From Judaism to Calvinism: The Life and Writings of Immanuel Tremellius (c.1510-1580) (St Andrews Studies in Reformation History) 9780754652335, 0754652335

Citation preview

From Judaism to Calvinism

For My Parents

From Judaism to Calvinism the Life and Writings of immanuel tremellius (c.1510–1580)

Kenneth Austin

First published 2007 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2007 Kenneth Austin Kenneth Austin has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Austin, Kenneth From Judaism to Calvinism: the life and writings of immanuel tremellius (c.1510– 1580) – (st Andrews studies in Reformation history) 1. tremellius, immanuel, 1510–1580 2. Biblical scholars – Biography 3. hebraists, Christian – Biography 4. Christian converts – Biography 5. Protestant converts – Biography 6. Reformation 7. europe – intellectual life – 16th century i. title 220’.092 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Austin, Kenneth, 1976– From Judaism to Calvinism: the life and writings of immanuel tremellius (c.1510– 1580) / Kenneth Austin. p. cm. – (st. Andrews studies in Reformation history) includes bibliographical references and index. 1. tremellius, immanuel, 1510–1580. 2. Biblical scholars – europe – Biography. 3. Christian converts from Judaism – europe – Biography. i. title. BV2623.t74A97 2007 220.092–dc22 [B] 2006100549

ISBN 9780754652335 (hbk)

Contents Preface

vii

Abbreviations

xi

Introduction

xiii

1

A Jew in a Renaissance city

1

2

Conversion and the flight into exile

19

3

Beginning a life in exile

39

4

Regius Professor

59

5

Bridging the gap: Zweibrücken and Hornbach

83

6

Professor of the Old Testament at Heidelberg

97

7

The NovumTestamentum

125

8

The TestamentiVeterisBibliaSacra

145

9

The last years

169

Conclusion

175

Appendix

179

Bibliography

181

Index

215

Preface The Christian-Hebraist Immanuel Tremellius is no longer a figure familiar to historians of the Reformation. The year 2010 will witness the 500th anniversary of his birth, but this milestone is likely to go largely unmarked; it will undoubtedly be overshadowed by commemorations of many of his contemporaries whose reputations have better stood the test of time. This is a shame, as Tremellius was a fascinating figure. He was born a Jew in Italy, but after two conversions came to identify himself with the Reformed branch of Protestantism. As a consequence, he was forced to flee his native land, and to carve out a new life in exile. In this he was remarkably successful: he enjoyed a distinguished career as a professor of Hebrew and Old Testament studies, teaching in several of the most prestigious academies and universities of Protestant Europe; he met and corresponded with many of the leading political and religious figures of the age; and, as an author, he produced various works of Christian-Hebraica, including a translation of the Old Testament into Latin which was one of the most impressive, important and successful works of scholarship to emerge out of the Reformation era. The many twists and turns of Tremellius’ long and full life make him an engaging figure from the outset, but this study has not merely been motivated by appreciation for a good story. It is my belief that Tremellius was a much more important figure than his modern reputation would suggest, and that his contribution to the Reformed Church merits detailed consideration in its own right. Beyond this, and especially because his experiences are so little known, he provides a valuable case-study through which we may come to a better understanding of the religious culture of the sixteenth century. In an era where religious identity was an especially highly charged issue, Tremellius followed a trajectory that was almost certainly unique. As a result he often provided new and unexpected answers to a range of traditional questions. There are two broader areas, in particular, which are illuminated by Tremellius’ experiences. The first of these concerns the Jewish contribution to the culture of the sixteenth century, and the incredibly complex issue of Judaeo-Christian relations in the early modern period. As a Jew, and as a Jewish convert, Tremellius was subject to the prevailing prejudices of the day, but rather than dissociate himself from his past, or attack his former brethren, he in fact embraced that Jewish culture, and indeed built his professional career around it. Secondly, Tremellius has much to tell us about the character of the European Reformation, and in particular the nature of Reformed religion. An appreciation of how and why he was valued by members of this Church will contribute much to our understanding of the mechanics of ‘international Calvinism’, as well as drawing to the fore certain elements which have often been overlooked through a narrow focus on a more limited group of figures. As the career of Immanuel Tremellius demonstrates, the Reformed Church was substantially more diverse than is often thought.

viii

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Almost inevitably, as an academic investigating the life of a scholar of an earlier age, I have, in idle moments, reflected on the circumstances shaping our respective careers. And while of course appreciating the many differences, it has often struck me how great are the similarities between our experiences, despite the distance of almost five centuries. One particular area where Tremellius and I have much in common is in our dependence on the help and support of others. I have incurred many debts in writing this book, and it is a great pleasure for me to acknowledge them here. This book has its origins in a doctoral dissertation, undertaken at the University of St Andrews. The original research was carried out with the financial aid of a three-year scholarship from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, for which I am immensely grateful. I am also much obliged to the departments of history at the universities of St Andrews and Dundee, both of which helped me to make ends meet by doing some part-time teaching while I completed my thesis. I owe an enormous amount to Bruce Gordon, my doctoral supervisor, whose vast knowledge, enthusiasm and good humour sustained me through my postgraduate studies, and provided me with an incomparable model of all that one should strive to be in the academic profession. I am also immensely grateful to Andrew Pettegree of the University of St Andrews and Richard Rex of Cambridge University, who, as examiners of my thesis, were generous in their comments, and whose constructive criticisms have proved very helpful in turning my thesis into the book presented here. I have also benefited from exceptional generosity from a wide range of scholars in the broader academic community. I would especially like to thank Emidio Campi, who originally suggested that a study of Tremellius was much needed, and who has enthusiastically supported the project ever since. Also worthy of particular mention are Rainer Henrich, who provided me with copies of numerous letters from the Zurich archives; Stephen Burnett, who translated a Hebrew source for me, and generously shared his great knowledge and experience from working on a similar project to my own; Alexandra Kess, who aided me with some of the German materials; Irena Backus, who read an early version of my chapter on Tremellius’ New Testament and provided a whole new dimension to my understanding; Diarmaid MacCulloch, who discussed my plans to turn my thesis into a book at an early stage and offered some insightful and helpful comments; and Elaine Fulton, Paul Nelles, Jonathan Reid and Alexander Wilkinson, all of whom retrieved elusive sources from the archives of Europe on my behalf. Others have very kindly taken the time to deal with specific questions and problems, both in person and through correspondence. Still others have helped in more or less direct ways, whether by providing me with useful references and leads, prompting me into developing my thinking with penetrating questions at seminars and conferences, or offering helpful comments based on their own work. It is a strong commendation of the scholarly community that there have been simply too many of these for me to record them all here, but I am grateful to them all. My friends and colleagues at the universities of St Andrews, Oxford and Bristol over the last few years have often been those

PREFACE

ix

readiest to share their learning with me, but more generally I have appreciated the conducive environments which they have helped to create. I would also like to thank the staff of all the libraries and archives that I have used in the course of my research, including the British Library and Lambeth Palace Library in London, the Bibliothèque Nationale and the Arsenale in Paris, the University Library and Staatsarchiv of Heidelberg, the rare books and manuscripts library of Columbia University Library, and the libraries of the universities of St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Oxford and Bristol. I am especially grateful to the staff at Ashgate for their careful handling of an author navigating the process of publication for the first time, and for responding to his delays so sympathetically. Finally, I would also like to express my thanks to my friends and family, who have helped me to persevere with this project, but who have also helped me keep an appropriate sense of perspective on it. In particular, I should like to thank Wendy Anderson, who has read endless drafts of my work and offered helpful comments and suggestions at every stage: her eye for detail is truly exceptional. At least of equal importance, she has also known when words of encouragement were all that was needed; her love and support have sustained me throughout this process. But this book is dedicated to my parents: my father, in particular, nurtured my early interest in history, and both he and my mother have been a constant source of support and encouragement throughout my studies and into the early stages of my professional career. In this and so many other areas, they have done more for me than I could ever fully acknowledge. This volume is a token of my gratitude. KRGA

Abbreviations ARG





Becker, Tremellius       BHR





ArchivfürReformationsgeschichte Wilhelm Becker, Immanuel Tremellius. Ein Proselyntenleben im Zeitalter der Reformation (Leipzig, 1890) Bibliothèqued’HumanismeetRenaissance

BL

British Library

BNF

Bibliothèque Nationale de France

Butters, Tremellius         

Friedrich Butters, EmanuelTremellius,ersterRector desZweibrückerGymnasiums.EineLebensskizzezur Feier des dreihundertjährigen Jubiläums dieser Studienanstalt (Zweibrücken, 1859)

CB





CorrespondancedeThéodoredeBèze, ed. F. Aubert et al. (Geneva, 1960–)

CH





ChurchHistory

CHR





CatholicHistoricalReview

CO





JoannisCalviniOpera, ed. Wilhelm Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss et al. (Corpus Reformatorum, vols 29–87, Brunswick and Berlin, 1863–1900)

CPR





CalendarofthePatentRolls, ed. R. H. Brodie (5 vols, London, 1924–29)

CSPForeign



CalendarofStatePapers,ForeignSeries

CSPSpanish



CalendarofStatePapers,SpanishSeries

DNB



DictionaryofNationalBiography

HJ





HistoricalJournal

JEH





JournalofEcclesiasticalHistory

JMH





JournalofModernHistory

xii

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

OriginalLetters      

OriginalLettersRelativetotheEnglishReformation. WrittenduringtheReignsofKingHenryVIII,King Edward VI and Queen Mary: Chiefly from the Archives of Zurich, ed. H. Robinson (2 vols, Cambridge, 1846–47)

ParkerCorrespondence CorrespondenceofMatthewParkerD.D.,Archbishop    ofCanterbury…Letterswrittenbyhimandtohim    from A.D.1535 to A.D.1575, ed. J. Bruce and T. T. Perowne(Cambridge, 1853) PP





PastandPresent

RQ





RenaissanceQuarterly

SCJ





SixteenthCenturyJournal

StAZ

Staatsarchiv, Zurich

ZB

Zentralbibliothek, Zurich

ZurichLetters

The Zurich Letters, ed. H. Robinson (2 vols, Cambridge, 1842–45)

Introduction Immanuel Tremellius (c.1510–80) had a profound and diverse impact upon early modern Europe. He rose to prominence in the mid-sixteenth century as a Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament studies, and taught in some of the most prestigious Reformed academies and universities of northern Europe. He was in addition the author of several important works of ChristianHebraica, most notably his Latin editions of the Old and New Testaments, which were both landmarks in the biblical scholarship of the Reformation era. But he was also a convert from Judaism. The significance of this can hardly be overstated. On the one hand, the fact that he had been raised as a Jew meant that he had learnt Hebrew from an early age. His intuitive ability with that language and his familiarity with Judaic and rabbinic materials were undoubtedly products of this, and do much to account for his reputation as a teacher and the quality of his published works. Against this, however, one has also to appreciate that Jews were not tolerated in most areas of sixteenth-century Europe, while apostates, of whatever persuasion, tended to be viewed with considerable suspicion at the very least. These were not insignificant obstacles; but while they undoubtedly did much to shape the environment in which Tremellius found himself, it is apparent that they did not prove insurmountable. In his own lifetime, he was considered a scholar of the first rank by his contemporaries; he corresponded with, and worked alongside, many of the leading figures of the Reformation movement, while his name was known to kings, queens and princes across the continent; and his services, as a teacher of Hebrew, were much sought after by individuals and institutions across Europe. In addition, his writings, and especially his translation of the Bible into Latin, went through numerous editions, and indeed continued to be reprinted through to the beginning of the eighteenth century, ensuring that his influence and reputation endured long beyond his death. Yet this contemporary regard has all but failed to transmit to modern scholarship: Tremellius’ profile in the historiography of the Reformation is surprisingly low. He has not been entirely neglected: two biographies of him do exist, but both date from the nineteenth century. The earlier of these works was written by Friedrich Butters, a professor at the academy of Zweibrücken, and published in that town in 1859.1 As its subtitle makes clear, the work was intended to commemorate the tercentenary of the academy; Tremellius had been its first rector. The second biography 1 Friedrich Butters, EmanuelTremellius,ersterRectordesZweibrückerGymnasiums. Eine Lebensskizze zur Feier des dreihundertjährigen Jubiläums dieser Studienanstalt (Zweibrücken, 1859).

xiv

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

appeared less than 30 years later. It was written by Wilhelm Becker, a pastor from Breslau, first published in his home town in 1887, and then republished in Leipzig three years later.2 This latter work has proved to be the more influential on subsequent treatments of Tremellius’ life. Even taken together these works consist of only about 100 pages. They are both very general accounts, devoting as much time, if not more, to the wider context of sixteenth-century Europe as to Tremellius himself. Paradoxically, however, they largely fail to relate his life to any broader historiographical issues, either as a means of explaining particular features of his life, or to draw out their wider resonances. More generally, as one might expect of nineteenth-century biographies, they do not live up to the standards of modern historical writing: Butters, in particular, does not provide references to primary sources at all in his study, while Becker is at best sparing in his use of footnotes. Also unsurprisingly, both biographies provide highly sympathetic accounts of Tremellius’ life; in fact, Becker’s work becomes almost hagiographical at times. Tremellius was surprisingly poorly served in the twentieth century as well. No new or substantial accounts of his life were written; he does however make numerous cameo appearances in works on other subjects, and also features in a wide range of biographical dictionaries, encyclopaedias and reference works on diverse subjects. Against this, Tremellius was omitted from a handful of standard reference works in which one would have expected him to appear, while virtually every account of his life to appear in the last century was clearly entirely derivative.3 Alastair Hamilton was perhaps the first to attempt, even in limited fashion, to move beyond this narrow tradition in his recent article on Tremellius, which appears in the 2004 edition of the DictionaryofNationalBiography.4 Viewed as a whole, writings on Tremellius over the centuries have ordinarily shared three principal characteristics. There seems always to have been, almost from the time of his death, a general awareness of the principal contours of his surprisingly convoluted career: perhaps almost because of its unfeasibly elaborate nature, the series of posts that he held 2 Wilhelm Becker, Immanuel Tremellius. Ein Proselyntenleben im Zeitalter der Reformation (Leipzig, 1890). 3 Most strikingly, Tremellius does not have an entry in the excellent four-volumed work, Hans J. Hillerbrand (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Reformation (4 vols, Oxford, 1995). In addition to the biographies of Becker and Butters, two articles have clearly had a significant impact on the historical writing on Tremellius in the twentieth century. These are E. I. Carlyle, ‘Tremellius, John Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in DNB vol.57 (1899), pp.186–7 and J. Ney, ‘Tremellius, Emanuel’ in J. Herzog et al. (Eds), Real-Encyklopädiefür protestantischeTheologieundKirche …Inzweiterdurchgängigverbesserterundvermehrter Auflage … (2nd edn, 18 vols, Leipzig, 1877–88), vol.16 (1885), pp.1–3. 4 Alastair Hamilton, ‘Tremellius, (Joannes) Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in DNB (60 vols, 2004), vol. 55, p.285.

INTRODUCTION

xv

seems to have provided a necessary backbone to the various accounts which have been written. Within this broad framework, however, a second feature has been the numerous errors, inaccuracies and omissions which have crept into the historical writing on Tremellius. Given the dependence of these works on flawed and out-of-date accounts of Tremellius’ life, this is hardly surprising, and it is rarely the fault of any author in question; but it is of course far from being a desirable state of affairs. This is especially the case given the third element of those writings in which Tremellius appears: a clear consensus of opinion emerges that Tremellius was a highly skilled and influential man. Despite this general realisation, however, no one has sought to move much beyond such a broad-brush characterisation. One does not have to look far for reasons to explain this situation. For a start, one must appreciate that Tremellius spent his life wandering through Europe, with the result that the historians of no country have instinctively claimed him as their own. He was born in Italy, but his principal achievements were to come once he had crossed the Alps into northern Europe. In this regard, it is no surprise that his two previous biographies were composed in Germany, the country in which he spent the greatest proportion of his working life. This geographical issue is compounded by religious considerations: Tremellius was born a Jew but gained renown as a Christian; he was raised in Catholic Italy, but spent the majority of his teaching career in Protestant areas of Europe. Again, it is unsurprising that it is this latter group which has shown most interest in him. More generally, one must imagine that the fact that Tremellius was a convert also contributed to the reluctance of historians in previous generations to consider him a subject worthy of study. There are also a number of rather more practical issues which make considerable demands of any potential biographer. Tremellius spent time in five countries and around a dozen towns and cities during the course of his life. He could probably speak at least four modern languages – Italian, French, German and English – to which should be added his proficiency in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and a number of other Semitic languages, including Syriac and Chaldaean. Yet while there are various considerations which one can identify which increase the problems that confront the historian, it is also hard to avoid the conclusion that at least some of the responsibility lies with Tremellius himself. In the first place, the books that he wrote do not lend themselves to easy exploitation by the historian or biographer: they are in the main translations, or editions of the works of others. None of his surviving works neatly contains his thought on a given subject, for instance, to allow a straightforward intellectual biography to be written. But beyond this, it would appear that Tremellius pursued a wilful policy to give as little away about himself as he could possibly manage. Of course this is entirely understandable, given his status as a double convert, in an age when

xvi

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

one’s religious affiliation was regarded as an important element in one’s identity. It would seem that seeking to keep a low profile and minimising the occasions on which he committed himself on potentially controversial matters were aspects of an informal campaign of self-preservation on the part of Tremellius. As I will argue more fully below, Tremellius’ personality and his various religious experiences in Italy must also have contributed to this policy.5 But his success in pursuing this strategy is still nothing short of remarkable. Not only did no friend or contemporary seek to record his life, but he also eschewed any autobiographical writings. Even in his correspondence, and the prefaces to his various writings, he seems to keep comments about himself to a bare minimum. As we will see, Tremellius’ writings do in fact provide us with a wide range of insights into his intellectual thoughts and interests, and these can be supplemented by further autobiographical snippets which occur in the prefaces to these works and his correspondence, as well as a wide variety of other sources. Nonetheless, it remains the case that the situation for Tremellius is less inviting than for many of his higher profile colleagues. Indeed, there must be grounds for at least suggesting that Tremellius’ relatively low level of modern renown began with Tremellius’ own efforts to avoid public attention. This should already go some way to explaining why a new biography of Tremellius is merited. Not only is it the case that no extended biographical treatment exists, nor less one which achieves the technical qualities and requirements of modern historical scholarship, but it is also necessary to correct the various errors of those materials which do exist, especially because of their subsequent incorporation into the more general scholarship on the Reformation. This study will attempt to provide the most comprehensive account of Tremellius’ life; it will seek to correct the various errors which have accumulated in the historical writing on him; and it will attempt to do so on the strength of as wide a range of primary materials as possible. Beyond this, it is necessary to consider Tremellius in his proper context, again something that has never really characterised writing on him in the past. In fact, it is apparent that in an almost literal sense, Tremellius’ life quite neatly encapsulates sixteenth-century Europe. For a start, he had the good fortune to enjoy a life which extended over much of the century: he lived for 70 years which, while not truly exceptional, was still longer than most of his contemporaries. In addition, as I have already mentioned, he travelled very widely in his career. Even in an age where exile and forced migration for religious reasons were quite common, he seems again to have

5 This is an argument I have already advanced in abbreviated form in my article ‘Immanuel Tremellius and the Avoidance of Controversy’ in Luc Racaut and Alec Ryrie (Eds), ModerateVoicesintheEuropeanReformation (Aldershot, 2005), pp.70–89.

INTRODUCTION

xvii

been obliged to move on more frequently, and to have resided in more countries, than most. But in other ways too, Tremellius needs to be considered against the backdrop of the sixteenth century. The two most important intellectual movements of the period, the Renaissance and the Reformation, are both essential for understanding Tremellius’ career. Of course, by the time of Tremellius’ birth, the Renaissance was already long under way. Indeed, by that point, this movement, which idealised the civilisation of antiquity and sought to revive its values and emulate its culture, was becoming a truly European phenomenon.6 Having originated in Italy, its influence had gradually spread in a number of ways, with the result that it had adherents in every country of the continent. Indeed, as an Italian forced into exile, Tremellius was, in a sense, himself a physical manifestation of the process by which the Renaissance spread to northern Europe. There were a number of aspects of his career which reflected the particular influence of the Renaissance. In their return ‘ad fontes’ – ‘to the sources’ – the humanists of the Renaissance had put a new primacy on the learning of the languages necessary to read the ancient texts critically: Latin, as it had been used in antiquity, rather than the degenerate form which had currency in the later Middle Ages; Greek; and finally, lagging somewhat behind the other two, Hebrew.7 Christian humanism, as it has often been called, sought to apply the same skills and critical analysis that had been applied to the texts of antiquity to the early writings of Christianity, among which the Bible held the principal position. The critical study of the Bible in its original languages, and indeed the Christian study of Jewish materials more generally – Christian Hebraica – were both given a huge impetus by the Renaissance.8 The enthusiasm for these skills then dovetailed with a second major aspect of Tremellius’ career, which was also a product of the Renaissance, namely the enhanced role of education. Under the influence of the Renaissance, the number of schools and universities had increased substantially, while over time their curricula had come to reflect more fully a humanist agenda.9 Tremellius was a beneficiary of all of these developments. 6 Charles Nauert, Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe (Cambridge, 1995). Anthony Goodman and Angus Mackay (Eds), TheImpactofHumanismonWestern Europe (London and New York, 1990). R. Porter and M. Teich (Eds), TheRenaissancein NationalContext (Cambridge, 1992). 7 On this interest in general see for instance Roberto Weiss, TheRenaissanceDiscovery ofClassicalAntiquity (Oxford, 1969) and Anthony Grafton, CommercewiththeClassics: Ancient Books and Renaissance Readers (Ann Arbor, MI, 1997). The status of Hebrew within this context is clearly indicated by the title of the excellent study by G. Lloyd Jones, TheDiscoveryofHebrewinTudorEngland:AThirdLanguage (Manchester, 1983). 8 Jerome Friedman, The Most Ancient Testimony: Sixteenth-Century Christian HebraicaintheAgeofRenaissanceNostalgia (Athens, OH, 1983). 9 See Paul F. Grendler, Schooling in Renaissance Italy: Literacy and Learning 1300–1600 (Baltimore, MD and London, 1989) and Grendler, TheUniversitiesoftheItalian

xviii

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Tremellius also benefited from a second movement of European significance, namely the Reformation. Building on many of the same intellectual impulses as had the Renaissance, and occurring only during Tremellius’ early years, the Reformation had a seismic impact on sixteenthcentury Europe.10 Programmes for religious renewal were by no means new in the history of the Christian church, but when the call for reform launched by Martin Luther united with a volatile political environment, the result was an unprecedented division in Christendom; the situation was then further complicated as the Reformation itself fragmented into various strands of Protestantism. Again these were developments which had a significance for Tremellius. At one level, of course, it meant that when he converted from Judaism to Christianity, he was met with an unprecedented array of confessional choices: the increased complexity of the religious situation of Europe must already have shaped his decisions and attitudes, and distinguished them to some extent from those he would have felt had he converted a century before, when the religious complexion of Europe was somewhat simpler. But there were again other and more specific elements of the Reformation which found resonance in his career. Above all, these seem to have been aspects which built upon ideas which had their origins in the Renaissance. Indeed, in many ways, Tremellius’ own career highlights the many connections between these two movements. One of the central strands of the Reformation was its challenge to the power and authority of the Catholic church in determining matters of religious practice and belief: rather than papal decree, council decision or accumulated tradition, the Protestants argued, only the Bible should be used as the basis by which disputed questions were resolved. In this context, Hebrew scholarship acquired an additional confessional value. The establishment of an authentic Hebrew text, and its correct intepretation, things which could only truly be achieved with a solid knowledge of the Hebrew language and an awareness of complementary Jewish texts, were fundamental for the process by which the Protestant churches established themselves in opposition to the Catholic church, and indeed to each other. Education, too, came to take on a more confessional character: numerous schools were founded in Protestant areas through the sixteenth century, largely in order to ensure that there was a sufficient number of adequately trained pastors and theologians who could provide the nascent reform movements with the necessary religious leadership. In all of these respects, Tremellius was a fortunate individual: he possessed, and could impart to others, a set of skills whose value had through the combined impact of the Renaissance (Baltimore, MD and London, 2002). 10 James D. Tracy, Europe’s Reformations 1490–1650 (Lanham, Boulder, New York and Oxford, 1999) and Euan Cameron, TheEuropeanReformation (Oxford, 1991).

INTRODUCTION

xix

Renaissance and Reformation rapidly come to be much more highly valued; more practically, as a result of these changes, the career opportunities for someone with his skills were substantially enhanced compared with the situation a century before. Anti-Semitism constituted a further significant aspect of the intellectual landscape which shaped Tremellius’ career. This sentiment has, without doubt, been a feature of European history throughout the ages, but it is apparent that it had intensified in the later Middle Ages, and would go on to be a defining characteristic of early modern Europe. In the decades immediately preceding Tremellius’ birth, the position of the Jews in Europe had deteriorated markedly: the intensity of popular hostility had escalated, while the ruling authorities of an increasing number of areas enacted laws which made it no longer possible to remain there as Jews. Some chose exile, while many others were forced into converting to Christianity. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that these converts tended to be regarded with considerable suspicion by their Christian contemporaries, and revulsion by those Jews who had remained true to their faith. During the sixteenth century, it remained possible to be a Jew in Europe, but this was limited to only certain pockets, and even there the Jews remained in a highly precarious position, and at the mercy of fluctuating popular sentiment and official policy. Spending the first decades of his life as a Jew, and then the majority of his career as a convert from Judaism (arguably an even more nebulous position), Tremellius was not exempt from the prejudices of his age. Indeed, as someone who continued to work with Hebrew and rabbinic sources throughout his life, in a sense he only encouraged such animosity. On the other hand, however, he grew up in Ferrara, where the ruling family, the d’Este, was amongst the most sympathetic to Jews in Europe: his experiences were likely to have been more positive than many. Moreover, he seems to have been able to escape the worst excesses of anti-Semitic sentiment later in his career, despite his apostasy and his continuing involvement with Hebraica. As I shall show, the explanation for this would appear to lie in a combination of good fortune, influential friends and a concerted effort by Tremellius, throughout his career, to shun the limelight as much as possible. Nonetheless, one needs to appreciate the ongoing tensions in this area to comprehend fully his achievements. Tremellius was obliged to bear this factor in mind throughout his career, and to act accordingly; and while it may not always have been recorded in the sources, there are sufficient traces in the evidence to suggest that he would have faced hostility for these reasons on a regular basis, and throughout his career. These three themes all contributed to the broad context of the world in which Tremellius found himself; they shaped, in large measure, his activities, and his career consequently needs to be seen against them. But in addition

xx

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

to these, it is apparent that there are a number of more specific areas where research in recent decades has done much to open up our understanding of themes which were of considerable significance to Tremellius’ career. The first of these is the religious character of Italy, especially in the two decades or so leading up to the Council of Trent. Reacting against the traditional interpretation which dismissed the Italian reformation as a failed movement unworthy of study, historians have increasingly devoted their attention to defining and elaborating upon the spectrum of religious reform thought generally gathered together under the less than entirely satisfactory umbrella term ‘evangelism’.11 Rather than accepting the received view which held that such trends were essentially derived from northern Protestantism, a number of Italian scholars sought to emphasise the indigenous origins and distinctive character of Italian reform.12 Most recently, various historians have shown that this was a movement which in fact drew together ideas from a wide range of sources, including the Reformation and Italian currents of reform among others, into a myriad of different combinations.13 Recent scholarship has also emphasised that the ‘aristocratic’ and ‘transitory’ qualities of evangelism have been exaggerated:14 it found adherents in a wide range of social classes and throughout the peninsula, while it is generally accepted that it continued to exist long beyond 1542, the point at which it was assumed to have ceased.15 Nonetheless, particular focus has been devoted to the key figures associated with evangelism, many of whom were prominent churchmen and humanists. Indeed, over the last four decades, the majority of leading ‘spirituali’, as they have often been called, have been the recipients of full-length biographies.16 These studies have helped to elucidate further the nature of Italian reform thought, and 11 The seminal article on this subject was Eva-Maria Jung, ‘On the Nature of Evangelism in Sixteenth-Century Italy’, JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas 14 (1953), pp.511–27. See also Elisabeth G. Gleason, ‘On the Nature of Sixteenth-Century Italian Evangelism: Scholarship, 1953–1978’, SCJ 9 (1978), pp.3–25. On the significant limitations of the term see for instance Anne Jacobson Schutte, ‘Periodization of Sixteenth-Century Italian Religious History: the Post-Cantimori Paradigm Shift’, JMH 61 (1989), pp.269–84, especially pp.274–5. 12 The distinctively Italian contribution to the religious complexion of sixteenth-century Europe is emphasised for instance in Delio Cantimori, Eretici Italiani del Cinquecento. RicercheStoriche (Florence, 1967). 13 See for example Salvatore Caponetto, The Protestant Reformation in SixteenthCentury Italy (Kirksville, MO, 1999) and Massimo Firpo, Riforma protestante ed eresie nell’Italia del Cinquecento. Un profilo storico (Bari, 1993). 14 Both of these were among the principal characteristics of evangelism advanced by Jung, ‘Nature of Evangelism’. 15 Gleason, ‘Italian Evangelism’, pp.12–24; Schutte, ‘Periodization of SixteenthCentury’, passim. 16 For instance Philip McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy (Oxford, 1967), Massimo Firpo, Traalumbradose‘spirituali’.StudisuJuandeValdéseil Valdesianesimonellacrisireligiosadel’500italiano (Florence, 1990), Elisabeth G. Gleason, Gasparo Contarini: Venice, Rome and Reform (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA and Oxford,

INTRODUCTION

xxi

to provide a range of insights into the character of the circles in which evangelism was prevalent. As it was in these circles that the critical phases of Tremellius’ religious development took place, these studies have a clear relevance to any attempt to understand his life. Furthermore, as I will argue in this study, there are various senses in which Tremellius needs to be regarded as a product of this Italian background: even his activities in exile were shaped to an extent by his experiences in this context during this formative period of his life. In addition, as a product of this context, he provides a unique figure through whom the import of this environment may be judged. A second area in which recent historiographical developments have a bearing on Tremellius’ life is that of Judaic studies. In fact, the Jewish contribution to European history has received greater attention since the end of World War II both in general terms and more specifically in the early modern period. Of course, Jewish scholars have always been interested in such subjects, but especially since the 1960s, there has been a significant increase in interest in the West, led by the United States, but now being echoed in Europe as well. Not only has this recently-kindled interest led to new research pursued by Western scholars into Jewish subjects, but it has also led to many more scholarly studies, originally written in Hebrew, being made available in English translation. Above all the impact of these various studies has been to emphasise the particular characteristics of Jewish life and culture on its own terms, rather than simply as filtered through the perspective of Christian witnesses. In addition, the picture of the relationship between Christians and Jews has been filled out; especially in the last few years, a number of studies have appeared which have sought to emphasise the fact that while animosity was perhaps the determining characteristic of such relations during the later Middle Ages and early modern period, one should not overlook the areas of consensus, rapprochement and reciprocal influence, especially but not exclusively in the sphere of scholarship.17 This enhanced understanding of the Jewish experience in the later Middle Ages is helpful for understanding the tenor of Tremellius’ early life, while the more nuanced characterisation of the relationship between Christians and Jews, and between Christianity and Judaism, helps to explain the mixed reaction to him from his Christian contemporaries, and his own attitude towards Jews following his conversion. Again, moreover, he provides an interesting case-study which sheds further light on these themes.

