An Overview of the Influence of the Publication of Patristic Literature Upon the Reformation1

Paul Strawn

1. Introduction

In his groundbreaking work on the Italian monk and theologian Ambrose Traversari (1386-1439) Charles L Stinger, professor of history at Buffalo University, describes the revival of patristic studies at the beginning of the 15th century.2 According to Stinger, significant catalyst for that revival was the desire on the part of humanists to confront Aristotelian scholastic theology with what they considered to be a superior alternative.3 While Stinger’s treatment of the topic ends with the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431-47), he makes the somewhat startling claim that a revival in patristic studies would continue all the way into the 17th century as a discernable conflict between patristic and scholastic theology, a conflict that would only come to an end when Protestant theologians “began to return to [Aristotelian] dialectics to analyze the orthodox creedal formulations of the Augsburg Confession and Heidelberg Catechism.”4 This assertion, that a renewed interest in patristic studies emerged in the Renaissance and remained an important element of the theological development of the 15th and 16th centuries—even without a consideration of the conflict between scholastic and patristic theology—deserves consideration. For the role of patristic literature in the Reformation has been generally accepted either as a peculiar interest of 15th and 16th century humanists, or as a source for quotations from the tradition of the church which were duly deployed by Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians in long lists or chains—catenae—to support favored theological positions.5 Such catenae are not generally believed to be taken from and compiled in the 16th century from the actual writings of the church fathers, but instead, so it seems, were somehow passed down from the late medieval period in manuscript form, or taken from other available sources. In other words, general perception appears to be that the writings of the church father were not readily available in printed form in the 16th century. But, as it will be somewhat tediously demonstrated below, they most definitely were.

1 Originally presented as Ein Überblick des Einflusses der patristischen Literatur auf die Reformation in the kirchengeschichtlichen Seminar, "Luthers Stellung zur altkirchlichen Tradition," at Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany on Feb. 2, 1995. 2 Humanism and the Church Fathers. Ambrocio Traversari (1386-1439) and Christian Antiquitv in the Italian Renaissance (Albany, State University of New York Press, 1977). 3 Cf. Charles G. Nauert, Jr., "The Clash of Humanists and Scholastics: an Approach to Pre-Reformation Controversies," Sixteenth Century Journal IV. 1 (April 1973), pp. 1-18; John F. D'Amico, "Beatus Rhenanus, Tertullian and the Reformation: A Humanist's Critique of Scholasticism,"Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte LXXI (1980), pp. 37-63; Peter Manns, "Zum Gespräch Zwischen M. Luther und der Katholischen Theologie. Begegnung zwischen patristisch-monastischer und reformatorischer Theologie an der Scholastik vorbei," in Thesaurus Lutheri. Auf der Suche nach neuen Paradigmen der Luther-Forschung ed. Tuomo Mannermaa, Anja Ghiselli und Simo Peura (Helsinki, 1987) (Veröffentlichungen der finnischen theologischen Literaturgesellschaft 153 (1987) in cooperation with the Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft, Schrift A 24). pp. 63-154. 4 Stinger, p. 227. 5 For example: “Even so, accessibility to the early Fathers for the Middle Ages was mostly through collections of excerpts from patristic sources on various topics known as florilegia….Roman Catholics and Protestants alike made use of these anthologies, endeavoring to show by citing different Fathers or different excerpts from the same Father how their doctrine presented the patristic and therefore true teaching of the church.” Cf. Daniel H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans: 1999), p. 181. Williams bases his assessment on Irene Backus, “The Early Church in Renaissance and Reformation,” in Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to A.D. 600, ed. by I. Hazlett (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991). In fact, a significant portion of Jacques Paul Migne’s (1800-1875) Patrologia Graeca (first published in Latin (85 vols., 1856-1857) and Latina (221 vols. (1844–1855)) actually stem from this period, containing exact copies of works first printed in the 15th and 16th centuries.6 While the usage of such catenae—whatever their origin—cannot and should not be ignored, Stinger’s assertion, and the presence of so much printed patristic material in the 16th century both beg the question as to the veracity and import of the revival of patristic theology for the Reformation of the church. Although Stinger’s analysis is not without difficulties, it does intrigue. Simply put: Was a significant aspect of the Reformation a revival of patristic theology? Not surprisingly, Stinger’s work seems to have been hardly noticed by theologians, perhaps because, as it could be assumed, his efforts have been geared toward those with a general interest in the Renaissance. Hardly enough time has passed—relatively speaking—for the academic world to grasp the import of his work as far as Renaissance and Reformation history is concerned, let alone, Reformation theology. Stinger himself, after the appearance of his volume on Traversari, turned his attentions to the Renaissance in Rome,7 and as far as I know, has not continued to with his research to more fully develop his sketch of the role of patristic literature in the 15th and 16th century.8 That task has fallen to another professor of history, Irene Backus, professor of Reformation history at the University of Geneva, who since the time of the appearance of Stinger’s work, has made the reception of patristic theology, especially among the Calvinist Reformers, a continuing focus of research.9 Her work has begun to fill a hole in our understanding of the Reformation in general, pointing out the interconnectedness of the Reformation in Geneva and the interaction of its Reformers with the writings of the church fathers they, in many cases, edited and published. A first fruit of Backus’ efforts within the Lutheran tradition is the monograph of H. Ashley Hall, published just this year, entitled Philip Melanchthon and the Cappadocians: A Reception of Greek Patristic Sources in the Sixteenth Century.10 This work, along with Backus’ exemplary scholarship over the last thirty years, still simply scratches the surface of what eventually must be accepted generally to be its own field of Reformation research. As a matter of introducing the subject, this paper begins where the main point of Stinger’s research ends (ca. 1460). It presents an overview of the first century of the publication—that is the actual printing!—of patristic literature (ca. 1460-1569). No attempt, however, will be made to illuminate the proposed point of contention between scholastic and patristic theology.11 Instead, by means of a simple overview of the first century of printed patristic literature, the idea will be supported that patristic theology in general exerted a meaningful influence upon the development

6 Cf. R. Howard Bloch, God's Plagiarist: Being an Account of the Fabulous Industry and Irregular Commerce of the Abbe Migne, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995). 7 The Renaissance in Rome (Bloomington, Indiana University Press: 1984) and in a revised and expanded edition (Bloomington, Indiana University Press: 1998). 8 See also his "Greek Patristics and Christian Antiquity in Renaissance Rome," in Rome in the Renaissance. The City and the Myth ed. P. A. Ramsey (Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval & Early Renaissance Studies, 1982) Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies XVIII, pp. 152-169. 9 Cf. esp. Lectures humanistes de Basile de Cesaree: Traductions latines (1439-1618) (Collection des etudes augustiniennes, 1990); The disputations of Baden, 1526 and Berne, 1528: Neutralizing the early Church (Studies in reformed theology and history), (Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1993); ed., The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists 2 vols., (Leiden: Brill, 1997);ed. Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378-1615), (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions) (Leiden: Brill, 2003). 10 Refo500 Academic Studies 16 (Göttingen/Bristol, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). 11 For more on the interaction between humanists and scholastics throughout this period see the works of Erika Rummel, esp. her The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995).

2 of the Reformation.12 Since Stinger’s work is relatively unknown in theological circles, the first part of this presentation contains a short history of the revival of patristic study during the Renaissance, upon which his research is chiefly based.13 The second part contains an overview of the history of printing of patristic literature during the first century of its production (ca. 1470-1570). The final section examines the influence of the first century of printing of patristic literature upon the Reformation.

1. The Revival of Patristic Studies

A renewed interest in patristic literature during the Renaissance accompanied a general interest throughout Europe in everything from the ancient Greek and Roman cultures which was still be discovered.14 One of the earliest so-called humanists, Francesco Petrarch (1304-74), in rejecting the curriculum of the scholastics, which during the 13th century had achieved a dominant position,15 opted instead for a course of studies based upon the Bible and the Latin fathers Augustine (354- 430), Ambrose (340-397) and Jerome (347-420). In the writings of the fathers, Petrarch believed he had found a synthesis of classical learning, Ciceronian eloquence,16 and Christian piety. Petrarch’s death did not signal the end of such an interest in patristic literature, but a beginning, as the city of Florence became and remained a center for patristic study well into the 16th century. The chancellor of the Florentine Republic, Coluccio Salutati (1331-1406), and an Augustinian monk, Luigi Marsili (1342-92), continued to champion Petrarch’s break with Aristotelian scholasticism,17 and therewith became the leaders in the city of the revival of ancient wisdom and eloquence. Marsili, who himself had an interest in Ciceronian rhetoric, classical poetry and Roman history, met daily in his cell of the Cloister of the Holy Spirit with future leaders of the Florentine renaissance Niccolo Nicoli (1364-1437), Leonardo Bruni (1370-1444), and Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459). Additionally, the arrival of the Byzantine scholar Manuel Chrysoloras (1350-1415), who came to Florence in 1397 to teach the Greek language, added greater significance and intellectual weight to the Florentine study of Greek literature. It was Chrysoloras who “laid the basis for the purpose and

12 The author realizes that he may be stating the obvious, but the appearance of works that shy away from this understanding of the role of patristic writings in the sixteenth century necessitates that it here be clearly stated. 13 Cf. N. G. Wilson, From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 1992); John Monfasini, Byzantine Scholars in Renaissance Italy: Cardinal Bessarion and other Emigres (Aldershot, UK: Variorum, 1995) and Colin Wills, Sailing From Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World (New York: Delacorte, 2006). 14 Cf. Georg Voigt, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus, 2 vols. (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1893. 3rd ed); Herbert Hunger et al, Geschichte der Textüberlieferung, vol. 1, Antikes und Mittelalterliches Buch- und Schriftwesen. Überlieferungsgeschichte der Antiken Literatur (Zurich: Atlantis, 1961), pp. 513 -575; August Buck, "Der Rückgriff des Renaissance-Humanismus auf die Patristik," in Festschrift Walther von Wartburg zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Kurt Baldinger (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1968), pp. 153 -175. 15 According to Stinger (Humanism and the Church Fathers, p. 88, 93), the thirteenth century witnessed a decline of interest in patristic theology due to a shift in emphasis from Scriptural exegesis to systematic exposition of doctrine according to Aristotelian logic and philosophy. Petrarch's rejection of Aristotle is also noted by Vittore Branca: "Nevertheless the insult he received from four young Averroists who called him "a good man...but illiterate and in fact an idiot" because he believed in Christian doctrines rather than those attributed to Aristotle,...induced him to move back to Padua in 1367." "Petrarch," Encyclopedia Britannica XVII (Chicago et al.: William Benton, 1973), p. 753. 16 The concept of eloquence in the Renaissance encompassed an extensive matrix of ideas. See Hanna H. Gray, "Renaissance Humanism: The Pursuit of Eloquence," Journal of the History of Ideas XXIV (1963), pp. 497-514. 17 Stinger, p. 91.

