vols., Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985– 1987). Bisaha, Nancy, Creating East And West: Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). Bodem, A., Das Wesen der Kirche nach Kardinal Cajetan (Trier: Paulinus, 1971).

bibliography

265

Bosshard, Stefan N., Zwingli, Erasmus and Cajetan: Die Eucharistie als Zeichen der Einheit (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978). Bowd, Stephen D., Reform before the Reformation: Vincenzo Querini and the Religious Renaissance in Italy (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Boyle, Leonard, San Clemente Miscellany i: The Community of San Sisto e San Clemente in Rome, 1677–1977 (Rome: San Clemente, 1977). Boyle, Marjorie O’Rourke, Erasmus on Language and Method in Theology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977). , Senses of Touch: Human Dignity and Deformity from Michelangelo to Calvin (Leiden: Brill, 1998). Branca, Vittore, ‘Ermolao Barbaro and late Quattrocento Venetian Humanism’, in John R. Hale (ed.), Renaissance Venice (London: Faber and Faber, 1973). Brosse, Olivier de la, Le pape et le concile: la comparaison de leur pouvoirs à la vielle de la Reformation (Paris: Cerf, 1965). Bullard, Melissa Meriam, Filippo Strozzi and the Medici: Favor and Finance in SixteenthCentury Florence and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). Burnett, Stephen G., ‘The Strange Career of the Biblia Rabbinica among Christian Hebraists, 1517–1620’, in Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean (eds.), Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and Their Readers in the Sixteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 63–84. Cameron, Euan, ‘The Late Renaissance and the Unfolding Reformation’, in James Kirk (ed.), Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England and Scotland, 1400– 1643. Studies in Church History, Subsidia 8 (Oxford: Blackwell for the Ecclesiastical History Society, 1991), pp. 15–36. , The European Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991). Camporeale, Salvatore I., ‘Renaissance Humanism and the Origins of Humanist Theology’, in John W. O’Malley, Thomas M. Izbicki, and Gerald Christianson (eds.), Humanity and Divinity in Renaissance and Reformation: Essays in Honor of Charles Trinkaus (Leiden: Brill, 1993), pp. 101–124. Cantimori, Delio, Eretici Italiani del cinquecento (Florence: Sansoni, 1939). Carraud, Vincent, ‘Métaphore et sens littéral selon Cajétan’, in Bruno Pinchard and Saverio Ricci (eds.), Rationalisme Analogique et Humanisme Theologique: La Culture de Thomas de Vio ‘Il Gaetano’, Actes du Colloque de Naples 1er–3 Novembre, 1990 (Naples: Vivarium, 1993), pp. 183–207. Cave, Terence, The Cornucopian Text: Problems of Writing in the French Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979). Centi, Timoteo M., ‘L’attività letteraria di Santi Pagnini (1470–1536) nel campo delle scienze bibliche’, afp (1945): pp. 5–51. Cesareo, Francesco, Humanism and Catholic Reform: The Life and Work of Gregorio Cortese (New York: Lang, 1990).

266

bibliography

Cessario, Romanus, The Godly Image: Christ and Salvation in Catholic Thought from Anselm to Aquinas (Petersham: St. Bede’s, 1990). , Christian Faith and the Theological Life (Washington, dc: Catholic University of America Press, 1996). Cevolotto, Aurelio, Agostino Giustiniani: Un Umanista tra Bibbia e Cabala (Genoa: ecig, 1992). Chambers, David S., ‘Studium Urbis and gabella studii: The University of Rome in the Fifteenth Century’, in Cecil H. Clough (ed.), Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance: Essays in Honour of Paul Oskar Kristeller (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976), pp. 68–110. , Popes, Cardinals and War: The Military Church in Renaissance and Early Modern Europe (London: Tauris, 2006). Chantraine, Georges, ‘Le musterion paulien selon les Annotations d’ Erasme’, Recherches de science religieuse 58 (1970): pp. 351–382. Chastel, André, The Sack of Rome, 1527, trans. Beth Archer (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983). Childs, Brevard, ‘The sensus literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem’, in Hubert Donner et al. (eds.), Beiträge zur Altestestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1977), pp. 80–93. Chomarat, Jacques, André Godin, and Jean-Claude Margolin (eds.), Actes du Colloque International Érasme, Tours 1986 (Geneva: Droz, 1990). , ‘Les Annotations de Valla, celles d’ Erasme et la grammaire’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’ exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 202–228. Claverie, A.-F., ‘Le Commentaire de la Somme Théologique’, Revue Thomiste 39 (1934– 1935): pp. 275–296. Cochrane, Eric, Italy 1530–1630 (London and New York: Longmans, 1988). Collins, Raymond F., Divorce in the New Testament (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992). Collins, Thomas Aquinas, ‘The Cajetan Controversy’, American Ecclesiastical Review 128 (1953): pp. 90–100. , ‘Cajetan’s Fundamental Biblical Principles’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955): pp. 363–378. Colunga, A., ‘El Cardenal Cayetano y los problemas de introducción biblica’, Ciencia Tomista 18 (1918): pp. 21–32 and 168–175; Ciencia Tomista 20 (1919): pp. 43–50. Congar, Yves, Thomas d’Aquin. Sa vision de la théologie et de l’ Église (Aldershot: Variorum, 1984). Copenhaver, Brian P., and Charles B. Schmitt, Renaissance Philosophy: A History of Western Philosophy, vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992). Copenhaver, Brian, and Daniel Stein Kokin, ‘Egidio da Viterbo’s Book on Hebrew Letters: Christian Kabbalah in Papal Rome’, Renaissance Quarterly 67 (2014): pp. 1–42.

bibliography

267

Coppens, J., ‘Erasme exégète et theologian’, Ephemerides theologiae Lovanienses 44 (1968): pp. 191–204. Corbellini, Sabrina, ‘Instructing the Soul, Feeding the Spirit and Awakening the Passion: Holy Writ and Lay Readers in Late Medieval Europe’, in Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean (eds.), Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and Their Readers in the Sixteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 15–39. Cordovani, Mariano, ‘Il Gaetano e l’Edizione Piana’, Angelicum 11 (1934): pp. 561–567. Cossio, Aluigi, Il Cardinale Gaetano e la Riforma (Cividale, 1902). Courtney, William J., ‘Nominalism and Late Medieval Religion’, in Charles Trinkaus and Heiko Oberman (eds.), The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 26–59. D’Amico, John F., Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983). , ‘Humanism and Pre-Reformation Theology’, in Albert Rabil (ed.), Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms and Legacy (3 vols., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), vol. 3, pp. 349–379. , Roman and German Humanism, 1450–1550 (Aldershot: Variorum, 1993). Davies, Brian, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). , Aquinas, Outstanding Christian Thinkers (London and New York: Continuum, 2002). Davis, Natalie Zemon, Trickster Travels: A Sixteenth-Century Muslim Between Worlds (New York: Hill and Wang, 2007). Delville, Jean-Pierre, L’ Europe de l’ exégèse au xvie siècle: interprétations de la parabole des ouvriers à la vigne, Matthieu 20, 1–16 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004). De Maio, Romeo, ‘Savonarola, Oliviero Carafa, Tommaso de Vio e la Disputa di Raffaello’, afp 38 (1968): pp. 149–165. , Riforme e Miti nella Chiesa del Cinquecento (Napoli: Guida, 1973; second edition, 1992). DeSilva, Jennifer Mara, ‘Senators or Courtiers: Negotiating Models for the College of Cardinals under Julius ii and Leo x’, Renaissance Studies 22, no. 2 (April 1, 2008): pp. 154–173. Donneaud, H., ‘Note sur le Revelabile selon Étienne Gilson’, Revue Thomiste 114 (1996): pp. 633–652. Douglas, R.M., Jacopo Sadoleto (1477–1547), Humanist and Reformer (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1959). Duffy, Eamon, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (3rd edn., New Haven, ct: Yale University Press, 2006). Dunckner, Peter, ‘The Canon of the Old Testament at Trent’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 15 (1953): pp. 277–299. Dyrness, William A., Poetic Theology: God and the Poetics of Everyday Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011).

268

bibliography

Farge, James K., Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France: The Faculty of Theology of Paris, 1500–1543 (Leiden: Brill, 1985). (ed.), Registre des conclusions de la Faculté de théologie de l’ Université de Paris du 26 novembre 1533 au ler mars 1550 (Paris: Klincksieck, 1994). Fei, R., ‘Fra Tomaso Gaetano (1468–1534): “L’uomo delle singolari opinioni” ’, Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica, Supplement to 27 (1935): pp. 127–147. Feld, Helmut, ‘Der Humanisten-Streit um Hebräer 2,7 (Psalm 8,6)’, arg 61 (1970): pp. 5– 35. , Die Anfänge der modernen biblischen Hermeneutik in der spätmittelalterlichen Theologie (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1977). Felmberg, Bernhard A.R., Die Ablasstheologie Kardinal Cajetans (Leiden: Brill, 1998). Fenlon, Dermot, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). Ferraro, Giuseppe, ‘Il Paraclito, Lo Spirito di verità, nel commento del Caietano al quarto Vangelo’, Angelicum 59 (1982): pp. 117–152. Ferrell, Lori Anne, The Bible and the People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008). Firpo, Massimo, ‘The Cardinal’, in Eugenio Garin (ed.), Renaissance Characters, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 46–97. Forte, Stephen L., The Cardinal Protector of the Dominican Order (Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1959). Friedman, Jerome, ‘Sixteenth-Century Christian-Hebraica: Scripture and the Renaissance Myth of the Past’, Sixteenth Century Journal 11 (1980): pp. 67–85. , The Most Ancient Testimony: Sixteenth-Century Christian-Hebraica in the Age of Renaissance Nostalgia (Athens, oh: Ohio University Press, 1983). Galliner, H., ‘Agathius Guidacerius 1477?–1540: An Early Hebrew Grammarian in Rome and Paris’, Historia Judaica 2 (1940): pp. 85–101. Ganoczy, Alexandre, La Bibliotheque de l’ Academie de Calvin: Le Catalogue de 1572 et ses Enseignements (Geneva: Droz, 1969). Garin, Eugenio, ‘La “dignitas hominis” e la letteratura patristica’, La Rinascita 4 (1938): pp. 102–146. (ed.), Renaissance Characters, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991). Garofalo, Salvatore, ‘Gli umanisti italiani del secolo xv e la Bibbia’, Biblica 27 (1946): pp. 338–375. Garrigou-Lagrange, Réginald, ‘Le sens du mystère chez Cajétan’, Angelicum 12 (1935): pp. 3–18. Geiger, Gail L., Filippino Lippi’s Carafa Chapel: Renaissance Art In Rome, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 5 (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal, 1986). Giacon, C., La seconda scolastica, i grandi commentatori di San Tommaso (Milan: Bocca, 1943).