1993) and Thomas F. Mayer, ReginaldPole.PrinceandProphet (Cambridge, 2000), among many others. 17 For instance Allison P. Coudert and Jeffrey S. Shoulson (Eds), HebraicaVeritas?Christian HebraistsandtheStudyofJudaisminEarlyModernEurope (Philadelphia, PA, 2004).

xxii

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

A third area which has received significant historical attention in recent decades has been the sphere of education in the late medieval and early modern periods. The paucity of sources, and various methodological complexities, have meant that this has traditionally been a field of enquiry which has been overlooked by scholars of these periods. However, partly as a consequence of the growing interest in social and cultural history, the content, form and impact of education has taken on a greater significance. While interest in the leading educators has not abated, it has now extended to those who provided a rather less exceptional form of instruction: the intention has been to begin building up a more comprehensive picture of the educational practices in these centuries, and consequently to come to a more accurate assessment of the role which they occupied in society. As we have already mentioned, the Renaissance and Reformation both provided a significant endorsement of the value of education, and their impact on educational practices has been underscored in recent writings. This is an area of historical enquiry still very much in its infancy, but many of its principal findings help us to understand more acutely the career of Tremellius which, after all, involved instruction at every stage of the curriculum. In this area, too, of course, the experiences of Tremellius as a teacher further aid our understanding of these various themes. A final area in which recent writing sheds important light on the career of Tremellius relates to Protestantism, and especially the Reformed religion. Here, in the first place it is worth noting that some important developments have taken place which affect even the basic terminology that is used. Traditionally it was customary to speak simply of Calvinism; indeed, the term still has sufficient currency, and is in fact linguistically more flexible, that I have preferred to use it in the title of this study.18 However, in more recent writings, the term ‘Reformed’ has begun to gain currency: not only was this term applied to churches across Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but by its very nature it accepts that this confession did not simply reflect the influence of one man.19 In this study, and in keeping with current usage, the two will be used largely synonymously, although Calvinism will be preferred for those occasions where the influence of John Calvin is strongest, while Reformed will be used to reflect those environments in which other influences were more pronounced. Beyond these matters of terminology, however, a further development has been the effort to define and characterise a movement which has 18 Typical of this approach is J. T. McNeill, TheHistoryandCharacterofCalvinism (London, Oxford and New York, 1954). 19 An effort to reflect both dimensions is apparent in the titles of several recent studies, including Philip Benedict, Christ’sChurchesPurelyReformed:ASocialHistoryofCalvin (New Haven, CT and London, 2002) and Graeme Murdock, BeyondCalvin.TheIntellectual,Political andCulturalWorldofEurope’sReformedChurches,c.1540–1620 (Basingstoke, 2004).

INTRODUCTION

xxiii

received the term ‘international Calvinism’. That the Reformed religion was one that achieved some level of success in a substantial number of different polities has always been appreciated, but over the last 20 years or so, several collections of essays have appeared which have been explicitly directed at emphasising the international dimensions of the movement.20 Principally these have sought to draw together studies from different national contexts to facilitate comparison, but there have also been efforts to offer reflections on the international dimension. For instance the use of correspondence, the migration of religious exiles, commercial links, the role of education, and the provision of financial and military assistance have all been identified as ways in which a level of coherence was established between the different regional and national churches. A second strand of this work has been to reflect on the extent to which it is possible to identify features common to most, if not all, of these separate churches. The doctrinal core, elements in the structural organisation of the churches, the role of discipline and the cultural implications of this faith have all been identified in this regard. At the same time, historians have not sought to downplay the individual characteristics of the different churches, many of which reflect the particular political and cultural settings in which these churches were first established (This trend is all the more pronounced given the gradual move away from the somewhat myopic vision that a simplistic interpretation of the term Calvinist might imply.) This is still an area in which much remains to be learnt, but what is of greatest importance here is to appreciate that the Reformed churches of Europe are now being viewed both in their national and international perspectives. Once again, not only do these developments shed light on various features of Tremellius’ career, but as a figure who lived in a number of these different national settings while also being a truly international figure, his experiences are illuminating in a wide range of ways, both in relation to this central tension, and as regards the character of his adopted religion more generally. This study has two principal aims. First, it is my intention to provide as comprehensive and thorough a biography of Tremellius as is currently possible. His life was exceptionally varied, and would surely merit telling simply because it is so interesting in its own right. But, as I have already suggested, it is the underlying contention of this study that Tremellius was a more important figure in the history of early modern Europe than has traditionally been appreciated, and than the general historical neglect would suggest. It is necessary that we should have an up-to-date biographical study of this 20 For instance Menna Prestwich (Ed.), InternationalCalvinism,1541–1715 (Oxford, 1985), Andrew Pettegree, Alastair Duke and Gillian Lewis (Eds), Calvinism in Europe (Cambridge and New York, 1994), and W. Fred Graham (Ed.), LaterCalvinism.International Perspectives (Kirksville, MO, 1994). The international dimension has also been emphasised by Benedict, Christ’sChurches and Murdock, BeyondCalvin.

xxiv

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

figure, and that it should be fully grounded in the extant primary sources while also reflecting the recent developments in historical writing on this period, including the ones to which I have just referred. I fully expect that further relevant sources will be uncovered in due course, that some of the arguments I advance may be challenged, and that some of Tremellius’ writings may be given far fuller treatment than I have been able to do here, but I would hope that this volume will become the base on which future work on any aspect of his career will be grounded. Secondly, it is my intention to use this biography of Tremellius as a means of elucidating a number of broader issues relating to the early modern period. Tremellius was undoubtedly an exceptional figure, but partly as a direct consequence he serves as an excellent case-study by which many of our assumptions about aspects of the sixteenth century may be tested. In certain areas, such as the value of patronage and friendship connections, the role of Biblical study and the nature of education in this period, his experiences provide additional material that helps augment our understanding of these central themes; in others, such as Christian attitudes towards Jews and Judaism, the status of apostates in Europe and above all the character of the emerging Calvinist church, he provides a significant challenge to a range of widely held assumptions. This last point is worthy of further emphasis. As I have already suggested, part of the explanation as to why Tremellius has been neglected by historians in the past lies in the various difficulties in working on him in the first place. But this is not the whole story. It is also evident that he does not correspond neatly to modern ideas of what was important, and nor does he fit neatly into modern categories. But when we seek to approach the sixteenth century, and the Reformation in particular, it is necessary to understand it on its own terms. While a life devoted to scholarship may not have been as eye-catching as one spent engaging in polemical disputes, or as high profile as one dedicated to leading the reform of a particular area, we must appreciate that such activities were nonetheless of considerable importance. More strikingly, it is apparent that contemporaries themselves did appreciate this. In order to understand the Reformation, and indeed the early modern period as a whole, we need to be sensitive to this variety.

CHAPTER ONE

A Jew in a Renaissance city Immanuel Tremellius spent the first three decades of his life in Italy, but very little evidence relating to this has survived. All his extant writings and correspondence come from his exile, and it was also only after his departure from Italy that other people really started to mention him with any regularity. This is by no means unusual: the same can be said for the vast majority of his contemporaries who went on to enjoy illustrious careers.1 But for Tremellius this absence is especially unfortunate, as these years constituted a crucial period in his life. Not only did he receive the education upon which his future career was based, but he also underwent two conversions in rapid succession, first moving away from Judaism towards Christianity, and then passing from Catholicism towards Reformed Protestantism. In order to understand Tremellius’ outlook and the contribution that he would subsequently make to the religious history of the sixteenth century, it is important that we subject this early period of his life to as detailed a scrutiny as possible. For these reasons then, the following two chapters will seek to place the surviving evidence in its broader context. Sufficient materials have survived to make it possible to establish Tremellius in a series of locations during the first decades of his life, and to identify a number of the principal figures with whom he came into contact. From this one can then gain a sense of some of the environments in which he spent his early years and discern some of the strongest intellectual and religious currents to which he would have been exposed. This investigation may go some way to explaining why Tremellius converted in the first place; it will allow us to build up a picture of the sort of man he was by the time of his departure from Italy. One must imagine that these encounters and the experiences of his early life did much to shape Tremellius’ attitudes towards his newly adopted faith, while at the same time providing a means by which his subsequent actions may be interpreted. Of course, it would be unrealistic to assume that Tremellius’ attitudes were frozen at the time of his departure from Italy, but it is nonetheless apparent that his religious outlook did not undergo any further developments that were as radical in nature.

1 See, for example, Anne Jacobson Schutte, Pier Paolo Vergerio: the Making of an ItalianReformer (Geneva, 1977) and José C. Nieto, JuandeValdésandtheOriginsofthe SpanishandItalianReformation (Geneva, 1970).

2

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Ferrara and the d’Este Since the nineteenth century, it has generally been asserted that Tremellius was born in 1510. The matter is not so clear cut, however. To my knowledge, only one contemporary source survives in which there is even an allusion to this subject, and even this is a misdated and anonymous manuscript which contains a brief biographical sketch, evidently penned shortly after Tremellius’ death.2 In it the author says nothing about Tremellius’ birth directly. Rather, it is recorded that he died in 1580, and while the author admits uncertainty about his exact age, he concludes that Tremellius was by then ‘about seventy years old (more or less)’.3 This impression is then echoed in the earliest printed account of Tremellius’ life, which appeared in the collection of lives drawn together by Melchior Adamus, the DecadesDuae, of 1618.4 He too does not give a year of birth, but again merely states that by the time of Tremellius’ death in 1580, he was ‘approximately seventy’. Biographical sketches and encyclopaedias over the ensuing centuries generally maintained this level of uncertainty, but in their biographies, written towards the end of the nineteenth century, Friedrich Butters and Wilhelm Becker seem to have ignored the previous sense of approximation: following their accounts it soon became a matter of established fact that Tremellius had been born in 1510.5 The issue is, of course, a relatively minor one, but it typifies the manner in which doubtful details have been incorporated into an orthodox narrative that has then established itself as seemingly almost beyond question. In reality, we must accept that Tremellius may have been born perhaps up to five years either side of the traditionally accepted 1510 birth year. Interestingly, it is worth noting at this stage that Tremellius was, at least, a very near contemporary of John Calvin, who was born in 1509; as we will see in due course, their paths would cross on more than one occasion, and they perhaps had more in common than one might initially assume. If we cannot be absolutely sure of the year of Tremellius’ birth, it is beyond doubt that he was born in Ferrara. He identified himself as such in the preface to one of his published writings, and would be described 2 Paris BNF MSS Fonds Français, Dupuy 348 no.120. The manuscript is dated 1578, but this clearly cannot be correct. I am grateful to Alexander Wilkinson for locating and transcribing this source for me. 3 As John Hale,RenaissanceEurope,1480–1520(Glasgow, 1990), p.14 ff. has noted, attitudes towards age in the early sixteenth century were far from reliable and in fact ‘most men were uncertain of their own age’. 4 Melchior Adamus, Decades Duae Continentes Vitas Theologorum Exterorum PrincipumquiEcclesiamChristiSuperioriSeculoPropagaruntetPropugnarunt (Frankfurt, 1618), pp.142–3. 5 Butters, Tremellius, p.3 remarked that Tremellius ‘ist … in Ferrara von jüdischen Aeltern im Jahre 1510 geboren’. Becker, Tremellius, p.1 consolidated this view when he wrote, ‘Sein Geburtstag wird nirgends angegeben, nur das Geburtsjahr: 1510’.

A JEW IN A RENAISSANCE CITY

3

as ‘Ferrariensis’ throughout his career. Ferrara has tended to be overshadowed by a handful of other Italian cities, most notably Florence, Venice and Rome, but this should not distract us from its significance. It was among the largest cities in Europe, with a population of between 40,000 and 50,000 during this period.7 Located well up the calf of Italy, not far from where the peninsula joins the mainland of continental Europe, and sitting on the northern bank of the River Po, Ferrara enjoyed access to, and control over, one of the most important transportation routes of northern Italy. Bologna, Padua and Venice all lay within a radius of 60 miles. This advantageous location contributed to Ferrara’s considerable commercial success in the later Middle Ages, which in turn underpinned the political and cultural developments of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. All of this shaped the environment in which Tremellius spent at least the first two decades of his life.8 During the late Middle Ages, Ferrara had fallen under the control of the d’Este, one of the most distinguished families in Italian history. They had arrived there in the late twelfth century, and by the middle of the thirteenth had established themselves as lords over the city.9 During the fifteenth century, through the efforts of Niccolo III and his three sons, Leonello, Borso and Ercole I, the family consolidated their power over Ferrara and the surrounding areas. Their growing prestige was further endorsed when they received the title of duke from Pope Paul II in 1471.10 It was under the d’Este that Ferrara was turned from a ‘dreary provincial backwater’ into a graceful and refined regional capital which could rival any other Italian city-state in terms of cultural achievement.11 Although much 6

6 Tremellius, InHoseamProphetamInterpretatioetEnarratio([Geneva], 1563), p.3. Tremellius was described as being ‘Ferrariensis’ in the records of Heidelberg University when he joined the theological faculty, by which point he would have been about 50 years old. See Gustav Toepke, Die Matrikel der Universität Heidelberg von 1386 bis 1662 (2 vols, Heidelberg, 1884–86), vol.2, p.25. In fact, the only exception among the primary sources comes from a report made to Philip II of Spain by his ambassador in England, Guzman de Silva, in which it is claimed that Tremellius was from Mantua. The rest of de Silva’s account, however, makes it clear that he was simply not very well informed about the Italian. Guzman de Silva to the King [Philip II], 27 March 1568, CSPSpanish, vol.2, pp.16–17. 7 Jan de Vries, EuropeanUrbanization,1500–1800 (London, 1984), pp.269–78. By way of comparison, there were fewer than 20 towns in Europe with a population of more than 40,000 in 1500; by the middle of the sixteenth century this number had only risen to 26. 8 The standard work on Ferrara towards the end of the Middle Ages is Werner L. Gundersheimer, Ferrara. The Style of a Renaissance Despotism (Princeton, NJ, 1973). See also Ella Noyes, TheStoryofFerrara (London, 1904). 9 Gundersheimer, Ferrara, p.17 ff. 10 The d’Este finally lost control of Ferrara in 1598, when the city was incorporated into the papal territories, but they transferred their court to Modena in that year and continued to rule there until 1803. 11 The quotation comes from Gundersheimer, Ferrara, p.13, though the expression is frequently used to describe the city before the arrival of the d’Este. The fullest treatment of

4

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

of Ferrara was destroyed in an earthquake in 1570, and further damage inflicted through aerial bombardment in 1944, a number of art historians have recently done much to reveal the manner in which the d’Este used the visual arts to glorify both their city and themselves.12 Ercole d’Este, in particular, was responsible for a substantial building programme around the turn of the century, only shortly before Tremellius’ birth. For the first 20 years of his reign, his attentions focused primarily on remodelling the Palazzo del Corte, but by the time of his death he had overseen work on a vast number of palaces, castles, churches and monasteries.13 Arguably his greatest contribution, however, was the so-called TerraNovaor Erculean Addition, a huge extension on the northern edge of the old city, covering perhaps 150,000 square metres of land, which not only resolved the pressures of an expanding population, but was also designed in such a way as to reflect the Renaissance ideals of space and proportion. It was, of course, also a place where further palaces and churches could be built.14 Thus, by the start of the sixteenth century, through the influence exerted by the d’Este, Ferrara had been transformed into a prosperous and elegant Renaissance city. On account of the Erculean Addition in particular, Jacob Burckhardt considered Ferrara to be the ‘first really modern city in Europe’.15 Rather more recently, David Ruderman described Ferrara at the end of the fifteenth century as ‘a municipality of imposing palaces, spacious avenues, extensive gardens, and monumental church edifices, as well as the site of splendiferous pageants and religious festivals’.16 Living in Ferrara during the first decades of the sixteenth century, Tremellius could not have failed to be aware of the culture of the Renaissance all around him. By the time of Tremellius’ birth, power in Ferrara had been passed into the hands of Ercole’s son, Alfonso I (r.1505–34). While Ercole had been an enthusiastic patron of writers and artists, Alfonso preferred to involve himself in matters of statecraft and war; nonetheless, the patronage of the arts was continued into the sixteenth century under the direction the cultural role of the d’Este is still Edmund G. Gardner, DukesandPoetsinFerrara.AStudy inthePoetry,ReligionandPoliticsintheFifteenthandEarlySixteenthCenturies(London, 1904). More recently, this theme has been addressed by the essays in Marianne Pade, Lene Waage Petersen and Daniela Querta (Eds), LaCortediFerraraeilsuomecenatismo1441– 1598.TheCourtofFerraraandItsPatronage(Copenhagen, 1990). On the patronage of the arts under Ercole I, also see Gundersheimer, Ferrara, pp.173–228. 12 See, most notably, Thomas Tuohy, Herculean Ferrara. Ercole d’Este, 1471–1505, and the Invention of a Ducal Capital (Cambridge, 1996) and Charles M. Rosenberg, TheEsteMonumentsandUrbanDevelopmentinRenaissanceFerrara(Cambridge, 1997). 13 Tuohy, HerculeanFerrara, passim; Rosenberg, EsteMonuments, pp.110–52. 14 Tuohy, HerculeanFerrara, pp.124–38; Rosenberg, EsteMonuments, pp.130–52. 15 Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance (London and New York, 1944), p.31. 16 David B. Ruderman, The World of a Renaissance Jew. The Life and Thought of AbrahambenMordecaiFarissol(Cincinnati, OH, 1981), p.14.

A JEW IN A RENAISSANCE CITY

5

of his second wife, the infamous Lucrezia Borgia. In the early sixteenth century, the d’Este court was the site of regular musical and dramatic performances. The vernacular poetry of Boiardo was performed there, while the first versions of Ariosto’s OrlandoFurioso were produced during the reign of Alfonso.17 As for the artistic sphere, Cosmè Tura and Dosso Dossi were among the most notable local painters to receive patronage from the d’Este, while further artists, including Raphael, Michelangelo, Giovanni Bellini and Titian, were invited in from outside.18 Thus not only was Tremellius living in a Renaissance town, in the sense that many of its buildings exemplified Renaissance styles, but it also had a vibrant cultural life, the impact of which would have been felt throughout the city. Life as a Jew Tremellius was born a Jew, and while a ghetto was not established in Ferrara until 1627, it is likely that he would have been brought up in one of the predominantly Jewish areas of the city. We will turn our attentions to the status of Jews in Ferrara shortly, but in order to appreciate fully the particular set of circumstances which existed there, it is necessary first to consider their standing in broader European terms. Anti-Semitism had, of course, always characterised Christian attitudes towards Jews since antiquity, but it is apparent that such sentiments intensified during the later Middle Ages.19 Historians remain divided as to the exact reasons for this shift, but it was certainly becoming apparent by the time of the Fourth 17 Andrea Bayer, ‘Dosso’s Public: The Este Court at Ferrara’ in Peter Humfrey, Mauro Lucco and Andrea Bayer (Eds), Dosso Dossi. Court Painter in Renaissance Ferrara (New York, 1998), p.30. 18 On the two Ferraran painters see respectively Stephen J. Campbell, CosmèTuraof Ferrara.Style,PoliticsandtheRenaissanceCity,1450–1495(New Haven, CT and London, 1997) and Peter Humfrey et al. (Eds), DossoDossi. For the last two, see John Walker, Bellini andTitianatFerrara.AStudyofStylesandTaste(London, 1956). 19 On the history of the Jews see, above all, the vast Salo Wittmayer Baron, ASocial andReligiousHistoryoftheJews (18 vols, New York and London, 1952–76). Cecil Roth, AShortHistoryoftheJewishPeople(London, 1948) is a further classic study. Paul Johnson, AHistoryoftheJews (London, 1987) and Norman Cantor, TheSacredChain:AHistory oftheJews (London, 1996) are both recent and useful overviews. On the history of antiSemitism see, for example, Léon Poliakov, TheHistoryofAnti-Semitism, especially the first volume, FromtheTimeofChristtotheCourtJews (London, 1966) and Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew. Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism (London, 1992). For the medieval period, Kenneth R. Stow, AlienatedMinority.TheJewsofMedievalLatinEurope (Cambridge, MA and London, 1994) and Leonard B. Glick, Abraham’s Heirs. Jews and ChristiansinMedievalEurope (Syracuse, NY, 1999) are both useful. For the early modern period in particular, John Edwards, TheJewsinChristianEurope1400–1700(London and New York, 1991) provides a concise introduction, while his The Jews in Western Europe 1400–1600(Manchester and New York, 1994) contains extracts from some of the principal contemporary sources.

6

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Lateran Council of the Roman Church which met in 1215:20 this Council introduced a range of canons which sought to minimise contact between Christians and Jews, while also obliging Jews to distinguish themselves from Christians through their dress.21 In many areas this was soon extended to include a further obligation to wear a badge of identification: in 1432, Pope Eugenius IV passed a decree ordering its application in Ferrara, and seven years later this was extended to Italy as a whole.22 This policy of separation was further endorsed from the end of the thirteenth century by secular rulers, who gradually pushed the Jews into exile. This began with England, which expelled the Jews in 1290, and was soon followed by France in 1306 (and again in 1315 and 1394). It reached a climax in the fifteenth century, which saw Jews being driven from perhaps as many as 90 separate territories of the Holy Roman Empire, as well as the most famous expulsions from Spain in 1492 and Portugal in 1497. Though not achieving the same notoriety as these last two, the expulsions continued into the sixteenth century, especially from many further areas of the Holy Roman Empire.23 The results of this campaign were remarkable and devastating: there were fewer Jews in Western and Central Europe in 1500 than at any point over the previous millennium.24 Although the Renaissance and Reformation would provoke a growing Christian interest in the Hebrew language and certain aspects of Jewish culture, very little would change for the Jews over the course of the next hundred years.25 Their readmission and reintegration back into those areas 20 Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews. The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca, NY and London, 1982). R. I. Moore, TheFormationofaPersecutingSociety.Power andDevianceinWesternEurope,950–1250(Oxford, 1987). Amos Funkenstein, ‘Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic in the Later Middle Ages’, Viator 2 (1971), pp.373–82. 21 The original text of these canons can be found in Edward A. Synan, ThePopesand theJewsintheMiddleAges (New York and London, 1968), Appendix 7, p.232 ff. 22 Shlomo Simonsohn, The Apostolic See and the Jews. Documents, 1394–1464 (Toronto,1988), docs 689 and 733. 23 For a general discussion of these expulsions see Edwards, JewsinChristianEurope, Chapter 1 and Robert Bonfil, ‘Aliens Within: The Jews and Antijudaism’ in Thomas A. Brady Jr et al. (Eds), HandbookofEuropeanHistory,1400–1600 (2 vols, Leiden, 1994–5), vol.1, pp.263–302, here at p.263 ff. This includes a map (p.264) with dates for many of the principal expulsions. The figures relating to the Empire come from Heiko A. Oberman, TheRootsofAnti-SemitismintheAgeofRenaissanceandReformation (Philadelphia, PA, 1984), p.95. For a revisionist account of the expulsion from Spain, see Henry Kamen, ‘The Mediterranean and the Expulsion of the Spanish Jews’, PP 120 (1988), pp.30–55. 24 Jerome Friedman, The Most Ancient Testimony: Sixteenth-Century ChristianHebraicaintheAgeofRenaissanceNostalgia(Athens, OH, 1983), p.18. 25 On this seemingly paradoxical situation, see especially Heiko A. Oberman, ‘Discovery of Hebrew and Discrimination Against the Jews: the VeritasHebraica as Double-Edged Sword in Renaissance and Reformation’ in Andrew C. Fix and Susan Karant-Nunn (Eds), Germania Illustrata:EssaysonEarlyModernGermanyPresentedtoGeraldStrauss (Kirksville, MO, 1992), pp.19–34. Also of relevance here are Friedman, MostAncientTestimony and Frank

A JEW IN A RENAISSANCE CITY

7

from which they had been expelled was essentially a phenomenon of the seventeenth century.26 Throughout the sixteenth century, however, Jews were at best a marginal group within European society. This was clear from their geographical distribution: having been driven out of Western Europe, Jews were only able to remain in some parts of the Holy Roman Empire, where they enjoyed limited protection from the emperor, while they gathered in increasing numbers in Italy and Eastern Europe, where the authorities tended to be rather more sympathetic.27 But this physical marginalisation was compounded by various rather less tangible factors. These were most apparent in the suspicion and resentment with which Jews were generally regarded throughout Europe.28 Such attitudes provoked, and were in turn stoked by, the emergence and dissemination of charges of host desecration and ritual murder which were laid against the Jews with increasing frequency in the decades immediately preceding Tremellius’ birth.29 As we will see in the course of this study, the Renaissance and Reformation would affect the relationships between Jews and Christians, and between Judaism and Christianity more generally in various ways, but anti-Semitism would remain a significant component of the world in which Tremellius lived, first as a Jew and then as a convert from Judaism. Growing up as a Jew in Italy, Tremellius would doubtless have been spared the worst of the anti-Semitic sentiment which pervaded the continent, but it would be very wrong to suggest that the peninsula was untouched by such views. It was, after all, in the northern Italian town of Trent in 1474/5 that one of the most famous accusations of Jewish child murder was made. E. Manuel, TheBrokenStaff.JudaismthroughChristianEyes (Cambridge, MA and London, 1992), especially pp.37–107.The growing scholarly interest in Hebraica among Christians will be discussed more fully in Chapter 3. 26 Jonathan I. Israel, EuropeanJewryintheAgeofMercantilism,1550–1750 (Oxford and Portland, OR, 1998), Chapter 2. This work contains a map (p.xx–xxi) with significant dates of readmission. 27 For Jews in these areas in the early modern period see, for instance, Edwards, Jews inChristianEurope, Chapters 3 and 4. For the Jews in Italy, see Robert Bonfil, JewishLifein RenaissanceItaly (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA, and London, 1994), Benjamin Arbel, Trading Nations: Jews and Venetians in the Early Modern Eastern Mediterranean (Leiden, 1995) and Robert C. Davis and Benjamin Ravid (Eds), TheJewsofEarlyModernVenice (London, 2001). For the Jews in Eastern Europe see, for example, S. M. Dubnow, HistoryoftheJews inRussiaandPolandfromtheEarliestTimestothePresentDay, vol.1 (Philadelphia, PA, 1946), especially pp.66–138 and Hillel Levine, EconomicOriginsofAntisemitism.Poland andItsJewsintheEarlyModernPeriod (New Haven, CT and London, 1991). 28 Joshua Trachtenberg, TheDevilandtheJews.TheMedievalConceptionoftheJew anditsRelationtoModernAntisemitism (New Haven, CT and London, 1945). 29 Both these themes have recently received monograph-length treatments: R. Po-Chia Hsia, TheMythofRitualMurder.JewsandMagicinReformationGermany(New Haven, CT and London, 1988) and Miri Rubin, GentileTales:TheNarrativeAssaultonLateMedievalJews (Philadelphia, PA, 2004).

8

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Reports of this episode were soon widely disseminated through northern Italy and beyond.30 Partly in its wake, the last two decades of the fifteenth century witnessed the expulsions of Jews from a number of Italian towns: from Perugia in 1485, Vicenza in 1486, Parma in 1488, Milan and Lucca in 1489 and from Florence and its subject towns in 1494. In addition, by 1510, the supposed year of Tremellius’ birth, most of the Jews in the Italian peninsula south of Rome had been removed.31 At the time that Tremellius was in Ferrara, as we have seen, its population may have neared 50,000; of these, between 1,000 and 2,000 were Jewish.32 In fact, there had been Jews in or around Ferrara since at least the early thirteenth century.33 As elsewhere in northern and central Italy, they had been invited in by the government to establish loan-banking enterprises in the city, a profession forbidden to Christians.34 During the fifteenth century, a number of Ashkenazim came to settle in Ferrara, while Jewish numbers were further increased following the expulsions from Spain in 1492: in 1493, an edict was passed inviting 21 families of Spanish exiles to settle in Ferrara.35 Indeed, it has been suggested that the arrival of so many Jews was one of the main factors which obliged Ercole to extend the city’s limits in the first place.36 Throughout the sixteenth century, Ferrara welcomed further groups of Jewish exiles: for instance, in 1510 a largely German group of Jews fled there from Padua during the War of the League of Cambrai, while in 1531 many Portuguese Marranos also took refuge there.37 Thus, in the early decades of the sixteenth century, the Jewish community of Ferrara was a remarkably heterogeneous one.38 Unfortunately, it is not known to which group Tremellius belonged.39

30 On these events, see above all the captivating study by R. Po-Chia Hsia, Trent1475: StoriesofaRitualMurderTrial (New Haven, CT, 1992). His earlier work, MythofRitual Murder, especially pp.43–50, had emphasised the significance of this incident and its subsequent dissemination in print and by other means for attitudes towards Jews in northern Europe. 31 Israel, EuropeanJewry, p.6. 32 Moses A. Shulvass, TheJewsintheWorldoftheRenaissance (Leiden, 1973), p.21 gives the figure of 2,000. The lower estimate is made by Israel, EuropeanJewry, p.16. 33 Pier Cesare Ioly Zorattini, ‘Ebrei Sefarditi e Marrani a Ferrara dalla Fine del Quattrocento alla Devoluzione del Ducato Estense’ in Albano Biondi and Adriano Prosperi (Eds), Libri,ideeesentimentireligiosinelCinquecentoitaliano (Ferrara, 1987), p.117. 34 Ruderman, WorldofaRenaissanceJew, p.14. 35 Zorattini, ‘Ebrei Sefarditi e Marrani’, p.119; Kamen, ‘Mediterranean and the Expulsion’, p.39. 36 Shulvass, JewsintheWorld, p.20. 37 Shulvass, JewsintheWorld, p.21. 38 Elliott Horowitz, ‘Jewish Confraternal Piety in Sixteenth-Century Ferrara: Continuity and Change’ in Nicholas Terpstra (Ed.), ThePoliticsofRitualKinship.Confraternitiesand SocialOrderinEarlyModernItaly (Cambridge, 2001), p.150. 39 In fact, so far as I have been able to establish, this issue seems never to have been raised in relation to Tremellius before.

A JEW IN A RENAISSANCE CITY

9

Tremellius was fortunate to have been born in Ferrara, as the d’Este princes were particularly benign towards their Jewish subjects, even compared with other parts of Italy, let alone the rest of Europe.40 By the time of Tremellius’ birth, the Jewish population was firmly entrenched within Ferrarese society. A Jewish cemetery had been established in 1451, for example, and a synagogue was completed shortly before the turn of the century.41 Moreover, the Jews of Ferrara enjoyed a number of privileges, granted to them by the d’Este. For instance Ercole had exempted certain moneylenders from the obligation of wearing the yellow badge intended to distinguish Jews; he also exempted all his Jewish subjects from paying a tax to the Pope worth one twentieth the value of their property.42 But even Ferrara was not entirely free from the currents and resentments which had affected the rest of the continent. Especially in the decades leading up to 1500, the influence of the various mendicant orders, and particularly the Dominicans, who waged a lengthy campaign against the Jews in the late Middle Ages, was felt in Ferrara.43 There was also animosity which came from the people themselves, relating to the very reason why Jews had been invited into Ferrara in the first place, namely their role as usurers.44 The tax burden which the d’Este imposed on their subjects was such that the latter became heavily reliant on Jewish moneylenders. Inevitably, this led to resentment which expressed itself first in complaints to the d’Este, but later in violence, and ultimately murder.45 Such sentiments were given an extra impetus in the late 1470s by the spread of stories about the supposed ritual torture and murder of a child in the town of Trent, mentioned above. Ferrara was among those places affected by the wave of hysteria which spread across northern Italy in its aftermath. In 1481, for instance, a riot broke out against a Jewish banker who was accused of crucifying a child; during its course, the banker lost his life.46 40 Israel, EuropeanJewry, p.16 identified the dukes of Urbino, Tuscany, Mantua and Ferrara as being ‘notably more tolerant towards the Jews in this period’. 41 Ruderman, WorldofaRenaissanceJew, p.15. 42 The obligation of wearing the badge of identification was subsequently reinstated in 1496 under the influence of Savonarola, discussed more fully below. Tuohy, Herculean Ferrara, p.172. 43 On the role of these monks, both as preachers and writers, see in addition to Cohen, TheFriarsandtheJews,Franco Mormando, ThePreacher’sDemons:BernardinoofSiena and the Social Underworld of Early Renaissance Italy (Chicago, IL, 1999) and Gilbert Daham, TheChristianPolemicAgainsttheJewsintheMiddleAges (Notre Dame, IN, 1998). For their influence in Ferrara see, for example, Campbell, CosmèTuraofFerrara, p.120 ff. 44 For an investigation into varying attitudes towards Jewish moneylenders, focused around an early fourteenth-century trial, but with much wider implications, see Joseph Shatzmiller, ShylockReconsidered:Jews,MoneylendingandMedievalSociety (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA and Oxford, 1990). 45 Campbell, CosmèTura, p.l21. 46 Tuohy, HerculeanFerrara, p.30; Campbell, CosmèTura, p.122.