3 content of the humanist educational curriculum and sparked a whole generation of Italian humanists to pursue Greek studies.”18 The simultaneous development of and interest in classical and patristic literature which is encountered in the Renaissance, was inadvertently showcased during the controversy which broke out soon after Chrysoloras’ arrival in Florence. The genesis of the controversy was the assertion that the study of classical literature was ungodly.19 The Florentine circle defended their study of classical works with the writings of the church fathers. Salutati claimed that the church fathers themselves had depended upon the study of classical authors in order to learn their style of eloquence.20 As an example he used the translation of the Bible by Jerome and The City of God of Augustine, both of which would not have been possible without a classical education. Salutari then asked Bruni to prepare a translation of Basil of Caesarea’s (330-379) Oration to Young Men on Greek Literature,21 because, as the Cappadocian asserted, “The essential preparation of the understanding and the soul to understand the deeper mysteries of the Holy Scriptures” was to be found in classical education.22 According to Stinger, the meaning of patristic literature forwarded at that time was primarily as a defense of a humanist education and secondarily, as a source for an answer to the spiritual necessity of the city culture of the Renaissance.23 So an interest in patristic literature—especially of the Greek fathers—was awakened during the first half of the fifteenth century in Florence and elsewhere. The translation of the fathers of the Eastern church was in many instances undertaken in order to provide the theological support for a specific idea. Ambrose Traversari, for example, translated John Chrysostom’s (347-407) Against the Opponents of Those Attracted to the Monastic Life in order to encourage monastic reform.24 The style of such translations was modelled after that of Jerome and Rufinus of Aquileia (345-410), who in their translations of Greek fathers attempted to convey the meaning of the text in elegant Latin

18 Ibid., p. 17. Cf. "Their enthusiasm for things Greek once aroused, some of Chrysoloras's hearers, like Aurispa, Filelfo and Guarino, went themselves to Constantinople to drink deeper at the springs and on their return themselves taught in Florence; others like Leonardo Bruni (Aretino), Nicolo Nicoli, Ambrogio Traersari (it is doubtful if Traversari ever sat under Chrysoloras, however) cultivated their passion at home and became Greek scholars of great merit. All, however, were seized with a desire to acquire books, and so began the journeys to Constantinople, the correspondence, the searching of old ecclesiastical libraries [all] over Europe, to locate texts of ancient authors which could be bought or at least copied and become a treasured possession." Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge: University Press, 1959), p. 187. 19 "In no other Italian circle [Florence] was the religious problem of the relationship between antiquity and Christianity so earnestly discussed." Rudolf Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976, 1978), p. 58. 20 Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers, p. 8. 21 A complete history of this work is given by Luzi Schucan, Das Nachleben von Basilius Magnus «ad adolescentes»: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des christlichen Humanismus, (Travaux d'Humanisme et Renaissance CXXXIII (Geneva: Droz, 1973). 22 Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers, p. 11. 23 Ibid., p. 13. 24 Stinger (Ibid.) credits Taversari with the translation of Basil's letter De fuga saeculi et de vita monastica (ca. 1418), p. 125, Basil of Ancyra's De vera integritate virginitatis (1424), p. 126, Chrysostom's De providentia ad Stagirium (1420), p. 129, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God (1423/24), p. 131, Homilies against the Jews (1423/23), p. 131, De sacerdotio (1423/24), p. 132, On the Statues (early 1420's), p. 133, Athanasius' Oratio contra Gentiles, Oratio incarnatione Verbi, and the Orationes contra Arianos (1436), pp. 138-39, Gregory of Nazianzus' Orations (1436), p. 147, and De pace (1436), p. 148, Palladius' (363/64-c. 430) Dialogus de vita S. Joannis (1432), p. 149, many of Chrysostom's homilies on the Pauline Epistles (began 1429), pp. 152-154, and Ps.-Dionysius' De caelesti hierarchia, De ecc1esiastica hierarchia, De divinis nominibus, and the De mvstica theologia (1431-37), pp. 158-62. Traversari translated other minor works such as lives of saints, and studied many of the major patristic works from both East and West. See pp. 113-66.

4 formulations. The sources for the translations were in many cases the library of Niccolo Niccoli (1364-1437), which was well-known as having the largest and best collection of classical and patristic works in the west at that time. Niccoli encouraged Traversari to translate the works of the Eastern church fathers, and Traversari, by doing so, made the way free for the reclamation “of the inheritance of ancient Christian literature in the Latin west.”25 Concurrently were patristic works— the letters of Jerome and the works of Cyprian—added to the curriculum of the humanist school in Ferrara. Bruni produced what was become a widely disseminated leaflet, Concerning Study and Literature (1423/26), in which the writings of Augustine, Jerome and Lactantius (240-320), along with secular authors of the ancient world were touted as literary models for students.26 Many other examples of the revival of interest in patristic literature in the first half of the 15th century could be given, so what follows is limited to what was most important for the further development of patristic studies for theological purposes. For the Renaissance interest in the thought world of ancient Greece produced a “change of opinion” of the Greek fathers in the west, and therewith provided one of many reasons for a renewed attempt at the reunion of the Eastern and Western churches at the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence (1431-47). Since for both groups patristic literature was (apart from Holy Scriptures) the only theological foundation they shared, an intense theological discussion concerning the content of various church fathers would only awaken a greater interest in patristic theology. It was not an accident that that the council at that time was held in Florence. As pope Eugene IV (1383-1447) sought for a city to continue the council that had begun in Basel, and in order to retain the contingent of the Eastern church, which had arrived in Ferrara in March of 1438, he proposed Florence, because from there he had received substantial financial support27 (the city paid the travel costs of the Greeks).28 Obviously the businessmen of Florence hope to profit handsomely from the council’s presence. But according to Joseph Gill, the presence of the council was welcomed for other reasons, not the least of which was because the city was the “the home of many humanists, who had received their inspiration from the Greek language and culture.”29 In total, the Greek contingent numbered around 700 people. This included Emperor John VIII Palaeologus (1392- 1448), Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople (1360-1439), twenty archbishops, and a great number of monks and clerics. Simply the presence of so many Greeks in the west, and the works which they brought with them from the east—mostly theological30—which in part had long been forgotten in the west, provided a great impulse for the Renaissance.31 The goal of the council during its time in Florence was to overcome the great theological hurdle which stood between both sides: The apparently contradictory conceptions of the procession of the Holy Spirit. The western representatives attempted to achieve a consensus with the help of supposed proof texts which purported to show that many eastern fathers such as Basil, Epiphanius (310-403), Athanasius (296- 373) and Cyril of Alexandria (375-444),32 had also taught that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son. Works of western fathers such as Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose and Leo I (400- 461) were also used in order to support the western interpretation of the eastern fathers. (It is

25 Ibid., p. 14 f. 26 De studiis et litteris; Cf. Buck, p. 162; Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers, p. 118. 27 Gill, The Council of Florence, p. 92. 28 Ibid., p. 178. 29 Ibid., p. 184. 30 Ibid., p. 180. 31 Joseph Gill, "Konzil von Basel-Ferrara-Florenz", Theologische Realenzyklopädie V (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), p. 295. 32 For the role of Cyril's writings at the council see Bernard Meunier, "Cyrille d'Alexandrie au Concile de Florence, " Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum XXI (1989) pp. 147-174; Thomas M. Izbicki, "Petrus de Monte and Cyril of Alexandria," Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum XVIII (1986), pp. 293-300.

5 therefore no surprise, that Traversari prepared a collection of patristic quotations on that theme.33) One of the greatest difficulties of the debate arose over the western and eastern codices of Basil’s Against Eunomius. Each had different content. Consequently the discussion of the eighth session in March of 1439 took up the question of the authenticity of various passages from this work.34 At the end, both sides reached somewhat of a consensus, which nonetheless, after the departure of the Greeks from Florence in August 1439, was once again rejected.35 The death of Eugene IV in February 1447 marked both the end of the council—which met for its last session in Rome—as also the ascension of the humanist Tommaso Parentucelli (1397-1455) to the throne of the papacy as Nicholas V (1447-55). Parentucelli interest in patristic theology was evident already in the decade 1420-30. At that time he fell under the influence of Cardinal Niccolò Albergati (1373–1443), who had encouraged him to take up the study of theology. Parentucelli travelled with Albergati throughout France and Italy, where he visited many cloisters searching for older manuscripts (which he would then send to Traversari). When Cosimo de Medici (1389-1464) gained control of Niccolo Niccoli’s library, he arranged for Parentucelli to oversee the 800 ancient manuscripts it contained.36 Parentucelli also played an active role at the council of Basel-Ferrara- Florenz. As Nicholas V, in his role as pope, he began to collect patristic literature especially from the Eastern church, and translate the texts into the language of the west. The result of his efforts is clearly shown in the fact that the Vatican collection of Greek patristic literature became the largest in the western world at that time.37 Those who were given the task of translating the Greek texts into Latin include the Cretan George of Trebizond (1395-1473),38 Niccolo Perotti (1429-80), and Lilio Tifernate (????-????). The popes and cardinals of the next four decades would employ other translators such as Cristoforo Persona (d. 1485),39 Franceso Griffolini (1420-ca. 1470),40 Pietro Balbo (1399-1479),41 the Byzantine abbot Athanasius Chalcheophilos (????-????),42 Lampugnino Birago (1390’s-1472)43 and the Byzantine humanist professor John Argyropoulos (1394-1487)44— many of whom had arrived in Rome during the papacy of Nicholas V. The entire phenomenon “meant” (according to Stinger), “that the knowledge of the theological tradition of the ancient Greek

33 Stinger, p. 114. 34 Gill, “Konzil von Basel-Ferrara-Florenz”, p. 291. 35 According to Gill (The Council of Florence, p. 227), the West's use of Aristotle differentiated their theology from that of the patristic theology of the East. 36 Ibid., p. 187. 37 Ibid., p. 154. 38 According to Stinger (Greek Patristics) Trebizond translated Basil's Adversus Eunomium in 1442 (p. 154), Gregory of Nyssa's De vita Moysis in 1446 (p. 155), and between 1447 and 1452, Chrysostom's Homilies on Matthew (p. 155), Eusebius' De praeparatione Evangelica (p. 155), Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on John (p. 155), and the Thesaurus (p. 155), and Gregory Nazianzus' Orations in praise of Athanasius and Basil (p. 155). For more about Trebizond see John Monfasani, George of Trebizond. A Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 1. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1976. 39 Ibid., 25 moral sermons of Chrysostom, p. 156, and Origen's Contra Celsum (1477), p. 156. 40 Ibid., Chrysostom's De filiorum educatione, p. 156, De peccato et confessione, p. 156, Homilies on I Corinthians (late 1450's), p. 157, and Homilies on John (1462), p. 157. 41 Ibid., the five Theological Orations of Gregory Nazianzus (1460's), p. 157. Chrysostom's twenty-one Homilies on the Statues, p. 157. 42 Ibid., five homilies of Gregory of Nyssa, De oratione dominica, p. 158. 43 Ibid., Basil's Homilies on the Hexaemeron, p. 158. 44 Ibid., Basil's Homilies on the Hexaemeron, p. 158. For more on Argyropoulos, see “The Career of the Byzantine Humanist and Professor John Argyropoulos in Florence and Rome (1410-87): The Turn to Metaphysics” in Deno John Geanakoplos, Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologon) and Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1989) p. 91 ff.