bibliography

269

Gibaud, Henri, ‘In Principio erat Sermo (Érasme)’, in Henri Gibaud (ed.), Les Problèmes d’ Expression Dans La Traduction Biblique (Angers: Université Catholique de l’ Ouest, 1988), pp. 97–105. Gilbert, Creighton E., ‘Last Suppers and their Refectories’, in Charles Trinkaus and Heiko Oberman (eds.), The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 371–402. Gilbert, Felix, ‘Cristianesimo, Umanesimo, e la bolla “Apostolici Regiminis” del 1513’, Rivista storica italiana 79 (1967): pp. 979–983. Gilmore, Myron P., ‘Italian Reactions to Erasmian Humanism’, in Heiko Oberman and Thomas A. Brady (eds.), Itinerarium italicum (Leiden 1975), pp. 61–115. Gilson, Étienne, ‘Note sur le Revelabile selon Cajétan’, Medieval Studies 15 (1953): pp. 199–206. , ‘Cajétan et l’ Éxistence’, Tijdschrift voor Philosophie 25 (1953): pp. 267–286. , ‘Cajétan et l’ humanisme théologique’, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age 22 (1955): pp. 113–136. , ‘Autour de Pomponazzi’, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age 28 (1961): pp. 163–279. Gleason, Elisabeth G., ‘Sixteenth-Century Italian Interpretations of Luther’, arg 60 (1969): pp. 160–173. , ‘On the Nature of Italian Evangelism: Scholarship, 1953–1978’, Sixteenth Century Journal 9 (1978): pp. 3–25. , Gasparo Contarini (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). Gordon, Bruce, and Matthew McLean (eds.), Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and Their Readers in the Sixteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2012). Gouwens, Kenneth, Remembering the Renaissance: Humanist Narratives of the Sack of Rome (Leiden: Brill, 1998). Gouwens, Kenneth, and Sheryl E. Reiss (eds.), The Pontificate of Clement vii: History, Politics, Culture (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005). Grabmann, Martin, ‘Die Stellung des Kardinals Cajetan in der Geschichte des Thomismus und der Thomistenschule’, in Angelicum 11 (1934): pp. 547–560. Gray, Hanna H., ‘Valla’s Encomium of St Thomas Aquinas and the Humanist Concept of Christian Antiquity’, in Heinz Bluhm (ed.), Essays in History and Literature Presented by the Fellows of the Newberry Library to Stanley Pargellis (Chicago: Newberry Library, 1965), pp. 37–51. , ‘Renaissance Humanism: the Pursuit of Eloquence’, in Paul O. Kristeller and P.P. Weiner (eds.), Renaissance Essays (New York: Harper, 1968), pp. 199–216. Grendler, Paul F., ‘Man is Almost a God: Fra Battista Carioni Between Renaissance and Catholic Reformation’, in John W. O’Malley, Thomas M. Izbicki, and Gerald Christianson (eds.), Humanity and Divinity in Renaissance and Reformation: Essays in Honor of Charles Trinkaus (Leiden: Brill, 1993), pp. 227–249.

270

bibliography

, Books and Schools in the Italian Renaissance (Aldershot: Variorum, 1995). , The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002). , ‘Italian Biblical Humanism and the Papacy, 1515–1535’, in Erika Rummel (ed.), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 227–276. Groner, J.F., Kardinal Cajetan, Eine Gestalt aus der Reformazionszeit (Fribourg: Société Philosophique, 1951). Gundersheimer, Werner L., ‘Erasmus, Humanism and the Christian Cabala’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 26 (1963): pp. 38–52. Gunten, André-François von, ‘La doctrine de Cajétan sur l’ indissolubilité du mariage’, Angelicum 43 (1966), pp. 62–72. , ‘La contribution des “Hébreux” à l’ oeuvre exégétique de Cajétan’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’ exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978) pp. 46–83. , ‘Barthélemy de Spina’, in Guy Bedouelle and Patrick Le Gal (eds.), Le ‘Divorce’ du Roi Henry viii. Etudes et Documents (Geneva: Droz, 1987), pp. 243–264. , ‘Cajétan et Luther: Foi et sacrement dans la justification’, Nova et Vetera (1992): pp. 259–288. , ‘Cajétan dans la correspondance d’ Erasme’, in Bruno Pinchard and Saverio Ricci (eds.), Rationalisme Analogique et Humanisme Theologique: La Culture de Thomas de Vio ‘Il Gaetano’. Actes du Colloque de Naples 1er–3 Novembre, 1990 (Naples: Vivarium, 1993), pp. 297–323. Gutiérrez, Gustavo, Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ, trans. Robert R. Barr (Maryknoll, ny: Orbis, 1993). Haenchen, Ernst, Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar (Tübingen: Mohr, 1980). Hagen, Kenneth, Hebrews Commenting from Erasmus to Bèze 1516–1598 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1981). Hall, Basil, ‘The Trilingual College of San Ildefonso and the Making of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible’, in G.J. Cuming (ed.), The Church and Academic Learning, Studies in Church History 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1969), pp. 114–146. Hallensleben, Barbara, Communicatio. Anthropologie und Gnadenlehre bei Thomas de Vio Cajetan (Münster: Aschendorff, 1985). Hallman, Barbara McClung, Italian Cardinals, Reform and the Church as Property (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985). Hamer, Jérôme, ‘Ecclésiologie et sociologie’, Social Compass 7 (1960): pp. 325–339. Hankins, James, ‘The Popes and Humanism’, in Anthony Grafton (ed.), Rome Reborn: The Vatican Library and Renaissance Culture (Washington: Library of Congress, 1993), pp. 47–85. Harrison, F.R., ‘The Cajetan Tradition of Analogy’, Franciscan Studies 23 (1963): pp. 179– 202.

bibliography

271

Hartt, Frederick, ‘Lignum Vitae in Medio Paradisi’, The Art Bulletin 32 (1950): pp. 115–145, 181–218. , ‘Pagnini, Vigerio and the Sistine Ceiling: A Reply’, The Art Bulletin 33 (1951): pp. 262–273. Hay, Denys, The Italian Renaissance in Its Historical Background (2nd edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). , The Church in Italy in the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). , ‘Papal Courts and Courtiers in the Renaissance’, in James Kirk (ed.), Humanism and Reform: The Church in Europe, England and Scotland, 1400–1643. Essays in Honour of James K. Cameron. Studies in Church History, Subsidia 8 (Oxford: Blackwell for the Ecclesiastical History Society, 1991), pp. 3–13. Hendrix, Scott, Luther and the Papacy: Stages in a Reformation Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981). Hennig, G., Cajetan und Luther: ein historischer Beitrag zur Begegnung von Thomismus und Reformation (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1966). Herzig, Tamar, Savonarola’s Women: Visions and Reform in Renaissance Italy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007). Hillman, E., ‘Polygamy and the Council of Trent’, Jurist 33 (1973): pp. 358–376. Hobbs, R. Gerald, ‘Martin Bucer on Psalm 22: A Study in the Application of Rabbinic Exegesis by a Christian Hebraist’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’ exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 144–163. , ‘Hebraica Veritas and Traditio Apostolica: Saint Paul and the Interpretation of the Psalms in the Sixteenth Century’, in David Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1990), pp. 83–99. , ‘Exercises Pratiques’, in Irena Backus and Francis Higman (eds.), Théorie et pratique de l’ exégèse, Études de Philosophie et d’ Histoire 43 (Geneva: Droz, 1990), pp. 113–125. , ‘Reading the Old Testament after Trent: Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and his Italian Predecessors on Psalm Four’, Reformation and Renaissance Review 12 (2010): pp. 207–234. Hochschild, Joshua P., ‘Analogy, Semantics, and Hermeneutics: The “Concept versus Judgment” Critique of Cajetan’s De Nominum Analogia’, in Medieval Philosophy and Theology 11 (2003): pp. 241–260. , The Semantics of Analogy: Rereading Cajetan’s De Nominum Analogia (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010). Hoffmann, Manfred, Rhetoric and Theology: The Hermeneutic of Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994). Hook, Judith, The Sack of Rome (London: Macmillan, 1972). Horst, Ulrich, ‘Der Streit um die Hl. Schrift zwischen Kardinal Cajetan und Ambro-

272

bibliography

sius Catharinus’, in Leo Scheffczyk, Werner Dettloff, and Richard Heinzmann (eds.), Wahrheit und Verkündigung. Michael Schmaus zum 70. Geburtstag (2 vols., Paderborn, Schöningh, 1967), vol. 1, pp. 551–577. , ‘Das Verhältnis von Schrift und Kirche nach Johannes Dietenberger’, Theologie und Philosophie 46 (1971): pp. 223–247. , Papst-Konzil-Unfehlbarkeit. Die Ekklesiologie der Summenkommentare von Cajetan bis Billuart (Mainz: Matthias Grünewald, 1978). , Zwischen Konziliarismus und Reformation. Studien zur Ekklesiologie im Dominikanerorden (Rome: Istituto Storico Domenicano, 1985). Hudson, A., The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts and Lollard History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). Hufstader, Anselm, ‘Lefèvre d’ Etaples and the Magdalen’, Studies in the Renaissance 16 (1969): pp. 31–60. Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe, Lefèvre, Pioneer of Ecclesiastical Renewal in France (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984). Janz, Denis R., ‘Cajetan: A Thomist Reformer?’, Renaissance and Reformation 18 (1982): pp. 94–102. , Luther and Late-Medieval Thomism: A Study in Theological Anthropology (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1983). , Luther on Thomas Aquinas: The Angelic Doctor in the Thought of the Reformer (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1989). Jarrott, C.A.L., ‘Erasmus’In Principio Erat Sermo: A Controversial Translation’, in Studies in Philology 61 (1964): pp. 35–40. , ‘Erasmus’ Biblical Humanism’, in Studies in the Renaissance 17 (1970): pp. 119– 152. , ‘Erasmus’ Annotations and Colet’s Commentaries on Paul: A Comparison of Some Theological Themes’, in R.L. DeMolen (ed.), Essays on the Works of Erasmus (New Haven, ct: Yale University Press, 1978), pp. 125–144. Jedin, Hubert, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent: Cardinal Seripando, trans. F.C. Eckhoff (St. Louis: Herder, 1947). Jenkins, Allen K., and Patrick Preston, Biblical Scholarship and the Church: A SixteenthCentury Crisis of Authority (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). Jenkins, Robert C., Pre-Tridentine Doctrine: A Review of the Commentary on the Scriptures of Thomas de Vio, Cardinal of St. Xystus, Commonly called Cardinal Cajetan (London: David Nutt, 1891). Johnson, Kelly S., The Fear of Beggars: Stewardship and Poverty in Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). Johnson, Luke Timothy, and William S. Kurz, The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Jonge, H.J. de, ‘Erasmus und die Glossa Ordinaria zum Neuen Testament’, in Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 56 (1975): pp. 51–77.

bibliography

273

, ‘Erasmus and the Comma Joanneum’, Ephemerides Theologiae Lovanienses 56 (1980): pp. 381–389. Jung, Eva-Marie, ‘On the Nature of Evangelism in Sixteenth Century Italy’, Journal of the History of Ideas 14 (1953): pp. 511–527. Kelly, J.N.D., Jerome (London: Duckworth, 1975). Kerr, Fergus, Thomas Aquinas: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Kilmartin, Edward J., The Eucharist in the Primitive Church (Englewood Cliffs nj: Prentice-Hall, 1965). Kirschner, Julius, ‘The Moral Problem of Discounting Genoese Paghe, 1450–1550’, afp 47 (1977): pp. 109–167. Kleinhans, ‘De vita et operibus P. Galatini, o.f.m., scientiarum biblicarum cultoris’, Antonianum 1 (1926): pp. 145–179, 327–356. Koch, Ernst, ‘Paulusexegese und Bundestheologie. Bullingers Auslegung von Gal. 3, 17– 26’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel, (eds.), Histoire de l’ exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 342–350. Kolb, Robert, Luther’s Heirs Define His Legacy (Aldershot: Variorum, 1996). Koester, Craig R., ‘John Six and the Lord’s Supper’, in Lutheran Quarterly 4 (1990): pp. 419–437. Koudelka, V., ‘Le “Monasterium Tempuli” et la fondation dominicaine de San Sisto’, afp 31 (1961): pp. 5–81. Kraye, Jill (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Kristeller, Paul Oskar, ‘Two Unpublished Questions of Pomponazzi’, Medievalia et Humanistica 8 (1955): pp. 76–101. , Renaissance Thought: The Classic Scholastic and Humanist Strains (New York: Harper, 1961). , Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964). , Medieval Aspects of Renaissance Learning, trans. Edward P. Mahoney (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974; re-issued with new preface, 1992); originally published, with appended texts, as Le Thomisme et la pensée italienne de la Renaissance (Montreal: Inst. d’ Études Médiévales, 1967). Lagrange, M.-J., ‘La Critique Textuelle avant Le Concile de Trente’, Revue Thomiste 39 (1934–1935): pp. 400–409. Langer, Ullrich, Divine and Poetic Freedom in the Renaissance: Nominalist Theology and Literature in France and Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990). Laurent, M.-H., ‘Quelques documents des archives Vaticanes (1517–1534)’, Revue Thomiste 17 (1934–1935): pp. 50–148. , ‘Le Commentaire de Cajétan sur le De Anima’, Introduction to I. Coquelle (ed.),