10

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

All of this put the d’Este in a rather awkward position. On the one hand, they had a duty to uphold the Christian faith, to protect its adherents and to keep their Jewish subjects in line. This obligation became inescapable when it was determined that the Inquisitor for Lombardy and Emilia should be based in Ferrara from the second half of the fifteenth century onwards.47 On the other hand, the ruling family realised that the Jews played too important a role within the city to allow them to be chased out by popular ill-feeling, and they consequently sought to intervene wherever possible to protect them, and to maintain their various privileges. Following the murder of Jews in Trent, and fearing a repeat closer to home, Ercole banned all sermons against the Jews in his territories; he also insisted on the death penalty for the person responsible for killing the Jewish banker in 1481.48 Relations between Christians and Jews in Ferrara reached their lowest point in the 1470s and 1480s, but they do seem to have improved significantly thereafter. Nonetheless, the new waves of arrivals from Spain and Germany, in 1492 and 1510 respectively, would have ensured that tensions between adherents of the two faiths continued to simmer near the surface through into the sixteenth century. The implications of all of this for Tremellius, then, must have been mixed. The d’Este were certainly more benevolent to their Jewish inhabitants than most other rulers, but their policies, of necessity, fluctuated, depending on a wide range of pressures and considerations. Meanwhile, the Jews, as usurers, performed a function that was necessary, but largely reviled. Although they had not yet been formally banished to a ghetto, they formed a group apart, and as such were easy targets for abuse from the Christian majority.49 Tremellius may well have gained a more positive impression of Christians in Ferrara than he would have done in most other parts of Europe at this time, but he must equally have appreciated the potential for hostility towards him on account of his Judaism which always lurked in the background. Education and Early Life Virtually nothing is known with certainty about Tremellius’ family. It has sometimes been suggested that his father was a doctor, but this view seems to have been based on little more than the frequency with which Jews

Campbell, CosmèTura, p.121. Campbell, CosmèTura, p.122. 49 The ambivalent status of the Jews has been a theme that has underpinned much of the work of Robert Bonfil. See, for example, his JewishLifeinRenaissanceItaly, especially pp.101–24 and his ‘Aliens Within’, pp.263–302. 47 48

A JEW IN A RENAISSANCE CITY

11

entered the medical profession. Given the significance of the Jewish community to Ferrarese banking and finance, mentioned above, one could equally speculate that Tremellius came from a banking family, but in fact a fairly wide range of professions would have been possible.51 Towards the end of the 1550s, Tremellius would mention in a letter that he had been reunited with his brother whom he had not seen for 24 years.52 Strikingly, Tremellius does not appear to have referred to any members of his family, either in his extant writings or his correspondence, on any other occasion. It is impossible to determine whether this stemmed from grief at being separated from them, or a desire on Tremellius’ part to distance himself as much as possible from his controversial past. In his biography of Tremellius, Wilhelm Becker relates a number of unusual techniques by which he imagines the young boy would have begun to learn Hebrew, and through which his teacher would have sought to instil in him a proper appreciation of the value of education: for instance he suggests that the Hebrew alphabet, short biblical quotations and the motto ‘I will devote myself to learning’ were written in honey on a blackboard, painted on eggshells and used to decorate cakes.53 At first glance these and the other techniques which he describes seem rather fanciful, and not a little quaint, but a fascinating recent study by Ivan Markus has demonstrated that such rituals are well attested for Jewish communities in the later Middle Ages.54 On the other hand, these phenomena seem to have been much more closely associated with the Jewry of northern Europe, and were, in any case, coming to be phased out by the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries.55 It is impossible to know whether Tremellius would actually have encountered these pedagogical techniques, but they do highlight an underlying point which merits emphasis: one of the things which would later distinguish Tremellius from most of his contemporary Hebraists in Christian Europe was that he had a more intuitive and fully developed 50

50 J. F. de le Roi, DieevangelischeChristenheitunddieJudenunterdemGesichtspunkt derMissiongeschichtlichbetrachtet(3 vols, Karlsruhe and Leipzig, 1884), vol.1, p.51. Becker, Tremellius p.1. On this theme more generally, see Joseph Shatzmiller, Jews,Moneylending andMedievalSociety. 51 On professions occupied by Jews in this period, see Ariel Toaff, Love, Work and Death.JewishLifeinMedievalUmbria (London and Portland, OR, 1998), Chapters 9–11 and Bonfil, JewishLife, especially pp.79–98. 52 6 September 1559, Tremellius to Conrad Hubert, ZbZ MS S 95, 158. 53 Becker, Tremellius, pp.2–3. 54 Ivan G. Markus, Rituals of Childhood. Jewish Acculturation in Medieval Europe (New Haven, CT and London, 1996). In fact it is remarkable how closely the version offered by Becker parallels the paradigmatic synopsis of these rituals given by Markus on p.1. I am grateful to Joanna Weinberg for drawing this work to my attention, and for discussing this issue with me. 55 Markus, RitualsofChildhood, pp.25–33, 113 ff.

12

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

understanding of the Hebrew languages and culture. This was the natural result of the fact that Hebrew was a language he had learnt from his early childhood, and one to which he would have been exposed on a daily basis, and in a variety of settings; Christians, by contrast, would generally come to the study of Hebrew much later in their lives.56 Whether or not his education began in this way, Tremellius must rapidly have moved on to more advanced, and more orthodox, methods of education. He undoubtedly persisted with his Hebrew studies, but presumably also began to receive instruction in Latin and Greek. Indeed, though he may have begun studying these languages in a different order from his Christian contemporaries, he would rapidly turn himself into a Renaissance ideal: the trilingual scholar.57 Tremellius makes no remarks about the education he received, or the context in which it took place. Many Jews in the Renaissance period were educated by private tutors, but, more often than not, this was simply because they lived in places which contained only one or two Jewish families.58 Ferrara, by contrast, had a sizeable Jewish population, so it is possible that he attended the local Jewish school there. In that event, it is quite possible that he would have received instruction from Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol.59 Born in Avignon in 1452, Farissol had settled in Ferrara at the age of about 20. Within a couple of years, he was appointed by the Jewish community as its teacher, a post that he appears to have held until his death in around 1528. In addition, in around 1475 he was appointed permanent hazan, that is the leader of the worship service. Farissol was responsible for teaching a range of subjects, including grammar, the art of writing, rhetoric and some elementary logic. Little direct information survives about his teaching activities, but drawing on a work written towards the end of his life, a commentary on the Talmudic work, Avot,Ruderman has sought to build up a picture of the instruction he offered.60 Throughout the work Farissol emphasises the importance of both simplicity and concentration for effective teaching. Following the traditional curriculum of Jewish studies, he sought to lead his subjects from simple to more complex subjects. Moreover, as Ruderman has shown, biblical and rabbinic studies were integrated with the study of grammar, rhetoric and logic. Farissol was also critical of the tendency to neglect the study of the Bible in favour of an exclusive concern with the traditional 56 David H. Aaron, ‘The Doctrine of Hebrew Language Usage’ in Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck (Eds), TheBlackwellCompaniontoJudaism (Oxford, 2003), pp.268–87. 57 On this theme see, for example, Robert Wakefield, OntheThreeLanguages[1524], ed. and trans. G. Lloyd Jones (New York, 1989). 58 On Jewish education more generally, see Shulvass, JewsintheWorld, pp.168–72 and Bonfil, JewishLife, pp.125–44. 59 Ruderman, WorldofaRenaissanceJew, especially pp.3–34. 60 Ruderman, WorldofaRenaissanceJew, pp.18–20.

A JEW IN A RENAISSANCE CITY

13

rabbinic texts. Interestingly, Farissol also emphasised the value of fear as an instrument to be used by the teacher to aid the learning process. Beyond this, we also have the impressions of the French humanist, François Tissard, who was tutored by Farissol during the former’s stay in Ferrara at the start of the sixteenth century.61 Although Farissol is not mentioned by name, historians have long realised that he is the teacher whom Tissard praises in his DeIudaeorumritibuscompendium, which he appended to his Hebrew grammar of 1508, the first to be published in France.62 According to this work, Farissol provided the Frenchman with instruction in the Hebrew language and the literature of the Jews. But the two would engage in arguments over the interpretation of the ideas of the biblical texts as well. While Tissard felt Farissol’s Latin was lacking, he remarked that he ‘was well-versed in both Judaism and Christianity, possessed a clear mastery of the Old and New Testaments, and was knowledgeable in talmudic and cabbalistic literature, as well as in other areas’.63 As the principal teacher to the Jewish community of Ferrara from the late fifteenth century through to his death in 1528, it is quite likely that Farissol was Tremellius’ first Jewish teacher. Though Tremellius would not demonstrate any interest in the cabbala, the other principal characteristics of Farissol’s teaching would find echoes in Tremellius’ later career. Tissard praised Farissol’s familiarity with both the Old and New Testaments; in another more polemical work, Farissol offered a sharp critique of the Vulgate, which seems to have been based on an independent reading of Jerome, as well as drawing on his encounters with Christian texts and scholars.64 Tremellius would demonstrate a life-long interest in the Bible, and indeed publish a translation of the Old Testament in his last years, which can in some ways be regarded as a Protestant alternative to the Vulgate.65 In his biblical scholarship, as we shall see, he would demonstrate a particular interest in the linguistic and rhetorical features of the text. His interest in grammatical matters is attested to both by his composition of a Syriac grammar, and his endorsement of the Hebrew grammar produced by his son-in-law. He also incorporated rabbinic learning into both his lectures and his published writings, and would be drawn into working on the Talmud towards the end of his career. More generally, it would be tempting to suggest that exposure to a teacher so well versed in Christian teachings might have provided the initial spark which led to Tremellius’ Ruderman, WorldofaRenaissanceJew, pp.98–106. In addition to Ruderman on this point, see Zorattini, ‘Ebrei Sefarditi e Marrani’, pp.118–19. 63 Quoted in Ruderman, WorldofaRenaissanceJew, p.104. 64 Ruderman, WorldofaRenaissanceJew, p.80 ff. 65 This is a point I make more fully in ‘Immanuel Tremellius’ Latin Bible (1575–9) as a Pillar of the Calvinist Faith’ in David Adams and Adrian Armstrong (Eds), PrintandPower inFranceandEngland,1500–1800 (Aldershot, 2006), pp.27–38. 61 62

14

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

conversion. Unfortunately, given Tremellius’ silence on this matter, this must remain no more than speculation. The Religious Culture of Ferrara The presence of a substantial Jewish community in Ferrara was certainly unusual by European standards, but significant developments also occurred among the Christian populace during this period. Ferrara occupied an important position within the Catholic Church. This had been highlighted in 1438 when it served as the location for the church council which sought to reunite Roman Catholicism with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Its ties with Rome in particular were pronounced: Ferrara was a papal fief, and as we have seen the title of duke was granted to the d’Este by the Pope. The connection between the d’Este and the papacy was further strengthened, albeit briefly, by the marriage of Alfonso to Lucrezia Borgia, the notorious daughter of Alexander VI, in 1502. On the other hand, as we have already seen, the d’Este were often ambivalent in their adherence to Catholicism: this was perhaps most obvious in their readiness to offer exemptions to their Jewish subjects from the more severe demands of the Catholic Church. Especially in the last years of the century, however, Ercole became noticeably more devoted to the church. The influence of Girolamo Savonarola, a Ferraran by birth, seems to have been key in effecting this change of attitude. At the same time as he exercised direct political control over Florence in the 1490s, Savonarola also exerted a rather more indirect influence over his native city through Ercole, with whom he corresponded on a regular basis.66 Between 1493 and his death in 1505, Ercole founded or rebuilt 14 churches and monasteries, and contributed to the alteration of 12 others. In 1496, he passed a number of edicts against such crimes as blasphemy and sodomy, while retracting some of the privileges which had been granted to the Jews. Though Savonarola and Ercole had died by the time of Tremellius’ birth, this episode was still in relatively recent memory. More immediately, the substantial number of new or recently renovated churches at the start of the sixteenth century would have underlined the strength of a revivified Catholicism. In addition to the fluctuating fortunes of Catholicism in the early sixteenth century, the effects of the Protestant Reformation were also strongly felt in Ferrara while Tremellius was still only a youth. The works of Erasmus and Luther are known to have been widely read in the city

66 Tuohy, Herculean Ferrara, p.172. On Savonarola see Roberto Ridolfi, Life of GirolamoSavonarola (New York, 1959) and Donald Weinstein, SavonarolaandFlorence: ProphecyandPatriotismintheRenaissance (Princeton, NJ, 1970).

A JEW IN A RENAISSANCE CITY

15

during the 1520s and 1530s. However, an important development came with the arrival in Ferrara of Renée of France, the daughter of Louis XII and sister-in-law of Francis I.68 In 1528, at the age of 18, she married Alfonso’s eldest son, Ercole II, who would become duke in 1534. Renée brought with her to Ferrara a retinue of more than 160 people which, rather than integrate, came to constitute a court within a court, and an almost constant source of conflict between husband and wife. Having been raised at the court of Francis I, Renée seems already to have been sympathetic to Christian humanism and ideas of religious reform when she arrived in Ferrara, but over time her adherence to Reformation ideas became more pronounced.69 Indeed, by the middle of the 1530s, her court had acquired a reputation as a haven for religious dissidents, especially from France.70 Among the most famous of these were Clément Marot and John Calvin. The former arrived in 1535, and stayed in Ferrara for a period of about 14 months; along with Theodore Beza, he was the author of the GenevanPsalter, a text which came to occupy a central position within Reformed identity.71 Meanwhile, Calvin spent several weeks there during the spring of 1536, immediately following the completion of the first edition of his most famous work, the InstitutioChristianaeReligionis, and before he had first moved to Geneva.72 Historians have been reluctant to label Renée a Calvinist, but they did correspond for some time beyond Calvin’s departure from Ferrara, and it is apparent that he remained her principal connection to the reform movement.73 More generally, the presence of Calvin among the dissidents gives a good indication of the sort of views that were then circulating at court; the conflict between Renée and her husband on 67

67 Franco Bacchelli, ‘Science, Cosmology and Religion in Ferrara, 1520–1550’ in Luisa Ciammitti, Steven F. Ostrow and Salvatore Settis (Eds), Dosso’s Fate: Painting and Court CultureinRenaissanceItaly(Los Angeles, CA, 1998), p.337. 68 Charmarie Jenkins Blaisdell, ‘Renée de France between Reform and CounterReform’, ARG63 (1972), pp.196–226. 69 Blaisdell, ‘Renée de France’. 70 Salvatore Caponetto, The Protestant Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Italy (Kirksville, MO, 1999), pp.234–44. 71 M. A. Screech, Clément Marot. A Renaissance Poet Discovers the Gospel: Lutheranism,FabrismandCalvinismintheRoyalCourtsofFranceandofNavarre,andin theDucalCourtofFerrara (Leiden, 1994), especially pp.97–118 and G. Hugo Tucker, Homo Viator.ItinerariesofExile,DisplacementandWritinginRenaissanceEurope (Geneva, 2003), especially pp.24–36. 72 F. Whitfield Barton, CalvinandtheDuchess(Westminster, and Louisville, KY, 1989). This volume draws heavily on their subsequent correspondence. 73 Blaisdell, ‘Renée de France’, pp.206–7.

16

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

religious issues would then have ensured that news of these ideas spread much more widely.74 Conclusion Given the subsequent trajectory of Tremellius’ career, it would be very convenient to be able to suggest that he crossed paths with Calvin at this early stage in his career and that his conversation to Calvinism began at this stage.75 As we will see in the next chapter, the reality was rather more complicated. Nonetheless, it is apparent that the time that Tremellius spent in Ferrara was still important for his personal and spiritual development, and may well still have provided certain elements which did contribute towards his ultimate decision to convert. In particular, the comparatively benign attitudes of the d’Este family towards the Jews in their territories can only have helped to create a more favourable attitude towards Christians than would have been the case in most other places in Europe at the time. If, in addition, it was the case, as I have at least hypothesised, that Tremellius received instruction from Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol, then this personal sympathy towards Christians may have been supplemented by an intellectual acceptance: as we have seen Farissol’s teaching was characterised, among other things, by a greater readiness to engage in a positive manner with Christian ideas and texts than was often the case. It remains at least possible, then, that the initial impulse for the major spiritual journey that Tremellius would undertake in fact lay within these early years. Beyond that, the formative components of Tremellius’ early life took place against the backdrop of some seismic events in the history of European civilisation. During the time that Tremellius was in Ferrara, the two great intellectual movements of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the Renaissance and the Reformation, underwent significant developments. The Reuchlin controversy began in the supposed year of his birth; Luther pinned his 95 Theses to the door of the cathedral church in Wittenberg while he was still learning the rudiments of the Hebrew language; the first Zurich disputation occurred in the same year that Tremellius would have undergone his bar mitzvah; and the Sack of Rome occurred shortly before he reached his eighteenth birthday. One can only speculate as to the impact each of these events would have had on the young Jew growing 74 Adriano Prosperi, ‘L’eresai in città e a corte’ in Marianne Pade et al. (Eds), La cortediFerraraeilsuomecenatismo1441–1598.TheCourtofFerraraanditsPatronage (Copenhagen, 1990), pp.267–81. 75 In fact, Butters, Tremellius, p.5 does suggest that Tremellius underwent his conversion from Judaism directly to Calvinism in Ferrara and possibly under the influence of the developments taking place at the court of Renée.

A JEW IN A RENAISSANCE CITY

17

up in Ferrara, but it is hard to imagine that he was unaware of these developments in the two movements which would do so much to shape his subsequent career.

CHAPTER TWO

Conversion and the flight into exile At least until 1530, Tremellius was living happily with his family in the Jewish community of Ferrara; by mid-1542, however, he felt obliged to flee Italy for northern Europe. The intervening years clearly constituted a crucial turning point in Tremellius’ life, but just as was the case in relation to the time that he spent in Ferrara, the surviving evidence is only fragmentary. Nonetheless, sufficient materials have survived to allow us to plot a basic trajectory during this turbulent period. Perhaps more importantly, it is possible to subject Tremellius’ spiritual development during these years to more detailed scrutiny. This is an aspect of his life that has until now received surprisingly little attention. Yet it is essential to appreciate the principal religious and intellectual currents to which Tremellius would have been exposed if we wish to understand what prompted his progression towards the Reformed faith. After all, while the religious journey which Tremellius made during these years was far from being a common one, one should not assume that it defies historical explanation. According to the traditional narrative, Tremellius left Ferrara for Padua, where he studied the classics at the university.1 The idea that he attended Padua University is undoubtedly plausible. As his subsequent career would show, he was a very learned man, and it is almost certain that he received more than just a school education. In addition, the University of Padua is known to have been among the most sympathetic towards Jewish students.2 Finally, the assumption that Tremellius attended university in Padua has been helpful for those historians who have sought to explain his presence there at the end of the 1530s. Unfortunately, however, the evidence is merely circumstantial. Even if we assume that he did attend university (and it remains possible that he actually received instruction in a rather less formal setting), there were alternatives: Ferrara had its own well-established university, for instance, while Rome may also have been 1 As we saw at the end of the previous chapter, Butters, Tremellius is a notable exception on this point: he suggests (pp.5–6) that Tremellius only underwent one conversion, from Judaism to Calvinism, and that it took place in Ferrara. He further contends that when Tremellius left Ferrara, he headed directly to Lucca. However, Becker, Tremellius, pp.4–7 assumes that Tremellius did go to Padua, and he has been followed in this by writers right down to Alastair Hamilton, ‘Tremellius, (Joannes) Immanuel (1510-1580)’ in DNB (60 vols, Oxford, 2004), vol.55, p.285. 2 Maria Rosa di Simone, ‘Admission’, in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), AHistory of the University in Europe, vol.II: Universities in Early Modern Europe (1500–1800) (Cambridge, 1996), pp.294–6.

20

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

a possibility.3 At the same time, the lack of evidence cannot be used as proof that he did not spend time in Padua. As a Jew he would not normally have been entitled to enrol formally at a university, let alone to obtain a degree.4 His attendance at any university would therefore have gone largely unmarked. The timing of these developments is also questionable. Since the time of Becker’s biography, it has been traditional to assume that Tremellius spent the entire decade of the 1530s in Padua.5 However, there are various pieces of evidence which would suggest that this interpretation is, at the very least, simplistic. There are strong grounds, for instance, for imagining that Tremellius spent at least some time during this decade in Rome. In addition, the comments that Tremellius made in 1559 about his brother whom he had not seen for 24 years might well suggest that he was in, or returned to, Ferrara in around 1535.6 Certainly, it is clear that the traditional assumptions regarding how Tremellius spent the 1530s need to be regarded with considerable scepticism. Conversion: the First Phase Clearly the most important event in Tremellius’ life during this decade was his conversion from Judaism to Reformed Protestantism. Before we look at the circumstances in which this took place, it is important to reflect on what this conversion actually was.7 With the experiences of St Paul on the road to Damascus, and St Augustine’s account in his Confessions establishing the paradigm, conversions in the early modern period tended to be portrayed as moments of sudden revelation. Martin Luther and John Calvin both claimed to have had such experiences. But as the subsequent investigations of scholars have shown, such accounts are highly problematic: if not actually fictional creations, they seem to be simplifications, intended

3 Paul F. Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore, MD and London, 2002). 4 According to di Simone, ‘Admission’, p.295 only 80 Jews graduated from Padua University between 1517 and 1619. 5 Butters, Tremellius, by contrast implies that Tremellius remained in Ferrara at least until the middle of that decade, and indeed seems to have assumed that he did not depart until around 1540. 6 Tremellius to Conrad Hubert, 6 September 1559, ZbZ MS S 95, 158. It is also possible, of course, that this meeting took place elsewhere in Italy. 7 Elisheva Carlebach, DividedSouls.ConvertsfromJudaisminGermany,1500–1750 (New Haven, CT and London, 2001) and James Muldoon (Ed.), Varieties of Religious ConversionintheMiddleAges (Gainesville, FL, 1997), especially Jonathan M. Elukin, ‘From Jew to Christian? Conversion and Immutability in Medieval Europe’, ibid., pp.171–89.

21

CONVERSION AND THE FLIGHT INTO EXILE

to assist their comprehension and encourage their followers. The reality was generally a rather longer period of gradual transition.9 This would seem also to be a more appropriate model for Tremellius’ experiences. For while it is possible to identify individual shifts in outlook, an appreciation of the timing of these developments, and a sensitivity to what conversion actually means to the individual involved, make it more reasonable to consider them all as part of the same continuum. In the previous chapter I suggested that some of the roots of this change may have been laid down while Tremellius was still in Ferrara. However, the first truly discernible shift was his move away from Judaism towards Christianity. Here we have the benefit of two contemporary sources for this pivotal event, but this apparent advantage is somewhat undermined by the fact that both sources lack certain crucial pieces of information, and indeed they seem to be at least potentially contradictory. Nonetheless, given the importance of this event, it will be worth subjecting these sources to detailed analysis, before seeking to reconcile their content. The first piece of evidence comes from a work, the Speculariuscontra Genebrardum, which takes the form of a dialogue between Tremellius and Gilbert Génébrard, a professor of Hebrew from the University of Paris.10 This dialogue, published in 1581, only a year after Tremellius’ death, was intended to defend Tremellius against allegations made by Génébrard that his translation of the New Testament plagiarised the Syriac New Testament produced by the Catholic author, Guy Lefèvre de la Boderie, which was a component of the Antwerp Polyglot.11 The dialogue was anonymous, but was obviously written by a supporter of Tremellius. It has often been supposed that its author was Franciscus Junius, with whom he would produce his translation of the Old Testament.12 Before addressing the central issue of the work, the interlocutors exchange insults and seek to establish their own credibility. During this exchange, the character Tremelliussays of himself: 8

8 Andrew Pettegree, ReformationandtheCultureofPersuasion(Cambridge, 2005), p.3 ff. Patrick Collinson, TheReformation (London, 2003), p.3 ff. W. D. J. Cargill Thompson, ‘The Problem of Luther’s “Tower Experience” and its Place in his Intellectual Development’ in Thompson, StudiesintheReformation.LuthertoHooker (London, 1980), pp. 60–81. 9 Philip McNair’s biography of Peter Martyr, which is subtitled ‘An Anatomy of Apostasy’, demonstrates very effectively how an individual’s religious outlook could shift subtly over time. PeterMartyrinItaly:AnAnatomyofApostasy (Oxford, 1967). 10 [Franciscus Junius?], Specularius, Dialogus pernecessarius, quo se Immanuel Tremelliuspurgatabilliscriminationibus,quasGilbertusGenebrardusTheologusParisiensis divinarum&HebraicarumliterarumProfessorRegius,ipsiinChronographia,seuuniversae historiaespeculointulerat(Neustadt, 1581). 11 See below, Chapter 7. For a more detailed discussion of the Specularius see Robert J. Wilkinson, ‘Immanuel Tremellius’s 1569 Edition of the Syriac New Testament’, JEH (forthcoming). 12 See below, Chapter 8.

22

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

And therefore, the renowned Cardinal of Rome, Furnese [that is, Farnese] … took me, by birth a Jew, fifty years ago, into his household, when I first passed over [transivi] to the Christians, drawn by a sure religious knowledge: and he illuminated that doctrine of truth for me …13

The figure to whom he refers is Alessandro Farnese, who became Pope Paul III in 1534.14 Another cardinal, Reginald Pole, is mentioned in the second text which relates to Tremellius’ conversion. The DeAntiquitateBritannicae, a work first published in 1572, is a collection of the lives of the 70 archbishops of Canterbury through to the incumbent of the time, Matthew Parker.15 In the life of Pole, who held the office between 1555 and 1558, the following incident is recorded: Immanuel Tremellius, a most learned man, often came to the circle of evangelicals around Reginald Pole and the company of Antonio Flaminio. And he was converted [conversusfuit] from his Jewish stubbornness to Christ in the household of Pole; he also consumed evangelical doctrines, and further he was baptized by Pole and Flaminio within Pole’s household.16

Again the authorship of the work remains uncertain, though it seems that it was written at least with the approval of the current archbishop, Matthew Parker. His colleagues John Joscelyn and George Acworth have both been identified as possible authors.17 Parker and Tremellius would become close friends in the 1550s, and it is thus likely that news of this event came directly from Tremellius.18 As with the first extract, there was a substantial delay between the events described and the point at which they appeared in print. These extracts are clearly problematic. Most obviously, both seem to be describing essentially the same episode in Tremellius’ life, namely his conversion from Judaism to Christianity. In addition, the authors of both works are uncertain, while neither offers a date or location for the events which they describe. Nonetheless, there do seem to be reasonable grounds for accepting them as valid sources. First, the information which is relevant [Junius?], Specularius,Dialoguspernecessarius,pp.10–11. On Farnese, see Ludwig Pastor, TheHistoryofthePopes (40 vols, London, 1906– 53), vol.11 (1912), passim. 15 [Matthew Parker?], De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae & Privilegiis Ecclesiae Cantuariensis,cumArchiepiscopiseiusdem70(London, 1572). 16 [Parker?], DeAntiquitateBritannicae, p.410. 17 For a discussion of this text and its negative portrayal of Pole, see Thomas F. Mayer, ReginaldPole.PrinceandProphet(Cambridge, 2000), pp.363–4. The passages which relate to Tremellius are discussed in ibid., pp.54–5 and 215. 18 Alessandro Pastore, Marcantonio Flaminio. Fortune e Sfortune di un Chierico nell’ItaliadelCinquecento (Milan, 1981), p.70 suggests that Joscelyn inserted this anecdote into the second edition of this work in 1605, but as it appears in the original 1572 edition, this simply cannot be the case. 13 14

CONVERSION AND THE FLIGHT INTO EXILE

23

for the current discussion is largely secondary to the purpose of the respective works: there was little to be gained by falsifying the information in these extracts. Secondly, the two anecdotes have both positive and negative implications for those involved: there is no clear moral victor in either. Finally, while the events described had occurred some decades before, they were still within living memory and would have risked being challenged if they veered too far from the truth.19 If the two extracts are to be reconciled, we must assume that they relate to two separate stages in the process by which Tremellius was gradually drawn away from Judaism and came to accept Catholicism; and, in fact, this would correspond with what I have said above about conceiving of his conversion as a period of transition rather than as a Damascene moment. It would seem more likely that the encounter with Farnese was the earlier event. In the extract from the SpeculariuscontraGenebrardum it is recorded that the events which it describes occurred ‘fifty years earlier’. Of course, we must imagine that there is a degree of approximation implied here, but given that the work was published in 1581, this would lead us to place Tremellius’ encounter with Farnese in the early 1530s.20 The extract also states explicitly that these events took place in Farnese’s household. The most likely location for this was Rome: the Farnese family had long been established in Rome, and Alessandro, who had been a cardinal for 40 years by the time of his elevation to the papacy, had spent the majority of that time in Rome.21 Under his predecessor, Clement VII, he had served both as the dean of the College of Cardinals, and Legate in Rome. 19 The SpeculariuscontraGenebrardum was clearly written by a supporter of Tremellius, and one might imagine that some of these details had been fabricated. As a means of proving the authenticity of his Christianity, Tremellius could hardly have picked a more reliable witness than a future pope! On the other hand, such a connection would be potentially damaging to his reputation as a Protestant. In addition, while there was little to be gained by inventing this link, the polemical success of this dialogue risked being undermined if it could be shown that false claims were being advanced. Similarly, while Mayer, PrinceandProphet, p.363 asserts that DeAntiquitateBritannicae contains one of the most negative accounts of Pole to emerge from the sixteenth century, the incidents in which Tremellius appears cannot be read as contributing directly to that negative impression: indeed, in attributing to Pole the responsibility for bringing Tremellius out of Judaism, one must imagine that Parker and his fellow Protestants were very glad. Tremellius was still alive when the first edition of this work appeared, and his close friend Parker oversaw its appearance, making it doubtful that there are factual inaccuracies here. 20 Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (18 vols, New York and London, 1952–83), vol. XIII, pp.166–7 places this encounter in 1530. 21 E. I. Carlyle, ‘Tremellius, John Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in DNB vol.57 (1899), p.186, Simonetta Adorni-Braccesi, ‘Una Città Infetta’ La Repubblica di Lucca nella crisi religiosa del Cinquecento (Florence, 1994), p.136 and Hamilton, ‘Tremellius’, p. 285 are among those, however, who assume this encounter took place in Padua. This seems unlikely, as does the suggestion, made by Hamilton among others, that Farnese visited Tremellius’ father’s house in Ferrara, for which there does not seem to be any evidence.