6 church entered again into the western consciousness at the same time as the Greek classical literature was rediscovered.”45 In summary, shortly before the advent of the printing press in Europe a rather large number of patristic works were accessible from both the Western and well as the Eastern church, and there would presumably be a market for their publication. The problem of finding a Latin translation of a work written in Greek which had not already been translated by Jerome or Rufinus and others during the patristic period,46 was to a certain extent solved by the Florentine humanists such as Traversari and Nicolaus V. Both had attempted to make the Greek fathers accessible to the Latin west. Stinger’s description of a fresco, which Nicolaus V commissioned around 1447, reflects the theological importance of the church fathers at that time: “Eight theologians were there painted: together with the most important Latin fathers— Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory the Great and Jerome (who later was exchanged for Bonaventure)—were Leo the Great, Thomas Aquinas, and—of the greatest significance— the Greek fathers Athanasius and Chrysostom.”47

2. The First Century of the Printing of Patristic Literature

Twenty years after the introduction of printing in Europe (ca. 1440) the writings of the church fathers began to come off the presses. An overview of the first one hundred years of their printing provides one basis (among many) upon which the question as to their meaning for and influence upon the Reformation can be answered. The reason for their printing would not be a surprise to any modern publisher: Apart from special circumstances, printers and editors of the Renaissance and Reformation produced only works with which they could make money. One can assume, therefore, that when a particular work was printed by a printer—who often was also the distributer—that an interest in that work existed. If a work were published frequently, then interest in it at that time is certain.48 It is generally known, that besides the basic fact of publication, the size of a work, the language in which it was printed, introductory remarks and dedicatory letters, the names of editors and translators etc., provide a whole host of reasons as to why a book was printed. When such attributes of many books on a specific theme during a certain time-period are known, a picture of a general interest in that theme at that time emerges. Such work is normally not that of theologians, but of bibliophiles and historians. In the case of the first one hundred years of the printing of patristic literature it remains for such a picture to be created.49

45 Ibid., p. 159. 46 Cf. J. T. Muckle, "Greek Works Translated Directly into Latin Before 1350," Mediaeval Studies IV (1942), pp. 33¬42; V (1943), pp. 102-114. 47 Stinger, Greek Patristics, p. 154. 48 Since most records detailing the number of copies printed in a single edition have not survived, and those that do exist demonstrate that the number of copies produced for an edition varied greatly from work to work, the best indicator of a work's popularity is the number of times it was printed. In the fifteenth and sixteenth century, the number of books printed for any one edition generally ran between 150 and 2000 copies. See Rudolf Hirsch, Printing, Selling and Reading 1450-1550, 2nd ed., (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974), pp. 66-68. 49 The following is based upon the works of twenty church fathers (Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Cyril, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers, Irenaeus, Jerome, Justin Martyr, Lactantius, Leo I, Origen, Tertullian, and Theodoret) printed between 1459 and 1569. The reference works used contain a majority of works still existing in Germany, France, England and the United States: G.W. Panzer, Annales Typographici ab Artis Inventae Origine ad Annum MD, Nuremberg 1797 (PAN), Ludovicus Hain, Repertorium bibliographicum, 4 vols., Stuttgart-Tübingen 1826-1838 (HAI), Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, Karl W. Hiersemann, Leipzig 1938 (GW), Catalogue General des Livres Imprimes de la Biblioteque Nationale, Paris 1897-1981 (CGL), The British Library General Catalogue of Printed Books to 1975, London since

7

Considering first the printing of patristic texts in the 15th century, it appears that the fourth chapter of Augustine’s Concerning Christian Doctrine (De doctrina christiana)—which was printed in Mainz by Johannes Fust ca. 1459 under the title Concerning the Preaching Arts (De arte praedicandi)—was the first patristic work to be printed.50 If the assertion that Augustine’s Concerning the Preaching Arts cannot be proven definitively to be the first patristic work printed, it was probably another work of Augustine (or one which was attributed to him51), because the writings of Augustine were in general the most frequently printed patristic works in the 15th century. Before the turn of the 16th century, Augustine’s The City of God (De civitate dei) was printed at least eighteen times, and not only in Latin,52 but in French53 and Italian.54 Works from Augustine that were printed more than twice55 include The Trinity (De trinitate) printed six times,56 The Confessions (Confessiones) printed four times,57 Descriptions in the Psalms (Enarrationes in psalmos) printed four times,58 as well as the Minor Works (Opuscula)—a collection of Augustinian and

1979 (BLG), The National Union Catalogue: Pre-1956 Imprints, Washington 1968-81 (NUC), and the Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, since 1983 (VD 16). Unfortunately, a work containing the titles of books printed in Italy from 1500 to 1599 apparently does not exist. The primary source for the bibliography of the works of Gregory of Nazianzus printed in the sixteenth century is Agnes Clare Way, "Greogorius Nazianzenus," in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum. Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries Vol II, eds. Paul Oskar Kristeller, F. Edward Cranz (Washington D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1971), pp. 43-192, (WAY). Helen Brown Wicher’s article, "Greogorius Nyssenus," in the same series (Vol V, eds. F. Edward Cranz, Paul Oskar Kristeller, (WashingtonD. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984), pp. 1-250) provides the bibliography of Gregory of Nyssa for the same period (WIC). Irena Backus excellent bibliography of the Renaissance and Reformation editions of Basil, Lectures Humanistes de Bastle de Cesaree. Traductions Latines (1439-1618), (Collection des Etudes Augustiniennes, Serie Antiquite-125), (Paris: Institut d'Etudes Augustiniennes, 1990), was not available. 50 NUC 26, p. 150. HAI 1957 (This early date is given in HAI alone). GW 2872 identifies the work as of Fust and Peter Schöffer, appearing before March 1467. GW 2871 identifies another edition as from Johann Mentelin in Strassburg, ca. 1466. Ernst Voullieme, Der Buchdruck Kölns bis zum ende des Fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts (Bonn: Hermann Behrendt, 1903), identifies Chrysostom's Homiliae super Psalmo Quinquagesimo as also being printed in 1466 (XCVII). So also PAN V, p. 147, and HAI 5032. 51 See GW III, cols. 67-71, for a list of Augustine and Pseudo-Augustine works from the fourteenth century. 52 June 12, 1467 (GW 2874), Rome, 1468 (GW 2874), Strasbourg, not after 1468 (GW2883), 1470 (GW 2876), Venice, 1470 (GW 2877), Mainz, Sep. 5, 1473 (GW 2884), Rome, Feb. 4, 1474 (GW 2878), Venice, Oct. 2, 1475 (GW 2879), 1475 (GW 2880), Naples, 1477 (GW2881), Venice, Feb. 9, 1486/7 (GW 2882), Basel, Mar. 25, 1479 (GW 2885), Lyons, Sep. 18, 1488 (GW 2886), Basel, Feb. 13, 1489 (GW 2887), Feb. 13, 1490 (GW 2888), Venice, Feb. 18, 1489/90 (GW 2889), Freiburg, 1494 (GW 2890). 53 Abbeville, 1486/7 (GW 2891). 54 Florence, before 1483 (GW 2892). 55 Works printed at least twice: De arte praedicandi (Strasbourg, ca. 1461 (GW 2871), Mainz, before Mar. 1467 (GW 2872), Strasbourg, ca. 1468 (GW 2873)), De consensu evangelistarum (Lauingen, Apr. 12, 1473 (GW 2897), Lyons, ca. 1481/83 (GW 2898)), De disciplina christiana (Cologne, ca. 1470 (GW 2900), Cologne, ca. 1480 (GW 2901)), Enchiridion de fide, spe et caritate (Cologne, ca. 1467 (2903), Strasbourg, before 1473 (2904)), Epistolae (Strasbourg, before 1471 (GW 2905), Basel, 1493 (GW 290)), Sermones (Basel, 1494/95 (GW 2920), Cologne, ca. 1470 (GW 2921)). 56 Strasbourg, before 1474 (GW 2925), Basel, 1489 (GW 2926), Venice, Nov. 12, 1489 (GW 2927), Basel, 1490 (GW 2928), Freiburg, 1494 (GW 2929), and Lyons, Dec. 24, 1495 (GW 2930). 57 Strasbourg, 1470 (GW 2893), Milan, Jul. 21, 1475 (GW 2894), Cologne, Aug. 9, 1482 (GW2895), and Deventier, 1483 (GW 2896). 58 Niederlaild or Niederrhein, ca. 1485 (GW 2908), Basel, 1489 (GW 2909), Venice, Aug. 4 (GW 2910), Basel, 1497 (GW 2911).

8 pseudo-Augustinian works59—printed eight times.60 With the exception of 1496, in every year after 1470 at least one work of Augustine (or pseudo-Augustine) was printed somewhere in Europe.61 It is not really a surprise, therefore, that when the first complete edition of Augustine’s collected works was printed in 1506, it was not particularly successful.62 Jerome was the second most frequently printed western church father in the 15th century. The Lives of the Fathers (Vitae patrum), a collection of his Life of Saint Paul the First Hermit (Vita sancti Pauli primi eremitae) Life of Saint Hilarion (Vita sancti Hilarionis) and Life of Saint Malchus (Vita sancti Malchi)63 was one of the most frequently printed patristic works in the 15th century. From its at least twenty-four editions64 many appeared in the various languages of Europe (Italian (8),65 French (2),66 German (3),67 Dutch (2),68 English (1)69). A collection of his letters (Epistolae) is the

59 The Opuscula varied in content but the 1489 edition (GW 2865) provides a good example ofthe content. Those works of Augustine include: Enchiridion de fide, spe et caritate, De divinatione daemonum contra paganos, De cura pro mortuis gerenda, De vera et falsa poenitentia, De doctrina christiana, De disciplina christiana, De caritate, De decem chordis, De agone christiano, De bone disciplinae. Pseudo-Augustinian works: Meditationes, Soliloquia, Manuale, De triplici habitacule, Scala paradisi, De duodecim abusionum gradibus, De vita beata, De assumptione b. virginis, De fuga mulierum, De contritione cordis, De contemptu mundi, De convenientia decem praeceptorum et decem plagarum Aegypti, De cognitione verae vitae Confessiones, De fide ad Petrum diaconum, Sermones de vita clericorum, De anima et spiritu, De vita christiana, De dogmatibus ecclesiasticis, De ebrietate, De vanitate saeculi, De oboedientia et humilitate. 60 Krakau, ca. 1475 (GW 2862), Venice, May 28, 1483 (GW 2863), Venice, Jul. 23, 1484 (GW 2864), Strasbourg, Mar. 20, 1489 (GW 2865), Venice, Mar. 26, 1491 (GW 2866), Parma, Mar. 31, 1491 (GW 2867), Strasbourg, Aug. 11, 1491 (GW 2868), and Venice, Nov. 10, 1491 (GW 2869). 61 Venice saw the most editions printed (over 20) followed by Cologne (19), Strasbourg (13), Basel (11), Florence (11), Milan (9), Rome (6) and at least 23 other cities. 62 Victor Scholderer writes concerning the first collected-works edition of Augustine: "In March [Amerbach] and Froben travelled down the Rhine to the Frankfurt book-fair, where Koberger met them from Nuremberg and arranged to take over 1,600 copies, comprising no doubt the whole edition .... both estimates of the demand were obviously too optimistic and it is no surprise to find Froben writing two years later that Koberger still had more than 1,000 copies of each on his hands." "The First Collected Edition of Saint Augustine," in Fifty Essays in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth¬Century Bibliography ed. Dennis E. Rhodes (Amsterdam: Memlo Hertzberger & Co., 1966), p. 277. Berndt Hamm, (“Hieronymus-Begeisterung und Augustinismus vor der Reformation,” in Augustine, the Harvest and Theology (1300-1650): Essays Dedicated to Heiko Augustinus Oberman in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthdav, ed. Kenneth Hagen (Leiden/New York/Kopenhagen/Köln: E. J. BrilI, 1990), pp. 127-235) makes a compelling case for the popularity of Jerome (pp. 130-132) as the culprit of the apparent unpopularity of Augustine during the first two decades of the sixteenth century. As Hamm relied upon the “freilich lückenhaften” VD 16 alone as his source for works printed in the sixteenth century, however, he could not use the record of printed works as a support for his thesis--a fact which he freely admits (p. 132, n. 7). 63 Cf. W. A. Oldfather, Studies in the Text Tradition of St. Jerome's Vitae Patrum (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1943). 64 Latin: Brussels 1471? (BLC 165, p. 23), Cologne 1472? (BLC 165, p. 23), Nuremberg 1478 (BLC 165, p. 24), Ulm 1480? (BLC 165, p. 24), Nuremberg 1483 (BLC 165, p.24), Strasbourg? 1483 (BLC 165, p. 24), Venice 1483 (BLC 165, p. 24), Lyons? 1485 (BLC 165, p. 24). 65 All in, or thought to be in, Venice: 1475 (BLC 165, p. 26), 1476 (BLC 165, p. 26), 1479 (BLC 165, p. 26), 1479 (BLC 165, p. 26), 1483 (BLC 165, p. 26), 1488 (BLC 165, p. 26), 1492? (BLC 165, p. 26), 1493 (BLC 165, p. 26). Cf. Anne Jacobson Schutte, “Printing, Piety, and the People in Italy: The First Thirty Years,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte LXXI (1980), pp. 5-19. 66 Paris 1486 (BLC 165, p.25), Paris? 1495 (BLC 165, p.25). 67 1482 (BLC 165, p. 25), 1488 (BLC 165, p. 25), 1492? (BLC 165, p. 25). 68 Holland 1480 (BLC 165, p. 25), Zwollingen? 1490 (BLC 165, p. 25), Deli in Holland 1498 (BLC 165, p. 25). 69 Westminster 1495 (BLC 165, p. 24). According to the BLC, this copy contains the autograph of Thomas Cranmer.