274

bibliography

Thomas De Vio Cardinal Caietanus (1469–1534), Scripta Philosophica. Commentaria in De Anima Aristoltelis (2 vols., Rome: Angelicum, 1938–1939), vol. 1, pp. vii–lii. Leinhard, Joseph T., The Bible, the Church and Authority: The Canon of the Christian Bible in History and Theology (Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 1995). Lemay, Richard, ‘The Fly against the Elephant: Flandinus against Pomponazzi on Fate’, in Edward P. Mahoney (ed.), Philosophy and Humanism: Renaissance Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 70–99. Levi, Anthony, ‘Renaissance and Reformation’, Dublin Review (Autumn, 1965): pp. 255– 267 Levy, Ian Christopher, Rita George-Tvrtković, and Donald F. Duclow (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa and Islam: Polemic and Dialogue in the Late Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill, 2014). Leyden, W. von, ‘Antiquity and Authority: A Paradox in the Renassiance Theory of History’, Journal of the History of Ideas 19 (1958): pp. 473–492. Löhr, G.M., ‘De Caietano Reformatore Ordinis Praedicatorum’, Angelicum 11 (1934): pp. 593–602. Lowe, Kate, Church and Politics in Renaissance Italy: The Life and Career of Cardinal Francesco Soderini, 1453–1524 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2002). Lubac, Henri de, Exégèse Mediévale: Les Quatre Sens de l’ Écriture (4 vols., Paris: Aubier, 1959–1964). , ‘Les humanistes chretiens du xv–xvi siècle et l’ hermeneutique traditionelle’, in Ermeneutica e Tradizione: Archivio di Filosofia (1963): pp. 173–182. Luz, Ulrich, Matthew 1–7: A Continental Commentary, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992). Macy, Gary, The Theologies of the Eucharist in the Early Scholastic Period: A Study of the Salvific Function of the Sacrament according to the Theologians, c. 1080–1220 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984). , The Banquet’s Wisdom: A Short History of the the Theologies of the Lord’s Supper (New York: Paulist, 1992). Mallett, Michael, and Christine Shaw, The Italian Wars 1494–1559 (Harlow: Pearson, 2012). McCahill, Elizabeth M., Reviving the Eternal City: Rome and the Papal Court, 1420–1447 (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2013). McCanles, M., ‘Univocalism in Cajetan’s Doctrine of Analogy’, New Scholasticism 42 (1968): pp. 18–47. McConica, James K., ‘Erasmus and the “Julius”: A Humanist Reflects on the Church’, in Charles Trinkaus and Heiko Oberman (eds.), The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 444–471. , Erasmus. Past Masters Series (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). McInerney, Ralph, ‘Aquinas and Analogy: Where Cajetan Went Wrong’, Philosophical Topics 20 (1992): pp. 103–124.

bibliography

275

McManamon, John M., ‘The Ideal Renaissance Pope: Funeral Oratory from the Papal Court’, ahp 14 (1976): pp. 1–70. McNally, Robert E., ‘Pope Adrian vi (1522–1523) and Church Reform’, ahp 7 (1969): pp. 253–285. McSorley, Harry J., ‘Erasmus and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff: Between Conciliarism and Papalism’, arg 65 (1974): pp. 37–54. Mahoney, Edward P. (ed.), Philosophy and Humanism: Renaissance Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller (Leiden: Brill, 1976). Manzanedo, Marcos F., ‘La antropologia filosòfica en el comentario tomista al libro de Job’, Angelicum 62 (1985), pp. 419–471. Massaut, Jean-Pierre, ‘Histoire et Allégorie dans les Évangiles d’ après Lefèvre d’ Étaples et Clichtove’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’ exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 186–201. Masonen, Pekka, ‘Africanus, Leo’, in Kevin Shillington (ed.), Encyclopedia of African History (Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2004), vol. 1, pp. 17–19. Maurer, Armand, Medieval Philosophy (2nd edn., Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1982). Meerseman, G., ‘La bibliothèque des Frères Prêcheurs de la Minerva à la fin du xve siècle’, in Mélanges Auguste Pelzer (Louvain: éditions de l’Institut supérieur de philosophie, 1947), pp. 605–631. Meserve, Margaret, Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2008). Metzger, Bruce M., The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987). Michaud-Quantin, Pierre, Sommes de casuistique et manuels de confession au moyen âge (xii–xvi siècles), Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia 13 (Montreal: Librairie Dominicaine, 1962). Minnich, Nelson, ‘Concepts of Reform Proposed at the Fifth Lateran Council’, ahp 7 (1969): pp. 163–251, reprinted, with new appendices, in Nelson Minnich, The Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517) (Variorum: Aldershot 1993), pp. iv, 163–251, 252*–253*. , ‘The Function of Sacred Scripture in the Decrees of the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517)’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 18 (1986): pp. 319–329, reprinted in Nelson Minnich, The Catholic Reformation: Council, Churchmen, Controversies (Aldershot: Variorum, 1993). , The Fifth Lateran Council (Aldershot: Variorum, 1993). , Catholic Reformation: Council, Churchmen, Controversies (Aldershot: Variorum, 1993). Minnis, A.J., Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages (2nd edn., Aldershot: Wildwood House, 1988). Monfasani, John, ‘Aristotelians, Platonists, and the Missing Ockhamists: Philosophical Liberty in Pre-Reformation Italy’, Renaissance Quarterly 46 (1993): pp. 247–276.

276

bibliography

, Byzantine Scholars in Renaissance Italy: Cardinal Bessarion and Other Emigrés (Aldershot: Variorum, 1995). , Language and Learning in Renaissance Italy (Aldershot: Variorum, 1995). Morerod, Charles, ‘La controverse entre Cajétan et Luther à propos de l’ excommunication, à Augsbourg, en 1518’, in Bruno Pinchard and Saverio Ricci (eds.), Rationalisme Analogique et Humanisme Theologique: La Culture de Thomas de Vio ‘Il Gaetano’. Actes du Colloque de Naples 1er–3 Novembre, 1990 (Naples: Vivarium, 1993), pp. 253– 296. , Cajetan et Luther en 1518. Édition, traduction et commentaire des opuscules d’ Augsbourg de Cajetan (2 vols., Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 1994). , ‘Le prêtre chez Cajetan’, Revue Thomiste 99 (1999): pp. 245–279. , Ecumenism and Philosophy: Philosophical Questions for a Renewal of Dialogue (Ann Arbor, mi: Catholic University of America Press, 2006). Morisi Guerra, Anna, ‘Incontri ebraico-cristiani: il Salterio poliglotta di Santi Pagnini’, in Itinerari ebraico-cristiani (Fasano: Schena, 1987), pp. 11–37. , ‘Santi Pagnini traducteur de la Bible’, in Irena Backus and Francis Higman (eds.), Théorie et pratique de l’ exégèse, Études de Philosophie et d’ Histoire 43 (Geneva: Droz, 1990), pp. 191–198. Mortier, R.P., Histoire des Maîtres Généraux de L’Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs, vol. 5, 1487– 1589 (Paris: Picard, 1911). Mulè, Cesare, Agazio Guidacerio: Un Umanista Catanzarese a Parigi (Roma: Gangemi, 1990). Müller, Gerhard, Die römische Kurie und die Reformation 1523–1534. Kirche und Politik während des Pontifikates Clemens’ vii. Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969). Muller, Richard A., ‘Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: The View from the Middle Ages’, in Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson (eds.), Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 3–22. Muller, Richard A., and John L. Thompson (eds.), Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Napoli, G. di, L’immortalita dell’anima nel Rinascimento (Turin, 1963). Nauert, Charles G., ‘The Clash of Humanists and Scholastics: An Approach to PreReformation Controversies’, Sixteenth Century Journal 4 (1973): pp. 1–18. , Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Nichols, Aidan, Holy Order: Apostolic Priesthood from the New Testament to the Second Vatican Council (Dublin: Veritas, 1990). , The Shape of Catholic Theology: An Introduction to Its Sources, Principles, and History (Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1991).

bibliography

277

, ‘Thomas Aquinas on the Passion of Christ’, in Aidan Nichols, Scribe of the Kingdom: Essays on Theology and Culture (2 vols., London: Sheed and Ward, 1994), vol. 1, pp. 192–204. Nieden, Marcel, Organum Deitatis: Die Christologie Des Thomas de Vio Cajetan (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Noonan, John, The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1957). Norman, Diana, ‘Cardinal of Naples and Cardinal in Rome: The Patronage of Oliviero Carafa’, in Mary Hollingsworth and Carol M. Richardson (eds.), The Possessions of a Cardinal: Politics, Piety, and Art, 1450–1700 (University Park, pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009), pp. 77–91. Oakley, Francis, The Conciliarist Tradition. Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300–1870 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). Oberman, Heiko, and Charles Trinkaus (eds.), The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1974). Oberman, Heiko, Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought (London: Lutterworth, 1967). , The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Theology (2nd edn., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967). , ‘The Shape of Late Medieval Thought: The Birthpangs of the Modern Era’, in Charles Trinkaus and Heiko Oberman (eds.), The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 3–25. , The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Reformation Thought (Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1986). , Luther: Man between God and the Devil, trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart (New Haven, ct: Yale University Press, 2006). O’Connell, M., ‘Cardinal Cajetan: Intellectual and Activist’, The New Scholasticism 50 (1976): pp. 310–322. O’Connor, Michael, ‘The Meritorious Human Life of Jesus: Renaissance Humanist Tendencies in the Thomism of Cardinal Cajetan’, New Blackfriars 81 (2000): pp. 285– 296. , ‘A Neglected Facet of Cardinal Cajetan: Biblical Reform in High Renaissance Rome’, in Richard Griffiths (ed.), The Bible in the Renaissance, St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), pp. 71–94. , ‘Rhetoric and the Literary Sense: The Sacred Author’s Performance in Cajetan’s Exegesis of Scripture’, in Trevor Hart and Steven Guthrie (eds.), Faithful Performances: Enacting Christian Tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 109–122. , ‘Cajetan on Paul’, in R. Ward Holder (ed.), A Companion to Paul in the Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 2009), pp. 337–362. Olin, John C., Catholic Reform: From Cardinal Ximenes to the Council of Trent, 1495–1563:

278

bibliography

An Essay with Illustrative Documents and a Brief Study of St. Ignatius Loyola (New York: Fordham University Press, 1990). , The Catholic Reformation: Savonarola to Ignatius Loyola (2nd edn., New York: Fordham University Press, 1992). Olsen, V. Norskov, The New Testament Logia on Divorce: A Study of Their Interpretation from Erasmus to Milton (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971). O’Malley, John W., Thomas M. Izbicki, and Gerald Christianson (eds.), Humanity and Divinity in Renaissance and Reformation: Essays in Honor of Charles Trinkaus (Leiden: Brill, 1993). O’Malley, John W., ‘Historical Thought and the Reform Crisis of the Early Sixteenth Century’, Theological Studies 28 (1967): pp. 531–548. , Giles of Viterbo on Church and Reform (Leiden: Brill, 1968). , ‘Fulfillment of the Christian Golden Age under Pope Julius ii: Text of a Discourse of Giles of Viterbo, 1507’, Traditio 25 (1969): pp. 265–338. , ‘Preaching for the Popes’, in Charles Trinkaus and Heiko Oberman (eds.), The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 408–440. , ‘Some Renaissance Panegyrics of Aquinas’, Renaissance Quarterly 27 (1974): pp. 174–192. , ‘The Discovery of America and Reform Thought at the Papal Court in the Early Cinquecento’, in Fredi Chiapelli (ed.), First Images of America: The Impact of the New World on the Old (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976), vol. 1, pp. 185–200. , ‘An Ash Wednesday Sermon on the Dignity of Man for Pope Julius ii, 1513’, in Sergio Bertelli and Gloria Ramakus (eds.), Essays Presented to Myron P. Gilmore (2 vols., Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1978), vol. 1, pp. 193–207. , Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: Rhetoric, Doctrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, ca.1450–1521 (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1979). , Rome and the Renaissance: Studies in Culture and Religion (Variorum: Aldershot, 1981). O’Malley, John W., ‘The Feast of Thomas Aquinas in Rome: A Neglected Document and Its Import’, Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 35 (1981): pp. 1–27. , ‘Grammar and Rhetoric in the Pietas of Erasmus’, Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988): pp. 81–98. , Religious Culture in the Sixteenth Century: Preaching, Rhetoric, Spirituality and Reform (Variorum: Aldershot, 1993). , ‘The Renaissance Papacy, 1420–1565’, in Paul Johnson and Michael Walsh, (eds.), The Papacy (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1997), pp. 104–141. , ‘The Religious and Theological Culture of Michelangelo’s Rome, 1508–1512’, in

bibliography

279

Edgar Wind, The Religious Symbolism of Michelangelo: The Sistine Ceiling (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. xli–lii. , The Jesuits ii: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts, 1540–1773 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006). , Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in the Early Modern Era (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2002). O’Reilly, Claire, ‘ “Without Councils we cannot be saved …”: Giles of Viterbo Addresses the Fifth Lateran Council’, Augustiniana 27 (1977): pp. 166–214. Ozment, Steven E., Homo Spiritualis: A Comparative Study of the Anthropology of Johannes Tauler, Jean Gerson and Martin Luther (1509–1516) in the Context of Their Theological Thought (Leiden: Brill, 1969). , The Age of Reform (1250–1550): An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe (New Haven, ct: Yale University Press, 1981). Parker, T.H.L., Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans 1532–1542 (Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1986). Partner, Peter, Renaissance Rome, 1500–1559: A Portrait of a Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976). Patrides, C.A., ‘ “The Bloody and Cruell Turk”: The Background of a Renaissance Commonplace’, Studies in the Renaissance 10 (1963): pp. 126–135. Payne, John B., ‘Towards the Hermeneutics of Erasmus’, in J. Coppens (ed.), Scrinium Erasmianum (Leiden: Brill, 1969), vol. 2, pp. 13–49. , Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments (Richmond, va: John Knox Press, 1970). , ‘Erasmus: Interpreter of Romans’, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 2 (1971): pp. 1–35. , ‘Erasmus and Lefèvre d’ Étaples as Interpreters of Paul’, arg 65 (1974): pp. 54– 82. , ‘The Significance of Lutheranizing Changes in Erasmus’ Interpretation of Paul’s Letters to the Romans and the Galatians in his Annotations (1527) and Paraphrases (1532)’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’ exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 312–330. , ‘Erasmus on Romans 9:6–24’, in David Steinmetz (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1990), pp. 119–135. Pelikan, Jaroslav, with Valerie R. Hotchkiss and David Price, The Reformation of the Bible: The Bible of the Reformation (New Haven, ct: Yale University Press, 1996). Persson, Per Erik, Sacra Doctrina: Reason and Revelation in Aquinas, trans. Ross Mackenzie (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970). Pesch, Otto, ‘Thomismus’, in Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche 10 (1965): pp. 157–167. , ‘Das heisst eine neue Kirche bauen’, in H. Seckler (ed.), Begegnung, Festschrift für H. Fries (Graz: Styria, 1972), pp. 645–661.

280

bibliography

, ‘Thomas Aquinas and Contemporary Theology’, in Paul Van Geest, Harm Goris, and Carlo Leget (eds.), Aquinas as Authority (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), pp. 123– 163. Petagine, Antonio, ‘Aristotelismo e immortalità dell’anima. La proposta di Tommaso d’Aquino’, Lo Sguardo 5 (2011): pp. 1–19. Pfeiffer, Heinrich W., Zur Ikonographie von Raffaels Disputa: Egidio da Viterbo und die christlische-platonische Konzeption der Stanza della Segnatura, Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae 37 (Rome: Gregorian, 1975). , ‘Gemalte Theologie in der Sixtinischen Kapelle. i: Die Szenen des Alten und Neuen Testamentes ausgeführt unter Sixtus iv’, ahp 28 (1990): pp. 99–160; ‘Teil ii: Die Fresken des Michelangelo Buonarotti ausgeführt unter Julius ii’, ahp 31 (1993): pp. 69–107; ‘Teil iii: Die Sibyllen und Propheten’, ahp 33 (1995): pp. 91–116. , The Sistine Chapel: A New Vision (New York: Abbeville, 2007). [= English version of the articles above.] Pfürtner, Stephanus, Luther and Aquinas—a Conversation: Our Salvation, Its Certainty and Peril, trans. Edward Quinn (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1964). Pitkin, Barbara, What Pure Eyes Could See: Calvin’s Doctrine of Faith in Its Exegetical Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Polizzotto, Lorenzo, The Elect Nation: The Savonarolan Movement in Florence 1494–1545 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). Pouillon, François, et al. (eds.), Léon l’ Africain (Paris: Institut d’ études de l’ islam et des sociétés du monde musulman, 2009). Preston, Patrick, ‘Cardinal Cajetan and Fra Ambrosius Catharinus in the Controversy over the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin in Italy, 1515–1551’, Studies in Church History 39 (2005): pp. 181–190. Preuss, James Samuel, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther (Cambridge ma: Harvard University Press, 1969). Rabil, Albert, Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mind of a Christian Humanist (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1972). (ed.), Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms and Legacy (3 vols., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988). Randall, John H. Jr., ‘Paduan Aristotelianism Reconsidered’, Edward P. Mahoney (ed.), Philosophy and Humanism: Renaissance Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 275–282. Reardon, Bernard M.G., Religious Thought in the Reformation (2nd edn., London: Longman, 1995). Reeves, Marjorie, Joachim of Fiore and the Prophetic Future (London: spck, 1976). (ed.), Prophetic Rome in the High Renaissance Period (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). Reichert, Victor, Job: Hebrew Text and English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary (London: Soncino, 1946).

bibliography

281

Reiss, James, The Renaissance Antichrist: Luca Signorelli’s Orvieto Frescoes (New York: Princeton, 1995). Renazzi, Filippo Maria, Storia dell’Università degli Studi di Roma detta communemente la Sapienza (4 vols., Rome: Pagliarini, 1803–1806). Renaudet, Augustin, Preréforme et Humanisme à Paris pendant les premières guerres d’ Italie (1494–1517) (2nd edn., Paris: Librairie d’ Argences, 1953). Rex, Richard, The Theology of John Fisher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Rice, Eugene F. Jr. (ed.), Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Lefèvre d’ Etaples and Related Texts (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972). , Saint Jerome in the Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985). Roover, Raymond de, Business, Banking, and Economic Thought in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974). , ‘Cardinal Cajetan on “Cambium” or Exchange Dealings’, in Edward P. Mahoney (ed.), Philosophy and Humanism: Renaissance Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 423–433. Roussel, Bernard, ‘Histoire de l’ église et histoire de l’ exégèse au xvie siècle’, Bibliothèque d’ humanisme et Renaissance 37 (1975): pp. 181–192. , The Culture of the High Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Rummel, Erika, Erasmus’s Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986). , Erasmus and his Catholic Critics: 1515–1536 (2 vols., Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1989). , The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1995). , Jiménez de Cisneros: On the Threshold of Spain’s Golden Age (Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1999). , The Case against Johann Reuchlin: Social and Religious Controversy in SixteenthCentury Germany (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002). (ed.), Biblical Humanism and Scholasticism in the Age of Erasmus (Leiden: Brill, 2008). Scarisbrick, J.J., Henry viii (London and Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968). Schmitt, Charles, ‘Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola and the Fifth Lateran Council’, arg 61 (1970): pp. 161–178. , Aristotle and the Renaissance (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1983). , The Aristotelian Tradition and Renaissance Universities (Aldershot: Variorum, 1984). Schmitz, Benoît, ‘Claves regni coelorum: le sens d’ une métaphore entre hérésiologie et ecclésiologie (xvie siècle)’, Bulletin du centre d’études médiévales d’Auxerre |

282

bibliography

bucema [En ligne], Hors-série n°7 | 2013, mis en ligne le 18 avril 2013, consulté le 29 mai 2015. url: http://cem.revues.org/12786; doi: 10.4000/cem.12786. Schreiner, Susan E., Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Calvin’s Exegesis of Job from Medieval and Modern Perspectives (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). , ‘Faith’, in Hans Hillerbrand et al. (eds.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), vol. 2, pp. 89–93. , Are You Alone Wise? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Schwarz, H.T., ‘Analogy in St. Thomas and Cajetan’, New Scholasticism 28 (1954): pp. 127– 144. Schwoebel, Robert, ‘Coexistence, Conversion and the Crusade against the Turks’, Studies in the Renaissance 12 (1965): pp. 164–187. Screech, Michael A., ‘The Magi and the Star (Matthew, 2)’, in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (eds.), Histoire de l’ exégèse au xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 1978), pp. 385– 409. Secret, François, ‘Les Dominicains et la Kabbale chrétienne à la Renaissance’, afp 27 (1957): pp. 319–336. Secret, François, ‘Les grammaires hébraïques d’ Augustinus Justinianus’, afp 33 (1963): pp. 269–279. , Les Kabbalistes chrétiens de la Renaissance (revised edn., Milan: Archè, 1991). Setton, Kenneth M., The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571 (4 vols., Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1976–1984). Shearman, John, ‘The Vatican Stanze: Functions and Decoration’, in Proceedings of the British Academy, 57 (1971): pp. 369–424. , Raphael’s Cartoons in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen and the Tapestries for the Sistine Chapel (London: Phaidon, 1972). Sheridan, J., Introduction to Cajetan, ‘On the Immortality of Minds’, in L. Kennedy (ed.), Rennaissance Philosophy (The Hague: Mouton, 1973), pp. 41–54. Sider, Robert D., ‘The Just and the Holy in Erasmus’ New Testament Scholarship’, in Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook 11 (1991): pp. 1–26. Skelly, G.B., ‘Cardinal Cajetan’, in Guy Bedouelle and Patrick Le Gal (eds.), Le ‘Divorce’ du Roi Henry viii: Etudes et Documents (Geneva: Droz, 1987), pp. 205–228. Smalley, Beryl, ‘William of Auvergne, John of La Rochelle and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Old Law’, in Armand Maurer et al. (eds.), St. Thomas Aquinas 1274–1974: Commemorative Studies (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1974), vol. 2, pp. 11–71. , Studies in Medieval Thought and Learning (London: Hambledon, 1981). , The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (3rd edn., Oxford: Blackwell, 1983). , The Gospels in the Schools, c.1100–1280 (London: Hambledon, 1985). Southern, Richard W., Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1962).