24

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Even as a cardinal, Farnese had overseen a substantial household: on the eve of the Sack of Rome, it comprised 366 members. With patronage on this scale, one can imagine how easily Tremellius would have fitted into Farnese’s circle.22 Many consider Farnese to have been the first pope of the sixteenth century who was seriously committed to reform of the Catholic Church, and there are strong grounds should one wish to make this case. He announced his intention to hold a general council of the church as soon as he was elected, and was responsible for finally convening the Council of Trent in 1545. He consistently promoted qualified candidates, including Gasparo Contarini, Gian Pietro Carafa, Reginald Pole, Jacopo Sadoleto and Gregorio Cortese, to the rank of cardinal; in 1536 he established a commission, made up of several of these figures, which was instructed to draw up a series of reform proposals for the church: the Consiliumde emendandaecclesia.23 In addition, he authorised the establishment of the Society of Jesus, encouraged new religious orders and re-established the Roman Inquisition. In addition, Farnese would earn a reputation as being sympathetic towards the Jews. From 1534, his personal physician was Jacob ben Samuel Mantino, who, between 1538 and 1541, and unusually for a Jew, taught medicine at the Sapienza in Rome.24 In 1541, Farnese encouraged the settlement in Rome of Jews expelled from Naples, and in 1545, the year in which the Council of Trent began, he granted permission for the establishment of a Hebrew printing press there.25 Like his contemporaries, Farnese’s ultimate aim was still the conversion of the Jews, but the approach he adopted was more gentle than the norm. In March 1542, he passed a bull, CupientesJudaeos, which hoped to make conversion from Judaism a more enticing prospect by protecting converts’ property and offering them the full rights of citizenship. Then, in February 1543, he set up a domus catechumenorum or ‘house of converts’, a monastery intended to shelter neophytes from contact with those Jews who continued to practise their religion.26 Given Farnese’s concern with matters of church reform, his sympathetic attitude towards Jews and his desire to draw them away from their Pastor, HistoryofthePopes, vol.11, pp.24–5. ‘Proposal of a Select Committee of Cardinals and other Prelates Concerning the Reform of the Church, Written and Presented by Order of His Holiness Pope Paul III (1537)’ in Elisabeth G. Gleason (Ed. and trans.), ReformThoughtinSixteenth-CenturyItaly (Ann Arbor, MI, 1981), pp.81–100. 24 Jerome Friedman, The Most Ancient Testimony: Sixteenth-Century ChristianHebraicaintheAgeofRenaissanceNostalgia(Athens, OH, 1983), p.22. 25 Paul Johnson, AHistoryoftheJews(London, 1987), p.243. 26 Kenneth R. Stow, CatholicThoughtandPapalJewryPolicy1555–1593 (New York, 1977), pp.51–2. 22 23

CONVERSION AND THE FLIGHT INTO EXILE

25

Judaism, it is easy to see how Tremellius should have been of interest to him. Even so, it is striking that Farnese should have encountered him in the first place. The most plausible explanation is that Tremellius had already acquired enough of a reputation as a Hebraist by this early stage of his career to afford him entry to the court Sof one of the leading churchmen of the period. Farnese may well have felt that he could make good use of the young man’s skills, while also helping to draw him towards Christianity. Moreover, if it was Tremellius’ skills as a Hebraist which brought him to the attention of the cardinal, it is likely that he would have been employed on various projects which accorded with the cardinal’s religious interests. In that case it was probable that their relationship was one of some duration. This would also be implied by the suggestion that Farnese played a role in Tremellius’ conversion. One might therefore conclude that the passage quoted above, which seems ostensibly to describe a relatively brief encounter, in fact alludes to a rather longer period in Tremellius’ career. Especially if this encounter took place early in the 1530s, it is possible that Tremellius returned to Ferrara first, but there was a direct link between Farnese and Pole. Farnese had been responsible for appointing Pole as a cardinal in 1536, and had continued to protect him, in various ways, thereafter. Given these connections, and their shared interests in matters of religious reform, it would have been quite reasonable for Paul III to recommend the Jew whom he had begun to draw away from Judaism. As we have already noted, DeAntiquitateBritannicae fails to provide a context for the encounter between Tremellius and Pole, but it is in fact possible to narrow down where and when this occurred with a fair degree of precision. For a start, we can be absolutely certain that Tremellius’ first encounter with Pole cannot have occurred before 1532, as it was only in this year that the latter fled England and took up residence in Italy.27 Over the next nine years, through to 1541, he maintained a house in Padua, though he also served on various diplomatic missions, as well as making regular visits to Venice and, especially after 1536, Rome.28 The references to Marcantonio Flaminio in the extract provide a further clue, and one which seems largely to have been missed by previous scholars.29 27 On Pole, Mayer’s Prince and Prophet is now the definitive study. Mayer’s articles on Pole have recently been gathered together in ReginaldPoleinEuropeanContext:aVia Media in the Reformation (Aldershot, 2000). Also see Mayer. (Ed.), The Correspondence ofReginaldPole:ACalendar (3 vols, Aldershot, 2002–04). Also of considerable merit are Dermot Fenlon, HeresyandObedienceinTridentineItaly:CardinalPoleandtheCounterReformation(London, 1972) and Paolo Simoncelli, IlCasoReginaldoPole:EresiaeSantita nellepolemichereligiosedelCinquecento(Rome, 1977). 28 Mayer, Prince and Prophet, Chapter 2 passim; Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience, pp.28–44. 29 On Flaminio see Pastore, MarcantonioFlaminio and Carol Maddison, Marcantonio Flaminio:Poet,HumanistandReformer (London, 1965). For Flaminio’s correspondence see

26

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

It has generally been assumed that Tremellius’ encounter with Pole took place in Padua, but this does not correspond with the surviving evidence.30 Flaminio would not join Pole’s circle until October 1541, by which time the cardinal was no longer in Padua.31 Pole was appointed governor of Viterbo in August, and took up the post in September.32 Of course, it is possible that Flaminio’s name was included in the account erroneously, either by accident, as a consequence of the considerable distance from the events which are described, or intentionally, in order to imply certain things about the character of Pole’s circle at this time (a theme to which I shall shortly return). But as I have argued above, there are various grounds for accepting this information as accurate. There is, in addition, independent evidence from Tremellius’ exile which would seem to confirm that Tremellius and Flaminio knew each other.33 For Flaminio to have been present, the events must have taken place in Viterbo after October 1541. To this we can add that they must have taken place by early 1542 at the latest – because we know that Tremellius had moved on to Lucca by that date.34 Even if we do assume that the baptism took place in Viterbo, this does not exclude the possibility that Tremellius spent time in Padua. After all, the DeAntiquitateBritannicae implies that he was a regular member of Pole’s circle, and it is quite conceivable that he would have been one of the fairly large retinue which travelled with the cardinal when he took up his governorship in Viterbo. The fact that Pole was responsible for Tremellius’ baptism would suggest a closeness between the two, and realistically, one probably ought to consider that event as the culmination of a period of time spent in each other’s company. In Padua, Tremellius would have been exposed to many of the currents of religious reform then prevalent in Italy. The impact of the Reformation was felt early there. Padua was close to the border between Italy and the Holy Roman Empire. Merchants and travellers from north of the Alps Marcantonio Flaminio, Lettere, edited by Alessandro Pastore (Rome, 1978). 30 Mayer, PrinceandProphet, p.54, who describes Tremellius as ‘the Paduan Hebraist’, is a notable exception, in that he locates the conversion at Viterbo. 31 Mayer, PrinceandProphet, p.116; Maddison, MarcantonioFlaminio, pp.119–53. 32 The Pope conferred the governorship of the ‘Patrimonium Petri’, the oldest of the Papal States, on 13 August 1541; the cardinal made his official entry into Viterbo on 14 September. 33 Marcantonio Flaminio to Antonio Pavaranzo, 28 November 1545, in Marcantonio Flaminio, Lettere, Letter 51, pp.151–2. In this letter, Flaminio sends his greetings to ‘our very dear friend M. Emanuel’. 34 See below. Peter Martyr Vermigli was appointed prior of the monastery of San Frediano in Lucca in May 1541, and would depart from that post in August 1542. Not only would Martyr have been keen to obtain a teacher of Hebrew as soon as possible, but Tremellius must also have spent a reasonable period of time in Martyr’s company to absorb his Protestant teachings as fully as he did.

CONVERSION AND THE FLIGHT INTO EXILE

27

frequented the town, while Germans made up a sizeable proportion of the students at its university.35 Their presence, and the books which they brought with them, undoubtedly helped with the dissemination of Protestant doctrines. Tremellius would have had easy access to many such works: texts like Bucer’s commentaries on Matthew and Romans, and Luther’s commentary on the Psalms are known to have circulated within his entourage for instance.36 By the 1530s, the University of Padua is known to have become a particular haven of Protestantism, and one of the principal channels through which Reformation ideas were disseminated in northern Italy.37 Indeed, it is striking how many of the leading figures associated with religious reform in Italy attended that university: Pole, Flaminio, Gasparo Contarini, Pier Paolo Vergerio, Peter Martyr Vermigli and Giovanni Morone are all known to have been students at Padua. A further significant component in Paduan spirituality was provided by the Benedictine monastery of Santa Giustina. As Collett has shown in a penetrating study, the leading theologians of this monastery drew on the writings of St Paul and the Greek Fathers to construct their own distinct theology which pre-dated the Reformation, but shared a number of its most prominent principles, including salvation by faith, through grace.38 As a result, the monks of Santa Giustina were initially sympathetic to the ideas of the Reformation, although, as time passed, they developed and more clearly defined their teachings.39 Importantly, this was not merely a theology developed in seclusion: during the 1520s and 1530s, a series of writers and preachers helped to disseminate the particular views of Cassinese Benedictinism more widely. Several members of this order, including the Dutch Hebraist Jan van Kampen, Isidoro Chiari and Marco da Cremona, exercised a strong influence on Pole.40 It is likely that Tremellius was also exposed to their influence; Marco’s preaching in particular was known to have drawn large crowds.41 Given its proximity, Venice exerted a further strong influence on Padua during this period. Ruled by a government which was inclined towards toleration and prided itself on its independence from Rome, Venice was a 35 Paul F. Grendler, ‘The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press, 1540–1605’, JMH 47 (1975), p.58. 36 Fenlon, HeresyandObedience, p.91. 37 Delio Cantimori, ‘Italy and the Papacy’ in G. R. Elton (Ed.), TheNewCambridge Modern History, vol.2: The Reformation 1520–59 (Cambridge, 1990), p.293. See also Jonathan Woolfson, PaduaandtheTudors:EnglishStudentsinItaly,1485–1603 (Cambridge, 1998). 38 Barry Collett, ItalianBenedictineScholarsandtheReformation:TheCongregation ofSantaGiustinaofPadua (Oxford, 1985). 39 Collett, ItalianBenedictineScholars, pp.77–137. 40 Fenlon, HeresyandObedience, pp.30–32. 41 Collett, ItalianBenedictineScholars, p.111.

28

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

setting in which a wide range of ideas found a home.42 It had a flourishing printing industry which took a lead in the production of classical works, as well as being a principal source of both Hebrew and Protestant texts for much of northern Italy.43 Venice was also home to several significant groups of religious reform, including the Oratory of Divine Love, which gathered there under the auspices of Cardinal Gasparo Contarini,44 while Contarini, Flaminio, Gian Pietro Carafa and Gregorio Cortese were among those who met for discussion in the garden of another Benedictine monastery, San Giorgio Maggiore.45 Pole himself owned a second residence in Venice, and he attended the meetings of both groups.46 As a member of Pole’s circle, it is not inconceivable that Tremellius accompanied Pole on one of his regular visits to Venice. Even if he did not, we must imagine that many of the theological insights from the discussions in which the cardinal participated were then filtered through to the members of his household in Padua, including the Jew whose baptism he would oversee. While the currents that circulated in Padua and Venice shaped the general environment in which Tremellius moved in the direction of Christianity, the influence of Pole in his spiritual development during this period should not be underestimated. Especially given the central role that the cardinal played in his conversion, we might even consider him to have been the young man’s spiritual mentor.47 It is far from straightforward to determine Pole’s beliefs: he left no clear confession of faith, leaving it open for contemporaries and historians to interpret his actions, silence and oblique statements in substantially different ways. The ambiguity of his position is exemplified by the fact that in 1549 he was very nearly elected pope, but in 1556 he only narrowly escaped facing the Inquisition. Whether Pole was a 42 See especially William J. Bouwsma, VeniceandtheDefenseofRepublicanLiberty: RenaissanceValuesintheAgeoftheCounter-Reformation(Berkeley, CA, 1968) and John J. Martin, Venice’s Hidden Enemies: Italian Heretics in a Renaissance City (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA and London, 1993). 43 Paul F. Grendler, The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press, 1540–1605 (Princeton, NJ, 1977) and Paul F. Grendler, ‘The Circulation of Protestant Books in Italy’ in Joseph C. McLelland (Ed.), PeterMartyrVermigliandItalianReform(Ontario, 1980), pp.5–16. Ugo Rozzo and Silvana Seidel Menchi, ‘The Book and the Reformation in Italy’ in Jean-François Gilmont (Ed.), TheReformationandtheBook (Aldershot, 1998), pp.319–67, esp. 325–9. 44 William V. Hudon, ‘Introduction’ in Hudon. (Ed. and trans.), TheatineSpirituality. Selected Writings (New York, 1996), especially pp.7–25. On Contarini see Elisabeth G. Gleason, Gasparo Contarini. Venice, Rome and Reform (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA and Oxford, 1993). 45 Francesco Cesareo, HumanismandCatholicReform:TheLifeandWorkofGregorio Cortese(1483–1548) (New York, Berne, Frankfurt and Paris, 1990). 46 Fenlon, HeresyandObedience,p.28 ff. 47 However, there seem no grounds for regarding him, as some have done, as Tremellius’ godfather. See, for example, Carlyle, ‘Tremellius’, p.186.

CONVERSION AND THE FLIGHT INTO EXILE

29

crypto-Protestant or a model of Catholic sanctity has been a debate which has continued to exercise historians ever since.48 Pole’s biographers continue to disagree over the exact nature of his religious outlook, to offer differing interpretations of certain critical points in his spiritual development and to determine where the spirituality of Pole’s circle should be located within the broader spectrum of Italian religious reform.49 As we have already noted, Pole read a wide range of Protestant works; at the same time, however, he evidently appreciated their inflammatory potential. Famously, he warned Vittoria Colonna to avoid the writings of Luther, Bucer, Calvin and Melanchthon.50 Nonetheless, given his enthusiasm for biblical study, his concern with the sinfulness of man and his sympathy for a range of doctrines, including justification by faith, the traditional litmus test of evangelical thought, it is easy to understand why he has been considered a crypto-Protestant.51 With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to label him as a heretic, but it is not quite as simple as that. He refused to support Contarini’s compromise on justification from Regensburg, and withdrew from Trent when the issue came up for debate, leaving the evangelical position without a significant defender. Ultimately, Pole would defer to the authority of the church, and considered it heretical to reject doctrines which were taught explicitly by the church, such as purgatory.52 Especially in the years before Trent, this still gave him a certain freedom of movement when it came to concepts which had not yet been defined.53 Pole’s wide reading, his great personal piety, his sympathy for certain Protestant teachings, his readiness to combine them with Catholic ones, to exploit doctrinal ambiguity, and to distinguish between confessional conformity and his own personal beliefs are all factors which would seem to have found a resonance in Tremellius. As we have seen, Marcantonio Flaminio was also mentioned in relation to Tremellius’ baptism. Although they may only have spent a short period of time in each other’s company, we should acknowledge that he may have exerted a further influence on Tremellius. Flaminio was certainly 48 For a case-study of how one incident in Pole’s life has been subjected to divergent interpretations, see Thomas F. Mayer, ‘A Sticking-Plaster Saint? Autobiography and Hagiography in the Making of Reginald Pole’ in Thomas F. Mayer and D. R. Woolf (Eds), TheRhetoricsofLife-WritinginEarlyModernEurope.FormsofBiographyfromCassandra FedeletoLouisXIV (Ann Arbor, MI, 1995), pp.205–22. 49 Mayer, PrinceandProphet, p.103 ff. 50 Mayer, PrinceandProphet, p.122. Incidentally this would imply both that he was already acquainted with these authors, and that he thought Colonna would have easy access to them. 51 Cf. Fenlon, HeresyandObedience, p.108. 52 Fenlon, HeresyandObedience, p.90. 53 Fenlon, ReginaldPole, pp. 107–14, argues that Pole held an ambiguous position on this subject even as late as the eve of the Council of Trent, suggesting that his attitude was ‘to believe as if salvation depended upon faith alone, while acting as if it were dependent on works’.

30

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

among the best-known members of Pole’s household, particularly on account of his humanist poetry.54 Of greater importance here, however, was his association with the Spanish exile and key religious figure, Juan de Valdés. Flaminio had been one of the circle which had formed around the Spanish exile in Naples during the 1530s.55 Indeed, it has been argued that Flaminio’s move to Pole’s circle was part of a concerted campaign, conceived shortly before Valdés’ death, to spread the message of the Naples circle to other Italian reform groups.56 As this was an intellectual current which Tremellius encountered longer and more fully in Lucca through contact with a second adherent of Juan de Valdés, Peter Martyr Vermigli, we shall delay a more detailed discussion of it until the next section. In the meantime it is enough to note that it is evidence of the interconnectedness of Italian reform circles that there are two separate avenues by which Tremellius might have encountered Valdesian thought. Without doubt the most famous text to emerge from these circles of Italian evangelism was the anonymous treatise, the Beneficio di Cristo, a highly spiritual work which sets out the doctrine of justification by faith, and reflections on the nature of the life of a Christian.57 Especially in recent decades, this work has been subjected to substantial analysis aimed at discerning its authorship, identifying its intellectual influences and characterising the nature of its theological message.58 The most convincing explanation is that it was written by Benedetto Fontanini da Mantova, a Benedictine monk from Santa Giustina, but that it was substantially revised, probably under the influence of Flaminio.59 While earlier scholars have found in the work substantial passages drawn from northern writers including Luther and Calvin, as well as demonstrating the influence of On this, see Maddison, MarcantonioFlaminio, passim. Maddison, MarcantonioFlaminio, pp.105–18. 56 Massimo Firpo, Tra alumbrados e ‘spirituali’. Studi su Juan de Valdés e il Valdesianesimo nella crisi religiosa del ’500 italiano (Florence, 1990), pp.135–6. Mayer, Prince and Prophet, however, has challenged this view. He follows Ludovico Beccadelli, Pole’s contemporary biographer, in claiming that the cardinal invited Flaminio to Viterbo because he wished to return him to Orthodoxy. 57 See Tommaso Bozza (Ed.), NuoviStudiSullaRiformainItalia, vol.1: Il Beneficio di Cristo (Rome, 1976). For an English translation of this text, see Ruth Prelowski, ‘The Beneficio di Cristo’ in Gleason (Ed.), ReformThought, pp.103–61. 58 In addition to Bozza’s critical edition, see Carlo Ginzburg and Adriano Prosperi, ‘Le due redazioni del “Beneficio di Cristo”’ in EresiaeRiformanell’ItaliadelCinquecento: Miscellanea I (Florence and Chicago, OH, 1974), pp.135–204, M. Rosa, ‘Il Beneficio di Cristo: Interpretazioni a Confronto’, BHR 40 (1978), pp.609–20, Valdo Vinay, ‘Die Schrift “Il Beneficio di Giesu Christo” und ihre Verbreitung in Europa nach der neueren Forschung’, ARG 58 (1967), pp.29–72 and, most recently, Collett, ItalianBenedictineScholars, pp.157–85. 59 Ginzburg and Prosperi, ‘Le due redazioni’, passim. Very recently, however, Mayer, PrinceandProphet, p.20 has sought to diminish the contribution of Flaminio and to play up that of the subject of his biography, principally because of ‘the large degree of overlap between [Pole’s] DeUnitate and the Beneficio’. 54 55

CONVERSION AND THE FLIGHT INTO EXILE

31

other intellectual currents of the period, including Spanish alumbradism, more recently it has been shown that much of the text corresponds with the ideas and style of other writings which had emerged from the Cassinese monastery of Santa Giustina. Given that this work was composed only a couple of years after Tremellius’ conversion, and in essentially the same circles, it is revealing about the context in which Tremellius came to adopt the Christian faith. In particular, the collaborative nature of the work reflects the complex web of connections between the various reform cells located in Padua and beyond. With Pole as his spiritual mentor, Tremellius may well have been introduced to representatives of these various groups. Although still a junior figure, Tremellius had a range of skills which would have made him valuable in these circles. Secondly, the Beneficio di Cristo was a work which, in its focus on the inner Christian, typified both the Erasmian humanism and Valdesian spirituality on which it drew. These groups in which Tremellius was circulating paid very little attention to the external forms of religion. This then sat neatly with the third main characteristic of the work, namely its readiness to incorporate ideas from an extensive range of religious currents, including those which would soon be condemned as heretical by the Council of Trent. This eclecticism and the absence of dogmatism were typical of most branches of Italian reform thought at this time. Soon the religio-political climate would change, and such equivocation would no longer be so easy; but given that this was the religious environment when Tremellius came to embrace the Christian faith, these distinctive characteristics must have done much to shape his understanding of the nature of that faith. The Second Phase: Lucca Tremellius left Pole’s company towards the end of 1541. From Viterbo, he headed across the Italian peninsula to Lucca, where he obtained his first teaching post at the rich and influential monastery of San Frediano. Peter Martyr Vermigli had only recently been appointed its prior, in May 1541.60 As there does not seem to be any other obvious explanation as to why Tremellius should have travelled to Lucca, one can assume that his appointment had been decided upon before he arrived. For this reason, the frequently made suggestion that Cardinal Pole had recommended him to Peter Martyr remains quite plausible.61 They had known each other since their time as students at the University of Padua, and had shared a profound interest in religious reform ever since. Indeed, one could even 60 61

McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, p.206. For example Becker, Tremellius p.8 and McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, p.224.

32

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

claim that in doing this, Pole was able to kill as many as three birds with the same stone: he did a favour for an old friend, by finding him a good teacher, he helped his protégé gain his first employment and he benefited the church as a whole, by providing the monks of San Frediano with a highly skilled Hebraist. Such an action, which cost Pole nothing but had such widespread benefits, may perhaps best be regarded as another example of what has recently been termed his ‘spiritual patronage’.62 Lucca was at this time a republic, though the senators, or Anziani, who governed the city were in practice generally drawn from a fairly closed group of patrician families.63 Between 1517 and 1546, Lucca’s bishop was Francesco Sforza Riario, an individual who did not take his religious responsibilities particularly seriously: he retired to Florence shortly after his accession, and only returned to Lucca briefly and reluctantly in September 1541 for a meeting between the Emperor Charles V and Pope Paul III.64 In his absence, the senators took upon themselves many of his roles, including that of seeking to reform the monastery of San Frediano, whose clergy were acquiring a reputation for corruption. However, it has been suggested that when Martyr arrived in the city, he effectively replaced Riario, as a bishop-figure. Not only did his position as prior of San Frediano confer episcopal authority over half the city, but the teaching that he and his colleagues offered was also open to the young men of the city.65 Following the account of Josias Simler, Martyr’s contemporary biographer, historians from the seventeenth century onwards have, almost without fail, attributed the spread of the Reformation in Lucca to the activities of Martyr and his companions, among whom Tremellius is generally included.66 However, it is Martyr’s activities within San Frediano which concern us principally here. In June, he assigned his canons to the chapels within the monastery, and thereafter began to reorder the life of the community, through a programme of both moral and educational reform.67 To this end, he assembled around himself a gifted group of individuals to provide 62 Thomas F. Mayer, ‘When Maecenas was Broke: Cardinal Pole’s ‘Spiritual’ Patronage’, SCJ 27 (1996), pp. 419–35. 63 Adorni-Braccesi, ‘UnaCittàInfetta’. 64 McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, p.208. Tremellius must just have missed this Summit Meeting: Pole took up his post in Viterbo when the Summit was already underway. 65 McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, p.217. 66 Josias Simler, OratiodeVitaetObituClarrissimiVirietPraestantissimiTheologiD. PetriMartyrisVermilii…(Zurich, 1563). Antonio Caracciolo, the papal biographer, wrote in the early seventeenth century that ‘Lucca fu molto appestata di questo morbo, perciocchè in quella città tenerro scuola Pietro Martire, dopo che si fuggè da Napoli, e vi ebbe per compagni il Tremellio Ferrarese, lettore di lingua ebrea, Celso Martinengo lettore di lingua Greca, Paolo Lazisio veronese lettore de Latina, e costoro vi trovarono Girolamo Zanco, tutti pessimi heretici …’. CompendiumInquisitorum, reprinted in LaRivistaCristiana(Florence, 1876), p.133. 67 Caponetto, ProtestantReformation, p.278.

CONVERSION AND THE FLIGHT INTO EXILE

33

instruction to those in his care. Paolo Lacizi from Verona, who also became vicar, taught Latin. Count Massimiliano Celso Martinenghi, from Brescia, later the first pastor of the Italian Church in Geneva, also a canon, taught Greek. Tremellius, meanwhile, taught Hebrew. In addition, Girolamo Zanchi from Bergamo, who would later be a colleague of Tremellius in Heidelberg, was, in 1541, a public preacher and a canon.68 Tremellius was clearly working in prestigious company. Indeed, Philip McNair goes so far as to describe the monastery of San Frediano as ‘the first and last reformed theological college in pre-Tridentine Italy – a miniature but brilliant university with Martyr as its rector’.69 One issue of some contention relating to Tremellius’ time at Lucca concerns whether he ever took orders.70 The other individuals just mentioned – Martyr, Lacizi, Martinenghi and Zanchi – were all professed members of the Lateran Congregation. Tremellius was not mentioned in the list of 19 canons assigned by Martyr in San Frediano in June 1541, but as we have seen, he must have arrived at least several months after this date, so it is hardly surprising that he does not feature in this list.71 Perhaps more significantly, he had only converted from Judaism a matter of months previously, so can hardly have expected, or been suited to, a post which involved the cure of souls. In any case, the fact that all historians from Simler’s time up to the present day have failed to uncover any shred of evidence that Tremellius was either a canon or held even a lowly administrative position within the Congregation, should warn one against such a conclusion.72 Nonetheless, McNair is probably right when he suggests that Tremellius stayed at San Frediano for at least some of his time in Lucca, if only for the practical reasons of being near his students and colleagues.73 Throughout the 15 months during which he was prior of San Frediano, Martyr disseminated a thoroughly evangelical message. Writings of Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin are all believed to have been in circulation within his coterie, and it is likely that he drew on those in his preaching and teaching.74 However, arguably the greatest influence on Martyr’s thought which he expounded had been 68 On Zanchi, see Christopher J. Burchill, ‘Girolamo Zanchi: Portrait of a Reformed Theologian and His Work’, SCJ15 (1984), pp.185–207. Zanchi’s career was in fact almost as wide-ranging as Tremellius’. 69 McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, p.221. 70 McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, p.224. Cf. the discussion of this issue in relation to Valdés, in José C. Nieto, ‘Was Juan de Valdés an ordained priest?’, BHR 32 (1970), pp.603–6. 71 The full list of canons is given in McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, pp.219–20. 72 See Salvatore Bongi, InventariodelR.ArchiviodiStatodiLucca.Documentidegli archivi Toscani (4 vols, Lucca, 1872–88), vol.4, p.148 and Giovanni Sforza, ‘Un episodo poco noto della vita di Aonio Paleario’, GiornaleStoricodellaLetteraturaItaliana vol.14 (1889), p.57. 73 McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, p.224. 74 McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, p.231.

34

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

exerted upon him by Juan de Valdés: immediately before taking up his post in Lucca, from 1537 Peter Martyr had served as abbot of the convent of San Pietro ad Aram in Naples.75 This coincided with Valdés’ period of greatest activity, and the two were evidently close friends. Apparently it was Valdés who first introduced Martyr to the writings of the Protestants of northern Europe as well as various additional works of Erasmus.76 But it is apparent that Valdés own spirituality, which drew on such traditions, exerted a particularly profound influence on Martyr. Yet despite Valdés’ considerable contribution to the intellectual and religious history of the sixteenth century, he remains one of the period’s most elusive figures.77 Born of ‘converso’ origins in Spain, he had fled his native land towards the end of the 1520s, when the Inquisition initated proceedings against him and his brother, Alfonso. On their arrival in Italy, the brothers headed first to Rome, but following the death of Clement VII, Juan moved on to Naples where he settled in 1535. There he established around himself an illustrious group which included several aristocratic women, such as Giulia Gonzaga and Vittoria Colonna, and some of the most important figures associated with Italian religious reform, among whom were Flaminio, Peter Martyr and Bernardino Ochino, the general of the Capuchin order, arguably Italy’s most famous preacher.78 Valdés would remain in Naples until his death in 1541. If there are problems with reconstructing Valdés’ life, much harder still is any effort at characterising his thought. With the exception of the Erasmian Diálogo de doctrina cristiana (1529) which appeared anonymously (although there seems to have been little doubt about its authorship even then), Valdés did not publish any of his works during his lifetime. Certainly, various writings circulated in manuscript form, but it was not until after his death that some of his followers had them put into print. Six major writings survive from the period 1535–41: the Alfabeto Cristiano, the 110DivineConsiderations and commentaries on the first book of the Psalms, Romans, 1 Corinthians and the Gospel of Matthew.79 Other minor works are also extant, while it is believed that still others have failed to survive. Furthermore, when one considers that religious discussion was the focus of Valdés’ activity in Naples, it is possible that his written legacy does not do justice to his position. McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, pp.139–79. McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, p.148 ff. 77 On Juan de Valdés, see for example J. N. Bakhuizen van den Brink, JuandeValdés refomateurenEspagneetenItalie1529–41(Geneva, 1969), José C. Nieto, JuandeValdés andtheOriginsoftheSpanishandItalianReformation (Geneva, 1970) and Massimo Firpo, ‘The Italian Reformation and Juan de Valdés’, SCJ 27 (1996), pp.353–64. 78 On Ochino see Karl Benrath, BernardinoOchinoofSiena:AContributionTowards theHistoryoftheReformation (London, 1876). 79 For a possible chronology of these works see McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, pp.40–41. 75 76

CONVERSION AND THE FLIGHT INTO EXILE

35

Generations of historians have sought to come to terms with his thought. Different scholars have, for instance, drawn particular attention to the influence of Catholicism, mysticism, alumbradism, Erasmian humanism and various Protestant writers, including Calvin, Bucer, Luther and Zwingli.80 Others have emphasised the impact on Valdés of some of the members of his own circle, most notably Ochino and Peter Martyr.81 The recent description of Valdés’ thought as a ‘creative synthesis’ thus seems undeniable: it drew on a broad range of religious currents, stemming from Spain, Italy and northern Europe, and which he then combined with his own personal insights and those of the people he had gathered around himself.82 At its root, Valdés’s thought was deeply personal and spiritual: it was concerned with the devotions and commitment of the inner Christian, rather than external rituals and superstitions. Thus, Valdés played down, and even condemned, certain ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, however, and despite his adherence to the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith, he criticised the Protestant reformers for breaking the unity of the church. Soon, of course, such a combination of views would be seen as contradictory, but in the particular circumstances of Italy in the 1530s, it was possible for him to reconcile them: for Valdés, individual piety was of greater concern than confessional conformity. The religious programme to which Tremellius was exposed in Lucca at the hands of Martyr thus drew on his experiences as an Augustinian monk, the profound influence of the spirituality of Juan de Valdés and his reading of various Protestant writers. Despite its heterodox nature, Martyr’s message was popular. During the winter of 1541/2, he built up a sizeable group of supporters which included some of the leading citizens of the town.83 Indeed, in April 1542, the senators of Lucca even requested that Martyr might be permitted to remain there.84 But Martyr’s impact inside the monastery was even more pronounced. Within the space of a 80 In addition to the works already cited, see Fr Domingo de Sta. Theresa, Juan de Valdés, 1498(?)–1541: Su pensamiento religioso y las corrientes espirituales de su tiempo (Rome, 1957), Marcel Bataillon, Erasmusetl’Espagne:Recherchessurl’histoirespirituelledu XVIesiècle (Geneva, 1937, 1991), John E. Longhurst, ErasmusandtheSpanishInquisition: TheCaseofJuandeValdés (Ann Arbor, MI and London, 1980 reprint), Carlos Gilly, ‘Juan de Valdés: Ubersetzer und Bearbeiter von Luthers Schriften in seinem “Diálogo de Doctrina”’, ARG 74 (1983), pp.257–305 and Benrath, Bernardino Ochino, p.66 ff. See also Juan de Valdés,AlfabetoCristiano, ed. Massimo Firpo (Turin, 1994). 81 McNair, Peter Martyr, p.35 ff emphasises the importance of Ochino to Valdés’ spiritual development, while Frank A. James, ‘Juan de Valdés before and after Peter Martyr Vermigli: The Reception of “Gemina Praedestinatio” in Valdés’ Later Thought’, ARG 83 (1992), pp.180–208 highlights that of Peter Martyr. 82 Firpo, ‘Italian Reformation and Juan de Valdés’, p.358. 83 McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, p.235 ff.; cf. Caponetto, ProtestantReformation, p.278. 84 McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, pp.236–7. This is in marked contrast to his predecessor, Tommaso de Piacenza, who was removed from office after only a year.