9 only other work of Jerome that was frequently printed (at least sixteen editions).70 After Augustine and Jerome, the works of the “Christian Cicero” Lactantius, were most frequently printed,71 A complete collected-works edition of his works appears to be the oldest datable printed book of any church father (Oct. 29, 1465).72 That means it was also the oldest collected-works edition of a church father to appear in print. It was quite popular, being printed at least sixteen times before 1500.73 After the works of these three fathers the number of editions of works from other western fathers decreases noticeably. Ambrose’ On the Duties of the Clergy (De officiis ministrorum)74 appeared seven times, his The Six Days of Creation (Hexameron) three times,75 both exceeding in number the single edition of his collected works appearing in 1492.76 From Hilary of Poitiers there appeared Concerning the Trinity Against the Arians (De trinitate contra arianos)77 and his Book of Hymns (Liber hymnorum), the latter in eight editions.78 A collection of the sermons and letters of Leo the Great was printed repeatedly (at least ten times)79 as well as a collection of the letters of Cyprian (five editions)80 and the Apology Against the Gentiles (Apologeticus contra gentiles) of Tertullian (four editions).81 As far as the printing of the writings of the eastern fathers in the 15th century is concerned, the works of John Chrysostom were printed the most frequently, the first work appearing in 1466.82 These were of course, as were all the works of the Eastern fathers initially, printed in Latin translation. From the works of Chrysostom is not one in particular printed more often than another.

70 Rome 1468 (PAN 5, p. 242), Mainz 1470 (PAN 5, p. 242), Rome 1470 (PAN, p. 243), Rome 1476 (PAN 5, p. 243), Venice 1476 (PAN 5, p. 243), Rome 1479 (PAN 5, p. 243), Basel 1480 (PAN 5,243), Parma 1480 (PAN 5,243), Venice 1488 (PAN 5,243), Basel 1489 (PAN 5,243), Milan 1490 (PAN 5,243), Venice 1490 (PAN 5,243), Basel 1492 (PAN 5,243), Nuremberg 1495 (PAN 5,243), Venice 1496 (PAN 5,243), Basel 1497 (PAN 5,243). 71 Lucius Caelius Firmianus Lactantius (ca. 250 - ca. 320), according to Johannes Quasten, (Patrology. Vol. II. The Ante-Nicene Literature after Irenaeus, (Utrecht/ Antwerp: Spectrum, 1953), pp. 392-410), deserved such a title as he was “the most elegant writer of his day” (p. 393) but unfortunately no theologian. His main contribution to the history of theology was his Divine Institutes (Divinae institutiones (304-314)) which was “the first attempt at a Latin summa of Christian thought” (p. 396). 72 GW 672, p. 672. 73 Rome 1465 (GW 310, p. 672),1468 (GW 310, p. 672), 1470 (GW 310, p. 672),1470 (GW 310, p. 672), Venice 1471 (GW 310, p. 672), Venice 1472 (GW 310, p. 672), Rome 1474 (GW 310, p. 672), Rostock 1476 (GW 310,673), Venice 1478 (GW 310, 673), 1478 (GW 310, 673), 1490 (GW 310, 673), 1493 (GW 310, 673), 1494 (GW 310, 673), 1497 (GW 310, 673). 74 Cologne, ca. 1470 (GW 1606), Paris, 1472/3 (GW 1609), Rome, ca. 1473 (GW 1607), Milan 1474 (GW 1611), Lyons ca. 1480 (GW 1610), Milan, Jan. 17, 1488 (GW 1612), Paris, Jan. 14, 1494 (GW 1608). 75 Augsburg 1472 (GW 1603), Milan, after 1474 (GW 1605), Cologne 1480 (GW 1604). 76 Basel (GW 1599). 77 Milan 1480 (Hal 2, p. 63, BLC 148, p. 19?) Venice 1489 (PAN 5,245). 78 Paris 1480 (PAN 5, p. 245, HAI 2, p. 63), 1485 (CGB 71, coI. 1223), 1486 (CGB 71, coI. 1224), 1488 (CGB 71, coI. 1224), Haganau 1493 (CGB 71, coI. 1224), Burgis 1493 (CGB 71, coI. 1224), Delphis 1496 (CGB 71, coI. 1224), Paris 1496 (CGB 71, coI. 1224). 79 Rome, ca. 1470 (NUC 326, p. 658), Rome 1470 (NUC, p. 658), Venice 1482 (CGB 94, p. 1123), Firenza 1485 (BLC 189, p. 254); Sermons alone: Holland, ca. 1470 (NUC 326, p. 658), Cologne, ca. 1475 (BLC 189, p. 253), Basel ca. 1475 (BLC 189, p. 252), Cologne? 1475? (BLC 189, p. 253), Venice 1485 (NUC 326, p. 658), and in Italian: Florence, May 21, 1485 (NUC 326, p. 658). For an examination of the edition assigned to Holland, see Victor Scholderer, "The Printer of Leo I, 'Sermones' (proctor 3248)" in Fifty Essays in Fifteenth-and Sixteenth-Century Bibliography, pp. 279-280. 80 Rome 1471 (GW 7883), Venice 1471 (GW 7884), Deventer, ca. 1480 (GW 7886), Venice 1483 (GW 7885), Stuttgart, ca. 1486 (GW 7887). 81 Venice 1492 (BLC 323, p. 66), Milan 1493 (CGL 184, coI. 678), Venice before 1495 (NUC 587, p. 411). 82 Cf. note 43.

10

Merely a small number of works, mostly collection of sermons, appeared between two and five times. Basil became well known primarily through his Oration to Young Men on Greek Literature (in the translation of Bruni mentioned above). It was printed forty-three times83 before 1500 making it apparently the most frequently printed patristic work of the 15th century. Eusebius’ Preparation of the Gospel (Praeparatio evangelica in a translation from George of Trebizond)84 and his Church History (Historia ecclesiastica in a translation from Rufinus)85 were also frequently printed. A few works from Athanasius appeared under the title Against the Heretics and Gentiles (Contra haereticos et gentiles)86 and Origen’s Against Celsus (Contra celsum)87 was also printed. Perhaps of greater meaning are the Eastern church fathers which were not published in the 15th century: Irenaeus, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus (393-457), Gregory Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. And another significant work of non-patristic origin, but of great import to making the texts of the eastern fathers available in the west in Latin translation should be noted, and that is the Suda (Souida : to men paron biblion, Souida, hoi de syntaxamenoi touto, andres sofoi ...) a 10th century encyclopedic dictionary of the Greek language containing over 30,000 entries. It appeared in print already before 1500 [1478?] in Leipzig, then in Stuttgart (????), Milan (1499), Venice (1514), and Basil (1544). So it is apparent, that the latter half of the 15th century witnessed a limited but meaningful production of patristic literature. An examination of the publications of the printer Ulrich Zell in Cologne (active ca. 1465-ca. 1495) verifies this fact as well.88 The number of patristic works which came from Zell’s presses exceeded apparently the number from other printers at that time. The publication list of his press shows that over twelve percent (from a total of 183 editions) were from patristic authors. Such a higher percentage can be understand as nothing more than a normal phenomenon. However, a comparison with the percentage of scholastic works which Zell printed (thirteen percent) gives a better picture of the importance of patristic literature during this period. Another aspect of the production of patristic literature in the 15th century must also be noted. In general, the printers in Italy seem to have dominated the field. The appearance of Concerning Ecclesiastical Writers (De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis) by the German Benedictine abbot John Trithemius (1462-1516) in 1494, a 460 page biographical bibliography of 1014 authors from the history of the church, which already at that time had been printed or whose works were still in manuscript form, gives us a good impression of what patristic literature was generally known at that time. Also other works must be mentioned here, which provided access in one way or another to patristic literature or theology. Of note are works like the Sentences (Sententiarum libri

83 Schucan (pp. 244-45) lists the following: Venice 1470/71,* ? 1471, Venice 1470, Parma 1472,* Buda 1473,* Milan 1474,* Nuremberg 1474,* Nuremberg 1474, Padua 1474/75, Lyons 1476/77, Rome 1476/77, Milan 1477, Ulm 1478,* Milan 1480, Milan 1481, Florence ca. 1481, Milan 1484, Brescia 1485, Brescia 1485, Milan 1487, Mainz 1489,* Milan 1490, Burgos 1490,* Leipzig ca. 1489,* Leipzig 1489/96,* Leipzig 1489/96,* Zamora 1492,* Leipzig 1492/95,* Venice 1493, Magdeburg 1493/5, Paris 1494, Turin ca. 1494, Brescia 1495, Milan 1495, Florence 1495/96,* Salamanca 1496,* Milan 1496, Leipzig 1496/1500,* Bologna 1497,* Venice 1497, Venice 1499, Burgos 1498/1500.* (* = GW). 84 Venice 1470 (GW 9440), Cologne ca. 1473 (GW 9441), Venice 1473 (GW 9442), Treviso 1480 (GW 9443), Venice 1497 (GW 9444), Venice 1498 (GW 9445). 85 Utrecht 1474 (GW 9434), Strasbourg, before 1476 (GW 9435), Rome 1476 (GW 9436), Mantua 1479 (GW 9437), Paris 1497 (GW 9438). 86 GW 2760. Contents: Epistola encyclica ad episcopos Aegypti et Libvae contra Arianos, Epistola I. ad Serapionem Thmuitanum episcopum, Oratio contra gentes, Adversus Arianos oratio, Oratio de humana natura averbo assumota et de eius per corpus ad nos adventu, Adversus Arianos oratio, De incarnatione Dei verbi et contra Arianos, Disputatio habita in concilio Nicaeno contra Arium. 87 Rome, 1481 (BLC 242, p. 366). 88 The record of Ulrich Zell's press is contained in Voullieme, XCVII-CI.