bibliography

283

, Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe (2 vols., Oxford: Blackwell, 1995). Spicq, Ceslaus, Esquisses d’une histoire de l’ exégèse latine au moyen âge, Bibliothèque Thomiste 26 (Paris: Vrin, 1944). , ‘Saint Thomas d’ Aquin exégète’, in Dictionnaire de la théologie catholique 15:1 (Paris, 1946), col. 694–738. , L’ Épitre aux Hébreux (2 vols., Paris: Gabalda, 1952). Spitz, Lewis W., Luther and German Humanism (Aldershot: Variorum, 1996). , The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1963). Steinmetz, David, Luther and Staupitz (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1980). (ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1990). , ‘Calvin among the Thomists’, in Mark Burrows and Paul Rorem (eds.), Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 198–214. , Calvin in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). Stephens, W.P., The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986). , Zwingli: An Introduction to His Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). Stinger, Charles L., Humanism and the Church Fathers: Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439) and Christian Antiquity in the Italian Renaissance (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1977). , The Renaissance in Rome (2nd edn., Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1998). Stump, Eleonore, ‘Biblical Commentary and Philosophy’, in Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1993), pp. 252–268. Tavard, George H., Holy Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (London: Burns and Oates, 1959). Tavuzzi, Michael, ‘Chrysostomus Javelli o.p. (ca.1470–1538), Part i’, Angelicum 67 (1990): pp. 457–482. , ‘Chrysostomus Javelli o.p. (ca.1470–1538), Part ii’, Angelicum 68 (1991): pp. 109– 121. , ‘Some Renaissance Thomist Divisions of Analogy’, Angelicum 70 (1993): pp. 93– 122. , ‘An Unedited Oratio by Tommaso Radini Tedeschi o.p. (1488–1527)’, ahp 32 (1994): pp. 43–63. , ‘Valentino da Camerino o.p. (1438–1515): Teacher and Critic of Cajetan’, Traditio 49 (1994): pp. 287–316. , ‘Gaspare di Baldassare da Perugia, o.p. (1465–1531): A Little-Known Adversary of Cajetan’, The Thomist 60 (1996): pp. 595–615.

284

bibliography

, ‘Capreolus dans les écrits de Silvestro da Prierio, o. p. (1456–1527)’, in Mémoire Dominicaine. Histoire, Documents, Vie dominicaine. Numéro spécial No. 1, Jean Capreolus et son temps 1380–1444. Colloque de Rodez (Paris: Cerf, 1997): pp. 239–258. , Prierias: The Life and Works of Silvestro Mazzolini Da Prierio 1456–1527 (Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1997). Temple, Nicholas, Renovatio Urbis: Architecture, Urbanism and Ceremony in the Rome of Julius ii (London: Routledge, 2011). Thompson, John L., John Calvin and the Daughters of Sarah. Travaux d’ Humanisme et Renaissance 259 (Geneva: Droz, 1992). , Writing the Wrongs: Women of the Old Testament among Biblical Commentators from Philo through the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). Thomson, John A.F., Popes and Princes, 1417–1517: Politics and Polity in the Late Medieval Church (London: Allen and Unwin, 1980). Tierney, Brian, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150–1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill, 1972). Tracy, James D., ‘Erasmus and the Arians: Remarks on the Consensus Ecclesiae’, Catholic Historical Review 67 (1981): pp. 1–10. , ‘Humanists among the Scholastics: Erasmus, More and Lefèvre d’ Étaples on the Humanity of Christ’, Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook 5 (1985): pp. 30–51. Trinkaus, Charles, In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Renaissance Thought (2 vols., London: Constable, 1970). , ‘The Religious Thought of the Italian Humanists: Anticipation of the Reformers or Autonomy?’, in Charles Trinkaus and Heiko Oberman (eds.), The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp. 339– 366. , ‘Erasmus, Augustine and the Nominalists’, arg 67 (1976): pp. 5–32. , The Scope of Renaissance Humanism (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1983). Trottmann, Christian, La vision béatifique: des disputes scolastiques à sa définition par Benoît xii (Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 1995). Vaccari, A., ‘Cardinalis Caietanus Sacrum Litterarum Studiosus’, Verbum Domini 14 (1934): pp. 321–327. Van Liere, Katherine Elliot, ‘Vitoria, Cajetan, and the Conciliarists’, in Journal of the History of Ideas 58 (1997): pp. 597–616. Vasari, Giorgio, The Lives of the Artists, trans. Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Villani, Natascia, Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum: il primato di Pietro nel pensiero di Tommaso de Vio (Naples: Editoriale Scientifica, 2007). Vosté, Jacques-Marie, ‘Cardinalis Cajetanus Sacrae Scripturae interpres’, Angelicum 11 (1934): pp. 446–513.

bibliography

285

, ‘Cardinalis Cajetanus in v.t., praecipuae in Hexameron’, Angelicum 12 (1935): pp. 305–332. , Thomas de Vio op, Cardinalis Cajetanus, Sacrae Paginae Magister (Rome: Angelicum, 1935). [= the above two articles published in one volume.] Walz, Angelo, I Domenicani al Concilio di Trento (Herder: Rome, 1961). Watanabe, Moromichi, ‘Nicholas of Cusa and the Reform of the Roman Curia’, in John W. O’Malley, Thomas M. Izbicki, and Gerald Christianson (eds.), Humanity and Divinity in Renaissance and Reformation: Essays in Honor of Charles Trinkaus (Leiden: Brill, 1993), pp. 185–203. Weil, G., Elie Levita: Humaniste et massorete (1469–1549) (Leiden: Brill, 1963). , Initiation à la Massorah (Leiden: Brill, 1964). Weiler, A.G., ‘La Consultatio de bello Turcis inferendo: une oeuvre de piété politique’, in Jacques Chomarat, André Godin, and Jean-Claude Margolin (eds.), Actes du Colloque International Érasme, Tours 1986 (Geneva: Droz, 1990), pp. 99–108. Weil-Garris, Kathleen, and John F. D’Amico, ‘The Renaissance Cardinal’s Ideal Palace: A Chapter from Cortesi’s “De Cardinalatu”’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 35 (1980): pp. 45–123. Weinstein, Donald, ‘Explaining God’s Acts to His People: Savonarola’s Spiritual Legacy’, in John W. O’Malley, Thomas M. Izbicki, and Gerald Christianson (eds.), Humanity and Divinity in Renaissance and Reformation: Essays in Honor of Charles Trinkaus (Leiden: Brill, 1993), pp. 205–225. White, Victor, Holy Teaching: The Idea of Theology According to St. Thomas Aquinas. The Aquinas Society of London, Aquinas Paper 33 (London: Blackfriars, 1958). Wicks, Jared, ‘Thomism between Renaissance and Reformation: The Case of Cajetan’, arg 68 (1977): pp. 9–32. , ed. and trans., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington dc: Catholic University of America, 1978). , Cajetan und die Anfänge der Reformation (Münster: Aschendorff, 1983). , ‘Roman Reactions to Luther: The First Year (1518)’, Catholic Historical Review 69 (1983): pp. 521–562. , ‘The Reform of the Church: A Roman Proposal of 1522’, Currents in Theology and Mission 15 (1988): pp. 589–596. , Luther’s Reform: Studies on Conversion and the Church (Mainz: Zabera, 1992). , ‘Thomas de Vio Cajetan (1469–1534)’, in The Reformation Theologians (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), pp. 269–283. , ‘Catholic Old Testament Interpretation in the Reformation and Early Confessional Eras’, in Magne Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), pp. 617–648. Wilkinson, Robert J., Orientalism, Aramaic, and Kabbalah in the Catholic Reformation: The First Printing of the Syriac New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2007).

286

bibliography

Wilms, Jerome, ‘Cajetan und Koellin’, Angelicum 11 (1934): pp. 568–592. Wind, Edgar, ‘Typology in the Sistine Ceiling: A Critical Statement’, The Art Bulletin 33 (1951): pp. 41–47. , Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance (2nd edn., Norton: New York, 1968). Wolf, Anne Marie, Juan de Segovia and the Fight for Peace: Christians and Muslims in the Fifteenth Century (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2014). Yocum, John, ‘Aquinas’ Literal Exposition on Job’, in Thomas Weinandy, Daniel A. Keating and John Yocum (eds.), Aquinas on Scripture: An Introduction to His Biblical Commentaries (London: t&t Clark, 2005), pp. 21–42. Young, Frances, ‘The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis’, in Rowan Williams (ed.), The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 182–199. Zarb, S.M., ‘La dottrina del Gaetano intorno al canone biblico’, in Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica, Supplement to xxvii (1935): pp. 103–126. Zerafa, P., ‘Il commento di san Tommaso al libro di Giobbe tra esegesi antica e esegesi contemporanea’, Angelicum 71 (1994): pp. 481–508. zur Mühlen, Karl-Heinz, ‘On the Critical Reception of the Thought of Thomas Aquinas in the Theology of Martin Luther’, in Paul van Geest, Harm Goris and Carlo Leget (eds.), Aquinas as Authority (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), pp. 65–86.

Index of Bible References Cajetan uses the Vulgate titles for books of the Bible, hence 1 and 2Samuel and 1 and 2Kings are referred to as 1–4Kings; 1 and 2 Chronicles are known as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon. The Psalms are cited according to the Hebrew numbering used by Cajetan in his commentary. The versification of scripture is, in some cases, approximate. Where the 1639 edition has references to verses, these have been preserved in the citation. (There is no versification in the first editions.) Otherwise, references follow the versification of the rsv. Genesis 1.1 1.5 1.20 1.21 1.26 1.27 2.4 2.7 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 3.1 3.3–5 3.12 3.13 3.15 3.22 4.1 4.2 4.7 4.9 4.15 5.29 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.7 6.12 6.22 7.9 7.16 8.1 9.29 14.2 15.11 15.13

175, 181–185, 216, 218, 220–221, 228 175–176 182 147 176 175 215 176 183, 220–221 172, 182–185, 220 183 148 215 184–185 175 133 176 184 177 177 165 147 176 67 222 176 165, 218 178 176 176 176 176 176 176 188 133–134 179 179

16.11 16.13 17.4 17.11 21.9 21.14 21.15 21.20 25.8 25.16 25.17 25.22 25.23 25.26 26.1 28.20 31.12 33.3 37.2 41.4 43.14 46.3 48.22 49.10 49.11 49.32 Exodus 2.1 3.6 3.13 3.14–15 6.30 7.20 8.21 9.23 12.15 12.21 12.24

100 134 204 231 100 100 100 100 227 100 100, 227 217 228 187 187 187 187 67 187 145 177 134 187 206 67 227

133 227 177 176–177 188 187 135 187 187 187 188

288

index of bible references

Exodus (cont.) 12.46 18.21 19.6 20.2 20.6 20.7 20.17 22.17–18 23.7 24.8 25.33 25.40 26.1 26.19 26.30 28.4 28.39 32.5 32.7 33.20 36.3 40.13

171 68 109 233 233 226 233 147 66, 165 159 165 165 90 90 90 90 90 89 177 226 134 89

Leviticus 2.4 4.12 5.3 8.3 16.4 18.14 18.18 19.19

67 66, 81 133 89 91 148 66, 165 178

Numbers 4.16 8.11 9.1 10.25 11.7 11.11 13.21 14.17 16.18 18.5 20.24 24.14 24.19 24.24

187 178 187 146 147 78 147 223 134 78 227 133 205 99

Deuteronomy 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.13 6.23 8.2 17.17 20.10 20.19 23.19–20 23.20 25.4 28.68 33.11