36

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

year of his departure from Lucca, 18 of the fellows of San Frediano left not only the college, but also the Catholic Church. Among these were Martinenghi, Zanchi and Tremellius. Rather than seeing this as a second conversion, however, it makes more sense to see this as a continuation of the process which had begun earlier. As we have seen, the circles of Pole and Peter Martyr shared many of the same influences, read many of the same works and discussed the same range of ideas. It is surely undeniable that Tremellius was prepared for this shift in a more radical direction by his experiences at Viterbo. However, just as scholarship has shown that Martyr’s encounter with Juan de Valdés in Naples was one characterised by reciprocity, the same may probably be said of his relationship with Tremellius in Lucca. While Martyr certainly brought Tremellius to embrace Protestantism, it has also been suggested that Tremellius helped Martyr to improve his Hebrew. It is believed that Martyr had already learnt some Hebrew by the time he took up his post in Lucca, from a Jew, but a number of historians have contended that he received further instruction from Tremellius at San Frediano.85 More recently, however, Dan Shute has been keen to play down Tremellius’ role in all of this. He has argued (following Simler) that as a result of his earlier encounter with another Jewish teacher and with various printed resources to hand, such as Sancte Pagnini’s lexicon and Johann Reuchlin’s grammar, Peter Martyr would have been able to acquire a high level of proficiency in Hebrew without the need for any additional external influence.86 While this is probably true, it would surely be equally perverse for Peter Martyr not to have taken advantage of his resident Hebraist whenever he encountered problems; and indeed, one must assume that these two colleagues would have discussed a wide range of theological and scholarly matters more generally. There is also a possibility that Tremellius began his writing career while still in Italy, although there are problems here. Most writers have passed over this work, but Ney, in an encyclopaedia article of 1908, and several writers who have followed him ascribe to Tremellius a work simply entitled Meditamenta. This work, Ney claims, was published in Wittenberg in 1541.87 While this kind of work sounds exactly the sort of thing a young 85 Louis I. Newman, Jewish Influences on Christian Reform Movements (New York, 1925), pp.198 and 505; McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, p.224. 86 I am grateful to Dan Shute for corresponding with me on this point, and for forwarding to me the relevant passages from his thesis. 87 J. J. Ney, ‘Tremellius, Immanuel’, in Albert Hauck (Ed.), Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche (3rd edition, 24 vols, Leipzig, 1896–1913), vol.20 (1908), p.95. According to the online catalogue of the library of the University of Munich, there is a work written by Tremellius with the same publication details, but with the title RudimentalinguaeHebraeaeeorumquepraxisetsyntax. I am grateful to Stephen Burnett who recently drew my attention to an edition of this work held in Munich. He shares my

CONVERSION AND THE FLIGHT INTO EXILE

37

academic might publish in order to establish his credentials as a teacher of Hebrew, the publication details do not square with what it known of Tremellius’ biography. At around this time he was in Padua, Viterbo and Lucca, but not Germany. As far as we know, he had no connections outside Italy at this stage, and a Hebrew grammar was hardly so controversial that it would require publication in another country. It may well be, therefore, that this work is not quite what it seems. Conclusion: The Flight from Italy On 21 July 1542, by the bull Licet ab initio, Pope Paul III revived the Roman Inquisition.88 This manoeuvre had a dramatic impact upon Italian evangelism: while some figures, like Reginald Pole, moved back to more acceptable positions, many others, including Bernardino Ochino, Celio Secundo Curione and Peter Martyr Vermigli, soon headed across the Alps in search of territories more sympathetic to their religious views. Tremellius was part of this exodus. It has often been thought that Tremellius travelled with Peter Martyr, who left Italy in August 1542; in fact, it is apparent that he has been confused with a certain Teodosio Trebellius.89 Unfortunately, Tremellius’ journey does not appear to have been recorded in any contemporary sources.90 Nonetheless it is clear that he made a similar journey: the next we hear of him, he had been reunited with the prior of San Frediano in Strasbourg. Yet we must still reflect on why Tremellius felt obliged to leave Italy at this point, and what conclusions we may draw about his religious views at the time of his departure. As we have seen in this chapter, during the course of the 1530s a wide range of influences had come to bear upon Tremellius; some may have tied in with existing characteristics and experiences from his early life, but others represented quite radical changes. In fact, the three key figures during this part of his development are in some ways representative of the three main strands of religious reform in Italy in this period. scepticism as to whether this work is what it claims. I have unfortunately not yet been able to consult the work myself. 88 On the Roman Inquisition, see John Tedeschi, TheProsecutionofHeresy.Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy (Binghampton, NY, 1991), especially chapters 1, 2 and 5. 89 Simler, OratiodeVita, 9v made it quite clear that Martyr travelled in the company of his vicar Lacizi, Giulio Santerenziano and Teodosio Trebellius. McNair, PeterMartyrinItaly, p.271 suggests that this individual was Teodosio da Cremona, one of the canons of Santa Maria di Fregionaia. 90 In one of the clearest examples of hagiography, Becker, Tremellius, p.8 describes in heroic terms Tremellius’ bravery and readiness to endure suffering, and even martyrdom, to remain in Italy. But no evidence is offered, and it sounds rather too much like a rhetorical trope to be taken seriously.

38

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Alessandro Farnese may be taken as typifying a conservative and reforming version of Catholicism; Reginald Pole demonstrated greater sympathy for new and controversial ideas, but he too would ultimately move back to a more orthodox position within the Catholic Church; and Peter Martyr Vermigli reflects that element of the Italian church which eventually resolved to break away from its adherence to Rome, and preferred to side with the Protestants of northern Europe. In a sense at least, Tremellius’ trajectory from Judaism to Reformed Christianity must also be seen in this more finely calibrated environment. While it may still technically be possible to contend that there were two ‘conversions’, from Judaism to Catholicism and from Catholicism to Protestantism, this is perhaps to simplify the matter. Tremellius was after all converting to a Christianity that was itself in a period of major flux. Especially in the context of the reform circles of Italy in the 1530s and early 1540s, there were various areas of fluidity and uncertainty. The reestablishment of the Roman Inquisition in 1542 signalled the beginning of the end of this period of greater flexibility, and as the decade progressed, confessional boundaries would rapidly strengthen. But Tremellius’ initial experiences of Christianity occurred before this shift. Two likely consequences of this merit comment here. First, it means that rather than seeing Tremellius’ two conversions as separate episodes it may in fact be more reasonable to see this all as one process: the first conversion was more a shift from Judaism to Christianity, and the second one a case of determining which branch of Christianity he would follow. Secondly, it is important that it was in this context, and in the company of such spirituali as Pole and Peter Martyr, that Tremellius was first introduced both to Christianity and to the ideas and works of the Protestant Reformation, for it was this environment which shaped how he responded to and read them.91 In this regard I would contend that Tremellius was the product of an identifiably Italian heritage, which was culturally distinct from the rest of Europe. Italian evangelism exploited the relative freedoms which existed before confessional boundaries were strengthened to lay its emphasis on a profound piety, intensive study of the scriptures, eclecticism, irenicism and an absence of dogmatism. In each of these respects, as we shall see over the course of this study, Tremellius showed himself to be a product of this environment. 91 On this group, see Eva-Maria Jung, ‘On the Nature of Italian Evangelism in Sixteenth Century Italy’, JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas 14 (1953), pp.511–27 and Elizabeth G. Gleason, ‘On the Nature of the Sixteenth-Century Italian Evangelism: Scholarship, 1953– 1978’, SCJ9 (1978), pp.3–25. Most of the leading spirituali have been the subjects of fairly recent biographies. William V. Hudon, MarcelloCerviniandEcclesiasticalGovernmentin TridentineItaly (De Kalb, IL, 1992) offers some very helpful comments on the limitations of using the terms spirituali and zelanti to identify different wings of Catholic reform.

CHAPTER THREE

Beginning a life in exile When Tremellius arrived in Strasbourg, in the early months of 1543, his life entered a new phase. Of course, there were strands of continuity. As in Lucca, he would teach Hebrew, for example, while several of his colleagues from there joined him in exile. But he must still have felt rather disoriented. After all, he had only just completed a profound religious transformation; rather than having the opportunity to come to terms in comfort with the religious choice that he had made, Tremellius had immediately been forced to leave Italy. Over the four years or so that he would spend in Strasbourg, Tremellius would see further changes in his personal, intellectual and professional life. While he was there, he would marry and establish a family. In Strasbourg, too, he would meet several of the leading figures of Protestantism, whose works he had already become familiar with in Italy, including Martin Bucer and John Calvin. Encountering such individuals, and living in a city as closely associated with the Reformation as Strasbourg, Tremellius would have gained a very different perspective on that movement than had been possible in the land of his birth. Moreover, during this period, Tremellius took some important early steps towards establishing his own place within the intellectual elite of the European Reformation. Especially because of the successful career that Tremellius would enjoy in exile as a convert, the question inevitably arises as to whether his conversion was motivated by mercenary rather than spiritual reasons. Undoubtedly, Tremellius did attain a level of international recognition which would have been virtually impossible had he remained a Jew. Against that, however, one has to accept that there was nothing inevitable about Tremellius’ ascent. He could not even have been certain of finding employment within a Christian context.1 And beyond that, there were various negative consequences which he might more easily have predicted. In the first place, Tremellius’ conversion obliged him to leave Italy, and thus to break contact with his friends and family there.2 In fact, only one piece of evidence survives which attests to any contact at all between Tremellius and Italy following his departure. This was a letter written by Marcantonio Flaminio from Trent on 28 November 1545 to an individual, 1 Elisheva Carlebach, DividedSouls:ConvertsfromJudaisminGermany,1500–1700 (New Haven, CT and London, 2001), p.124 suggests that it was very rare, at least in German lands, for a Jew to benefit materially from conversion. 2 For the disruptive impact on the family that conversion to Judaism could have, see Carlebach, DividedSouls, especially pp.138–56.

40

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Antonio Pavaranzo, who is otherwise unknown.3 Flaminio closes his letter with the request that Pavaranzo ‘greet in my name our very dear friend M. Emanuel’. If we are right to believe that the figure to whom he is referring is Tremellius, then this would indicate that Tremellius was able to maintain some contact with Italy, but if he did so, it was at best infrequent and slight.4 Incidentally, this extract would also imply that Tremellius and Flaminio had met, further endorsing the conclusion that his baptism had taken place at Viterbo. In addition, Tremellius was faced with the prospect of encountering more than one form of prejudice. The first related to his Jewish background. As we have already seen, Italy was, at least by the standards of the time, relatively tolerant of its Jews. Tremellius would have appreciated the contrast almost as soon as he arrived in Strasbourg: the inhabitants of that city prided themselves on the absence of Jews.5 Of course there was, at least in theory, a vast difference between Jews and Jewish converts. Indeed, converts were greatly prized by the church, and its decrees sought to make conversion as attractive a prospect as possible.6 In practice, however, converts tended to be viewed with at least as much prejudice as were Jews, not least because of the suspicion that they were individuals who continued to practise their Judaism while claiming to have forsaken it, in order to reap the benefits of being Christian.7 As a result, Tremellius would have realised his actions would be subjected to particular scrutiny; interestingly, as we shall see over the following chapters, Tremellius responded to this particular set of circumstances in quite an original and unexpected fashion. A fascinating sidelight is cast on this issue by one of the books that Tremellius owned at the time, now referred to as ‘The Basle Nizzahon’ (‘confutation’).8 An inscription on the flyleaf of this work reads as follows: ‘This book belonged to Immanuel Tremellius, and was brought by him out of Italy.’9 This work of 85 folios is split into two series of numbered paragraphs. The first, consisting of 138 paragraphs, begins by offering answers to charges of 3 Marcantonio Flaminio to Antonio Pavaranzo, 28 November 1545, in Marcantonio Flaminio,Lettere, ed. Alessandro Pastore (Rome, 1978),Letter 51, pp.151–2. 4 It is certainly Pastore’s conclusion that Flaminio was referring to Tremellius, and I can see no reason why this should not be the case: there is no obvious alternative to whom he might have been referring, Tremellius is generally referred to as ‘Emanuel’ in the correspondence of the time, and it would fit with the material of the previous chapter. 5 Ulinka Rublack, ReformationEurope (Cambridge, 2005), pp.85–6. 6 Paul III’s establishment of a domuscatechumenorum and efforts to protect the property of converts from Judaism in the early 1540s typified the papal support for this policy. Kenneth Stow, CatholicThoughtandPapalJewryPolicy1555-1593 (New York, 1977). 7 On the attitudes of the converts themselves towards conversion, see Carlebach, DividedSouls. 8 W. Horbury, ‘The Basle Nizzahon’, JournalofTheologicalStudies N.S. 34 (1983), pp.497–514. 9 Horbury, ‘Basle Nizzahon’, p.501.

BEGINNING A LIFE IN EXILE

41

Jewish guilt and unbelief, before going on to deal with the Hebrew Scriptures, and Christian objections to them. The second, consisting of 47 paragraphs, deals with the New Testament and ecclesiastical teaching. It is striking that Tremellius should have taken such a work out of Italy, especially when one considers that the logistics of the journey itself would have necessarily limited the number of works that he could have managed to carry. Clearly, the work had been written to aid Jewish polemicists attack Christian beliefs. This was, therefore, at the very least, a controversial work for a recent convert like Tremellius to own. Of course, there were legitimate scholarly reasons why one would own such a work: for instance it would help establish what Jews were being told about Christian ideas, and possibly offer avenues to counter them in turn. The relevance of this work for these sorts of purposes is highlighted by the fact that it would pass through the hands of at least two other Christian Hebraists, Samuel Hortin and Johannes Buxtorf, before entering the care of the library of the University of Basle in 1705.10 When Tremellius arrived in northern Europe he would also have been confronted with a second prejudice: anti-Italianism. Much of this ill-feeling was long-standing, and stemmed from such things as the financial demands made by Rome, and Italian claims to cultural superiority.11 Italy had also acquired a reputation as the source of immoral, amoral and heretical thought.12 Such preconceptions seemed to be fulfilled with the advent of the Reformation: many of the Italians who fled their native land tended to generate towards the more radical wing of the Reformation, while several of those who joined the Reformed churches of Europe, such as Bernardino Ochino and Pier Paolo Vergerio, soon found that they were unable to conform

10 On Buxtorf, see Stephen G. Burnett, From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies. JohannesBuxtorf(1564–1629)andHebrewLearningintheSeventeenthCentury(Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1996). In fact, it would seem that the Basle Nizzahon was one of several works to have followed this path of ownership, although it may be the only one that originated in Italy. Also in the Basle University Library, and known to have been owned by Tremellius, are part of the Talmudand Jehuda ibn Balam, BrevisTractatusdeAccentibus triumlibrorum,Job,Proverbiorum&Psalmorum(Paris, 1556). The Talmud was bought by Johannes Hortin in 1583; Balam’s work was bought by Johannes and Jacob Hortin in 1580. I am most grateful to Stephen Burnett for providing me with this information. 11 See for example Henry Heller, Anti-ItalianisminSixteenth-CenturyFrance (Toronto, Buffalo, NY and London, 2003); Gerald Strauss (Ed.), Manifestations of Discontent in GermanyontheEveoftheReformation.ACollectionofDocuments (Bloomington, IN and London, 1971), Section 2: ‘The Grievances of the German Nation against Rome’, pp.35–63; and Barbra M. Hallman, ‘Italian ‘National Superiority’ and the Lutheran Question: 1517– 46’, ARG 71 (1980), pp.134–48. 12 Antonio d’Andrea, ‘Geneva 1576–78: The Italian Community and the Myth of Italy’ in Joseph C. McLelland (Ed.), PeterMartyrVermigliandItalianReform (Waterloo, Ontario, 1980), pp.53–63. John J. Martin, Venice’sHiddenEnemies:ItalianHereticsinaRenaissance City (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA and London, 1993).

42

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

to their requirements.13 It was against this background of anti-Semitism and antipathy towards Italians that Tremellius headed into Germany. The Gymnasium at Strasbourg When Tremellius arrived in Strasbourg, he must initially have felt isolated and disoriented. But he was fortunate that his most recent spiritual mentor, Peter Martyr, had preceded him there in mid-October 1542. Presumably he was responsible for making the initial introductions in the German city, and for vouching for his character and orthodoxy. In addition, the Italian exiles seem to have been warmly met by their German hosts, especially Martin Bucer, the distinguished leader of the Strasbourg reform movement, and a key figure on the international scene. Evidently Tremellius, Peter Martyr and Lacizi all resided with Bucer until they were able to find their own places to live in Strasbourg.14 As we will see in due course, Bucer and Tremellius would come to develop a close relationship, and indeed, Tremellius would publish two writings of Bucer’s following the older man’s death. Strasbourg was the principal city in the imperial territory of Alsace, a centre of commerce and communication, conveniently located on important river and land trade routes, and at the intersection of the French- and German-speaking parts of Europe. Strasbourg was also one of the first cities of the empire to accept the Reformation. Matthias Zell had preached evangelical sermons there from 1523, and in 1529 the celebration of Mass was finally prohibited. Strasbourg also joined the Schmalkaldic League when it was formed. The Reformation was thus well established by the time of Tremellius’ arrival there. Importantly, however, Strasbourg did not submit to the leadership of Wittenberg, and, at least until the emergence of Geneva on the international stage, it provided a focal point for the Reformed churches of Europe.15 One of the principal concerns of the reformers of Strasbourg was the development of an effective system of education. During the 1520s and early 1530s, there had been a proliferation of small private schools, but by 13 Delio Cantimori, Eretici Italiani del Cinquecento. Ricerche Storiche (Florence, 1939, 1967). 14 Hastings Eells, MartinBucer (New Haven, CT and London, 1931), p.319. 15 On the Strasbourg Reformation see especially Lorna Jane Abray, The People’s Reformation. Magistrates, Clergy and Commons in Sixteenth-Century Strasbourg, 1500–1598(Ithaca, NY and Oxford, 1985), Thomas A. Brady, RulingClass,Regimeand Reformation at Strasbourg, 1520–1555 (Leiden, 1978), Miriam U. Chrisman, Strasbourg andtheReform:AStudyintheProcessofChange (New Haven, CT and London, 1967) and Marc Lienhard, UnTemps,UneVille,UneRéforme.LaReformationàStrasbourg.Studien zurReformationinStrassburg (Norfolk, 1990).

BEGINNING A LIFE IN EXILE

43

1537, the city’s magistrate had appreciated the need for consolidation.16 In the following year a plan to combine all the existing arrangements into one central unit, called the Gymnasium, or Academy, was accepted. Johann Sturm, who had been called to Strasbourg the year before to teach rhetoric, was appointed its rector.17 Quite naturally, like Lacizi and Martyr, his colleagues from Lucca, Tremellius quickly found employment there.18 The organisation of Sturm’s academy was complex.19 Initially, the secondary education consisted of six classes, numbered from VI to I, but in due course two preparatory classes were added. These classes sought to provide a mastery of the classical languages, with an emphasis on grammar and rhetoric. In addition, two upper classes provided the opportunity for advanced study in theology, Greek, Hebrew, mathematics, law, philosophy, rhetoric and medicine. The aim of these upper classes was to provide university-level instruction for those students who were unwilling or unable to travel elsewhere to continue their education. From its inception, the gymnasium was well regarded, not least because of the calibre of the staff who worked there. While local men taught the Latin classes, scholars from throughout Europe taught the upper classes. The theology department was the largest within the academy. Among Tremellius’ contemporaries there were Bucer, Peter Martyr, Caspar Hedio, Paul Fagius and Johann Marbach. Teaching Hebrew alongside Tremellius was the Frenchman Michael Délius, while Christopher Kerlin and Paulo Lacizi both taught Greek.20 Hebrew Teaching in Europe The establishment of the gymnasium in Strasbourg was in fact part of a much larger trend which witnessed the promotion of education at all levels. The foundations for this development had been established during the Renaissance, but the advent of the Reformation gave an added impetus 16 On these developments see Miriam U. Chrisman, Lay Culture, Learned Culture. BooksandSocialChangeinStrasbourg,1480–1599 (New Haven, CT and London, 1982), p.192 ff. 17 On Sturm, see for instance Lewis W. Spitz and Barbara Sher Tinsley, JohannSturm onEducation.TheReformationandHumanistLearning(St Louis, MO, 1995). 18 Chrisman, LayCulture, p.309 mistakenly gives Tremellius’ dates at the academy as 1541–49; neither year can be correct. 19 On the academy, see especially Charles Engel, L’ÉcoleLatineetl’AncienneAcadémie deStrasbourg,1538–1621(Strasbourg and Paris, 1900) and Anton Schindling, Humanistiche Hochschule und Freie Reichstadt. Gymnasium und Akademie in Strassburg, 1538–1621 (Wiesbaden, 1977). 20 A full list of the scholars teaching at the Strasbourg academy is provided in Chrisman, Lay Culture, Appendix B, pp.309–10. Again some of the dates need to be treated with care, however.

44

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

to the spread of education.21 From as early as 1520, Luther advocated education as a way of inculcating religious and civic values, and in his endorsement of education he was followed by virtually every church reformer of the sixteenth century. While historians have, more recently, begun to question the success of the Reformation’s support for education, there is no denying the amount of energy that was devoted to it.22 Catechisms were composed as a means of imparting the basics of Christian knowledge; school education was increasingly standardised, regulated and made compulsory; and additional schools and universities were established. But confessionalisation itself also contributed to this expansion. Institutions increasingly expected students to swear oaths of religious belief before they could begin their study. Inevitably this forced the establishment of competing institutions relatively close to each other. This expansion is perhaps most easily conveyed in the number of new universities established during this period: 26 in the first half of the sixteenth century, 47 in the second half and 24 over the next 50 years again.23 The expansion of education contributed to an increase in the study of Hebrew and Judaic literature almost automatically, but there was a further set of specific reasons for Christian interest in these areas, some of which pre-dated the developments just mentioned. Christian–Jewish relations accounted for at least two of these. Many Christian apologists appreciated that they would be better able to engage in disputations with Jewish opponents if they were able to understand the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, and the interpretations to which it had been subjected by Jewish scholars. This knowledge would also allow them to use citations from the Hebrew Bible to support their own views.24 Closely connected to this was the realisation that a solid knowledge of Hebrew, and a developed understanding of Jewish customs and practices, would increase the chances of converting Jews to Christianity: works written in Hebrew, and arguments directed at a specifically Jewish audience, could more easily be produced.25 In 1311, the Council of Vienne had decreed that chairs for 21 Karin Maag, ‘Education and Literacy’ in Andrew Pettegree (Ed.), TheReformation World (London and New York, 2002), pp.535–44. 22 Gerald Strauss, Luther’s House of Learning. Indoctrination of the Young in the GermanReformation (Baltimore, MD and London, 1978). 23 These figures come from Willem Frijhoff, ‘Patterns’ in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), Universities in Early Modern Europe, p.71. By comparison, 12 universities were founded between 1651 and 1700, 12 between 1701 and 1750, and 16 between 1751 and 1790. 24 See for instance Jerome Friedman, The MostAncientTestimony:Sixteenth-Century Christian-HebraicaintheAgeofRenaissanceNostalgia(Athens, OH, 1983), pp.212–54 and Stephen G. Burnett, ‘Distorted Mirrors: Antonius Margaritha, Johann Buxtorf and Christian Ethnographies of the Jews’, SCJ25 (1994), pp.275–87. 25 See the differing intepretations of one work by Sebastian Münster contained in Jerome Friedman, ‘Sebastian Münster, the Jewish Mission, and Protestant Anti-Semitism’, ARG 70 (1979), pp.238–59 and Stephen G. Burnett, ‘A Dialogue of the Deaf: Hebrew

BEGINNING A LIFE IN EXILE

45

the study of oriental languages should be established at the universities of Europe expressly for this reason, though this pronouncement was essentially a dead letter until the early sixteenth century.26 In addition, certain scholars revealed a particular interest in the cabbala (‘mysticism’), a body of esoteric teaching of Judaism and Jewish mystical literature which claimed to reflect a secret and divine oral tradition that originated in the Garden of Eden. Scholars like Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Johann Reuchlin hoped to use these traditions to reveal secrets hidden in the Old Testament.27 On the other hand, the Protestant reformers did not share the humanist fascination with the cabbala: Luther, for instance, attacked it as mere superstition, and contrary to the ‘plain sense of Scripture’. Especially in Elizabethan England, moreover, the widespread interest in apocalyptic ideas encouraged an interest in the Hebraic tradition.28 Finally, scholars in this period appreciated that a knowledge of Hebrew was necessary for the proper study of the Old Testament. This had of course been understood since the time of the Church Fathers. For instance, Jerome had included many insights drawn from his Jewish teachers in his various writings, the most important of which was his translation of the Bible.29 But despite his endorsement of what he called the HebraicaVeritas, Hebrew scholarship remained confined to a relatively small number of individuals and groups over the following centuries: Jerome Friedman suggests that in the period between 500 and 1500 ‘probably no more than a few dozen’ Christians could read Hebrew at all, and of those only a quarter could use the language constructively.30 Pedagogy and Anti-Jewish Polemic in Sebastian Münster’s MessiahsoftheChristiansandthe Jews (1529/39)’, ARG 91 (2000), pp.168–90. 26 Louis israel newman, Jewish Influences on Christian Reform Movements (New York, 1925), p.25. 27 Joseph L. Blau, TheChristianInterpretationoftheCabalaintheRenaissance(New York, 1944). François Secret, LesKabbalistesChrétiensdelaRenaissance(Paris, 1964). G. Lloyd Jones, TheDiscoveryofHebrewinTudorEngland:AThirdLanguage(Manchester, 1983), Chapter 1. On Pico, see Chaim Wirszubski, PicodellaMirandola’sEncounterwith Jewish Mysticism (Cambridge, MA and London, 1989). On Reuchlin, see Erika Rummel, TheCaseAgainstJohannReuchlin:ReligionandSocialControversyinSixteenth-Century Germany(Toronto, Buffalo, NY and London, 2002) and Friedman, MostAncientTestimony, pp.71–95. Also see Johann Reuchlin, On the Art of the Kabbalah. De Arte Cabalistica, translated by Martin and Sarah Goodman, with an introduction by G. Lloyd Jones (Lincoln and London, 1993). 28 See Jones, DiscoveryofHebrew, pp.163–8. 29 William McKane, SelectedChristianHebraists(Cambridge and New York, 1989), pp.31–41. See also James Barr, ‘St. Jerome’s Appreciation of Hebrew’, BulletinoftheJohn RylandsLibrary49 (1966–67), pp.281–302. 30 Friedman, MostAncientTestimony, p.14. At the same time, however, as Newman has shown in his monumental study Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements (New York, 1925), in which he devotes over 400 pages to a description of medieval Christian students of Hebrew, this tradition should not be underestimated. On this field, also see

46

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

In the meantime, largely on account of its author, and despite its deficiencies, Jerome’s translation of the Bible, which came to be known as the Vulgate, came to be regarded as the official Bible of the church during the Middle Ages. Its position only came to be seriously challenged in the fifteenth century, when Renaissance scholars started to hope that the renewal of the church might be achieved through the serious study of the scriptures in their original languages.31 This initial impetus was then reinforced by the Reformation, whose principle of solascriptura gave an added importance to the authority of the biblical text.32 This came to be expressed in a variety of ways: the Old Testament was retranslated, the New Testament was reinterpreted in the light of this new understanding, vernacular translations were produced and certain historically central doctrines of the Christian faith came to be re-examined. The significance of the rabbinic contribution to biblical study also became increasingly apparent.33 As the sixteenth century progressed, various works, including grammars and textbooks, would be produced which enabled Christians to study the Bible and Jewish literature independently. Before this time, however, it had been necessary to turn to Jewish teachers for assistance. Pico della Mirandola learnt Hebrew from Elias del Medigo and the cabbala from another Jew, Johann Aleman.34 Johann Reuchlin received assistance from both Obadiah Sforno, the famous Jewish exegete, and Jacob ben Jechiel Loans, the Jewish physician to Emperor Frederick III.35 Sebastian Münster learnt Hebrew from the grammarian Elias Levita, who also taught, among others, Johannes Eck, and Cardinal Egidio of Viterbo, the general of the Augustinians.36 Also significant for the Christian study of Hebraica were Jewish apostates. For instance, the Zurich Hebraist Leo Jud received assistance from a certain Michael Adam, a converted Jew.37 Other converts rose to positions of considerable prominence. Matthew Adrian, for example, was elected professor of Hebrew at the trilingual college of Louvain in July 1518; in April 1520, Luther managed to persuade the University of Jones, Discovery of Hebrew, pp.7–14, and R. Loewe, ‘Christian Hebraists (1100–1890)’, EncyclopaediaJudaica, vol.8, pp.10–71. 31 Alastair Hamilton, ‘Humanists and the Bible’ in Jill Kraye (Ed.), The Cambridge CompaniontoRenaissanceHumanism (Cambridge, 1996), pp.100–17. 32 Roland H. Bainton, ‘The Bible in the Reformation’ in S. L. Greenslade (Ed.), The CambridgeHistoryoftheBible,vol.III:TheWestfromtheReformationtothePresentDay (Cambridge, 1963), pp.1–37. Guy Bedouelle and Bernard Roussel (Eds), BibledeTousles Temps,vol.5.LetempsdesréformesetlaBible (Paris, 1989). 33 Euan Cameron, TheEuropeanReformation (Oxford, 1991), pp.136–44. Alister E. McGrath, ReformationThought.AnIntroduction (Oxford, 1988), pp.134–58. 34 D. de Sola Pool, ‘The Influence of Some Jewish Apostates on the Reformation’, JewishReviewvol.2 (No.7–12), May 1911–March 1912, p.335. 35 Friedman, MostAncientTestimony, pp.21, 24. 36 Friedman, MostAncientTestimony, pp.40–42. 37 Newman, Jewish Influence, p.508.