11 quattuor)89 of Peter Lombard (1096-1164), which appeared first around 1150, and is a work filled with citations of the works of the fathers.90 It most probably was dependent upon a similar lesser- known work Concerning the Orthodox Faith (De fide orthodoxa) of the Syrian monk John of Damascus (675-749), a summary of the dogmatic works of the church fathers, which Berndt Hamm has described as predominantly nothing other than “a skillfully assembled Augustine florilegium supplemented with ample additional authorities.”91 (Generally unknown is that Damascus’ work was made available in Latin translation in the west shortly before Lombard’s appeared, and the structure and content is quite similar.) The 12th century collection of canon law compiled by the obscure jurist (John) Gratian known as the Harmony of Discordant Canons (Decretum Gratiani or Concordia discordantium canonum) and the Golden Chain (Catena Aurea) of Thomas Aquinas both contained massive amounts of patristic citations and were printed frequently.92 In summary, the publication of western fathers dominated patristic printing in the 15th century, even though the eastern fathers were available in Latin translation in manuscript form and were printed to a limited extent. The works of Augustine were published the most frequently, followed by Jerome, Lactantius and Ambrose. The only works from eastern fathers that were printed frequently were Basil’s Oration to Young Men and the Church History of Eusebius. Since the number of printed patristic works climbed dramatically during the first quarter of the 16th century, the general structure of that production can only be given. The most important tendency, and also the only that will provide a brief overview, is the emergence of the production of collected-works editions of patristic literature.93 Great effort was made at that time, to collect and publish all the writings of a single father—a tendency which had begun already in the last decade of the 15th century.94 The first of such editions would often contain one or more works which would later be attributed to a different father or source. This was, at that time already, not an unknown problem. As the 16th century progressed the identified inauthentic works were either attributed to another father or source, described as inauthentic but still profitable for study, or simply left out of new editions. As what might be expected, as new works of a church father were obtained, or new translations, these would be added to later editions. An editorial dilemma, with which the printers were confronted, were the editions of the Greek fathers. Because of the difficulties, which were encountered with the translation of works of larger size and other factors, it was not uncommon, that Latin translations from the patristic period, the 15th century, and the 16th century, would all

89 NUC 453 lists the following editions: Strasbourg before 1468 (p. 577), Strasbourg ca. 1472 (p. 577), Speier 1477 (p. 577), Nuremberg 1481 (p. 577), Basel 1482 (p. 577), Basel 1484 (p. 577), Basel 1486 (p. 577), Venice 1486 (p. 577), Basel 1487 (p. 577), Basel 1488 (p. 577), Basel 1489 (p. 578), Venice 1489 (p. 578), Venice 1490 (p. 578), Nuremberg 1491 (p. 578), Basel 1492 (p. 578), Freiburg 1493 (p. 578), Basel 1498 (p. 578), Lyons 1499 (p. 578), Nuremberg 1500 (p. 578), and then strangely enough Paris 1536 (p. 578). 90 Cf. L. Ott, “Lombardus, “ RGG3 V, 254. 91 Hamm, p. 135. This is also close to Luther's opinion of the work. See Lawrence Murphy, "The Prologue of Martin Luther to the 'Sentences' of Peter Lombard (1509): the Clash of Philosophy and Theology," Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte LXVII (1976), p. 55. 92 Cf. A. N. S. Lane, "Early Printed Patristic Anthologies to 1566: A Progress Report," Studia Patristica 18 (1989), pp. 365-370. 93 "Collected-works editions" are here defined as those works appearing with the title of opera omnia, or those works appearing in the book catalogs under the title "Collected Works." This then does not include works of church fathers that contained more than one work from a specific father, of which there were many. It is not assumed that the collected works editions contained only the works of one church father (the collected works edition of BasiI, for example, is attributed only to BasiI, although many editions contain works of Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus), or that all of the works attributed to a specific church father continue in the present day to be attributed to that father. Significant, however, is merely the fact that such editions appeared. It should also be noted that the term "editions" here includes editions and reprints. 94 Cf. the collected works of Ambrose, Basel 1492 (BLC 7, p. 5).

12 appear together in one volume.95 Editions printed in Greek, appeared gradually over time, usually only after they had appeared first in Latin translation. A compilation of the collected-works editions of twenty church fathers96 which are found in the national catalogs of Great Britain, France and the United States, demonstrates together with the catalogs of 16th century editions at the Herzog August Library in Wolfenbüttel and the Bavarian State Library in Munich that between the years 1500 and 1569 over 200 complete collected works editions of church fathers were printed. The collected works of Lactantius were printed most frequently (30 editions)97 followed by Basil (25),98 Cyprian (23),99 Chrysostom (15),100 and Augustine (12).101 The city of Basel produced the most editions (85) followed by Paris (43), Cologne (16) and Lyons (16). The appended table shows, that in the first 15 years of the 16th century such editions appeared only sporadically. Editions of Hilary (1500),102 Lactantius (1500, 1502, 1509), Chrysostom (1503), Augustine (1505) and Ambrose (1506)103 were published during the first

95 For example, A 1545 edition of Origen's works (Basel, VD 16, 0 909), contains translations of Jerome, Rufinus, Christophoro Persona and a few presumably from the editor, Erasmus. 96 See above note 40. 97 Paris 1500 (GW 310, p. 673), Venice 1502 (GW 310, p. 673), Bellouisu (Paris) 1509 (GW 310, p. 673), Paris 1509 (GW 310, p. 674), Venice 1509 (GW 310, p. 674), Paris 1513 (GW 310, p. 674), F10rence 1513 (GW 310, p. 674), Venice 1515 (GW 310, p. 674), Venice 1521 (CGB 85, coI. 561-62), Basel 1521 (GW 310, p. 674), Basel 1524 (GW 310, p. 674), Paris 1525 (GW 310, p. 674), Antwerp 1532 (GW 310, p. 674), Basel 1532 (GW 310, p. 674), Venice 1535 (GW 310, p. 674), Antwerp 1539 (GW 310, p. 675), Lyons 1541 (GW 310, p. 675), Lyons 1543 (GW 310, p. 675), Cologne 1544 (GW 310, p. 675), Paris 1545 (CGB 85, coI. 564), Lyons 1548 (BLC 182, p. 27), Basel 1552 (GW 310, p. 675), Lyons 1553 (GW 310, p. 675), Antwerp 1555 (GW 310, p. 675), Lyons 1556 (GW 310, p. 675), Basel 1556 (BLC 182, p. 27), Paris 1561 (GW 310, p. 675), Basel 1563 (GW 310, p. 675), Paris 1565 (GW 310, p. 675), Lyons 1567 (GW 310, p. 675). 98 Rome 1515 (BLC 20, p. 287), Paris 1520 (BLC 20, p. 287), Paris? 1523 (NUC 38, p. 339), Cologne 1523 (VD 16, B 640), Cologne 1531 (VD 16, B 641), Basel 1532 (Greek, VD 16, B 638), Venice 1535 (NUC 38, p. 339), Basel 1540 (VD 16, B 642), Basel 1540 (VD 16, B 643), Paris 1547 (WAY, p. 54), Paris 1547 (WAY, p. 54), Basel 1547 (WAY, p. 54), Venice 1548 (WC 38, p. 339), Basel 1551 (Greek, VD 16, B 639), Basel 1551 (VD 16, B 644), Basel 1552 (NUC 38, p. 339), Basel 1565 (VD 16, B 645), Basel 1566 (VD 16, B 646), Leipzig 1566 (NUC 38, p. 340), Paris 1566 (NUC 38, p. 340), Paris 1566 (WAY, p. 54), Paris 1566 (WAY, p. 54), Antwerp 1568 (NUC 38, p. 340), Basel 1568 (NUC 38, p. 340), Antwerp 1569 (NUC 380, p. 340). 99 Basel1520 (VD 16, C 6508), Basel 1521 (VD 16, C 6509), Cologne 1522 (VD 16, C 6510), Cologne 1524 (VD 16, C 6510), Basel 1525 (VD 16, C 6512), Lyons 1528 (NUC 130, p. 504), Basel 1530 (VD 16, C 6513), Lyons 1535 (BLC 75, p. 22), Basel 1540 (VD 16, C 6514), Paris 1541 (NUC 130, p. 504), Paris 1541 (CGB 34, coI. 1077), Antwerp 1541 (BLC 75, p. 22), Antwerp 1542 (CGB 34, coI. 1078), Lyons 1543 (NUC 130, p. 504), Cologne 1544 (VD 16, C 6514), Lyons 1544 (CGB 34, coI. 1078), Venice 1547 (BLC 75, p. 22), Lyons 1550 (BLC 75,22), Basel 1558 (VD 16, C 6514), Rome 1563 (BLC 75, p. 23), Paris 1564 (NUC 130, p. 504), Paris 1564 (CGB 34, coI. 1078), Antwerp 1568 (BLC 75, p. 23). 100 Venice 1503 (NUC 108, p. 519), Basel 1504 (VD 16, J 395), Venice 1504 (NUC 108, p. 519), Basel1517 (VD 16, J 396), Basel 1522 (VD 16, J 397), Basel 1524 (NUC 108, p. 519), Basel 1525 (VD 16, J 398), Basel 1530 (VD 16, J 399), Paris 1536 (NUC 108, p. 519), Basel 1539 (VD 16, J 400), Paris 1543 (CGB 77, coI. 685), Basel 1547 (VD 16, J 401), Venice 1549 (NUC 108, p. 520), Paris 1556 (NUC, p. 520), Basel 1558 (VD 16, J 402). The first Greek collected-works edition appeared in Heidelberg and Paris 1603-17 (NUC 108, p. 516). 101 Basel 1505 (VD 16, A 4147), Nuremberg 1517 (BLC 13, p. 498), Basel 1527-34 (VD 16, A 4148), Paris 1531-32 (CGB 5, coI. 379), Augsburg 1537 (NUC 26, p. 101), Paris 1541 (CGB 5, coI. 379), Cologne 1541-42 (VD 16, A 4149), Basel 1541 (VD 16, A 4151), Basel 1543 (BLC 13, p. 498), Cologne 1549 (NUC 26, p. 102), Basel 1549-59 (NUC 26, p. 101), Paris 1555 (CGB 5, coI. 379), Lyons 1561-63 (CGB 5, coI. 380), Basel 1569 (VD 16, A 4153). 102 Paris 1500 (NUC 245, p. 440), Basel 1523 (VD 16, H3618), Basel 1535 (VD 16, H 3619), Paris 1544 (BLC 148, p. 19), Basel 1550 (VD 16, H 3620). 103 Basel 1506 (VD 16, A 2177), Basel 1516 (VD 16, A 2178, A 2179), Basel 1527 (VD 16, A 2180), Paris 1529 (CGB 2, col. 859), Basel 1538 (VD 16, A 2181), Paris 1539 (BLC 7, p. 5), Paris 1549 (NUC 11, p. 375), Basel 1555 (VD 16, A 2182), Basel 1567 (VD 16, A 2183), Paris 1569 (NUC 11, p. 375).