188 188 188 188 68 188 178 72 71 231 73 73 178 73 147

Joshua 1.1 5.6 5.7 7.11 7.13 8.2 10.13 23.4

66, 133 134 133 186 69 67 131 135

Judges 1.10 1.17 1.20 2.6 2.16 3.2 3.15 3.20 6.24 8.27 10.17

188 188 188 188 208 71 134 194 133, 147, 187 147 187

1 Kings 1.23 2.30 10.8 16.9 17.51 24.5 28.2 28.13 28.18

187 187 172 186 67 187 231 134 231

289

index of bible references 2 Kings 4.2 5.6 8.1 12.23 21.8 23.2

173, 216 173, 216 134 226 137 131

3 Kings [1Samuel] 8.46 10.15 11.41 11.42 14.19 18.24 18.43 21.7 21.12 22.22

67 166 131 217 131 176 174 177 178 68

4 Kings [2Samuel] 3.19 5.10 9.12 12.18 15.30 18.16

231 174 134 72 145 72

2 Paralipomenon [2Chronicles] 30.27 130 Esther 10.3

149–151

Wisdom 8.1

175–176

Job 1.1–2 6.3 7.20 9.1–2 10.2 11.11–12 13.15 19.27 21.19 29.24 31.37

153–154, 218, 222 154 222 217 147 222 147 133, 136 222 222 222 154

37.24 38.2 38.3 39. 9 39.20 40.15 41.8 41.22 42.3 42.16 Psalms

2 2.7 2.12 3 3.1 7 8.6 14 15.5 16 19 19.4 19.6 19.7 21 22.6 31.5 40 40.6 40.8 40.13–17 44 45 45.2 45.3 45.4–5 45.17 48 61 68 70 72 72.17

222 222 177 166 218 68 107 67 222 154 5, 33n, 64–65, 134, 138, 142, 144, 151– 153, 158, 159, 180, 201–207, 210, 239, 246 112, 159 159 112 207 207 203 201–202 79, 142 73 205 171, 206, 222 40 222 222 206 202 66, 99 158, 206 201 99 206 138 206 148, 173 29 178 78 32–33, 180 206 178, 205 206 151–152, 206 174

290

index of bible references

Psalms (cont.) 72.20 73.17 76.6 78.1 79 90 90.11 93 93.5 94.9 94.11 95 100.3 102 109.24 110 119.164 120.5 133 133.2 134.1 136 145.4 147.1

151–152 224 165 179 171 153 224 148 148 66 66 171 233 158 206 205 175 137 174 90, 174 65 137 208 148

Proverbs 1.1 2.6 2.18 4.3 6.17 10.13 14.12 16.21 19.24 24.16 25.11 25.20 26.16 30.5 30.11 30.16 31.10

131 149 224 178 136 104 147 68 80 72 175 147 166 175 129 147 170 165

Ecclesiastes 3.21 7.20 7.30

226 175 223

12.7 12.14

220, 226 58, 149, 169

Isaiah Is 2.4 Is 2.6

78 70

Ezekiel Ezek 14.14

154

Haggai 2.6

162

Malachi 1.2–3

228

Matthew

2.2 2.15 3.16–17 4.3 4.4 4.7 4.15 5.1 5.11 5.13 5.32 6.15 6.26–30 9.15 10.10 11.14 11.27 12.6 14.30 14.33 15.9 16.16 16.16–19 19.5 19.6 19.9 19.21 20.18 21.5 21.12

49, 85–87, 135n, 139, 188–189, 198, 199, 212– 214, 248 218 171 170 193 63, 79 196 171 83 94 74 212 224 32 180 83 170 223 135 88 174 105 136 49, 85–87, 110, 136 214 214 169, 212–214 83, 95 186 201 166

291

index of bible references 22.23–33 22.32 22.44 23.4 24.32 26.6 26.6–13 26.13 26.14–16 26.15 26.23 26.33 27.34 27.35 27.52–53 28.18

3 228 205 105 139 189 188 200 188–189 193–194 186 88 135 135 187 187, 231

Mark 1.2 1.36 3.17 6.9 6.30–31 6.46 9.12 9.30 10.2 10.9 10.11 13.37 14.3 15.25 15.39 16.7 16.9 16.9–20 16.15

55, 131, 156–157, 188 201 81 223 83 76 81 186 146 212 215 188 180 189 137 174 89 89 156–157 79

Luke 1.28 1.31 1.35 1.42 3.14 4.42 5.27 7.36–50 8.2 8.3

130 140 104 104 104 71 81 198 198–199 175, 198 198–199

8.40–56 9.10 10.37 12.37 12.50 13.32 14.23 15.6 15.23 18.8 22.32 19.15 John 1.1 1.14 1.34 1.51 2.4 2.11 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.23 3.3 3.5 3.19 4.1 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.4 5.17 5.19 5.39 6 6.23 6.25–65 6.25–50 6.28 6.32 6.38 6.47 6.51 6.51–59 6.52 6.53–54 6.55 6.56

170 76 180–181 180 147 147 78 180 179 69 88 187 118, 133, 150, 157, 199 140–141, 145, 148 165, 223 174 190 169 216 166 136 174, 197 189 189 114, 139 179 190 193 83 103 216 189 190 98, 103 113–124 190 118 118 139 118 118 118 117 119 119 114, 118, 120–122 117 116–117

292

index of bible references

John (cont.) 6.63 6.64 6.70 6.71 7.17 7.38 8.1–11 8.26 8.34 8.56 9.11 9.35 10.27 11.2 12.1 12.1–7 12.3 12.5 12.40 13.1 13.16 13.26 13.29 13.35 13.36 14.16 14.24 14.26 16.15 18.17 18.23 19.14 19.36 20.17 20.23 20.27 20.30 21.17 21.22 21.33

117–118 118–119, 122–123 135 134, 194 232 131 156–157 223 77 216 193 77 189 189 199 198 189, 199 189 201 130 134 187 83 67 189–190 134 133 130 66 88 197 137 172, 178 76 212 224 189 88 137 69

Acts 2.34–35 2.45 4.27 5.4 6.4–6 7.32

205, 223 84 159 84 210 209

8.14 8.17 8.20 12.1 13.20 13.33 13.35 15.5 17.26 19.19 20.27 20.35 25.13 27.33

25 210 85 130 137 159 205 174 148 69 79 209 130 178

Romans 1.4 1.9 1.16 2.14 2.14–15 2.17 3.24 3.27 5.12 5.14 6.17 7.24 8.1 8.29 9.1 9.13 9. 18 9.23 10.7 12.19 14.4 15.10

xv–xvi, 110–111, 133, 192 104 148 111–112 192 229 192 111 111 165, 208, 237 179 111 111 103 228 192 228–229 229 225, 229–230 171 192 111 201

1 Corinthians 1.12 1.13 1.17 1.21 3.1 3.3 3.12–15 3.15 4.8

234 234–235 191 191 191 234 208 80, 208 177

293

index of bible references 5.8 7.11 7.15 9.9 9.15 9.16 10.6 10.11 10.13 10.21 11.2 11.4 11.16 11.19 11.22 11.23 11.27 12.7 12.13 12.18 14.17 14.19 15.51 15.52 16.2

104 212 213–216 178 84 80 179 179 27 107 192 210 192 174 192 105–106, 209 107 70 191 231 81 80 136 178 82

2 Corinthians 2.8 2.17 3.13 3.16 4.5 4.13 5.17 5.20 6.1 6.3 8.13 8.24 9.2 10.8 10.15 11.6 12.7

133, 139 81 171 179 76 171 171 76 76 80 82 147 192 77 78 192 178

Galatians 2.21 3.5 3.16

156 147 172

4.24 4.24–25 4.24–27 4.29 5.23 5.25 6.1

168, 171 151 180 100 77 77 77

Ephesians 3.5 3.8 4.8 4.17 5.14 5.16 5.31–33 5.32 5.33

130 223 201, 205, 171 68, 219 131 72 212 215 215

Philippians 2.7

76

Colossians 2.4 2.8 4.16

131 191 221 131

1 Thessalonians 3.8 4.15

177 178

2 Thessalonians 2.4 2.14 3.14 3.15 3.17

99 209 77 77 131

1 Timothy 2.9 3.2–3 4.1 4.8 5.15 6.4 6.5 6.9 6.14 6.21

67 76 103 171 71 80, 110 82 72 79 70, 217

294 2Timothy 2.14 3.16

index of bible references

80 5

Titus 1.7 1.8

76, 109 78

Philemon 1.21 1.24

192–193 193 104

Hebrews 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.3–4 2.7 3.11 4.12 6.1 6.6 8.10 8.11 9.4 9.20 10.5 10.34 11.20 12.18 12.21 12.26 13.8–10 13.19 13.21 13.23 13.25

158–164, 201–203, 206 149 174 171 160–161 160, 201–202 160 145 160 163 160 223 162–163 159–160 160 161 179 162 162, 209 162 160 162 160 161–162 164

James 1.1 4.6

155 155 201

5.11 5.15

154 211

1 Peter 1.2 2.5 2.9 3.7 5.3 5.13

155–156 156 108 108–109, 201 156 81, 174 156

2 Peter 1.1 1.2 2.3 2.13 3.9 3.16

155–156 156 156 82 156 156 156

1 John 3.2 3.9 3.12 4.7 5.7 5.8 5.18

156 223 70 216 232–233 137 136 70

2 John

156

3 John

156

Jude 1.25

156 57

Revelation 1.6 5.10 5.12 21.2

30, 57, 184 108 108 56 28

Index Aaron 89–90, 174, 178, 227 Abraham 99–100, 216, 226–227 absolution, see confession Acciuoli, Zenobi 21 ad fontes 2, 16, 35, 102, 250 Adam’s rib 182–184, 220, 235 Adonai 175, 177 Adrian vi (pope) 36n, 41n, 45, 51, 54, 63, 74, 97n, 103 Agrippa i (king) 130 Albigensians 4 Alcalá (Complutum) 36, 38, 246 Alexander of Aphrodisias 142 Alexander the Great 99 Alexander vi (pope) 20, 24, 27 allegory, see senses of scripture Allgeier, Artur 138 Almain, Jacques 24–25 alum 18 Ambrose 164, 180n, 181, 254 Andrew of St. Victor 254 Antichrist 98–99 Antoninus of Florence (archbishop) 34– 35 Antwerp 37 apocrypha 149–151, 156, 173, 197, 216, 251 Apostolici regiminis (Lateran v) 225 Aquinas, Thomas 11, 15, 16, 22–23, 25, 27, 34, 48, 82–83, 91–92, 95n, 111, 167–168, 185, 188, 195, 209n, 210n, 217–218, 220–221, 222, 224–225, 228n, 230n, 231–232, 237, 251–252 Catena aurea 3n, 7, 180 Commentary on the Sentences 181 Summa theologiae 1, 14, 23, 50–51, 66, 93, 113–114, 119, 121n, 137n, 154, 157n, 159, 165, 181 Expositio super Iob ad litteram 222n Super epistolas sancti Pauli lectura 168n, 171 Quodlibet vii 167n, 168nn Super evangelium sancti Ioannis lectura 119n, 130n, 157n, 165–166n Aramaic language 40, 138, 248 Arch of Titus 165 Aristotle 14, 15, 16, 37, 42, 142, 164, 224–225