47

BEGINNING A LIFE IN EXILE

Wittenberg to hire Adrian as its first professor of Hebrew. Among his students there were the renowned Christian Hebraists, Conrad Pellican and Wolfgang Capito.39 At the other end of the century, Philip Ferdinand, a Polish Jew born in about 1555, taught Hebrew first at Oxford and then, from 1596, at Cambridge.40 Tremellius was thus part of a fairly well-established tradition through which Hebrew knowledge was imparted to Christian circles by figures who had themselves been brought up as Jews. In his own work, Tremellius was most concerned with the study of the Bible, but, as we will see, certain of his published works would also have a relevance for Judaeo–Christian relations. Like other Reformation figures, he did not demonstrate any interest in the cabbala. But, of course, both as a teacher in the classroom and as an author he provided his students with the knowledge and skills to embark on a wider range of activities than he himself focussed on. Yet while he was part of an established tradition, and although his skills were greatly valued by some of his contemporaries, pursuing this career was not without its difficulties. While Hebrew learning might be regarded as a sign of enlightenment among both Catholics and Protestants, it could also be regarded as a decline into Judaistic heresy. Indeed, it has recently been argued that the rediscovery of Hebrew studies in the early modern period, far from acting as a counter to anti-Semitism, reinforced old attitudes towards the Jews and actually contributed to the growth of negative stereotypes during the Reformation.41 Allegations of Judaising were commonplace. Reuchlin pursued his Hebrew studies under the stigma of being a Judaiser, while Melanchthon was attacked by Carlstadt on similar grounds. Luther, too, was accused of Judaising and used the charge against others, including Sancte Pagnini and Sebastian Münster. Even Erasmus feared that too much concern with Hebrew scholarship would mean a revival of Judaism among Christians. In many cases, it was simply used as a catch-all term, but as a converted Jew, and one who spent his career working with Hebrew and even rabbinic materials, Tremellius must have realised that he was in a particularly vulnerable position.42 38

38 Jones, Discovery of Hebrew, p.181. Robert Wakefield, On The Three Languages [1524], edited and translated by G. Lloyd Jones (New York, 1989), Introduction, p.28. 39 Pool, ‘Influence of Some Jewish Apostates’, p.337. On Pellican, see Christopher Zurcher, Konrad Pellikans Wirken in Zürich 1526–1556 (Zurich, 1975). On Capito, see James M. Kittelson, WolfgangCapito.FromHumanisttoReformer(Leiden, 1975). 40 H. P. Stokes, StudiesinAnglo-JewishHistory(Edinburgh, 1913), p.209 ff. 41 Heiko A. Oberman, ‘Discovery of Hebrew and Discrimination Against the Jews: the Veritas Hebraica as Double-Edged Sword in Renaissance and Reformation’ in Andrew C. Fix and Susan Karant-Nunn (Eds), GermaniaIllustrata:EssaysonEarlyModernGermany PresentedtoGeraldStrauss(Kirksville, MO, 1992), pp.19–34. 42 Friedman, Most Ancient Testimony, pp.182–94. Rummel, Case Against Johann Reuchlin, passim. Newman, Jewish Influence. See also Hilmar M. Pabel, ‘Erasmus of

48

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Unfortunately no sources have survived which allow us to gain a proper insight into Tremellius’ teaching activities in Strasbourg. It does seem to be the case that one student, Hilarius Guymonneus from Geneva, stayed with Tremellius while he was in Strasbourg.43 This was a common practice at the time, and one which Tremellius would adopt in most of his teaching posts over the course of his career. Presumably this not only strengthened the bond between teacher and pupil, but it would also have been beneficial to both in a financial sense: the student would get relatively cheap board and lodgings while his teacher would be able to supplement his income. Tremellius’ wage is not known, but it is not likely to have been particularly impressive.44 And in fact it was supplemented with a prebend from St Peter’s Cathedral in Strasbourg.45 In Strasbourg, one of Tremellius’ colleagues was the distinguished Hebraist, Paul Fagius.46 Fagius was only a few years older than Tremellius, but he was presumably regarded as the senior man: he was already well published and his reputation better established in the Empire. Of particular note here is his interest in rabbinic sources, including the Talmud. He also pioneered the study of Jewish ritual. Many of his most important writings were published in 1541 and 1542, so Tremellius cannot have had an influence on those, but as someone who had himself been brought up within a vibrant Jewish community, one can imagine that he and Fagius would have had some rewarding discussions on these themes. Also worth pointing out is the fact that although both were Hebraists, Fagius was employed as a teacher of Old Testament studies, while Tremellius was there as a teacher of Hebrew. Their interests would undoubtedly have overlapped on a great many occasions, but this does indicate how they would have divided their instruction between them: while Fagius’ emphasis would have been on theology and exegesis, it is likely that Tremellius’ principal concern would have been on the grammatical aspects of the Hebrew language. Tremellius, Calvin and the Reformed Religion In the summer of 1543, John Calvin and Guillaume Farel travelled to Strasbourg from Geneva, and stayed for about six weeks. Calvin’s links with Strasbourg were well established: he had spent three years there between 1538 and 1541, during his temporary expulsion from Geneva, Rotterdam and Judaism: A Reexamination in the Light of New Evidence’, ARG 87 (1996), pp.9–37. 43 Hilarius Guymonneus to John Calvin, 28 April 1545, CO635. 44 Jones, DiscoveryofHebrew, p.50. 45 James Nasmith, CatalogusLibrorumManuscriptorumquosCollegiCorporisChristi …Legavit…MattheusParker (Cambridge, 1777), p.112. 46 Friedman, MostAncientTestimony, pp.99–118.

BEGINNING A LIFE IN EXILE

49

and he was a close friend of Bucer. As a new teacher at the Strasbourg Gymnasium, and a biblical scholar, it is hard to imagine that Tremellius would not have been introduced to Calvin on this visit. Although neither Tremellius nor Calvin seems to have made explicit reference to any such meeting themselves, the surviving evidence would seem to confirm this assumption. Valerand Poullain referred to ‘Our brother Emmanuel’ in two letters he wrote to Calvin from Strasbourg over the following 18 months, and evidently expected that the Genevan would know who Tremellius was, without any further explanation.48 Similarly, in April 1545, Hilarius Guymonneus, the student from Geneva then residing with Tremellius in Strasbourg, related the following: ‘My host, Dr. Emmanuel and his wife send you their greetings.’49 Here one might even speculate that Calvin had recommended to the young student that he should live with Tremellius in the first place. Perhaps most conclusively, when Tremellius’ wife headed to Geneva in 1554, Tremellius asked that Calvin look after her: among the grounds on which he based his request was his claim that this would be the appropriate way for Calvin, as a former guest, to behave.50 One can only imagine what impact this encounter would have had on Tremellius. It would be tempting to see it as having been a pivotal moment in his religious development, especially given the subsequent trajectory of his career. Calvin was already a major figure in the European Reformation: the reform of Geneva was taking place under his direction, while his international renown was spreading on account of his writings, especially his InstitutesoftheChristianReligion.51 But at the same time, we need to keep a sense of perspective. In 1543, Calvin’s control of Geneva was still precarious. His position there only really became secure in 1555, at which point he was able to turn his attentions more fully to the international scene.52 Before then, while Calvin undoubtedly maintained an interest in international developments, his activities were necessarily limited. In addition, one also has to appreciate that Calvin was only one of several leading figures within the Reformed church; although he and Geneva would ultimately come to dominate, even at the peak of his 47

47 Cornelius Augustijn, ‘Calvin in Strasbourg’ in Wilhelm H. Neuser (Ed.), Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor. Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI, 1994), pp.166–77; T. H. L. Parker, JohnCalvin.ABiography (London, 1975), pp.81–97; François Wendel, Calvin.TheOriginsandDevelopmentofhisReligiousThought (London, 1974), pp.58–66. 48 Valerand Poullain to John Calvin, 13 October 1544 and 12 January 1545, CO577 and 604 respectively. 49 Hilarius Guymonneus to John Calvin, 28 April 1545, CO 635. 50 Tremellius to John Calvin, 14 June 1554, CO 1971. 51 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (2 vols, Philadelphia, PA, 1960). 52 William G. Naphy, Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation (Manchester, 1994), especially pp.189–99.

50

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

influence, the movement was not as monolithic as the term ‘Calvinism’ would suggest: other figures, including Bucer and Bullinger, were also instrumental in shaping the theology and providing leadership to different sections of the movement.53 Indeed, an appreciation of this diversity has contributed to a growing enthusiasm in historical writing on this subject for the more neutral term of ‘Reformed’. Importantly, this latter term was used by members of these churches to refer to themselves (while the word ‘Calvinist’ originated as a term of abuse), as well as implying that it was not the movement of one man. A third point which one should bear in mind in relation to this stems from the fact that Tremellius’ conversion had only very recently taken place. As we saw in the previous chapter, Calvin’s influence in Italy was quite evident in many different areas. However we also saw that Calvin was generally only one influence among many: one of the defining characteristics of Italian evangelism was its eclecticism. Especially in the period immediately following his departure from Italy, there is no need to assume that Tremellius had fully committed himself to a specifically Calvinist outlook at this stage. As we will see in due course, Calvin would increasingly look out for Tremellius’ interests, while Tremellius would give at least one specific endorsement of Calvin’s essential religious views, but there is no need to assume that this identification had taken place immediately on Tremellius’ arrival in Strasbourg.54 Marriage and Family While he was in Strasbourg, in October 1544, Tremellius married.55 His wife remains an elusive figure, and the subject of some confusion.56 But contemporary sources do allow us to clarify the issue to an extent. In one of the letters to Calvin, to which we have just referred, Poullain remarks, ‘Our brother Emmanuel married Elisabeth, the divorced wife of M. Dominic.’57 It has been suggested that her full name was Elisabeth

53 Philip Benedict, Christ’sChurchesPurelyReformed:ASocialHistoryofCalvinism (New Haven, CT and London, 2002), pp.1–76 and 115–20 emphasises very effectively the different components of the Reformed tradition. 54 That is, in his translation into Hebrew of Calvin’s catechism. See below, Chapter 4. 55 Carlyle, ‘Tremellius, John Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in DNB vol.57 (1899), p.187 mistakenly gives the date as October 1554. 56 Butters, Tremellius, p.12 writes ‘Wir wissen nicht, wenn Tremellius zur Gattin wählte’, while de le Roi, DieevangelischeChristenheitunddieJudenunterdemGesichtspunktder Missiongeschichtlichbetrachtet(3 vols, Karlsruhe and Leipzig, 1884–92), vol.1, p.53 seems to have confused Tremellius’ wife with that of Peter Martyr, when he writes ‘… verheirathete er sich dort mit einer früheren Nonne aus Metz …’. 57 Valerand Poullain to John Calvin, 13 October 1544, CO577.

BEGINNING A LIFE IN EXILE

51

de Grunecieux or Grimecieux. A little more than 20 years later, in a work of 1567, A Reioindre to M. Iewels Replie Against the Sacrifice of the Masse, Thomas Harding, the warden of New College and the first holder of the Regius Chair of Hebrew at Oxford, referred to the wives of both Tremellius and Peter Martyr: 58

… Peter Martyr the regular Chanon of S. Augustines order, who likewise yoked himself unto Dame Catherine the Nonne of Metz in Lorraine, that stale out of her cloister by night, and ranne away with an honest mans wife of Metz to Strasburg, which honest mans wife married to Emanuel the Iewe (that afterward came to Cambridge, and there read an Hebrue lesson) her husband being alive, as he tolde me the tale him selfe with weeping eyes at Metz, as I passed toward Italie through Lorraine.59

In the marginal comments on this passage, it is claimed that the cuckolded husband was the registrar of Metz. However, as McNair has argued, Harding’s comments ought to be treated with a degree of scepticism.60 The extract above comes from within a wider discussion of clerical marriage. The conservatives of England were highly resistant to the notion of a married clergy, so when Peter Martyr, a former Augustinian monk, arrived in Oxford with his wife, a former nun, he unsurprisingly met with a frosty reception. While Tremellius had never entered religious orders himself, it is more than likely that his association with Peter Martyr meant that he came in for some collateral damage. In addition, it is possible that academic rivalry had a role to play. In 1546, Harding became the first Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford; Tremellius would come to occupy the equivalent post at Cambridge three years later. As we will see, Tremellius and his wife would return to Metz on several occasions in the future, without fear, and seemingly without encountering any hostility, which may cast doubt on Harding’s allegations. Evidently Elisabeth brought at least one daughter with her from her previous marriage. Antoine Chevallier, another Hebraist, would marry a daughter of Tremellius when they were all in Cambridge in the early 1550s: though the sources do not make this point explicitly, it is clear from the timing that this daughter had to have been born substantially before Tremellius first met his wife. Evidently, Tremellius and Elisabeth also added to their family. An ‘Immanuel Tremellius junior, son of doctor 58 Aimé Louis Herminjard, Correspondancedesréformateursdanslespaysdelangue francaise:recuielleetpubliéeavecd’autreslettresrelativesálaréformeetdesnoteshistoriques et biographiques (9 vols, Geneva, 1866–97), No.1398, vol.9, p.342 n. Alastair Hamilton, ‘Tremellius (Joannes) Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in DNB (Oxford, 2004), vol.55, p.286. 59 Thomas Harding, A Reioindre to M. Iewels Replie Against the Sacrifice of the Masse … (Louvain, 1567), 175A. 60 Philip M. J. McNair, ‘Peter Martyr in England’ in Joseph C. McLelland (Ed.), Peter MartyrVermigliandItalianReform(Ontario, 1980), p.96 ff.

52

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Immanuel Tremellius’ appears in the matriculation records of Heidelberg University for 1561.61 As he was presumably about 15 or 16 at that point, it is very probable that he had been born while Tremellius was still in Strasbourg.62 It is possible that there were still other children, from either Elisabeth’s previous marriage, or her marriage to Tremellius.63 Tremellius was following quite a well-established pattern among Protestant reformers here. For example, in August 1540, Calvin, apparently with some prompting from Bucer, had married Idelette de Bure, a widow who brought with her two children from her previous marriage.64 Bucer was himself among the first reformers to marry, and it is certainly possible that he had played a role in pairing off Tremellius with Elisabeth. It is interesting to reflect that while Tremellius may still have been something of a wandering scholar, he was not alone: he had a wife and at least two children, one of whom was an infant, to take care of as well. On the one hand, this would have added to his expense. On the other, one can imagine that it would have provided emotional support, and indeed that, at least to an extent, this new family was able to replace the one he had been forced to leave behind in Italy. Unsurprisingly, the extant sources provide relatively little information about his family: after all, there would have been little need for him to correspond with family members who spent most of their time with him. Nonetheless, we do get the occasional glimpse at these most personal of relationships. This is especially the case in relation to his wife. Inevitably, Elisabeth appears in the surviving sources most frequently in conjunction with her husband, as for instance in the exchange of greetings which end letters written, or received, by her husband. But on some occasions it is apparent that this was more than simply formulaic. Striking for instance, as we will see in the next chapter, is the fact that Elisabeth seems to have built up a relationship with Margaret, the wife of Matthew Parker, which reinforced the friendship between her husband and the future Archbishop of Canterbury.65 We also get a sense of the practical value of this relationship: the two could work effectively as a team. This was evident, for instance, at 61 Entry No.105 for the year 1560–61. Toepke, DieMatrikelderUniversitätHeidelberg von1386bis1662(Heidelberg, 1884–1904), vol.2, p.26. 62 Ordinarily, university students were at least 14 years old; if he had attained this age by 1561, he could have been born no later than 1547/8, the point at which Tremellius left Strasbourg. 63 Butters, Tremellius makes no mention of any children whatsoever; Becker, Tremellius, p.14 claims that Elisabeth brought one daughter from her first marriage, and that her marriage with Tremellius produced a second daughter; Carlyle, ‘Tremellius’, p.187 says that Tremellius had two daughters and a son by Elisabeth. 64 William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York and Oxford, 1988), p.23. 65 Cf. V. J. K. Brook, ALifeofArchbishopParker(Oxford, 1962), pp.36–7.

BEGINNING A LIFE IN EXILE

53

the time of their departure from England early in 1554. While Tremellius returned to the continent in search of work, he left his wife to sell up their property.66 But this was much more than a merely practical arrangement, as Tremellius’ evident concern that Calvin look after her when she travelled to Geneva without him demonstrates.67 Especially as individuals who had both been forced to flee the countries of their birth, the value of this sort of relationship must have been high. 1547 and Protestant Support Network Thus, after a few years in Strasbourg, Tremellius was beginning to establish himself in terms of both his personal and professional life. However, events towards the end of 1547 meant that Tremellius no longer felt able to remain there. In April the Habsburg Emperor Charles V brought the first Schmalkaldic War to a conclusion with a decisive victory at Mühlberg; in its aftermath, Charles took advantage of his strengthened position to impose a religious settlement over the German territories under his control.68 Although some limited concessions were made to the Protestants, this ‘Interim’, which was finally promulgated at the Diet of Augsburg in May 1548, effectively restored the Catholic Church in the empire to what it had been in the late Middle Ages. The position of Protestants in Germany was seriously undermined. The impact of this on the Academy of Strasbourg was particularly pronounced, with many of its leading teachers leaving shortly after.69 Even before that diet, it was clear the direction that imperial policy would take, and in the last months of 1547, there was a sudden flurry of interest in Tremellius, and various efforts to find alternative employment for him. Clearly some letters have been lost, but it is possible to reconstruct much of this activity from those that have survived. Evidently the possibility that Tremellius might head to Geneva was raised. As we have already seen, Calvin was certainly aware of Tremellius, and had probably met him on his visit to Strasbourg. More recently, as he explained to Pierre Viret in August 1547, he had received a further endorsement of Tremellius’ skills, but regretted that there was not a suitable opening for him in Geneva: Budé strongly urged me to try to attract Emanuel here, if it was at all possible.70 But we wouldn’t be able to make any use of his abilities, except as professor of the Tremellius to William Cecil, 19 February 1561, CSPForeign (1560–61), No.1008. Tremellius to John Calvin, 14 June 1554, CO 1971. 68 Karl Brandi, TheEmperorCharlesV (Brighton, 1980), pp.523–87. 69 Cf. the dates in Chrisman, LayCulture, pp.309–10. 70 The identity of this figure is not entirely clear: Guillaume Budé had died in 1540, but he had fathered seven sons. Louis, Matthew and John had all studied in Strasbourg while Tremellius was there, and may have encountered him then. Louis, in particular, would go on to gain a reputation as a Hebraist himself: not only did he collaborate on a translation of 66 67

54

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Hebrew language, and Imbert holds that post. If you don’t have any objection, would you please excuse me to him, so that he may at least understand that he has not been overlooked.71

In this letter, Calvin made no suggestion that Viret himself should seek to find employment for Tremellius, but it is apparent that Calvin and various others did send letters to him asking that he should. Towards the end of November, Viret devoted almost an entire letter to Guillaume Farel to dealing with the problem of Tremellius’ employment. He wrote: As for Emanuel, I don’t really know what I can say. There is no post for him here, and even if there were, there are many good and learned men whom we ought not to neglect. And to this I should add that Jews and Italians are not well thought of in Berne. What you ask for on his behalf he has already frequently written to me about, as have others, especially Calvin. But I can’t do anything other than explain how things are here.72

Several factors relating to the development of Tremellius’ career emerge from this letter. First, although this particular request did not earn him a new job, we gain an insight into the informal mechanisms which were exploited to match up talented candidates with appropriate posts. While individuals might seek to advance their own cause, they appreciated it would be strengthened if they were able to persuade others to write in support of them. Especially at a time of such movement and disruption, letters of recommendation must have come to be regarded as even more valuable. Secondly, it is apparent that even as early as 1547, Tremellius had won the backing of a number of leading figures associated with the Reformation, including Farel and Calvin. That Calvin should be writing in support of him is particularly striking. After all, it was only three months since Calvin had sought to excuse his failure to find a post for Tremellius in Geneva; his efforts to find him an alternative post would suggest that his apology had been sincere. It would imply also that he held Tremellius in high regard, and was keen not to see his abilities wasted. One of the strongest reasons in favour of this system was that it did seem to be effective in matching up posts with people, as much as the other way round. This is a pattern that would be repeated at various points in Tremellius’ career. The fact that he held a long series of jobs during the course of his career, and was rarely out of work, would indicate how effective this system could be.

the Psalms with Calvin, but he also served as Professor of the Old Testament at the College de Rive in Geneva. See R. Peter, ‘Calvin and Louis Budé’s Translation of the Psalms’ in G. E. Duffield (Ed.), JohnCalvin (London, 1966), pp.190–209. In June 1549, Guillaume’s widow, daughter and three sons, Louis, François and John, would move to Geneva; however, John had travelled there previously, and was certainly known to Calvin by the time of this letter. 71 John Calvin to Pierre Viret, 25 August 1547, CO 941. 72 Pierre Viret to Guillaume Farel, 24 November 1547, CO969.

BEGINNING A LIFE IN EXILE

55

Finally, Viret’s aside about Tremellius’ position in relation to his competitors is also revealing. This is in fact probably the most explicit acknowledgement of the prejudice that he would face, on account of both his former Judaism and his Italian background. Interestingly, we can discern that these were regarded as Tremellius’ defining characteristics; as the pair had not met, this information had presumably been passed on to Viret by the figures who were writing on Tremellius’ behalf. In addition, one can see that the theoretical distinction between Jews and Jewish converts had been blurred. The implications of this for Tremellius’ career should not be overlooked. Prejudices of this sort must have provided obstacles to his gaining posts in the first place; and even if his colleagues and pupils were able to overcome them, there remained a strong likelihood that such attitudes would have shaped people’s reactions to him in the various locations where he taught. Whether or not Tremellius actually travelled to Geneva, Lausanne or Berne in pursuit of employment is unclear, but we do know that from Strasbourg he headed to Switzerland. He was certainly in Basle before the end of the year. In December, Jacobus Falesius alluded to him in a letter to Paul Fagius, suggesting that he had sought Tremellius’ support in a dispute with Valerand Poullain.73 Poullain had caused considerable offence by seeking to marry a relation of Falesius, despite the latter’s opposition. Calvin had written to Falesius in March of that year to indicate that he was sympathetic towards him, and at the same time had written a letter of admonition to Poullain, urging him to improve his behaviour. Given that this issue was already well known, it is in a sense surprising that Tremellius should be drawn into it. Tremellius was still in Basle in March 1548 when Oswald Myconius, the town’s preacher, and formerly a professor of New Testament exegesis there, reported to Heinrich Bullinger in Zurich that ‘a certain Jew, Emanuel, has been called here in order to teach Hebrew’.74 Again the manner in which Tremellius is described is a clear indication of the way he was pigeon-holed: the witness is not a hostile one, yet it is not even acknowledged that he was a Jewish convert. Myconius’ suggestion that Tremellius had been invited to Basle to teach Hebrew is an interesting one: of course it is entirely plausible, but unfortunately we do not know whether any specific post was forthcoming. Perhaps more significantly, it is also apparent that this was not the only possible career move that Tremellius was pursuing. The death of Henry VIII and the accession of his young son, Edward VI, suddenly made England a much more conducive home for members of the Reformed churches of the Empire. Especially through the influence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Jacobus Falesius to Paul Fagius, 8 December 1547, CO 974. Oswald Myconius to Heinrich Bullinger, 20 March 1548, StAZ, E II 336a 286 (new 301). 73

74

56

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

substantial number of Reformed continental scholars were invited to England to help advance the cause of the Reformation there. Tremellius’ reputation may not yet have been great enough for his name to have been known in England, but he did have some influential friends. In November 1547, Martin Bucer had written a letter to Cranmer, which Peter Martyr and Bernardino Ochino delivered personally to him. In it Bucer commended the pair to Cranmer, before going on to encourage him to issue a further invitation to Tremellius.75 In fact, this was a role that Bucer fulfilled for a number of figures.76 Yet while Cranmer’s invitations to some of the other scholars have survived, the one he issued to Tremellius has since been lost. Nevertheless, it is clear that such a letter was written, since the next we hear of Tremellius, he had arrived in England. Conclusion Although he would ultimately only spend five years in Strasbourg, this was nonetheless enough time for Tremellius to begin to establish his new identity in exile. The difficulties of doing this were considerable, given the prejudices against Jews and Jewish converts (and the frequent failure to distinguish between the two), and against Italians. To make matters worse, at least when he arrived in Germany, he was virtually unknown, and knew very few people himself. Despite these unpromising beginnings, however, by the time that he left Strasbourg, Tremellius had made significant advances. He had formed a new family which must have gone at least some way to making up for the one he had been forced to leave behind in Italy. In terms of his career, he was following quite a rapid ascent. The monastery of San Frediano had, without doubt, been staffed by some impressive figures, but its influence had been limited. As a member of the staff of the Gymnasium in Strasbourg, Tremellius’ influence was extended: he would have encountered a wider range of students, and mixed with a large faculty, many of whom, as we have seen, were academics with established international reputations. Third, and perhaps most importantly, Tremellius impressed these people sufficiently for them to support him in his endeavours. Peter Martyr had 75 Martin Bucer to Thomas Cranmer, 28 November 1547, Paris, Ste-Geneviève MS 1458 175r. I am most grateful to Jonathan Reid for transcribing this source for me. See also the discussion of this source in Diarmaid MacCulloch, ThomasCranmer:ALife(New Haven, CT and London, 1996), p.381. 76 For instance, Johann Sleidanus asked Bucer to recommend him to Cranmer and other people in England; Bucer agreed, and wrote to William Cecil on his behalf. See Hermann Baumgarten (Ed.), SleidanusBriefwechsel (Strasbourg, 1881), No.84. Johann Sleidanus to Martin Bucer, 20 March 1550 and No.89, Martin Bucer to William Cecil, 18 February 1551. I am grateful to Alexandra Kess for this information.

BEGINNING A LIFE IN EXILE

57

been able to vouch for his ability and credibility in the first instance; within a handful of years, Martin Bucer and John Calvin, two of the leading figures of the Reformed faith, among others, were writing on his behalf. This must surely be seen as evidence of Tremellius’ rising prestige within the Protestant world, but it would also have gone far in itself to consolidating and indeed extending his reputation.

CHAPTER FOUR

Regius Professor Not for the first time in his life, factors outside Tremellius’ control had forced him to depart from the Gymnasium in Strasbourg, almost as soon as he had established himself there. But like many of his colleagues from that institution, he was the beneficiary of some fortunate timing. For as one door closed, another one opened: the military victory of Charles V in the Empire suddenly made it much harder to remain a Protestant there, but the accession of Edward VI in England provided a new range of opportunities. Tremellius was among a substantial number of continental scholars and reformers who came to England at the end of the 1540s, and who would play key roles in establishing the Reformation there. Although he was rather forced into coming to England (especially given his failure to find employment elsewhere on the continent), Tremellius appears to have flourished in the new environment: he met and worked alongside many of the continent’s leading academics and reformers, but he did so largely on an equal footing. As in Lucca and Strasbourg, he again served as a teacher, but he did so as Regius Professor at the University of Cambridge, one of the most distinguished educational posts in the country. Such a position was both an acknowledgement of his growing prestige within the Reformed academic elite, and also a post by which that status was consolidated, and even enhanced. The importance of friendship and patronage ties is again clear from his experiences in England: as we will see in this chapter, his experiences constitute an interesting case-study into some of the mechanisms and motivations of patronage, and the overlapping circles of patronage and friendship. Finally, while in England Tremellius published a work which provides a fascinating range of insights into both his sense of himself and his attitudes to the world around him. Cranmer and Lambeth The accession of Edward VI in 1547 was undoubtedly a significant turning point in the history of the Reformation in England.1 As is well known, the 1 The historiography relating to the English Reformation is vast. A. G. Dickens, The EnglishReformation (London, 1989) and G. R. Elton, ReformandReformation (London, 1977) are classic works. Of the more recent works, particularly helpful are Christopher Haigh (Ed.), The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge, 1987), especially his ‘The recent historiography of the English Reformation’; Haigh, EnglishReformations:Religion, Politics and Society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993); Peter Marshall (Ed.), The Impact

60

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

initial split with Rome and the establishment of the Church of England had essentially been by-products of Henry VIII’s campaign to secure a divorce from Catherine of Aragon, his brother’s widow.2 Nonetheless, given that Henry’s new wife, Anne Boleyn, and some of his key officers of church and state, such as Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer, were supporters of the evangelical cause, there was for a time hope that Henry would take his domains in a more Protestant direction:3 with the dissolution of the monasteries and the promulgation of the Ten Articles of 1536 in particular, it seemed that such hopes might be rewarded. But in the last years of his reign, Henry evidently began to entertain reservations about the direction that his religious reforms were taking, and returned to an increasingly conservative religious policy, as reflected in the Act of Six Articles in 1539.4 Despite this gradual reversal of policies during his last years, however, Henry inadvertently assisted the fortunes of English Protestantism with the appointment of a number of evangelically inclined tutors for his only son, the future King Edward VI, who had not quite reached his tenth birthday by the time of Henry VIII’s death in 1547. The young king seems to have been personally inclined towards the reformation, but more importantly, those around him, among whom Edward’s uncle, Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, who was established as Lord Protector, and the veteran Archbishop Thomas Cranmer were the most prominent, took advantage of the more favourable circumstances to further the cause of Reformation in England.5 In the first year of Edward’s reign, the dissolution of the chantries was completed, existing heresy laws were shelved, efforts to destroy religious imagery were resumed and an official collection of sermons expressing evangelical theology was promulgated. Indeed, with the conservative influence of Henry removed, there occurred

oftheEnglishReformation (London, 1997) and Ethan H. Shagan, PopularPoliticsinthe EnglishReformation (Cambridge, 2003). Also see Eamon Duffy, TheStrippingoftheAltars: TraditionalReligioninEngland,c.1400–c.1580 (New Haven, CT, and London, 1992). 2 J. J. Scarisbrick, HenryVIII (London, 1968); Diarmaid MacCulloch (Ed.), TheReign ofHenryVIII.Politics,PolicyandPiety (London, 1995); David Starkey, TheReignofHenry VIII:PersonalitiesandPolitics (London, 1995); Richard Rex, HenryVIIIandtheEnglish Reformation (Basingstoke, 2006). 3 Maria Dowling, ‘Anne Boleyn and Reform’, JEH 35 (1984), pp.30–46; G. R. Elton, ReformandRenewal:ThomasCromwellandtheCommonWeal (Cambridge, 1973). 4 D. MacCulloch, ‘Henry VIII and the Reform of the Church’ in MacCulloch, Reign ofHenryVIII; G. W. Bernard, ‘The Making of Religious Policy, 1533–1546: Henry VIII and the Search for the Middle Way’, HJ 41 (1998), pp.321–49. 5 W. K. Jordan, EdwardVI:theYoungKing.TheProtectorshipoftheDukeofSomerset (London, 1968); Jordan, EdwardVI:theThresholdofPower:theDominanceoftheDuke ofNorthumberland (London, 1970); Jennifer Loach, EdwardVI, ed. George Bernard and Penry Williams (New Haven, CT and London, 1999); Diarmaid MacCulloch, TudorChurch Militant:EdwardVIandtheProtestantReformation (London, 1999).