13 decade, followed by that of Origen (1512),104 and once again Lactantius (1513, 1515). The printing of the works of Basil in Rome and Lactantius in Venice in 1515 signaled the beginning of a steady flow of the production of collected works editions, which markedly increased, until it reached its high point in 1545 (the opening of the Council of Trent). The ten years between 1535 and 1545 were the most productive years of the publication of patristic text during the first seventy years of the 16th century.105 The last and perhaps most important aspect of the production of collected works editions concerns the works of the eastern fathers. Many Eastern Church fathers were printed for the first time in the 16th century. The first collected works edition of these church fathers include Gregory of Nazianzus (1508),106 Irenaeus (1526),107 Cyril of Alexandria (1528),108 Epiphanius (1542),109 Gregory of Nyssa (1550)110 and Justin Martyr (1554).111 The collected works edition of church fathers which appeared already in the 15th century (but have not already been mentioned) include Jerome (1516),112 Athanasius (1518),113 Eusebius (1542),114 Leo I (1546)115 and Theodoret (1567).116 Along with individual works of a church father, which would normally be published separately before being included in a collected-works edition, there were patristic works published in various collections of materials. A good example of this is Eusebius’ Church History. It was printed initially along with a copy of Bede’s (673-735) The Church History of the English People (Historia

104 Paris 1512 (BLC 242, p. 365), Paris 1519 (BLC 242, p. 365), Paris 1522 (BLC 242, p. 365), Basel 1536 (NUC 432, p. 635), Paris? 1536 (NUC 432, p. 635), Lyons 1536 (CGB 127, col. 700), Basel 1545 (BLC 242, p. 366), Basel 1557 (NUC 432, p. 635). 105 I have not completed an analysis of the entire century, but I believe it will demonstrate that the production of patristic literature peaked again around 1571, and then descended into a lull before picking up around 1585. 106 Strasbourg 1508 (NUC 217, p. 413), Strasbourg 1512 (WAY, p. 53), Paris 1513 (WAY, p. 53), Augsburg 1519 (WAY, p. 53), Leipzig 1521 (WAY, p. 53), Leipzig 1522? (WAY, p. 53), Cologne ca. 1530 (VD 16, G 3020), Basel 1531 (WAY, p. 53), Paris 1532 (WAY, p. 53), Basel 1550 (Greek, WAY, p. 54, VD 16, G 3019), Basel 1550 (VD 16, G 3021), Paris 1569 (BLC 132, p. 143), Milan 1569 (WAY, p. 55). WAY includes also the following collected-works editions of Basil, which contain a number of works of Nazianzus: Basel 1540* (WAY, p. 54), Basel 1540*(WAY p. 55), Paris 1547* (WAY, p. 54), Paris 1547* (WAY, p. 54), Basel 1547* (WAY, p. 54), Venice 1548* (WAY, p. 55), Basel 1552*(WAY, p. 55), Basel 1565** (WAY, p. 54), Paris 1566** (WAY, p. 54), Paris 1566** (WAY, p. 54), Paris 1566** (WAY, p. 54), Antwerp 1568**(WAY, p. 54), Antwerp 1569** (WAY, p. 54), (* in Opera omnia Basilii, ** in Basilii Magni opera omnia). In this paper these works are attributed to Basil. 107 Basel 1526 (BLC 160, p. 360), Basel 1528 (BLC 160, p. 360), Basel 1530 ( ), Basel 1534 (CGB 75, col. 1037), Paris 1545 (CGB 75, col. 1037), Paris 1545 (CGB 75, col. 1037), Paris 1545 (CGB 75, col. 1037), Basel 1548 (NUC 271, p. 592), Basel 1560 (BLC 160, p. 360), Paris 1563 (CGB 75, col. 1037), Paris 1567 (NUC 271, p. 592). 108 Basel 1528 (NUC 130, p. 538), Basel 1546 (BLC 75, p. 57), Basel 1566 (NUC 130, p. 538). 109 Basel 1533 (PAN 10, p. 311), Basel 1542 (NUC 160, p. 663), Basel 1543 (BLC 101, p. 479), Basel 1544 (Greek, BLC 101, p. 479), Paris 1544 (CGB 47, col. 716-717), Basel 1545 (BLC 101, p. 479), Basel 1560 (NUC 160, p. 663), Paris 1564 (CGB 47, col. 717), Paris 1566 (CGB 47, 717). 110 Basel 1550 (VD 16, G 3101), Cologne 1551 (NUC 217, p. 424), Basel 1562 (VD 16, G3102). Cf. Wicher, pp. 37¬41. 111 Paris 1554 (BLC 169, p. 382), Paris 1554 (French, BLC 169, p. 382), Basel 1555 (VD 16, J 1173), Paris 1559 (French, CGL 80, col. 45-46), Basel 1565 (VD 16, J 1174). 112 Basel 1516-20 (VD 16, H 3482), Basel 1524-26 (VD 16, H 3483), Lyons 1530 (CGB 77, col. 1218), Paris 1533-34 (BLC 165, p. 15), Basel 1535 (CGB 77, col. 1218), Basel 1537-38 (VD 16, H 3483), Paris 1546 (NUC 245, p. 202), Basel 1553 (VD 16, H 3485), Basel 1565 (VD 16, H 3486), Rome 1565-72 (BLC 165, p. 15). 113 Paris 1518 (NUC 24, p. 596), Paris 1519 (BLC 13, p. 126), Paris 1520 (BLC 13, p. 126), Strasbourg 1522 (VD 16, A 3976), Lyons 1532 (NUC 24, p. 596), Cologne 1532 (VD 16, A 3978), Cologne 1548 (VD 16, A 3979), Basel 1556 (VD 16, A 3980), Basel 1564 (VD 16, A 3981). 114 Basel 1542 (VD 16, E 4260), Basel 1549 (VD 16, E 4261), Basel 1559 (VD 16, E 4261). 115 Cologne 1546 (VD 16, L 1201), Cologne 1561 (VD 16, L 1202), Cologne 1569 (VD 16, L 1203). 116 Basel 1567 (VD 16, T 743).

14 ecclesiastica gentis anglorum (1500)).117 It would then be included in a compilation of the patristic church histories (1523) of Socrates (380-439), Sozomen (400-450), and Theodoret (393-457).118 This same compilation would appear in 1539 in a new and enlarged form, with the church history of Nicephorus (758-828), Victor Tunnuna’s (d. ca. 570) account of persecutions by the Vandals, and additional material from Theodoret’s work.119 Another collection with new Latin translations and Rufinus of Aquileia’s (345-410) Church History—a continuation of that of Eusebius—appeared in 1549.120 Many of these same works had already appeared in a compilation of sorts in German translation in 1529.121 So it appears that by 1554 four different compilation of patristic church histories had been printed, all with Eusebius’ Church History. Individual works of church fathers in the vernacular languages of the time were not uncommon. Collections of citations of a single church father addressing a theme or from many church fathers addressing a theme were also common. 122 Such collections were created for polemic123 as well as educational purposes.124 Johannes Sichard’s (1499-1552) A Remedy for Different Heresies of Almost All Ages (Antidotum contra diversas omnium fere seulorum haereses (1528)) contained thirty-seven patristic works of different church fathers, their opponents, and decrees from councils, many of which appeared for the first time in print.125 Examples of educational collections include Johannes Grynaeus’ (1540-1617) Monumental Orthodox Writings of the Holy Fathers (Monumenta S. patrum orthodoxographa (1569))126 and Georg Fabricius’ (b. 1516) Christian Works of the Ancient Poets of the Church (Poetarum veterum Ecclesiasticorum Opera Christiana) “a treasure chamber of the orthodox and catholic church and more pious men of every age for the children to use in school.”

117 Strasbourg (HAI 6714), Hagenau 1506 (VD 16, E 4270), Strasbourg 1514 (VD 16, E 4271), Hagenau 1521 (VD 16, E 4272). 118 With: Theodoret, Sozomen, & Socrate Libri XIX versi ab Epiphanio Scholastico. adbreviati per Cassiodorum Senatorem unde illis Tripartitae historiae vocabulum. Basel 1523 (VD 16, E 4273), Basel 1528 (VD 16, E 4274), Basel 1535 (VD 16, E 4275). 119 Nicephori ecclesiastica historia incerto interprete. Victoris episcopi libri III de persecutione Vandalicu. Theodoriti libri V. nuper ab Ioachimo Camerario latinate donate. Basel 1539 (VD 16, E 4276), Basel 1554 (VD 16, E 4277). 120 Ecclesiasticae Historiae Autores Eusebii Pamphili Caesariae Palaestinae episcopi historiae Ecclesiastice lib. X. Vuolfgango Musculo interprete. Ruffini presbyteri Aquileien historiae Ecclesiasticae lib II Eusebii Pamphili De vita Constantini lib V itidem a Musculo latini facti. Socratis Scholastici Constantinopolitani. eodem interprete Lib. VII. Theodoriti Episcopi Cyri. Ioachimo Camorario interprete. lib. V. Hermii Sozomeni Salaminii Musculo interprete. lib. IX Theodori Lectoris collectaneorum ex historia Ecclesiastica lib. II eodem interprete. Evagrii Scholastici, eodem interprete lib. VI. Basel 1549 (VD 16, E 4278), Basel 1554 (VD 16, E 4279), Basel 1557 (VD 16, E 4280), Basel 1562 (VD 16, E 4281). 121 Chronica der Altelli'l Christlichen kirchen auß Busehio/ Ruffino/ Sozomeno/ Theodoreto/ Tertulliallo/ Justino/ Cypriano/ und Plinio/ durch D. Caspar Hedio ver/ teutscht...(Das buch Quinti Septimii Florento Tertulliani/ an die martyrer. Das büch Tertulliani an Scapulam ... Die fürmempsten Capitel des büchs I Tertullian./ Apologeticus gnantJ ... Das büch Justini des Philosophi un martyrs/ an die Heyden vom waren Gots dienst. Das büch Cecilii Cypriani/ an den Demetrianurn das es dorumb übel in der welt zügat...Die Epistlen Plinii secundi/ und Traiani des keisers/ vom handel der Christen. Strasbourg 1529 (VD 16, E 4286), Strasbourg 1545 (VD 16, E 4288), Strasbourg 1558 (VD 16, E 4289), Frankfurt a. M. 1565 (VD 16, E 4290). 122 Cf. Lane, pp. 369-370. 123 Loci communes et conclusiones Catholicae ex divi Augustini dictis. Quibus ostenduntur Lutheranorum mendacia. Cologne 1554 (VD 16, A 4167). 124 Sententiae aliquot velut aphorismi ex omnibus Augustini ac aliorum libris per prosperum episcopum Rheginensem (ut venerandae vetustatis exemplar testatur) ad usum pietatis studiosorum selectae. Cologne 1531 (VD 16, A 4154). 125 For a complete list of the contents see Paul Lehmann, Iohannes Sichardus und die von ihm benutzten Bibliotheken und Handschriften (Munich: C. H. Beck, Oskar Beck, 1911), pp. 57-60. 126 VD 16, G 3788.

15

Various Common Places (Loci communes), collected from the works of various church fathers, also were printed.127 The most impressive of such works was the Loci Communes of Andreas Musculus (1514-1581).128 Musculus’ Loci, a two volume work with 567 pages in octavo (ca. 8” x 5”) contained quotations from twenty patristic writers, as well as from John Maxentius ([?] 6th Cent.), the acts of the councils, Bede, Bernhard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), the Glossa ordinaria (12th Cent.) and Thomas Aquinas. The format is impressive. Musculus does not answer the theological questions which he raises, and then justify his answer with citations from the sources noted. Instead, no answer is given, just citations. Musculus’ comments are restricted to the margins, where he provides clarification for the citations used. Finally, the appearance of new editions of the acts of the councils must be noted,129 which would replace shorter, older texts.