Arius 104, 107, 125 ark of the covenant 162–163 Asaph 152 Augsburg (imperial diet) 1, 45–48, 97, 243n Augsburg Confession and Apology xv, xvi, 57 Augustine 21, 91, 93–94, 110–111, 114–116, 153, 164, 168, 180n, 181, 197n, 233, 235, 254 Confessions 233 De doctrina Christiana 151, 247 author, authorship 148–164, 168, 174, 177– 178, 185–195, 202–203, 221, 241, 248, 251 Averroes, Averroists 14–15, 104, 225 Avicenna 165 Avignon papacy 17 Bagchi, David 46, 96 Bakócz, Tamás (bishop) 97 Balaam 99, 205n, 218 Balthasar, Hans Urs von 256 Bandello, Vincenzo 231 baptism 114, 118, 121n, 122, 209 Barbaro, Ermolao 16 Barnabas 161 Barozzi, Pietro (bishop) 14, 225 Basel (council) 24 Basil 209 Bea, Augustin 256 Beatitudes (Mt 5.1–12) 56, 71, 91–96 Bedouelle, Guy 29, 138n begging 82–84 Behemoth 166 Belgrade 54, 98 Bellarmine, Robert 124 Bembo, Pietro 30 Benedict xvi, Joseph Ratzinger (pope) 257 Benetus, Cyprianus 41–42, 44 Berengarius 117, 118n Bergamo 12 Bernard 164 Berosus 165 Biel, Gabriel 228 bishops 24–26, 75–79, 94, 210 Bohemians 53, 114, 121–122

256–

296 Bologna 12, 16, 58 Bomberg, Daniel 37–38 Bonaventure 41n braids 67 Bratislava xiii Brescia 12 Bressanone 12 Bucer, Martin 47–48 Cabala 21–22, 35, 38, 40, 41, 70n, 90, 216–219 Cajetan of Thiene 31 Cajetan, Cardinal (Tommaso de Vio) life Master of Theology 13 Procurator General 17 Vicar General 23 Master General 13, 24, 31–34, 44 Cardinal xvi, 13, 45, 50, 51, 57, 164 physical appearance 206n works Augsburg treatises 45–47, 87 Concessions to the Lutherans 53, 124, 243 De communione sub utraque specie [...] adversus Lutheranos 53n De comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii and Apologia de comparata auctoritate papae et concilii 24–27 De coniugio regis Angliae and Ad serenissimum Angliae regem 53n De divina institutione pontificatus Romani 49, 86, 110, 236n De ecclesia et synodorum differentia oratio (Lateran v) 28–30, 97 De fide et operibus adversus Lutheranos xv, 53n, 125 De immortalitate animarum 20n, 224–225 De nominum analogia 15, 179n, 252 De sacrificio missae et ritu adversus Lutheranos 3, 54 Encyclical letters to the Dominican order 31–34 Ientacula Novi Testamenti 55–57, 93– 96, 104n, 108n, 141–142, 198–200 Instructio nuntii 52, 54, 106–107, 113, 116–118, 119, 122–123, 150n, 209n On Aquinas’s Summa theologiae 1, 14, 15, 23, 50–51, 56, 66, 79, 93, 113–

index 116, 118, 125, 165, 181n, 216, 218, 224, 231–232, 245, 250 On Aristotle’s De anima 16, 225 Opuscula 20, 116 Responsiones 81n, 212, 240–242 Summula peccatorum 55, 56 Super quinque Martini Lutheri articulos 48, 50 Calvin, Jean 243, 252, 254 candelabra (Holy of Holies) 165 Cano, Melchior 6, 15, 245 canon, biblical 5, 7, 136, 148–164, 170, 219, 238, 240, 241, 244, 250, 254 canon law 25, 35, 46–47, 49, 52n, 55, 79, 164, 209, 212 Capuchins 31 Carafa Chapel, see Santa Maria sopra Minerva Carafa, Gian Pietro, see Paul iv (pope) Carafa, Oliviero 13, 17, 20n, 23, 96 cardinal (office) 44–45, 51, 75, 84–85 Cardinal Protector of the Dominican Order 13, 23–24, 41, 44, 233 Carioni, Battista 111 Carraud, Vincent 171, 179n Carthage (council) 151 Castel Sant’Angelo (Rome) 44 Castellesi, Adriano 21, 36n, 41–42, 44, 233 Catharinus, Ambrosius 6, 15, 214n, 243–245, 247, 248 Catherine of Aragon (queen) 52–53 Cavalcanti, Ginevra 34–35 celibacy and clerical marriage 1, 19, 53 Cellini, Benvenuto 72 Chaldiran, battle of 101 Charles v (emperor) 47–48, 51, 57n, 58, 97n Charles viii (king) 12 Chierigati, Francesco 74 Childs, Brevard 167 Cicero, Ciceronian Latin 19, 20, 42, 59–60, 153, 165, 191n, 208 Clement of Rome (pope) 161 Clement vi (pope) 46 Clement vii (pope) 22, 39, 45, 52, 54n, 56, 58, 72, 116, 132, 142, 238–239, 243, 252 Cochlaeus, Johann 242n Colet, John 111–112n communion under both kinds, see utraquism Complutensian Polyglot 36, 38, 136, 138 conclave 26, 51–52, 97

297

index confession (sacrament) 34, 45–46, 50, 54– 56, 125, 211–212 confirmation 210 Constance (council) 24 Constantinople 45 Contarini, Gasparo 252 De officio episcopi 75 context 2, 6, 108, 114–115, 120, 125, 144, 147, 172–185, 196, 204n, 210, 216, 236, 255 Cortesi, Paolo 42, 75, 185–186 creeds 19, 23, 208, 251 crusades 45, 81, 96–99 Danielo, Jean 143 Daniélou, Jean 256 Davies, Brian 23, 34n De Lubac, Henri 256 deacons 210 Delville, Jean-Pierre 139 devil 67, 78, 92, 103, 106, 184, 196, 209 Dionysius the Areopagite 161, 164 divorce, see marriage and divorce 52–53, 212–216, 235, 237, 240 Dominic de Guzmán 4 Dominicans, see Order of Preachers Dominici, Giovanni 34 duelling 67 Duffy, Eamon 87 Dürer, Albrecht 166n earrings 67 Ebionites 104 Eck, John 39, 40, 47, 49 Elohe 177n Elohim 89, 144, 175–176, 194n, 201 Enoch, book of 156 episcopos 109 Erasmus, Desiderius 1, 5, 16, 21, 35, 37–38, 40, 49–50, 59, 80, 91–96, 104n, 106n, 109, 110n, 135–142, 145, 147, 157–158, 159n, 162, 166, 169, 191–192n, 201n, 202, 208, 209n, 215, 237, 238–239, 244, 247–248, 252, 254 etymology 28, 134, 164, 174–176, 251 Eucharist 2, 54, 67, 105–109, 112–125, 209 Eutyches 104 excommunication 45, 49, 77, 107 extreme unction 210–211 Farge, James 244n Felix de Prato 36–37, 38, 44, 138, 203n

Ferrara 13, 24 Ficino, Marsilio 231 fiducia 112, 200 Fisher, John 40, 111–112n Assertio luteranae confutation 196–197 Florence 34 Florence (council) 151, 215n, 244 fortune–telling 69 Francis i (king) 48, 97n Friedrich of Saxony 45 Gaeta

xiii, xv–xvi, 11–12, 13, 55n, 57, 58, 74, 106, 138–139, 142–143 Gaspare da Perugia 15 germane sense (sensus germanus), see senses of scripture Giberti, Gian Matteo 39, 44, 142 Giles (Egidio) of Viterbo 18, 21, 22, 27–28, 36n, 38, 39, 41n Giustiniani, Agostino 38, 39–40, 44, 65, 138, 201, 203n Giustiniani, Paolo (Tommaso) 42–43, 65, 75 Glossa interlinearis 99 Golden Age 20, 30, 218 Grammar, grammarians, ‘grammatical theology’ 5, 16, 21, 32, 38–39, 43, 129, 144, 173, 185, 237, 242, 250, 257 Great Schism 17 Greek Christians 43, 53, 106, 114, 124, 130, 198, 209 Greek Gymnasium (Rome) 38 Greek language 1, 16, 21, 37–41, 43, 104, 109, 126, 129, 133–140, 142–144, 146, 148, 157, 173, 195, 201–202, 215, 225, 237, 238, 242, 245, 250 Gregory i (pope) 149–150n, 155, 164, 180n, 198 Gregory vii (pope) 86 Grendler, Paul F. 143, 201n Guidacerio, Agacio 39, 41n Gunten, André-François von 3, 4, 138, 142n Hagar 99–101, 141 Hagen, Kenneth 162 Hamer, Jérôme 258n Hebraica veritas, see Hebrew language Hebrew language 1, 35, 37–41, 43, 126, 129, 132, 134–136, 138, 142–147, 159–160, 173,

298 175, 177, 201–202, 216, 237, 238, 242, 245, 246, 248, 250 Helvidius 104 Henry viii (king) 52–53 Heretics, heresy 3, 5, 25, 26, 45, 47–48, 51, 54, 63, 66–67, 70, 79, 98–99, 103–114, 122–125, 163, 174, 241, 244 Herod (king) 130 high priest (office) 89–90, 174 Hippocrates 165 Hochschild, Joshua 252n Hoen, Cornelis 116–117 Holy Spirit 25, 66n, 70, 130–131, 172, 175n, 207–210 hospitals 81 humanism, humanists 1, 7, 16, 19, 34–44, 56, 59–60, 80, 91, 92, 10, 166, 197, 202–204, 220, 230, 233, 237, 244, 245, 249, 250, 252–253, 257 Hungary xiii, 48, 54–55, 93, 96, 98, 142 hyperbole 2, 185 idolatry 69, 89 Ignatius of Antioch 164 Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary 239n, 243 immortality of the soul 14, 20, 100, 104, 191n, 224–227, 230, 233 incarnation 14, 19, 20, 94, 104, 119, 124, 190, 202, 223, 225 indulgences 45–46, 49, 63, 81–82, 87, 207n Innocent iii (pope) 86, 164 inspiration, biblical 129–130, 163, 215 intellect and will 14, 95, 230–233 irony 2, 108, 177 Ishmael 99–102, 227 Islam 96–102 Ismail Safavi, Shah 101 Italian Wars 12, 24, 48, 57, 96n Jacobellus 114 Janz, Denis 34, 82 Jenkins, Allen K. 2 Jerome 5, 129, 133, 1136n, 138, 149–151, 153, 155–158, 161–162, 164, 166, 240, 244, 248, 250, 255 Ad Evangelum 158n Ad Paulinum 158n

index De viris illustribus 155n, 156n, 158n, 161n Dialogus contra Pelagianos 156n, 157n Epistola ad Chromatium et Heliodorum Episcopos = Prefatio in Librum Iudith 151n In Caio 158n In Isaiam 158n Prologus Galeatus 149n Super Hieremiam 158n Jerusalem 28, 81, 84n, 165 Jews (in Cajetan’s time) 36n, 44, 129, 153– 154, 160, 175, 185, 239, 248 Joachim of Fiore, Joachimism 41n Johannine comma 136, 140 John the Baptist 71, 94, 170n, 174 Josephus 90, 164, 217 Josquin des Prez 1 Juan of Segovia 98 Judas 186, 188–189, 193, 199 Julius ii (pope) 17–18, 20, 24, 26, 29–30, 32, 38, 52, 68, 75, 84n, 224 justification 110–112 Justin Martyr 21 Juvenal 165 keys, papal 26, 86–87 Kimchi, David 35n, 38 Koblenz 47 Laocoön 20 Laodicaea (council) 151 Laodiceans (lost epistle) 131 Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci) 12, 186 Lateran v (council) 12, 24, 27–30, 32, 40, 44, 79n, 96n, 97, 219, 225, 236 Apostolici regiminis 225 Supernae maiestatis praesidio 236 Latin language 19, 20, 42, 43, 109, 133, 135, 144–148, 165 Lawrence 165 Lazarus 198–199 Lefèvre d’Etaples, Jacques 5, 36, 110, 119, 131, 135, 136n, 138–139, 166, 198, 210–206, 238–239, 252 Commentarii D. Pauli epistolarum 36n, 139n Initiatoria quatuor evangelia 36n, 119n, 136n Quincuplex Psalterium 36, 138, 203n