REGIUS PROFESSOR

61

a subtle shift among the leaders of the evangelical party in England, with Lutheranism gradually superseded by a more Reformed outlook.6 Of particular importance in these developments was Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury.7 Although he had favoured the evangelical cause under Henry VIII, he had done so cautiously in order to retain the confidence of his monarch. However, the accession of Edward VI provided an opportunity for him to pursue his own religious goals. It is clear that he was behind many of the religious developments which occurred during the short reign of the young king; indeed it was this involvement that would lead to his execution under Mary.8 Cranmer was also responsible for the much more international outlook that characterised the Edwardian Reformation. Cranmer had himself travelled widely on the continent, and had married the niece of Andreas Osiander, a leading figure in the Reformation of Nuremberg. Now, in the later 1540s, he found himself able to aid the Protestants on the continent whose fortunes had suddenly taken a turn for the worse. As we have seen, he dispatched invitations to a substantial number of continental reformers, the majority of which were gladly received. From the end of 1547, a wave of scholars and theologians headed to the more welcoming home that England offered: many would go on to occupy important positions in the country’s universities, and in the fledgling exile communities.9 In addition, England also welcomed hundreds of lesser-known refugees, including a substantial number of printers, who considerably enhanced England’s printing industry and were responsible for producing a great volume of cheap evangelical publications.10 Clearly then, this was a situation which benefited both parties: the continental figures whose living had been put in jeopardy were provided with a safer home and employment, while the Church of England gained the services of some of the most distinguished minds of Europe. It is not clear exactly when Tremellius arrived in England.11 Bucer’s recommendation of Tremellius to Cranmer had been dispatched in November 1547; presumably his invitation was sent out during the Alec Ryrie, ‘The strange death of Lutheran England’, JEH 53 (2002), pp.64–92. On Cranmer, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (New Haven, CT and London, 1996) is the definitive biography. Also see Paul Ayris and David Selwyn (Eds), Thomas Cranmer: Christian and Scholar (Woodbridge, 1993) and C. H. Smyth, Cranmer andtheReformationunderEdwardVI (London, 1973). 8 MacCulloch, Cranmer, especially p.380 ff. 9 Andrew Pettegree, Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-Century London (Oxford, 1986). 10 MacCulloch, Reformation. Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700 (London, 2003), p.256. 11 A number of historians, such as Dickens, TheEnglishReformation(London, 1989), p.234 and Carlyle, ‘Tremellius, John Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in DNBvol.57 (1899), p.186, have suggested that Tremellius arrived in 1547, but this simply cannot be the case. 6 7

62

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

course of 1548. However, as we saw at the end of the previous chapter, he was still in Basle in March of that year. It may well be the case that, as Myconius had hinted, Tremellius spent much of 1548 teaching Hebrew in the Swiss city. Indeed, though he may have arrived a little earlier, we can only confirm Tremellius’ presence in England in the early months of 1549. When Martin Bucer and Paul Fagius arrived in England, they found him being entertained by Archbishop Cranmer at his palace in Lambeth. As they reported to the ministers of the church in Strasbourg, from where they had recently departed: We yesterday waited upon the archbishop of Canterbury, that most benevolent and kind father of the churches and of godly men; he received and entertained us as brethren, and not as dependants. We found at his house, what was most gratifying to us, our most dear friend doctor Peter Martyr with his wife, and his attendant Julius, master Immanuel [Tremellius] with his wife; and also [Francis] Dryander, and some other godly Frenchmen whom we had sent before us. All these were entertained by the archbishop of Canterbury.12

In fact, Lambeth Palace was a haven for international figures, and a place where almost all of the prestigious individuals would reside before being allocated to their positions. Of course, Tremellius was already well acquainted with some of these men. He had known Peter Martyr, who would become Professor of Divinity at Oxford, since their time together in Lucca, while Bucer and Fagius, who would head to Cambridge to become Professors of Divinity and Hebrew respectively, he knew from Strasbourg. The Dutchman Jan Utenhove and the Polish nobleman Jan a Lasco played crucial roles in the organisation of the foreign refugee communities which rapidly emerged in England at this point. Francis Dryander from Spain, the Italian Bernardino Ochino, Martin Micron from Ghent and Valerand Poullain, Peter Alexander and Jean Veron, all Frenchmen, were also temporary residents in London. Tremellius was mixing with the great and the good of the Reformation: this company was arguably even more distinguished than his colleagues in Strasbourg had been. And while the presence of some familiar faces would presumably have been reassuring for Tremellius, he also had the opportunity to meet other adherents of the Reformed faith, drawn from across the continent, and so of continuing to build up a network of contacts, all of whom now shared his experience of exile and dislocation. Cranmer and his court clearly made a favourable impression on Tremellius: many years later, in an uncharacteristically autobiographical moment, he would remark: ‘When I arrived, I was first welcomed into the house of the archbishop: indeed it was a community of reception to 12 Martin Bucer and Paul Fagius to the ministers at Strasbourg, 26 April 1549, Original Letters248.

REGIUS PROFESSOR

63

all learned and pious people since that host, patron and father always wished to entertain all such people, for as long as he lived, or was able.’13 Tremellius may well have spent more than six months at Lambeth through the course of 1549. We must imagine that he availed himself of at least some of the opportunities which presented themselves while he was there, including conversation with some of the leading churchmen and theologians of Europe. Similarly, it is likely that these men also sought to make the most of Tremellius’ presence, both in terms of general discussion and perhaps as an informal contributor to the various projects which emanated from Lambeth, such as the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 and the biblical translations produced by Fagius and Bucer under the direction of Cranmer during the three months or so they spent at Lambeth.14 Having been persuaded to invite Tremellius to England, it would be surprising if Cranmer did not seek to make use of his skills. Regius Professor of Hebrew Part of the reason why Tremellius ended up staying in Lambeth was simply that there was a lack of suitable positions for a man of his skills. He did not have any experience in a pastoral position, so was presumably not well suited to a role in the fledgling foreign churches which were then being established; indeed, although there was an Italian community in London, there is no indication that Tremellius had any association with it at all.15 In addition, as Jones has effectively demonstrated, the study of Hebrew in England was still very much in its infancy.16 Only very recently had Regius Professorships been established at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, in Hebrew as well as Greek and divinity;17 both professorships were already occupied, by Thomas Harding and Thomas Wakefield respectively.18 In 13 Tremellius, In Hoseam Prophetam Interpretatio et Enarratio. ([Geneva], 1563), Preface, pp.5–6. 14 Butters, Tremellius, p.15 suggests that Tremellius, like Peter Martyr, was a member of the commission of 32 men whom Cranmer selected to discuss ecclesiastical procedure, but not the commissions of 16 and three to which it was later reduced. Meanwhile D. de Sola Pool, ‘The Influence of Some Jewish Apostates on the Reformation’, JewishReview, vol. 2 (May 1911–Mar 1912), p.339 suggests that Tremellius took part in the preparation of the Book of Common Prayer. 15 Pettegree, ForeignProtestantCommunities, pp.77–8; Loach, EdwardVI, p.117. 16 G. Lloyd Jones, The Discovery of Hebrew in Tudor England: A Third Language (Manchester, 1983). 17 F. Donald Logan, ‘The Origins of the So-Called Regius Professorships: An Aspect of the Renaissance in Oxford and Cambridge’ in Derek Baker (Ed.), RenaissanceandRenewal inChristianHistory (Oxford, 1977), pp.271–8. 18 John Le Neve, FastiEcclesiaeAnglicanae,oraCalendarofthePrincipalEcclesiastical Dignitaries in England and Wales, and of the Chief Officers in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (3 vols, Oxford, 1854), vol.III, p.659; Jones, DiscoveryofHebrew, p.199 ff.

64

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

addition a handful of colleges, including St John’s and Trinity at Cambridge, employed Hebrew teachers of their own; this would become much more common in the second half of the century.19 But as well as being few in number, the latter were also substantially less prestigious: if they were held by an internationally renowned figure at all, it would be as a supplement to the Regius Professorship.20 In practice, however, there were several occasions on which Wakefield was barred from lecturing (it is presumed on account of his Catholicism), and others had to take his place, including Paul Fagius (1549), Tremellius (1549-53), Antoine Chevallier (1569-72) and Philip Bignon (1574).21 We should not read much into the fact that Fagius was appointed to this post before Tremellius, despite arriving in England after him. Fagius was the older man, and, as we have seen, his reputation was well established: he had by this time published a substantial number of volumes, while Tremellius was still virtually unknown.22 But in fact it would seem that it was a condition of their coming that both Bucer and Fagius were promised professorships by Cranmer. Even if Tremellius was a little disappointed to be overlooked in favour of his senior colleague, his opportunity arose sooner than he can have expected. For, having only just begun his series of lectures in Cambridge, Fagius died in November 1549. Tremellius was almost immediately named as his successor.23 This professorship was a truly prestigious post, and a further rung up the educational ladder in Tremellius’ career. According to the statutes of the university, the professor of Hebrew was expected to lecture for five hours every week, on Scripture and grammar.24 Given that these regulations had only just been instituted in 1549, we can assume that they give a more accurate reflection of his activities than do many other university statutes which date from this period.25 This would further be confirmed, incidentally, in a grant of 1552, in which it was Jones, DiscoveryofHebrew, p.204. For instance, when Antoine Chevallier was Regius Professor in Cambridge between 1569 and 1572, he also held Hebrew lectureships in Peterhouse, King’s and St John’s. 21 Jones, DiscoveryofHebrew, p.204. 22 On Fagius, see Jerome Friedman, TheMostAncientTestimony:Sixteenth-Century Christian-HebraicaintheAgeofRenaissanceNostalgia(Athens, OH, 1983), pp.99–118. 23 Le neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, vol.iii, p.659 records that tremellius was appointed Regius Professor of hebrew in 1550; no mention is made of Fagius in his calendar; see also John strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials Relating Chiefly to Religion and the Reformation of It (2 vols, Oxford, 1822), vol.ii, p.322–3. 24 Discussed in Jones, Discovery of Hebrew, p.192. In 1564, the commitments were reduced to four hours. 25 Laurence Brockliss, ‘Curricula’, in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), AHistoryofthe UniversityinEurope,vol.II:UniversitiesinEarlyModernEurope(1500–1800) (Cambridge, 1996, 1997), p.565 emphasises how frequently regulations of this sort bore no relation to the education that was provided, largely because they were so rarely updated. Because the 19 20

REGIUS PROFESSOR

65

mentioned specifically that Tremellius ‘by the king’s command … professes, and teaches daily, Hebrew at the University of Cambridge’.26 These were Tremellius’ official duties, but it is possible that he provided additional instruction on a more informal basis. It is known, for instance, that Peter Martyr gave private lectures, in Italian, in his own house in Cambridge, and Tremellius may well have followed suit.27 In addition, it is quite likely that Tremellius had a number of students live with him, as he had done in Strasbourg and would subsequently do in Heidelberg. However, the only person whom we can be certain lived with him in Cambridge, beyond his immediate family, was the French Hebraist, Antoine Chevallier.28 Like Tremellius, Chevallier had come to England following the accession of Edward VI, probably in 1548. He seems first to have been employed to teach the future Queen Elizabeth French, but in due course was sent to Cambridge in about 1550 to assist Tremellius with his duties. It is not known how the pair had divided their responsibilities, and by the standards of the time, it was not the most onerous of jobs, but Chevallier would undoubtedly have been an able assistant: he would subsequently serve as professor of Hebrew in Geneva, when Tremellius was unable to take up the post, and would ultimately hold the post of Regius Professor of Hebrew in Cambridge in his own right. Chevallier was rewarded for his assistance to Tremellius by a grant to be a free denizen, and a prebend in Canterbury Cathedral, since he offered his services for nothing.29 The relationship between Tremellius and Chevallier soon took on a personal dimension, in addition to the professional one. Chevallier married Tremellius’ step-daughter, Alice, in December 1550.30 Their first child, named Immanuel after his grandfather, was born at Cambridge in September the following year. And indeed, he would be well named, as this saw the formation of something of a dynasty of Hebraists. Immanuel Chevallier studied Hebrew first at the University of Heidelberg and then at Cambridge, from 1569, the year in which his father took up the post Cambridge regulations had been written only a matter of months before Tremellius took up his post, however, this is far less likely in this instance. 26 CPRIV (1550–53), 24 Oct 1552. 27 Loach, EdwardVI, p.128. 28 Cf. Thomas Goodrich, Bishop of Ely to William Cecil, 5 September 1552, BL, MS Lansdowne 2, 90. 29 Dated August 1552, according to John Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials Relating Chiefly to Religion and the Reformation of It (2 vols, Oxford, 1822), vol.II, i, p.324. 30 John Strype, The Life and Acts of Matthew Parker, The First Archbishop of CanterburyintheReignofQueenElizabeth(Oxford, 1821), p.147 mistakenly assumes that this woman was the sister of Tremellius’ wife, but this seems to be based on a misreading of Chevallier’s will of 1572. The real nature of the relationship is made clear in other sources of the time. For instance in a letter to Francis Boisnormand of 17 March 1559, Calvin explained the relationship between the two: ‘Antoine Chevallier, the son-in-law of Immanuel: or at least, he has as his wife his [that is, Immanuel’s] step-daughter’. CO3030.

66

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

of Regius Professor at the same institution.31 In 1570, and not yet 20, he was appointed lecturer in Hebrew by Corpus Christi College.32 Tremellius undoubtedly had further grandchildren, but their identity is unclear from the surviving sources.33 Nonetheless, it is apparent that Tremellius remained concerned for the well-being of them all: in 1570 he and his wife sent to Chevallier two books in French for his wife and children, and two further books (possibly rather more scholarly) for Immanuel.34 Though this personal dimension may have played a role, it is clear that the two Hebraists held each other in the highest regard. For instance, in 1559 when Chevallier recalled to Theodore Beza that he had learnt from three eminent Hebraists, Francis Vatable, Paul Fagius and Tremellius, he praised the influence of Tremellius above all others.35 In the following year, Tremellius agreed to write a prefatory letter to a Hebrew grammar which his son-in-law had composed.36 During the course of a particularly effusive preface, Tremellius speaks at considerable length in praise of Chevallier. Having begun by lamenting the lack of men suitably qualified for the teaching of Hebrew, he goes on to rejoice that God has chosen Chevallier to correct this failing through the composition of the grammar which follows. He continues: ‘He chose for himself my son-in-law, as dear to me as my own life, with whom for many years I have enjoyed sweet fellowship, together in counsel. Blessed be He, and blessed be His name who gave me before my death a man like him who sits in my seat. He gave his heart to instruction, and all that he has done prospers.’37 And in fact the collaboration in this work was typical of the manner in which the two continued to work together, even once they and their respective families had returned to the continent, and gone their separate ways. This sense of collegiality also emerges, for instance, from a letter that Tremellius wrote to Calvin in 1554, in which he expressed his own gratitude, and that of Chevallier, for the support which Calvin had given them both in finding employment following their departure from 31 John Venn (Ed.), Grace Book Δ: containing the Records of the University of Cambridge,fortheseyears1452–1589 (Cambridge, 1910), p.235. 32 John Venn and J. A. Venn (Eds), AlumniCantabrigienses.ABiographicalListofall Known Students, Graduates and Holders of Office at the University of Cambridge, from the earliesttimesto1900 (4 vols, Cambridge, 1922–27), vol.1, p.331. 33 According to Strype, LifeofParker, p.146, Chevallier had two daughters, Jael and Mary, and a son, Samuel, but as there is no mention of Immanuel, it is perhaps unwise to give much credence to these claims. 34 Tremellius to Antoine Chevallier, 16 September 1570, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 2010: Fairhurst Papers f.19. 35 Antoine Chevallier to Theodore Beza, 1 December 1559, CB 153. 36 Antoine Chevallier, Rudimenta Hebraicae Linguae, accurata methodo et brevitate conscripta… (Geneva, 1560). 37 Tremellius, Prefatory Letter to Chevallier, RudimentaHebraicaLinguae. I am greatly indebted to Stephen Burnett who translated this letter for me.

REGIUS PROFESSOR

67

England. It is interesting that it was Tremellius who passed on Chevallier’s gratitude: this perhaps suggests regular contact between the two, as well as a feeling of paternal responsibility. There are implications too from around this time that Calvin used Chevallier as a messenger to pass on letters to Tremellius.39 In 1559, when Tremellius was unable to take up the position of professor of Hebrew at Calvin’s academy in Geneva, the position went to Chevallier. The pair remained in contact through the rest of their lives: the last letter that has survived between them dates from 1570, but there are references to other letters which make it clear that it was in fact part of a much more regular exchange of correspondence.40 Its tone and contents testify to a continuing and warm relationship. During the course of the letter, Tremellius refers to issues relating to various of his writings, such as successfully obtaining a privilege from the emperor to print a work he had just completed, passes on information to several of his friends in England, but also demonstrates a real warmth towards Chevallier, his wife and their children; he also passes on the good wishes of his own wife, who was, after all, Alice’s mother. Unfortunately we have no indication of the size of classes for which Tremellius and Chevallier were responsible. The matriculation records of Cambridge University for the period from 1549 to 1556 suggest that on average about four students graduated each year with a Bachelor of Divinity degree while, most commonly, the period between matriculation and graduation was six or seven years.41 Of course, such records only ever tell part of the story: students would not necessarily spend all of their time in Cambridge, let alone be certain of attending all lectures that were relevant to their final degree; conversely, as is well known, a significant proportion of students attended university lectures with no intention of gaining a degree, and it would have been quite possible to attend classes in Hebrew without intending to graduate in theology. There was the added complication that, as I have already mentioned, some colleges had their own lecturers in Hebrew, although as Tremellius’ lectures were open to the students of the university as a whole, it is quite probable that students would attend both.42 Nonetheless, all of this would have meant that in practice student numbers were quite fluid. This would in turn have implications for the format of teaching that Tremellius offered: it had to be pitched at a level 38

Tremellius to John Calvin, 14 June 1554, CO 1971. John Calvin to Tremellius, August/September 1558, CO 2944. 40 Tremellius to Antoine Chevallier, 16 September 1570, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 2010: Fairhurst Papers, f.19. 41 Venn (Ed.), GraceBookΔ. 42 Jones, DiscoveryofHebrew, p.204. 38 39

68

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

that was accessible to students of substantially varying levels of expertise in Hebrew, and had to take into account the fact that a proportion of students would drift in and out of the lectures. As we have a better sense of the teaching that Tremellius provided in Heidelberg, we will leave discussion of how he would have dealt with these issues until a later chapter. A full assessment of the impact of Tremellius’ teaching lies outside the scope of this study. Particularly given the difficulties in recreating the classes which he taught, and the potential role of more informal instruction, it would require detailed investigation of the careers of a substantial number of people who were in Cambridge at the same time as Tremellius. Nonetheless, by looking at the careers of some of the students who graduated with degrees in theology during and immediately after the time that Tremellius taught there, it is possible to identify a number of the main areas in which one might hope to find evidence of his influence.43 Several former theology students attained significant positions within the church under Queen Elizabeth. For instance, Edmund Gest, who gained his BD in 1551, would go on to hold the position of archdeacon of Canterbury, bishop of Rochester and bishop of Salisbury; James Pilkington, who obtained his degree in the same year, would become the first Protestant Bishop of Durham; and Thomas Lever, who graduated in the following year, would become minister, and then archdeacon, of Coventry. In addition, according to the university records, Andrew Perne, whose four years of study culminated in his becoming a Doctor of Divinity in 1551-52, would hold at least half a dozen positions within the church, of which the most prestigious was dean of Ely. A second area in which theology students gained prominence was within the hierarchy of Cambridge University. For example, Andrew Pierson, who graduated in 1551, was elected fellow and then bursar of Corpus Christi College. Edmund Gest would later become vice-provost of King’s College. Andrew Perne served as vice-chancellor of Cambridge University on five separate occasions, as well as acting as Master of Peterhouse between 1554 and 1589. It is possible that Tremellius also exerted an influence over future teachers at the university. John Young, who obtained his doctorate in 1553, would become Regius Professor of Divinity in 1555; James Pilkington would lecture in Basle during the reign of Mary, and on his return, he too would become Regius Professor. Finally, it is quite possible that Tremellius’ influence is discernible in a number of writings that were produced in sixteenth-century England. For instance, Christopher Carlisle, who graduated in 1552, was a noted Hebraist, and author of several theological texts. Among his works were 43 The information in the following paragraphs is drawn from Venn and Venn (Eds), Alumni Cantabrigienses, Charles Henry Cooper and Thompson Cooper, Athenae Cantabrigienses (3 vols, Cambridge, 1858–1913), the DNB and Venn, GraceBook Δ.

REGIUS PROFESSOR

69

ADiscoursewhereinisplainlyproved…thatPeterwasneveratRome (London, 1572), ADiscourse,concerningtwodivinePositions (London, 1582) and a manuscript, dating from 1573, which contains a translation into English, with annotations, of the Psalms. In addition, Andrew Pierson, Andrew Perne and Edmund Gest, all of whom contributed to the Bishops’ Bible of 1568, all graduated with degrees in theology while Tremellius was the Regius Professor.44 Patrons and Friends Despite the prestigious nature of the post of Regius Professor, it appears that for much of the time that he was in Cambridge, Tremellius was not paid. This may well have had something to do with the fact that he was technically deputising for Wakefield in holding this post. However, as in Strasbourg, there were efforts to find Tremellius an alternative source of income. The process was begun by the University of Cambridge itself. Within Tremellius’ first year there, Doctors Redman and Parker put their seal on a grace recommending to the king, ‘Johannes Emanuell Tremellius, who teaches the holy language for free, here at the university’.45 It is remarkable enough that the university had to resort to this strategy in the first place for someone who held such a prestigious post, but arguably even more striking is the fact that it would be two years before Tremellius actually saw any official response to this request. Indeed, it was only on 24 October 1552, that Tremellius received a ‘grant for life … of the canonry or prebend in Carlisle cathedral void by the death of William Pirrie, and in the king’s gift plenojure, with all dwelling houses and profits thereto pertaining, although not resident there so long as, by the king’s command, he is professing and daily teaching the sacred language in the University of Cambridge’.46 In a supplementary statute, passed two days later, the dean and chapter of the cathedral were instructed to assign to Tremellius his stall in the choir and place in the chapter.47 Following his departure from England, Tremellius would also refer to a separate annual stipend of 50 marks, which he received from the Treasurer of the Augmentations, though there is no mention of this in the records of

44 S. L. Greenslade, ‘English Versions of the Bible, 1525–1611’ in Greenslade (Ed.), TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBible,vol.III:TheWestfromtheReformationtothePresent Day(Cambridge, 1963), pp.159–61. Charles Butterworth, TheLiteraryLineageoftheKing JamesBible,1340–1611 (Philadelphia, PA, 1941), pp.173–87. 45 John Venn, GraceBookΔ, entries for 1549/50, pp.68 and 74. 46 Grant of 24 October 1552, CPR, vol.IV, p.262. 47 Grant of 26 October 1552, CPR, vol.IV, p.277.

70

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

the university or the Crown.48 In addition, Tremellius was one of about a hundred foreigners who received letters of denization, issued by the Lord Chancellor in March 1553.49 Interestingly, he and Peter Martyr, who also became a denizen in this group, were among only eight individuals who were not charged for this privilege. In each of these decrees, there does seem to be a recognition of the important role that Tremellius was playing in Cambridge: he was given permission to be non-resident in Carlisle, and was not charged for being made a denizen. Nonetheless, it was only once the university’s original request was taken up by others that the suit was advanced. The first figure to get involved was William Cecil, one of England’s leading statesmen of the century, who would serve under Edward, Mary and Elizabeth.50 In 1550 he had been made Secretary of State and a member of the Privy Council, and in the following year he was knighted. He was a highly influential figure, especially as regards Crown patronage, and apparently particularly keen to aid foreign Protestants.51 This impression is certainly borne out by his relationship with Tremellius. Tremellius referred to Cecil as his ‘most distinguished lord and most generous patron’, and to himself as Cecil’s ‘most dedicated servant’. In a letter written during his time in England he thanked him for ‘your singular benevolence towards me, which you have recently shown to me at court’.52 Because the letter was undated, we cannot be certain to what Tremellius was referring: he may have meant his position as Regius Professor, his receipt of the Carlisle prebend or perhaps simply a more general concern for his welfare.53 In any case, as much as his letter was intended to express his gratitude for previous kindnesses, he also hoped to win further help: ‘and I would ask that you do not decrease your care for me, on account of other business, but that rather you would continue to look out for me, a helpless foreigner, at court’. 48 For example Tremellius to William Cecil, 19 February 1561, CSPForeign (1560– 61), No.1008, and Tremellius to William Cecil, 4 May 1561, CSP Foreign (1561–62), No.171. According to a letter of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton to Queen Elizabeth, written on 9 May 1561, Tremellius believed he was still owed two years’ worth of this stipend, CSP Foreign (1561–62), No.189. 49 Grant of 10 March 1552/3 CPR, vol.IV, pp.280–81. 50 Michael A. R. Graves, Burghley.WilliamCecil,LordBurghley (Harlow, 1998). 51 John N. King, EnglishReformationLiterature.TheTudorOriginsoftheProtestant Tradition (Princeton, NJ, 1982), p.110. On Cecil’s use of patronage, see Stephen Alford, Kingship and Politics in the Reign of Edward VI (Cambridge, 2002), pp.137–51. On his religious outlook, see Graves, Burghley, pp.169–88. 52 Tremellius to William Cecil, n.d., BL, MS Lansdowne 2, 70. 53 The date 1551 is written on the letter, but in a different hand, and is therefore presumably a later addition. John Strype, EcclesiasticalMemorials vol.2, pt I, p.323 suggests that the letter was written in about 1548, while King, EnglishReformationLiterature, p.110 imagines that it was written after the letter of the Bishop of Ely, of September 1552 (discussed below).

REGIUS PROFESSOR

71

It was not long before an opportunity arose: this came from Thomas Goodrich, the Bishop of Ely, who, like Cecil, was from 1547 a member of the Privy Council. In September 1552, Goodrich sent a letter to Cecil. Describing himself as Cecil’s ‘assured loving friend’, the bishop drew attention to the prebend of Carlisle Cathedral, which had recently fallen vacant following the death of William Pirrie. As he mentions in the letter, he had previously asked for this post for Dr Bellasis, but as he too had died, Goodrich now sought this post for Tremellius: Since Immanuel, the professor of Hebrew in Cambridge, makes great efforts but receives little reward for them, I think it would be good if he might receive it [that is, the prebend] ... And I understand by a certain Antoine [Chevallier], a Frenchman, who is in [the] house with the said Immanuel, that you yourself mentioned the matter. For which reason, if you will agree to help him to it, I shall be very pleased and grateful; and you, in so doing, shall deserve thanks at the university’s hand, and will have him as your continual orator for the same.54

These comments are illuminating as regards both the mechanisms of patronage at this time and their varying motivations. First, it is apparent that the Bishop of Ely was essentially a disinterested party, in the sense that he did not know Tremellius personally, and indeed had sought the post for someone else immediately before: he simply wanted to see the post occupied. We are also provided with an insight into the relationship between Ely and Cecil. While the idea to provide Tremellius with this prebend clearly came from the former, he suggests that it came from Cecil, presumably because he feels it has a better chance of receiving his approval as a result. Also, while Cecil has greater control over such matters, it is a good opportunity to get himself involved in the dispersal of patronage. The mutual benefits of patronage are also apparent from this small casestudy. Ely sees the post filled, as he wished. Cecil involves himself, and as Ely suggests, his image is likely to be strengthened as a result: even if Tremellius does not literally praise him in Cambridge, his continued presence there would reflect well on Cecil. In addition, the University of Cambridge has been assisted; as we have seen, the original request for financial assistance came from the university itself, presumably not least because it did not want to risk losing one of its most senior members of staff. And, of course, Tremellius was put on a more secure financial basis. The system was clearly an informal one, but despite that it was effective and efficient. Cecil was evidently persuaded by Goodrich’s reasoning and acted swiftly: the grant was passed in little more than six weeks from the date of the bishop’s letter. 54 Thomas Goodrich to William Cecil, 5 September 1552, BL, MS Lansdowne 2, 90. Strype, EcclesiasticalMemorialsvol.II, pt II, pp.53–4. See the discussion of this incident in Alford, KingshipandPolitics, p.141.

72

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

As one might expect, the Bishop of Ely does not seem to have had anything more to do with Tremellius once he had been allocated his prebend, but Tremellius did remain in contact with Cecil. As we will see in due course, Tremellius would appeal to Cecil for assistance, both in relation to the recovery of lost possessions and income following his flight from England, and also as a voice in support of his attempt to achieve a role as a diplomat in the employ of the English Crown. Evidently Tremellius thoroughly appreciated the value of having such a well-placed and influential contact. Understandably, given how frequently he was subject to disruption and dislocation, Tremellius remained dependent on both friends and patrons to provide him with emotional and material support throughout his career. One of the most important relationships, reflecting both elements of patronage and friendship, is the one that he shared with Martin Bucer. As we have seen earlier, Bucer had provided Tremellius with hospitality on his arrival in Strasbourg, and he had subsequently urged Cranmer to invite Tremellius to England. Their paths had then crossed at Lambeth, and again at Cambridge. Though Bucer was undoubtedly the senior figure, and an individual who had played a crucial role in shaping the emerging Reformed church, by the time they arrived in Cambridge, Bucer and Tremellius were, at least in one sense, equals: they were Regius Professors of Theology and Hebrew respectively. As Tremellius would later recall, he attended the series of lectures which Bucer had delivered on Ephesians in 1550 and 1551; indeed, just over a decade later, he would publish two works based on these lectures.55 It is certainly possible that Bucer returned the favour. In the preface to the works based on Bucer’s lectures, we get a good indication of Tremellius’ attitudes towards his colleague. For instance, he wrote: When I recall the excellent virtues, the mental qualities, and the indefatigable zeal of the distinguished man Dr. Martin Bucer, I confess that I cannot do anything other than regard him as evidence of divine benevolence through this man to Germany: and indeed not only towards Germany, but also England… For by speaking, teaching, writing and purging their churches from papist dirt, he devoted himself to them both most diligently and faithfully: and he pursued the struggle very strenuously against adversaries, not just once or twice but often, and not only at a distance through his writings, but also from close at hand, by speaking publicly the Word of God.56

55 Tremellius, Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D.P ad Ephesios, eximii doctoris Martini Buceri, habitae Cantabrigiae in Anglia Anno MDL & LI. Ex ore praelegentis collectae,&nuncprimuminlucemeditaediligentiaeImmanuelisTremellii (Basle, 1562) and Tremellius, LibellusVereAureusD.MartiniBuceridevietusuSacriMinisteriicumingenere tumdesingulispartibuseius,nunquamantehactypisimpressus (Basle, 1562). These works will be discussed more fully in Chapter 6. 56 Tremellius, Praelectiones…inEpistolam…adEphesios, p.3.

REGIUS PROFESSOR

73

Of course, given that this extract comes from a preface, one might expect a degree of rhetorical exaggeration, but one cannot escape the impression that Bucer had made a significant impact upon Tremellius, as an individual, a scholar and a reformer. The death of Bucer in 1551, occurring little more than a year after the death of Fagius, clearly had a strong impact on the scholarly community of exiles. They were already struggling with other aspects of life, such as the English climate and diet.57 Peter Martyr complained in one letter that following the death of Bucer he now felt totally alone, while the reformers as a whole began to quarrel among themselves, and to berate those who had not joined them in exile. As a fellow Italian, and one who had arguably suffered even greater dislocation in his life, it is probable that Tremellius was similarly affected by these various afflictions. To an extent, however, he was able to compensate for this by the establishment of some new relationships. We have already considered the relationship, both professional and familial, that he established with Antoine Chevallier. Another one dating from his time at Cambridge was with a figure who would play a crucial role in the religious history of Reformation England: Matthew Parker, who would serve as Archbishop of Canterbury under Elizabeth. The first piece of evidence that we have for any connection between Tremellius and Parker is the initial recommendation from the university that Tremellius be financially rewarded by the Crown for his services as professor: Parker had been one of the signatories of the grace. In their written correspondence this relationship would retain quite a formal appearance: for instance in a letter written as late as 1568, Tremellius would refer to Parker as ‘my most merciful lord and patron’ and ‘my most reverend lord, and most kind patron’, while describing himself as Parker’s ‘most devoted servant of your highness’.58 This language is in fact reminiscent of that which Tremellius had used to characterise his relationship with William Cecil, and it is evident that he did remain deferential to the senior man, in keeping with the cultural expectations of the time. Nonetheless, it is clear that Tremellius’ relationship with Parker was much closer than this terminology might suggest. The impression that one gains from the surviving correspondence is that they wrote to each other regularly, and sometimes at considerable length, and on a wide variety of subjects.59 Moreover, while they may well only have met in 1549 or early in Loach, EdwardVI, p.128. Tremellius to Matthew Parker, 16 September 1568, Parker Correspondence (Cambridge, 1853), No.255, pp.332–3 and Tremellius to Matthew Parker, 8 April 1574, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 2010: Fairhurst Papers, f.36. 59 There are references in the surviving letters which make it clear that a substantial number of letters simply have not survived, as is in fact the case for many of Tremellius’ correspondents. 57 58

74

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

1550, Tremellius was named as godfather to Parker’s third son, Matthew, who was born on 1 September 1551.60 As one would expect, Tremellius was very flattered to have been chosen for this role. In the preface to his ChaldaeanGrammar, a work which he would dedicate to the archbishop, he recorded his great pride that Parker had chosen him, ahead of many other friends, to be the godfather of one of his children: ‘since out of the many pious and erudite individuals very closely connected to your name, you once deemed it worthy to bind me to you, by offering into my hands your little son for baptizing in the church of Christ’.61 The selection of godfather was a matter of considerable importance, and a strong indication of the great level of familiarity which existed between the two almost from the outset. This was undoubtedly a relationship built on more than simple respect for Tremellius’ learning. It was also, in a sense, a vote of confidence and trust. This was all the more remarkable when one considers Tremellius’ Jewish background, and the relatively short time that they had known each other. One is forced to conclude that even in this short period Tremellius must have done enough to persuade the future archbishop of his piety and his strength of character. As Tremellius himself acknowledged, it was not as if there was a shortage of alternatives. And nor was this a short-lived or superficial friendship. When Tremellius returned to England as an envoy of the Elector Palatine in the 1560s, for instance, it was natural that he should reside with the archbishop;62 Tremellius would dedicate his Syriac grammar to the archbishop; and they would remain in contact by letter until the end of Parker’s life.63 Evidently, moreover, this familiarity extended to their respective families. Strype refers to one letter written as early as July 1552 by Tremellius in London to Parker, ‘wherein salutations are sent from his wife to Mrs Parker, and she sends a kiss to the little infant also’.64 The closeness between the two families is also clear from the various greetings with which their letters generally close. For instance in a letter of September 1568, Tremellius wrote: ‘My wife respectfully salutes and thanks God. And she asks with me that He deems it worthy to greet with our words your excellent wife and 60 In fact, the name of the child is never mentioned, but this would seem most fully to correlate with both Tremellius’ time in England and what is known about Parker’s sons. In all, Parker had four sons, two of whom, another Matthew and Joseph, died in infancy; the eldest, John, was born in May 1548, while the second child named Matthew, the third in order of birth, was born in September 1551. Strype, LifeofParker, vol.I, p.59. 61 Tremellius, GrammaticaChaldaeaetSyraImmanuelisTremellii,theologiaedoctoris etprofessorisinscholaHeidelbergensi ([Geneva], 1569), p.6. 62 See below, Chapter 6. 63 The last surviving letter was Tremellius to Matthew Parker, 8 April 1574, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 2010: Fairhurst Papers, f.36. 64 Strype, Life of Parker, vol.1, p.59. I have been unable to locate the original of this letter.