3. The Influence of the First Century of the Printing of Patristic Literature Upon the Theology of the Reformation

So at this point the question is raised as to whether or not patristic literature exerted some sort of theological influence upon the theology of the Reformation. Apart from the influence of Augustine upon various reformers this question has not been frequently asked.130 This is somewhat of baffling situation, especially if the number of patristic works published in the first seventy years of the 16th century is known. If the Reformation is understood to be a battle between the reformers with the

127 For example: Augustini et Chrysostomi Theologia, ex libris eorundum deprompta, inque communes locos digesta per M. Autorium corvinum. Elenchus locorum qui in hoc libro tractantur in fine adiectus est. Schwäbisch Hall 1539 (VD 16, A 4158); Loci Communes Theologici ex Operibus Sanctorum Patrum Augustini et Chrvsostomi Collecti. Una cum praefatione, in qua est de certitudine & ordine doctrinae. quae a Deo tradita est Ecclesiae. item ex XIII. Frankfurt a. M. 1549 (VD 16, A 4163). 128 Loci Communes 1563 (VD 16, M 7181), 1567 (VD 16, M 7182), 1573 (VD 16, M 7183). 129 Tomus primus quatuor conciliorum generalium; Secundus tomus conciliorum generalium Paris 1524, Paris 1535; Conciliorum quatuor generalium, Niceni, Constantinopolitani, Ephesini, et Calcedonensis Cologne 1530; Concilia omnia, tam generalia (quam) particularia Cologne 1538; Cologne 1551; Cf. James V. Mehl, "The First Printed Editions the History of Church Councils," Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum XV1II(l986), pp. 128-143. 130 An incomplete list of various treatments of the influence of Augustinian theology upon the Reformers includes: Luther: Auguste Humbert, Les origines théologie modern: La Renaissance de L'Antiquite Chrestienne (l450- 1521),(Paris: Librairie V. Lecoffre, J. Gabalda & Cie, 1911); A. Hamel, Der junge Luther und Augustin, ihre Beziehungen in der Rechtfertigungslehre nach Luthers erste Vorlesungen 1509-1518 untersucht (Gutersloh, 1934- 35); Léon Christiani, "Luther et Saint Augustin, " in Augustinus Magister, vol. II (Paris, 1954), 1029-1038; Leif Grane, "Augustins "Expositio quarundarn propositionum ex epistola ad Romanos" in Luthers Römerbriefvorlesung," Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 69 (1972), 304-330; "La Reforme Lutherienne, ses Origines Ristoriques et son Caractere Theologique," Positions Lutheriennes XX (1972), 76-96; "Divus Paulus et S. Augustinus interpres eius fidelissimus. Über Luthers Verhältnis zu Augustin," in Festschrift für Ernst Fuchs, ed. G. Ebeling, E. Jüngel and G. Schunack (Tübingen, 1973) 133-46; Heiko Jürgens, "Die Funktion der Kirchenväterzitate in der Heidelberger Disputation Luthers (1518)" Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte LXVI (1975), 71-78; Joachim Beckmann, Vom Sakrament bei Calvin, Die Sakramentslehre Calvins in ihren Beziehungen zu Augustin (Tubingen, 1926); H. Barnikol, Die Lehre Calvins vom unfreien Willen und ihr Verhältnis zur Lehre der übrigen Reformatoren und Augustins, Theol. Arb. wiss. Prediger-Ver. Rheinprov., t. XXII, 1926, (Neuwied, 1927); l. Cadier, "Calvin et saint Augustin," in Augustinus magister, vol. II, (Paris, 1954), 1039-56; Luchesius Smits,"L'Autorité de Saint Augustin dans l'Institution chrétienne de Jean Calvin," Rev. Rist. eccl. XIV (1950),672-77; Institution Saint Augustin dans L'Oeuvre de Jean Calvin, 2 vols, (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp, 1957), F. Wendel, Calvin. The Origin and Development of his Religious Thought, trans. P. Mairet (London: William Collins, Sons and Co., 1963.),Jan. Marius J., Lange van Ravenswaay, Augustinus totus noster. Das Augustinverständnis bei Johannes Calvin,(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1990), (Forschungen zur Kirchen-und Dogmengeschichte 45); Melanchthon: Wilhelm Maurer, "Der Einfluß Augustin auf Melanchthons Theologie," Kerygma und Dogma ?? (1959), 165-199.

16

Bible on the one side, and the Roman Catholic church with tradition on the other, then it is no surprise that the influence of the earliest part of that tradition upon Protestant theologians remains to this present day a neglected field of study. It is also understandable, that a significant amount of the research has been dedicated to the use of patristic citations in the works of the Reformers, specifically in view of the question whether the claim made by the Reformers to be remaining within the tradition of the church was truly valid. Certainly this aspect of the influence of patristic literature of the 16th century upon the theologians of that period—upon both the Protestant and Roman Catholic side—is important to study. But this is not the only aspect of the influence of the published patristic literature at that time. For even when such a question is investigated more closely, of who remained in the “true tradition” of the church and who did not, it must also be asked, whether only one method of usage of patristic materials is valid for the entire era—a theologically very complex era—or whether there were in fact a number of different methods which must be understood in order to answer the question.131 The clearest indicator of the influence of patristic literature during the first seventy years of the 16th century was the appearance of references to and citations from this literature in the writings of the Reformers. In fact, a list of Reformers who did not cite patristic works in one way or another would be much shorter than those which did. It should not be assumed, however, that the usage of citations to patristic works was the same everywhere. The name of a church father would sometimes be used, in order that through a comparison with the theological argument of a Reformer the Reformer’s own assertion would be strengthened. A short summary of a theological term as it was used by a church father would sometimes be given. More frequent is a single citation from a church father, or a list of citations from the same father, or a list of citations from a variety of fathers. Sometimes a summary was given of an ancient theological controversy, and the theological solution of church father to the controversy described. Important to note is the variety of ways in which patristic literature was used via citations. The patristic reference and citation in the works of the Reformers demonstrate at a minimum, that the Reformers had in many instances, read the works of the church fathers. The patristic citation in the works of the Reformers also provide the easiest access to the interaction of the Reformers with patristic literature. Pontien Poleman (1897-1968) was the first, and perhaps the only person, who dealt extensively with the question of the usage of patristic literature in the polemical writings of the Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians of the Reformation.132 Although his conclusion—the Protestant theologians did not have the right to make such a claim when it came to the writings of the church fathers while the Roman Catholic theologians did—was forgone, Poleman’s overview of the polemical literature of the 16th century which contained references to patristic literature was of great value. The two periods of the usage of patristic literature which he proposed, namely, a period of its discovery and collection (Luther, Melanchthon (1497-1560), Zwingli (1484-1531), Calvin (1509-1564), Bullinger (1504-1575), Peter Martyr (1499-1562) and Theodore Beza (1519-1605)) and a period of synthesis (Martin Chemnitz’ (1522-1586) Examination of the Council of Trent (Examen concilii Tridentini (1565–73)) Matthias Flacius Illyricus’ (1520-1575) Magdeburg Centuries (Ecclesiastica Historia (1559-1574) and Caesar Baronius’ (1538-1607) Ecclesiastical Annals (Annales Ecclesiastici (1588-1607))), are not contradicted, but supported by the appended table. Peter Fraenkel’s treatment of the “patristic argument” of Melanchthon remains the most frequently cited work touching on this theme.133 It

131 Cf. Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts, ed. by David C. Steinmetz, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 85 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowiz, 1999). 132 Polman, Pontien, L'Element Historique dans la Controverse relicieuse du XVIe Siecle. Gembloux: J. Duculot 1932. 133 Fraenkel, Peter, Testimonia Patrum: The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon (Travaux d'Humanisme et Renaissance XLVI (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1961).

17 was followed by that of Gottfried Hoffman,134 which contains an analysis of the patristic citations which were used in the Lord’s Supper controversy by Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli and Oecolampadius (1482-1531). A few articles, which attempted to analyze the use of patristic literature in the works of the Reformers by means of their use of citations of patristic works, followed. These treatments attempted, however, not to detect the influence of patristic theology upon the Reformation, but how patristic works were used as rhetorical weapons during that period. The question of the theological influence of patristic literature upon the theology of the Reformation is in the end, not so easy to answer135—especially if the answer to the question is based upon an investigation of the patristic sources that were available in the 16th century. At the beginning of the 20th century, the attempt to discover the theological sources of the Reformers was deemed irrelevant. At that time it was more important to understand, how through the theological formulations of the Reformers themselves, some sort of access could be gained to their theological development.136 Those familiar with patristic writings at that time were not helpful, because normally the patristic texts and their development in the 16th century were simply ignored. The lack of interest in discovering possible patristic sources for the theology of the Reformers did not however hinder Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930),137 Reinhold Seeberg (1859-1935), Friederick Loofs (1858-1928), Hermann Schultz (1836-1903) and others from detecting patristic theology in the writings of the Reformers.138 A number of articles which treated the patristic sources of

134 Gottfried Hoffmann, Sententiae Patrum--Das patristische Argument in der Abendmahlskontroverse zwischen Oekolampad. Zwingli. Luther und Melanchthon. Diss. Heidelberg, 1971. 135 For example Alfred Schindler comments in the Forward to his Zwingli und die Kirchenväter: "Zum ersten wird mancher Kenner erwarten, dass hier nun endlich das geboten wird, was der Zwingli-Forschung bisher fehlt, nämlich eine grünliche Darstellung der theologischen und philosophischen Beziehungen zwischen Zwingli und den Vätern, auch unabhängig von wörtlichen Zitaten und Äusserungen über einzelne von ihm nachweislich benutzte Autoren oder über die Kirchenväter im allgemeinen. Da die Dogmen- und Kirchengeschichte der Alten (d. h. der antiken) Kirche mein eigentliches Fachgebiet in Forschung und Lehre ist, ich mich aber dem Zwinglischen Erbe als Zürcher--und nicht nur als solcher! --durchaus verpflichtet fühle, war dies auch das Idealziel meiner Bemühungen um das Thema. Schon in der Erarbeitungsphase dieses Büchleins seigte sich aber, dass der Aufwand für meine eigene Einarbeitung in Zwingli einerseits, die globale Zielsetzung eines solchen dogmengeschichtelichen Vergleichs andererseits den Rahmen des Erreichbaren und Möglichen bei weitem gesprengt hätten, ganz abgesehen vom äusseren Umfang, den eine solche Darstellung angenommen hätte." (p. 12) His work is instead "alles mehr eine Zusammenfassung des gegenwärtigen Forschungsstandes (unter einem bestimmten Blickwinkel) als ein Vorstossen in wissenschaftliches Neuland." (Zürich: Kommissionsverlag Beer AG, 1984). (Neujahrsblatt zum Besten des Waisenhauses Zürich 147). p. 13. 136 At the end of the 19th century, Ernst Schäfer, approached this question by attempting to discover the sources used by Martin Luther (Luther als Kirchenhistoriker (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1897). Schäfer's method was deemed irrelevent by Walter Köhler three years later (Luther und die Kirchengeschichte nach seinen Schriften. zunächst bis 1521. (Erlangen: Fr. Junge, 1900)). Alfons Victor Müller’s work during the next decades was met with equal skepticism. See the editor's response to Müller's "Luthers Lehre in ihrem zu Augustin und zur augustinischen Tradition," in Luther in ökumenischer Sicht, ed. Alfred v. Martin (Stuttgart: Fr. Frommanns (H. Kurtz)), p. 64. 137 See Wolfgang Bienert, ""Im Zweifel näher bei Augustin"? Zum patristischen Hintergrund der Theologie Luthers,” in Oecumenica et Patristica. Festschrift Wilhelm Schneemelcher, (Stuttgart: Kohlharnmer, 1989), p. 286. 138 Reinhold Seeberg believed Luther's concept of 'person' as reflected in a phrase such as, "Christus leib mit Gott eine person ist," corresponded roughly to the theology of Cyril of Alexandria . ( Seeberg IV, 1, p. 382, n. 1). Friedrich Loofs, in treating the eighth article of the Formula of Concord, took pains to stress that the article's explanation of the communication of attributes does not mean that the attributes of the divine nature become essential attributes of the human nature, but in a "similar manner to Cyril," the confusion of the two natures is avoided (Loofs, p. 920, n. 11). Hermann Schultz referred to the similarity of Luther's understanding of the communication of attributes, especially the effect upon the human nature after being united to the divine nature that is present in his later writings, to that of Cyril of Alexandria. (Schultz, p. 211).