299

index Leipzig (imperial diet) 49 Lent 20 Leo Africanus, al-Hasan ibn Muhammad, Johannes Leo de Medicis 101 Leo x (pope) 12, 30, 36n, 38–42, 44–46, 51– 52, 58, 65, 96n, 101, 166n, 252 Cum postquam 46–47, 50 Exsurge Domine 49, 114n Decet Romanum Pontificem 49 Leonardo da Vinci 12, 186 Leviathan 106 Levita, Elias 38, 136 Libellus ad Leonem (Querini and Giustiniani) 42–43, 65, 75 literal sense, see senses of scripture liturgy 18, 43, 56, 65, 80–81, 95, 106, 123, 137, 157, 162, 166, 200, 207, 209–212 vernacular 1, 80–81, 240 logos 140, 145 Lombard, Peter 14 lost books of the Bible 131 Louis xii (king) 24 Louvain 38, 47 Luther, Martin 1–5, 15, 34, 36n, 44–50, 51, 56, 87, 103, 107, 110, 111–112, 114n, 196–197, 243n, 236, 238–239, 242–243, 252 Assertio omnium articulorum 196 Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum 45 Lutherans 53–54, 74, 75, 103–107, 109, 111, 113, 122, 124–125, 234n, 253 Maccabean martyrs 94 Maffei, Raffaele 21 magi 218 magic, magicians 69 Manichees 104 Mantua 12 Manuel i (king) 166n Mardochaeus 165 marriage and divorce 52–53, 212–216, 235, 237, 240–241 Martha 198–199 Martin v (pope) 17 martyrs 86n, 94–96 Mary Magdalene 89, 198–200 Master of the Sacred Palace 45, 48, 238 Master of Theology 13, 243 Maximilian (emperor) 24, 47, 97

Medici, Lorenzo de’ 231 Melanchthon, Philip xv, 53, 242, 252 Menander 165 metaphor 2, 108, 115, 117–123, 168, 177–185, 220 Michelangelo Buonarotti 1, 29, 200n Sistine Chapel Ceiling 18, 21, 23 Midrash 40 Milan 12, 48, 186 Mohacs, battle of 98 monastic vows 70, 91–92, 95–96 money 5, 45, 71–73, 75, 81–85 More, Thomas 40, 75, 109n Morerod, Charles 3–4 Moses 6, 21, 68, 69, 73n, 89, 100, 149, 153–154, 162, 175–176, 183–184, 187–188, 205, 209, 217, 218, 220–221, 226–227, 231 Muhammad 98–99, 101 Muslims, see Islam mystical sense, see senses of scripture Naples 11, 12, 33, 48, 142–143 narrative 6, 19–20, 154, 168, 177, 181–185, 186, 188–190, 191, 193–195, 198, 200, 207, 209, 217, 251 Neoplatonism 12, 219 nepotism 89–90 Nestorius 104, 114 Nicholas of Cusa 98 Nicholas of Lyra 150n, 167, 168n, 254 Nicholas v (pope) 17, 22 Nicolaitans 104 numerology 18, 251 Nürnberg (imperial diet) 74 oral tradition 21, 208–209 Oratory of Divine Love 31 Order of Preachers, Dominicans 3–7, 11–16, 20–24, 29, 31–34, 35, 36n, 39, 41, 44, 47, 56, 77, 111, 142n, 180, 198, 217, 231, 233, 243, 245, 246, 252, 256 ordination 65, 85, 96, 108–110, 210 Origen 21, 140, 168, 198, 254 Orpheus 219 Ottomans, see Turks Padua 12, 14–16, 18, 225, 233 Pagnini, Santi 38, 40–41, 44, 138, 185 Pallavicino, Pietro Sforza 238n, 249

300 papacy 17, 22, 23–30, 45, 49, 52, 72, 74, 85–91, 97, 196–197, 212–214, 237, 253, 254–255 Papal States 12, 18 parables 2, 33n, 78, 108, 131, 168, 177–184 Paris, Faculty of Theology 24, 239 Epistola theologorum Parisiensium ad Cardinalem Coetanum reprehensoria 3n, 6–7, 81n, 239–242, 247 Parmenides 189 paschal lamb 171, 178 Paul (apostle) 6, 25, 70, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80–81, 84, 99, 100, 104, 105–106, 110–111, 125, 131, 156, 158–167, 171, 177–179, 190–193, 201, 205, 208–209, 210, 213–216, 217, 228–229, 234, 241, 258 Paul iii (pope) 45 Paul iv (pope) 13, 31 Paul of Burgos 167 pauline privilege 213–216 Pavia 12 peace 4, 12, 18, 24, 28–30, 48, 51, 70, 71, 78, 96–98 Pelagius, pelagians 110–111, 114 penance, see confession Pentateuch 53, 58, 153, 187, 209 Perugino 87 Peter (apostle) 25–26, 85–90, 156, 197, 205 Philo 21 philosophy, philosophers 6, 14–15, 17, 23, 32, 38, 41–44, 53, 68n, 165, 175, 191, 219–233 Pico della Mirandola, Giovanfrancesco 219 Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni 1, 13–14, 21, 220–221 Pietro Galatino (Colonna) 41n, 218 Pietro Maldura da Bergamo 16 Pisa (council) 24–30 Pius ii (pope) 53n, 90, 98 Pius xii (pope) 254–257 plain sense (sensus planus), see senses of scripture Plato 15, 21, 38, 42, 189–190, 219, 231 Pliny the Elder 20, 165 poetry, ‘poetic theology’ 21, 43, 156, 216–219 Pole, Reginald 252 Pomponazzi, Pietro 14, 224n prayer 5, 20, 27, 35, 65–66, 80–81, 95, 102 preaching 6–7, 18–20, 31–34, 42, 44, 56, 66, 75–76, 79–81, 83–84, 91, 178, 191–193, 200, 206, 218–219, 236, 237, 245, 251, 256

index presbyteros 109 Preston, Patrick 2 Prierias, Sylvester 15, 45, 48, 49, 52n, 56, 72n, 167, 207n, 243n priest 31, 39–40, 55, 65, 74, 78, 96, 107, 109, 210, 211 priesthood of believers 55, 107–109 printing xv, 21, 35–37, 41, 111–112, 136, 177, 246–247 prophecy 6, 18, 22, 69, 99, 146, 168, 186–187, 202, 203–206, 218 providence 22–23, 27, 68–69, 104, 170 purgatory 45, 82n, 87, 208, 250 Pythagoras 165, 219 Querini, Pietro (Vincenzo)

42–43, 65, 75

Rabbis, rabbinical writings 5–6, 35n, 37, 43, 100, 138, 153, 203–204, 237 Raphael Sanzio 1, 18 Ravenna 24 Reuchlin, Johannes 21, 35, 35–36n, 38, 40 Rex, Richard 111n Rhenanus, Bheatus 47 rhetoric, ‘rhetorical theology’ 19, 28, 80 rhinoceros 166 Rhodes 54, 98 Rome, Sack of (May 1527) xvi, 38–39, 52, 57–58, 72, 74–75, 86, 96, 139, 142 Rowland, Ingrid 28 St. Peter’s Basilica (Rome) 18, 166 Sabellius 104 sacrifice of the Mass 3, 54, 106, 123, 208 Sadducees 3 Sadoleto, Jacopo 20, 30, 39, 59, 111 Salutati, Coluccio 92 Santa Maria delle Grazie (Milan) 12, 186 Santa Maria sopra Minerva (Rome) 23, 217 Sapienza (University of Rome) 17, 39, 41, 238n Satalia 96 Savonarola, Girolamo 12, 24, 40, 185, 219n, 254 scepticism 41–42, 44, 219, 224, 233 scholasticism 14–17, 18–20, 22, 37, 39, 45, 56, 80, 220, 233, 237, 248–249 Scotus, John Duns, and scotists 1, 14–15, 110, 230, 233

301

index sola scriptura 47, 234–237 Selim i (emperor) 97 Seneca 165 senses of scripture 168 allegory 21, 28–30, 169–171, 180–182 germane sense (sensus germanus) 169, 258 literal sense 2, 5–6, 20, 25, 29–30, 33n, 53, 56–58, 65, 70, 108, 110, 115, 123, 139n, 146, 159, 167–207, 215, 219–221, 234, 237, 246, 248, 251, 254, 257 mystical sense 159, 169–172, 178, 180, 195, 205–206, 215, 248 plain sense (sensus planus) 26, 169, 212 spiritual sense 167–169, 171n, 203, 215 typology 89–90, 179 Septuagint 133, 135, 138, 160, 210–202 Sepúlveda, Juan Ginés de 142–143 Seripando, Girolamo 244 sermons, see preaching sibyls 21, 130, 217–218 Sicily 48 Silvestro Mazzolini Da Prierio, see Prierias Simon, Richard 2, 7, 246–249 simony 84–85 Sistine Chapel 17, 87, 90, 165n Sistine Chapel Ceiling (Michelangelo) 18, 21, 23, 217 Sixtus ii (pope) xv–xvi Sixtus iv (pope) 17, 90 Skelly, Gerard 53 Smyrna 94 Society of Jesus, Jesuits 31, 59 Socrates 189 Solomon 104, 131, 149, 152, 159, 225–226 Song of Songs 30, 39, 58 soothsaying 69 Spain 51, 142n Spina, Bartolomeo 15 spiritual sense, see senses of scripture Stinger, Charles 253 Strabo 165 Studia humanitatis, see humanism Studium Urbis (University of Rome), see Sapienza Suetonius 165 Suleiman the Magnificent (emperor) 54, 98 swords, papal 29

Talmud 217 Targum 40, 138, 206 Tavuzzi, Michael 13, 52n Tedeschi, Tommaso Radini 77 Terence 165 Tertullian 161 Tetragrammaton, see yhwh Theatines 31 Theophylact 141, 164 Thomas (Becket) of Canterbury 94 Thomism, Thomists 5, 14–15, 22–23, 34, 111, 228n, 230–233, 252 Thompson, John 2, 100–101 tiara, papal 72, 90 Tolfa 18 Torquemada, Juan de 25 torrens doctorum 173n, 212–213, 235 tradition, traditions 2, 6, 104, 173, 181, 197– 198, 208–216, 234–237, 250–251 treasury of merits 46, 50 Trent (council) 236, 244–247, 253–254 Trombetta, Antonio 14 Turks 45, 48, 51, 54, 63–64, 96–99, 101 typology, see senses of scripture Ursulines 31 usury 73 utraquism 113–124 Valentino da Camerino 15 Valentinus 104 Valla, Lorenzo 16, 21, 35–37, 93, 145, 238 Vatican ii (council) 211n, 256 Vatican Library 17, 22 Venice xv, 14n, 37–38, 246 vernacular liturgy, see liturgy Vernia, Nicoletto 14 Verona 12, 39 Villach (Austria) 13 Virgil 20, 21, 165, 218 Vosté, Jacques-Marie xv–xvi, 139, 256 Vulgarius Archiepiscopus, see Theophylact Vulgate 1, 5, 39, 43, 58, 132–136, 143–145, 147n, 201, 208, 215, 237, 239, 242, 244–245, 254–255 war, see peace Wicks, Jared 36n, 52n, 53, 245 wise of this world 184–185, 256

302

index

Wittenberg 38, 239, 240n, 242–243 Worms (imperial diet) 47 Ximénes de Cisneros, Cardinal Francisco 36–37, 252 yhwh

89, 144, 175–176

Zoroaster 219 Zuñiga (Stunica), Diego López 36n Zwingli, Ulrich 52, 56, 105–107, 109, 113, 116– 118, 122, 124, 166