18 writings of the Reformers did not use the 16th century editions, but newer editions. But a growing interest in the influence of patristic literature upon the theological development of the 16th century is evidenced by more recent articles, which actually do use 16th century patristic sources. The best example, especially because it demonstrates the importance of such an approach, is the work from Irene Backus, “Influence of some Patristic Notions of substantia und essentia on the Trinitarian Theology of Brenz and Bucer.”139 In a brief eight pages Backus describes, that Bucer used the word substantia, instead of the normal essentia, as the translation for the Greek word ousia, after he had read George of Trebizond’s translation of Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on John and Trebizond’s Dialectica. Certainly even this one example reveals that the question of the influence of patristic texts of the 16th century was especially important for the works of the eastern fathers, because their works were initially read in the west in Latin translation. Thus the initially received eastern fathers were Latinized, not only in expression, but, one could surmise, in theology. And it also must be asked: Would a translation of one raised in Latin, but later learned Greek, be different than that of a Byzantine Greek would learned Latin as an adult? Would the Renaissance translations of Greek texts differ markedly from their ancient counterparts? Would then an eastern father in Latin translation affect his reception in a different way than in Greek, editions of which began to appear in print in the second half of the 16th century? Would the appearance of Greek editions clear up certain questions, raise more questions, or even bring new insights? “It should be remembered,” so Stinger, “…that most Roman humanist translators of the Greek Fathers were Greek scholars first, and in no real sense theologians.”140 But did it matter? Did it affect the translations they prepared? Such a simple example as that given by Backus demonstrates that a new analysis of the theology of the theologians of the 16th century in view of the patristic sources available to them can still garner significant results. Another example, this time from a western father, is the use of Augustine’s Concerning Christian Doctrine (De doctrina Christiana) in Martin Chemnitz’s first theological work, the Reclamation of the Pure Doctrine of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Supper (Repetitio sanae doctrinae de vera praesentia corporis et sanguinis Domini in coena (1561)). This example demonstrates the problematic nature of a snap judgment of a reference to a patristic source in a work of a Reformer (i.e. as an appeal to an authority, or an assertion, that the position of a Reformer remains within the tradition of the church).141 The Reclamation contains the first defense of the doctrine of the real presence by Chemnitz, and is based upon the words of institution. His defense is based upon—as it was by Luther—the exact translation of the words of institution. Although Chemnitz appeals to the command of Paul to Timothy and Titus to retain the faith that they had received, it appears, that this rule for biblical interpretation was taken from Augustine’s Concerning Christian Doctrine. The first mention of Augustine’s work appears in the eighth chapter, “Upon which verses of Scripture the right faith in view of the Lord’s Supper should be sought.” According to Chemnitz it is the words of institution which are the foundation for anyone, who would “seek, maintain and teach” the doctrine of the real presence.142 Because the words are clear and understandable, there is no freedom to “alter in meaning” these words with other biblical texts—as Pelagius had done with the fifth chapter of Romans. Therefore it is necessary to differentiate between, on the one hand, the biblical texts, which encompass the articles of faith, and on the other hand the texts, the interpretation of which is unclear (p. 63). The texts that are clear are to interpret the texts that are unclear—a principle that Chemnitz had apparently taken from Concerning

139 Theologische Zeitschrift XXXVII (1981), pp. 65-70. 140 Renaissance in Rome, p. 234. 141 For more on Chemnitz’ use of patristic materials see my “Cyril of Alexandria as a Source for Martin Chemnitz” in Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese…, pp. 205-230 142 "Certissimum igitur est, vera fundamenta doctrinae de coena Domini, quaerenda, sumenda et discenda esse, ex ipsa institutione.” Repetitio, p. 62.

19

Christian Doctrine (p. 64). In the eleventh chapter (“Argument form the sure and continual comparison of the declarations, which the Holy Spirit transmitted, with the places, where those doctrines concerning the essence and will of God are actually found”) Chemnitz makes the same assertion: “But it is clear and necessary to discern between the dark places, which as Augustine “somewhere” said, are averse to understanding, and between the places of Scripture, in which the doctrines or articles of faith, are found in their proper place.”143 On the following pages it becomes clear that the “somewhere” of Augustine actually refers to Concerning Christian Doctrine. Also in the eleventh chapter Chemnitz admits, that there are many texts in Holy Scripture, which clearly are tropes (i.e. figurative or metaphorical), and should be taken as tropes (p. 85). But when the freedom for a translator exists, to find such tropes everywhere, wherever it appears plausible, then the translator will “do away with all articles of faith and fall prey to weakness.” “It is necessary,” Chemnitz asserts, “to apply a rule, addressing the places where tropes are allowed and places at which agreement must be with the letter. They should be accepted according to their meaning, for when the sense is clear, the conscience can remain at peace. Certainly Augustine teaches this rule in book 3, chapters 10 and 16 of Concerning Christian Doctrine in his convincing words.”144 The question therefore is the meaning of this reference to Augustine’s Concerning Christian Doctrine. Is it an appeal to authority? It must be admitted that in a certain sense, it is, namely, in that since the rule stems from Augustine, it does indeed carry a certain—although undeterminable—weight. Another critical question is whether Chemnitz took this rule from another source and just so happened to find it in Augustine, or whether it does indeed originate with Augustine and he himself understood it as universal, that is, biblical. Because, as already demonstrated above, Concerning Christian Doctrine by Chemnitz’s time had already been long in print, in fact, for almost a century, the second alternative appears more likely. But then there is the issue of the writings of Martin Luther (1483-1546). Chemnitz was also familiar with them, as Luther was familiar with the writings of Augustine. Could it be that a reference in Luther to Augustine drove Chemnitz to Augustine?

Summation

The large amount of patristic literature which appeared during the time of the Reformation raises the question as to its theological influence, especially in view of the assertion of Charles Stinger, that the Renaissance and Reformation periods witnessed a conflict between patristic and scholastic theology which would not be settled until the resurgence of Aristotelian philosophy in the 16th century. The number of collected works editions of church fathers that were printed throughout the period lends credence to such a claim. Certainly such an overview cannot definitively prove Stinger’s these, but merely provide a foundation for further study. Such an overview can also not demonstrate the reason for such a large number of editions other than that the printers at that time thought that they would be purchased by the public. The astounding fact is simply, as the table shows, that up until the year 1545, a steady increase in the printing of collected works editions of the church fathers of both east and west occurred. Certainly the effect of the calling of the Council of

143 Sed manifestum & necessarium est discrimen, inter illas obscuritates, quibus, sicut Aug. alibi inquit, fastidia deterguntur, & inter illa scripturae loca, in quib. dogmata, seu articuli fidei, tanque in propria sua sede fundantur. (p. 90). Chemnitz continues: Ipsa enim dogmata, sive praeceptorum, sive articulorum fidei, quae de natura vel voluntate Dei loquuntur, non obscure vel ambique, sed perspicue, notis & manifestis verbis, in sacris literis sunt exposita, sicut etiam Aug. annotavit, de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 9. inquiens. p. 90-I. 144 Necesse igitur est, extare certam regulam, in quibus Iocis admittendi sint tropi, & qui Ioci proprie ad literam, sicut sonant, sint accipiendi, ut conscientia tuto in monstrata sententia possit acquiescere. Et Aug. quidem libro 3. cap. 10. & 16. de doctrina Christiana, canonem illum, suis quibusdam verbis tradit." p. 86.

20

Trent (1545-63) upon the printing of a few patristic works has already been noticed, but until now, not yet, as I believe, so graphically illustrated. The question of the authority of the church, with which the Reformers struggled, was not the only question, with which they in their works utilized the writings of the early church. As the literature demonstrates, some sort of theological influence of Augustine upon the Reformers, is generally known. The inclination, to understand the citation of patristic sources in the works of the Reformers as rhetorical tools, instead of as witnesses to a possible interaction of the Reformers with the writings of the ancient church, remains somewhat the norm. Surely the analysis of “patristic as rhetoric” can offer many new insights in to the interaction of a Reformer with patristic literature—as Peter Fraenkel has shown. But the question, as to the influence of patristic theology, which was to be found in the patristic literature printed at that time, upon the theology of the Reformers, remains open. Of special interest are the works of the Greek fathers which were first printed and disseminated in the early part of the 16th century. Only when the assertion of Charles Stinger becomes more well known, that in the Renaissance a struggle between patristic and scholastic theology began and continued unto the period of orthodoxy in the17th century, can other themes beside “patristic as rhetoric” be discussed. In such discussions, the influence of patristic theology upon the Reformation can venture beyond the writings of Augustine to those of the entire patristic period.

21

Collected Works Editions of 16th Century Patristic Literature

1500 Hp Lp 1501 1502 Lv Church Fathers 1503 Cv 1504 Cb Cv A Ambrose 1505 Ub 1506 Ab S Athanasius 1507 U Augustine 1508 Zs 1509 L? Lp Lv B Basil 1510 C Chrysostom 1511 P Cyprian 1512 Op Zs 1513 Lp Lf Zp Y Cyril 1514 E Epiphanius 1515 Lv Br K Eusebius 1516 Jb Ab 1517 Un Cb Z Nazianzus 1518 Sp Q Nyssa 1519 Op Sp Zu 1520 Sp Bp Pb H Hilary 1521 Lv Lb Tb Pb Zz I Irenaeus 1522 Op Ss Cb Pe Zz J Jerome 1523 Hb B? Be 1524 Jb Lb Cb Pe M Justin Martyr 1525 Cb Lp Pb L Lactantius 1526 Ib R Leo I 1527 Ab Ub 1528 Ib Tb Pl Yb O Origen 1529 Ap T Tertullian 1530 Lb ?? Cb Pb Ze 1531 Up Be Zb W Theodoret 1532 La Lb Sl Se Bp Zp 1533 Jp Eb 1534 Ib 1535 Hb Jb Lv Bv Pl Cities 1536 Ob Op Ol Cp 1537 Jb Uu b Basel 1538 Ab 1539 La Tb Ap Cb p Paris 1540 Bb Bb Pb l Lyons 1541 Ll Up Ue Vb Pp Pp Pa 1542 Pa Eb Kb e Cologne 1543 Ll Vb Cp Pl Eb Eb v Venice 1544 Hp Le Pe Pl Ep a Antwerp 1545 Ip Ip Ip Lp Ob Tp Tl Eb 1546 Jp Re Yb r Rome 1547 Cb Pr s Strasbourg 1548 Ib Li Se Bv n Nuremberg 1549 Ap Ue Vb Cv Kb 1550 Qb Hb Tb Pl Zb Zb z Leipzig 1551 Bb Bb Qe u Augsburg 1552 Lb Bb 1553 Jb Ll f Florence 1554 Mp Mp m Milan 1555 Mb La Ab Up d Padua 1556 Ll Lb Sb Cp 1557 Ob 1558 Cb Pb 1559 Mp Kb 1560 Ib Eb 1561 Lp Re Ul 1562 Qb Tb 1563 Ip Lb Pr 1564 Sb Pp Pp Ep 1565 Jb Jr Mb Lp Bb 1566 Ip Bb Bz Bp Yb Ep 1567 Ip Ll Wb Ab We 1568 Ba Bb Pa 22 1569 Re Ap Vb Ba Zp Zm