REGIUS PROFESSOR

75

both your sons… May the Lord and heavenly father keep your highness and your whole family safe for as long as possible.’65 Inevitably the more intimate aspects of personal relations have a tendency to make relatively little impression in the sources, but it is likely that these references, though only oblique, do at least hint at a further dimension to the relationship between Tremellius and Parker. The Jewish Mission While he was still in Cambridge, Tremellius brought to publication his first work. This was a translation of the so-called Genevan Catechism, which Calvin had first published in 1541. In large part, the production of catechisms reflected the growing importance attached to education, to which we have already referred. Like the other catechisms produced during the Reformation, the GenevanCatechism took the form of a series of questions and answers, dealing with such fundamentals of the faith as the Trinity, Christ, the Ten Commandments and the Sacraments.66 Children received weekly instruction on the catechism, and were expected to be able to prove their knowledge of the catechism before they were allowed to receive Communion for the first time. Such was Calvin’s support for the practice that he even implied that he would not have returned to Geneva in 1541 if the Council had not allowed him to retain the catechism.67 Tremellius’ work was first published in 1551 in Paris by Robert Estienne, the renowned printer of Francis I.68 It included a translation of the catechism into both Hebrew and Greek. In 1554, Estienne published a second edition which contained only the Hebrew translation, as Sefer HinukhbehireiYah (Catechism of God’s Elect).69 A further edition of this 65 Tremellius to Matthew Parker, 16 September 1568, Parker Correspondence No.255. 66 John Calvin, ‘Catechism of the Church of Geneva’ in Rev. J. K. S. Reid (trans.), Calvin:TheologicalTreatises (London, 1954), pp.88–139. 67 Graeme Murdock, BeyondCalvin.TheIntellectual,PoliticalandCulturalWorldof Europe’sReformedChurches (Basingstoke, 2004), p.104. 68 This CatechismusHebraiceetGraece(Paris, 1551) is mentioned in various reference works such as Cooper and Cooper, AthenaeCantabrigienses (3 vols, Cambridge, 1858–1913), vol.1, p.425, E. and E. Haag, LaFranceProtestanteouviesdesprotestantsfrançais(10 vols, Geneva, 1846–59),vol.9, p.419 and Carlyle, ‘Tremellius’, p.187, but I have so far been unable to trace a copy of this work. However, it is apparent from a letter that Tremellius wrote to Calvin on 3 March 1551, that the work was about to be published by this date. CO 1452. 69 Tremellius, Immanuel, Sefer Hinukh behirei Yah ([Paris], 1554). Friedman, Most Ancient Testimony and Carlebach, Divided Souls: Converts from Judaism in Germany, 1500–1700 (New Haven, CT and London, 2001) both refer only to this edition in their discussions of this text. According to Robert M. Kingdon, ‘The Business Activities of Printers Henri and François Estienne’ in G. Berthoud et al. (Eds), AspectsdelaPropagandeReligieuse (Geneva, 1957), p.260, the Estienne family did not leave France until 1555.

76

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

work was published in Leiden in 1591, this time containing translations into Hebrew, Greek and Latin.70 The 1554 edition is the one that has survived in greatest numbers, and it is on that edition that the following discussion is based. It is clear that this work needs to be considered within the broader context of what is generally referred to as the ‘Jewish mission’.71 During the later Middle Ages, and into the early modern period, Christian attitudes towards the Jews were united around the desire that the Jews should be brought to acknowledge the error of their ways, and to accept Christianity. The frequent depiction of the blind Jew typified this Christian attitude towards what was perceived as stubbornness in the face of self-evident Christian truths. In the Middle Ages, Christian efforts to resolve this situation had generally not been the most subtle: their methods included offering financial rewards for those who converted voluntarily, persecution of those who refused to convert and sometimes forced conversions, especially of Jewish children. Needless to say, such activities tended only to aggravate relations between the two faiths, and the converts that were produced rarely had much attachment to the Christianity they had supposedly adopted. Since at least the fourteenth century, however, some Christians at least had appreciated that approaching the Jews in their own language might be likely to achieve more meaningful results. Indeed, as we have seen, the Council of Vienne had decreed that schools for the study of oriental languages should be established in order to provide students with the skills necessary to address Jewish audiences in discussion and in print, in their own language. However, it was not until the growth of Christian-Hebraism in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that this became viable, let alone a significant component of Judaeo-Christian relations. Greater familiarity with Hebrew meant that it was now possible to address the Jews in their own language, and to explain to them properly Christian beliefs. For instance, in 1537, Sebastian Münster published a work which included a translation of Matthew’s Gospel into Hebrew (amazingly, the first time that any part of the New Testament had been printed in that language) and a lengthy exposition of the essentials of the Christian faith.72 Similarly, five years later, Paul Fagius published in both Latin and Hebrew a BookofFaith, a work supposedly written by a Jew setting out important Christian beliefs, which Fagius had then translated 70 According to Carlyle, ‘Tremellius’, p.187 and C. H. Cooper and T. Cooper, ‘John Emanuel Tremellius’ in Cooper and Cooper, Athenae Cantabrigienses, vol.1, p.425, this work was entitled Catechesis sive prima institutio aut Rudimenta Religionis Christianae Hebr.GraeceetLatineexplicata(Leiden, 1591) but again I have been unable to find any copies of this work mentioned in the library catalogues which I have consulted. 71 Friedman, MostAncientTestimony, pp.212–54. 72 Jerome Friedman, ‘Sebastian Münster, the Jewish Mission, and Protestant AntiSemitism’, ARG 70 (1979), pp.238–59.

REGIUS PROFESSOR

77

into Latin. According to the title page at least, this work was intended to serve a missionary purpose.73 It is evident that Tremellius’ translation of the GenevanCatechism into Hebrew needs to be seen in the context of this emerging genre. In 1551, in a letter commending the work to Calvin and asking for suggestions for the work’s improvement, Tremellius remarks: ‘If only God will allow the desired end of this holy project. To which I devote my energy more willingly, since my hope is that some benefit to my people will also come from it.’74 What he meant by this is made clearer in the introduction addressed to his Hebrew readers, when he says: ‘I await the salvation [of Israel] and all my desires are for the redemption of Israel and therefore I have written this small book.’75 In fact, taken as a whole, the work has something of a mixed character. As Carlebach has noted, in his address to his Hebrew readers, Tremellius attempts to conceal his Christian identity, instead referring to himself as Rav, or rabbi.76 The preface itself is written in a warm and friendly style: Bountiful and ever increasing greetings to all descendants of Jacob from Immanuel Tremellius. Dear Brothers; I have seen the books among our people, [especially] the prayer books used to teach children to pray to the Lord and to thank Him for his blessings… I wanted to write a single short book including the order of the prayers and other aspects of devotion practiced by our ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and which were commanded by God.77

The preface continues in this positive vein, but the work itself is inevitably more neutral: as a translation of Calvin’s catechism, rather than a work composed specifically for a missionary purpose, there was no scope for tailoring its arguments towards the intended audience. In addition, the 1554 edition at least was prefaced by a dedication, written in Latin and addressed to Christopher, Duke of Wurttemberg.78 Perhaps unsurprisingly, his comments about the Jews in this context are not quite so positive. In justifying his decision to produce such a work, he 73 Friedman, Most Ancient Testimony, p.244 ff. Friedman in fact argues that Fagius used the Jewish mission as a pretext for composing works whose more controversial content might have led to charges of Judaisation. 74 Tremellius to John Calvin, 3 March 1551, CO 1452. 75 Tremellius, Sefer Hinukh behirei Yah, p.12, translated in Friedman, Most Ancient Testimony, p.251. 76 Carlebach, DividedSouls, p.164. 77 Tremellius, Sefer Hinukh behirei Yah, p.10, translated in Friedman, Most Ancient Testimony, pp.250–51. 78 This preface is dated at Strasbourg, 3 April 1554. It is unclear whether the other two sixteenth-century editions of this text also had Latin prefaces. Although Friedman, Most AncientTestimony and Carlebach, DividedSouls base their discussions on the 1554 edition, neither makes any reference to the Latin preface, while Carlebach’s comments would even seem to imply that it was not there.

78

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

advances rather more traditional lines of argument, which reinforce its place within the context of the Jewish mission. He concedes that ‘no one ought to doubt that the vast majority of [the Jews] hate our religion on account of its customs, since they do not understand them, and since they have never been explained to them’.79 He also comments that while many of the Jews have an instinctive loathing of texts written either in Latin or Christian vernaculars, they are much more receptive to texts written in Hebrew: For having been provided with it in the Hebrew language, they will not only be able to be instructed in the teaching and holy meanings which are contained in the holy Scriptures, but also to observe and learn from my little book those purer sayings, expressions and figures of speech which the Divine letters use, and from that they can be made ready for other arguments of piety and religious discussion.80

This volume was remarkable. In fact, in his survey of sixteenth-century Christian Hebraica, Jerome Friedman has suggested that Tremellius’ work was the only missionary treatise to be written in the entire century which was ‘open, friendly, and sincere in its desire to convert Jews to Christianity’.81 Most other works within this genre, despite their purported intention of persuading Jews to convert to Christianity, still incorporated some form of anti-Semitic sentiment, such as condemning certain Jewish beliefs. While this may on occasion have reflected the views of their authors, this technique was also used to clear these authors of any suggestion of Judaising. Given the broader picture of Judaeo-Christian relations, there remained the possibility that a work which dealt with the Jews generously could be used as evidence for an unacceptable amount of sympathy for Judaism on the part of its author. As a Jewish convert himself, Tremellius would have been particularly vulnerable to such allegations in composing such a work. Indeed, he acknowledged as much at the beginning of the Latin dedication of the volume, when he wrote: ‘I am not unaware, most distinguished prince, that it is highly likely that I will incur the displeasure of many, since I have translated the Christian catechism into Hebrew.’82 The decision to publish such a work must be read as a reflection of his character, and may also show traces of his experiences in Italy, where Judaeo-Christian relations were, as we have seen, rather more sympathetic than the rest of Europe. It is also worth noting that the publication of Tremellius’ work marked a sea change in the behaviour of Jewish converts towards Judaism. Thereafter it became much more common for them to seek to approach

79 80 81 82

Tremellius, SeferHinukhbehireiYah, p.ii. Tremellius, SeferHinukhbehireiYah, pp.iv–v. Friedman, MostAncientTestimony, p.250. Tremellius, SeferHinukhbehireiYah, p.1.

REGIUS PROFESSOR

79

their former brethren in positive terms, as had very rarely been the case until this point.83 Yet while there seems no reason to doubt that Tremellius was quite sincere in his desire that other Jews should be provided with materials which might lead them to convert to Christianity as he had done himself, one might also suggest that this work was intended to fulfil two further functions related more closely to the Christian context in which he was writing. First, Tremellius may well have appreciated that Calvin’s catechism, translated into Hebrew, provided a valuable, and entirely orthodox, translation exercise for those engaged in the early study of that language, either as a prelude or an alternative to the translation of biblical texts. The fact that this work was published with vowel points would certainly support such a contention; a Jewish reader would have been perfectly able to cope with a text which did not have these.84 Secondly, one might also consider that this text very effectively established Tremellius’ credentials as a Calvinist. As we saw in the previous chapter, he had been confronted by the very real implications of prejudices against Italians and Jews as recently as 1547. By translating a work whose orthodoxy within Reformed circles was beyond doubt, Tremellius, consciously or inadvertently, was contributing towards his identity in exile. Even if that is the case, however, a further point deserves to be emphasised. Many Jews sought to emphasise the strength of their Christian convictions following their conversion, but much more frequently they tended to do so by writing polemics against their former brethren; Tremellius, by contrast, took a rather more complicated approach to the issue, clearly identifying himself with the Calvinist church, while at the same time extending an olive branch to other Jews. Again, it is difficult to see how this could be anything other than a reflection of his personal attitudes and experiences to this point.85 Return to the Continent During the summer of 1553, Edward VI’s health rapidly deteriorated; he eventually died on 6 July.86 The accession of Mary Tudor led to an immediate

Carlebach, DividedSouls, pp.164–6. I am grateful to Stephen Burnett for discussing this issue with me. See also the discussion of Sebastian Münster’s use of vowel points in his Hebrew edition of TheMessiahs oftheChristiansandtheJewsCompared (1529/39) in Friedman, MostAncientTestimony, p.243–44. 85 Kenneth Austin, ‘Immanuel Tremellius and the Avoidance of Controversy’ in Luc Racaut and Alec Ryrie (Eds), ModerateVoicesintheReformation (Aldershot, 2005), pp.70–89. 86 Loach, EdwardVI, pp.159–69. 83 84

80

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

reversal of fortunes for the Protestant faith in England.87 As Tremellius later recalled in a letter to Sir William Cecil, it was the publication of an edict concerning the restitution of the Mass, of 29 December, in particular, which had prompted him to leave England.88 He departed at around the turn of the year in the company of a large body of English merchants, leaving his wife and children to follow him to Germany in the spring, once they had sold their furniture.89 In the meantime, however, a number of disturbances broke out across the country, during the course of which their furniture and goods were confiscated. Under the reign of Mary, Tremellius was also deprived of the prebend which had been given to him by Edward VI, and his annual stipend. Tremellius’ desire to obtain some measure of compensation for these losses crops up repeatedly in his subsequent correspondence. In November 1554, he persuaded Calvin to write to Lord John Grey on his behalf, asking him to intervene and to earn Tremellius some redress in order to alleviate the poverty of his exile.90 Then, when Elizabeth’s accession to the throne encouraged his hopes of success, Tremellius returned to this matter. He mentioned this subject in two letters written to Sir William Cecil, in February and May 1561, and in another to Nicholas Throckmorton, the English ambassador, in the same month.91 It is not known, however, whether Tremellius’ campaign met with any success. Even if he did not manage to achieve the compensation for which he had hoped, the time that he spent in England had otherwise been largely successful. He was still dependent on the patronage and assistance from people in important positions, but at the same time his own position within the academic elite of the time was continuing to grow. This was most clearly reflected in his appointment as one of the Regius Professors, the first university position that he had held, and one of the most distinguished teaching posts in Europe, let alone England. He was now viewed with growing respect by his contemporaries, and came to form deep and lasting relationships with other academics, and leading men of church and state. Furthermore, as we have just seen in relation to his translation of the Genevan Catechism, Tremellius does not fit easily into the categories which contemporaries, and even more historians, have attempted to use to discuss this age. To an extent, this was partly a response to the various 87 David Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor. Politics, Government and Religion in England,1553–58 (London and New York, 1991). 88 Tremellius to William Cecil, 19 February 1561, CSPForeign(1560–61) No. 1008, pp.554–5. 89 Tremellius to William Cecil, 19 February 1561, CSPForeign(1560–61), No. 1008. 90 John Calvin to Lord John Grey, 13 November 1554, CO 1968. 91 Tremellius to William Cecil, 19 February 1561, CSPForeign (1560–61), No. 1008; Tremellius to William Cecil, 4 May 1561, CSPForeign (1561–62), No.171; Tremellius to Nicholas Throckmorton, CSPForeign (1561–62), No.197.

REGIUS PROFESSOR

81

influences which had shaped Tremellius’ early life, but they must also reflect elements within his personality and his outlook. In this work, in particular, he offered complicated and unexpected responses to some of the religious problems of the age. But in publishing this work, Tremellius also opened up a new area of influence, which complemented that which he exerted through the classroom. Both in his teaching and his writings, Tremellius was able to pass on his learning and his attitudes to future generations.

CHAPTER FIVE

Bridging the gap: Zweibrücken and Hornbach As we saw at the end of the previous chapter, Tremellius departed from England at the very start of 1554, leaving his wife and family to take care of various practical matters, while he returned to the continent in search of a new job. Despite his growing reputation and profile, this would not prove to be easy. There were several reasons for this. First, as we have already seen, he could be the victim of prejudice on account of both his Italian and Jewish origins. Second, his attachment to the Reformed church, and particularly his association with Calvin served, in these confessionally volatile times, to limit his options. And third, as the serious study of Hebrew was still in its relative infancy, there were only a limited number of suitable posts available. The result of all of this was that, after a period of searching in vain for a job teaching Hebrew, Tremellius was obliged to take a job as tutor to the young children of the Duke of Zweibrücken. For someone who had been the Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge little more than a year before, Tremellius must have regarded this as a demotion. Nonetheless, it did ensure that he was not long without employment. And within another couple of years, having managed to bridge the gap in this way, he was able to return to a post more in keeping with the rest of his career: rector at a newly formed academy. One of the first things that Tremellius did on returning to the continent was to visit Cardinal Reginald Pole, who had withdrawn to a monastery near Brussels. As we saw in Chapter 2, Pole had played a critical role in Tremellius’ spiritual development, arranging for the baptism of the young Jew to take place within his own household. According to the anonymous work, the DeAntiquitateBritannicae (to which we previously referred in relation to Tremellius’ baptism in Pole’s household), Tremellius came to his former friend looking for support in his time of need, but was brusquely sent away.1 This treatment seems harsh, especially when one considers their previous intimacy, but the cardinal was in an awkward position. In 1554, he was still in the service of the Pope, and, as an Englishman, also answerable to a Catholic monarch, Queen Mary. Moreover, his orthodoxy had already come under suspicion both on account of his own views, and because of his association with heretics including Ochino, Vermigli, 1 [Matthew Parker?], De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae & Privilegiis Ecclesiae Cantuariensis,cumArchiepiscopiseiusdem70(London, 1572), p.414.

84

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Flaminio and Pietro Carnesecchi. To have received Tremellius in these circumstances would be, in some ways, to have endorsed his subsequent conversion, thereby further implicating himself.2 From Brussels, perhaps unsurprisingly, Tremellius returned to Strasbourg. After all, it was familiar to him, and a second of his spiritual mentors, Peter Martyr, with whom he had travelled from Lucca to Strasbourg and on to England, had returned there as well. Girolamo Zanchi, another colleague from their time in Lucca, had also recently moved there.3 Tremellius was certainly there by April 1554: the dedication of the second edition of his catechism was dated from Strasbourg in that month.4 It is not clear how else he spent his time there: it has been suggested that he stayed with Zanchi, and that he offered private tuition in Hebrew.5 Both suggestions are entirely plausible, but I have not been able to find any contemporary documents which would confirm either of them. Since Tremellius’ first stay in Strasbourg, the city had moved in an increasingly Lutheran direction, especially under the guidance of Johann Marbach.6 Peter Martyr would depart from the city in 1556, while Zanchi remained until 1561. Tremellius, by contrast, can only have stayed there for a few months at the most. By the middle of June he had arrived in Berne. His presence there was first mentioned by Wolfgang Musculus, the professor of theology with whom Tremellius and his family evidently resided.7 Musculus wrote to Calvin on 13 June, lamenting the case of the exiles from England, and singling Tremellius out for special mention: Immanuel Tremellius has brought your letters to me, most dear Calvin … I grieve from my heart that the English church has been deprived of such pious and learned men, whose labours were both useful and worthy. Meanwhile, I can only wish well for Immanuel Tremellius and the others who escaped the hand of that most wicked Athalia [that is, Mary]. Indeed it is lamentable that such worthy men have been thrown to the disruption of exile.8

A few days later, Johannes Haller reported to Heinrich Bullinger that Tremellius, ‘a truly pious man of admirable doctrine’ had recently arrived in Berne. Although he believes Tremellius may be known to Bullinger already, he provides a short account of the new arrival’s life to date, before commenting, ‘Now in common with others, ejected by fortune, he has Thomas Mayer, ReginaldPole.PrinceandProphet(Cambridge, 2000), p.215. Christopher J. Burchill, ‘Girolamo Zanchi: Portrait of a Reformed Theologian and His Work’, SCJ 15 (1984), pp.185–207, especially pp.189–93. 4 Tremellius, SeferHinukhbehireiYah([Paris], 1554), p.vii. 5 Becker, Tremellius, pp.20–24. 6 James M. Kittelson, ‘Marbach vs. Zanchi: The Resolution of Controversy in Late Reformation Strasbourg’, SCJ 8 (1977), pp.31–44. 7 Cf. Tremellius to Johannes Haller, 16 September 1570, ZbZ MS S 124, 123, in which Tremellius thanked Haller for his hospitality at this time. 8 Wolfgang Musculus to John Calvin, 13 June 1554, CO1968. 2 3

BRIDGING THE GAP: ZWEIBRÜCKEN AND HORNBACH

85

come here, commended by Calvin, Viret, Beza and others.’ He goes on to express the hope that the civic authorities would find a place for him in the city’s school, since he was ‘very learned in Greek and Latin, and especially in the customs of the Jews, and very learned and highly trained in every type of grammar’, while Musculus ‘is not able to commend his erudition enough’.9 Haller concludes by asking Bullinger to congratulate him on the advances that their school was making. As we saw in Chapter 3, Tremellius had previously sought a post in Berne in 1547. Despite support from Calvin among others, he had been unsuccessful: his status as an Italian and a convert from Judaism on that occasion had told against him. Now, further heavyweights of the Reformed church had added their voices to his cause. Unfortunately those letters do not survive, but one does still get a sense of the extent to which the leadership of the Reformed church had united in their efforts here. Tremellius certainly met with a more favourable reception than on his previous visit: Musculus and Haller both noted how warmly he had been welcomed, and expressed with confidence the belief that a position would be found for him. Tremellius evidently shared this confidence, and mentioned to Calvin how well his words had been received: ‘your commendation is worth as much with Musculus as deservedly your authority ought to be valued by all who are truly pious’.10 Tremellius did temporarily teach Hebrew at a school in Berne, and for a time it seemed that it might have been possible for him to remain there.11 But within a matter of weeks of his arrival, Tremellius had departed from the city. Towards the end of July, Haller wrote to Bullinger again, this time expressing his disappointment that Tremellius had had to move on, and complaining that ‘Force of arms and wealth are worth more in Berne than the possession of great men’. He hoped that better use would be made of him in his new home.12 Recalling this time somewhat later, Haller noted that ill-feeling had arisen against Tremellius, both because he was a Jewish convert and a follower of Calvin.13 From Berne, Tremellius headed to Lausanne from where he wrote to Calvin again in September 1554. On this occasion he expressed both a readiness to serve the Reformation cause in any capacity, and a resignation to the divine will: ‘I would have remained in Berne if the Lord had wished. Why he did not wish it, I will not try to understand any further, since faith determines beforehand about the certain providence of him towards me. Johannes Haller to Heinrich Bullinger, 17 June 1554, StAZ E II 370, 199. Tremellius to John Calvin, 14 June 1554, CO 1971. 11 Johannes Haller, Ephemerides…quibusadanno1548ad1565continenturquidquid fereinutroquestatubernaecontinetur(Zurich, 1746), p.104, quoted in n.1 on CO1968. Eduard Bähler, DekanJohannesHallerunddieBernerKirchevon1548–1575 (Berne, 1924), p.33. 12 Johannes Haller to Heinrich Bullinger, 21/27? July 1554, StAZ E II 370, 200. 13 Haller, Ephemerides, p.104. Bähler, DekanJohannesHaller, p.33. 9

10

86

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

For I know that the most merciful God establishes that which is most useful and most honest for me.’14 In these words, one can perhaps get a sense of how a Calvinist belief in predestination might help an individual to cope with a life punctuated by regular periods of disruption and misfortune. Tremellius goes on to say that the people in Lausanne were all doing their best to keep him there, while Viret and Beza had recommended him to the rulers. He expected a decision shortly and promised to inform Calvin as soon as he learnt anything. Yet Tremellius was to be disappointed here as well: Lausanne decided against hiring him. As Lausanne was subject to the authority of Berne, it is quite possible that exactly the same factors had conspired against him here too.15 Towards the end of that letter, however, Tremellius had turned his attention to another matter: ‘I would write more often, but I would be worried about interrupting your more holy study. And I would not even ask this now: but my wife will visit your church. As a pastor and a former guest, you cannot and ought not to allow this to pass ungreeted.’ It is not clear why Tremellius’ wife should be heading to Geneva: as we have just seen, he was still optimistic that he would find employment in Lausanne. Nonetheless, the request is still revealing. In the first place, it demonstrates Tremellius’ continuing concern for his wife’s welfare. But it also says something about his relationship with Calvin. His demand is made in surprisingly forthright terms, rather than the deference one might expect. It is also based among other things on the hospitality that Calvin had previously received from Tremellius: the exchange of favours was a central component to friendship in the early modern period. It is possible that Tremellius also headed to Geneva after his time in Lausanne.16 It would certainly have been quite logical: after all Lausanne and Geneva were relatively close together, while Tremellius seemed to be pursuing a policy of revisiting those friends and places which seemed most likely to provide him with the assistance he needed. It would also fit with various other pieces of information from this time. First, as we have just seen, Tremellius’ wife had just travelled to Geneva, and this would have allowed him to be reunited with her, and perhaps to aid her in whatever purpose she was pursuing there. Secondly, we know that in November, Calvin wrote to Lord John Grey in England on Tremellius’ behalf, asking him to pursue Tremellius’ claims for compensation for the losses he had sustained following the death of Edward VI.17 While it is possible that Tremellius’ wife Tremellius to John Calvin, 8 September 1554, CO2008. Henri Vuilleumier, Histoire de l’Eglise Réformée du Pays de Vaud sous le régime bernois (4 vols, Lausanne, 1927–33), vol.1. 16 Becker, Tremellius, pp.25–6 says that Tremellius did visit Geneva, but Butters makes no mention of this. 17 John Calvin to Lord John Grey, 13 November 1554, CO 2044. 14 15

BRIDGING THE GAP: ZWEIBRÜCKEN AND HORNBACH

87

had requested that Calvin do this, or indeed that Tremellius had sought a help in a letter which has not survived, the timing makes it highly plausible that Tremellius had made this request in person.18 And thirdly, there are suggestions in their subsequent correspondence that the pair had spoken around this time (though it is also possible that we are again dealing with a number of further missing letters). Ultimately however, all of this remains merely circumstantial evidence.19 By the middle of November, Tremellius was back in Strasbourg once more. On 18 November, Peter Martyr wrote from there to Beza in Lausanne to thank him for a copy of a work, most likely his Dehaereticispuniendis, which Tremellius had brought to him.20 This work had been prompted by the arrival in Geneva the previous year of Michael Servetus, a radical and heretical thinker who, among other things, denied the Trinity. Servetus had already been sentenced to death in Catholic Vienne by the time that he appeared; the Genevans feared that if they simply banished him, as had been their usual policy towards heretics, their city would earn a reputation as a haven for heretics. There consequently ensued a lengthy period of evaluating his beliefs and determining how best to deal with him. In the event he was executed, with the approval of several neighbouring Swiss states, but their treatment of Servetus would, in time, come to be held up as a prime example of Genevan severity.21 Although Tremellius does not appear to have expressed his own views on this subject, this incident does provide a revealing insight into some of the more practical aspects of how the Reformed churches of Europe operated. The importance of correspondence as a means by which links between the different communities were forged is increasingly coming to be appreciated by historians of the Reformation, but hints such as this remind us that it was not merely the letters themselves which were exchanged: books and messages were also exchanged, and all individuals who travelled between these churches, whether merchants or university professors, might be called upon to fill these roles.22 Given Tremellius’ itineracy especially in these years, his growing prestige and his acquaintance with so many of the leading members of these churches, one might imagine this was a role which he was called upon to fill on a regular basis. It also once again indicates the trust with which Tremellius was regarded by these leading figures.

18 This letter was written only five days before Peter Martyr in Strasbourg wrote a letter to Beza the contents of which make it clear Tremellius had only just arrived there. 19 For example John Calvin to Tremellius, 29 August 1558, CO 2944. 20 Peter Martyr Vermigli to Theodore Beza, 18 November 1554, CO 2049; CB 54. 21 Jerome Friedman, MichaelServetus:ACaseStudyinTotalHeresy (Geneva, 1978). 22 Ulinka Rublack, ReformationEurope(Cambridge, 2005), pp.88–91.

88

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Tutor in Zweibrücken The events of 1554 indicate that despite his rapidly growing international prestige, culminating in his appointment as Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, and the support of several of the most prominent figures of the Reformed churches of Europe, Tremellius’ position was still precarious. Efforts to find employment in Berne and Lausanne had come to nothing, and it is possible that Strasbourg and Geneva should also be added to this list. To an extent of course, Tremellius was the victim of market forces: with Hebrew still something of an emerging discipline, there was a limit to the number of suitable positions available to him. While adherence to one of the principal religious denominations was virtually a necessity in Europe during the 1550s, this immediately put certain territories off limits. And this situation was compounded, as we have seen, by his increasingly close association with Calvin. While the Genevan reformer was growing in stature on the international stage, his influence was regarded by some as harmful. And of course the situation was further complicated by the various factors lurking in Tremellius’ background, which ensured he still risked facing prejudice on a regular basis. Ultimately, however, the informal patronage system seems to have worked for Tremellius again. Early in 1555, Tremellius moved on to Zweibrücken, or Deux-Ponts, where he became tutor to the children of Duke Wolfgang.23 But it is difficult to imagine that Tremellius can have seen it as anything other than a step down in the world. Having only a year or so previously served as Regius Professor, he was now responsible for the education of the duke’s three children: Christine who was eight years old at the start of Tremellius’ tenure, Philip-Ludwig, who was seven, and Johann, who was four. As was to be expected, however, Tremellius’ efforts were directed primarily towards the education of Philip-Ludwig, who was heir to the duchy of the Bipontine Palatinate. We are fortunate that a letter has survived in which Tremellius provides a detailed description of the tuition that he provided in Zweibrücken.24 This provides a rare insight into the format that Tremellius’ teaching took. Importantly, it would seem likely that Tremellius’ letter is a fairly reliable source: he was writing to a friend, Conrad Hubert in Strasbourg, rather than to a current or potential employer, so there was little need for him to exaggerate his achievements. Consequently, this source reveals the practical application of many of the current attitudes towards education, and complements the 23 In a letter written to Conrad Hubert on 15 December 1557, Tremellius would explain that he had not quite completed the third year of his post in Zweibrücken. Karl Menzel, WolfgangvonZweibrücken.PfalzgrafbeiRhein,HerzoginBaiern,GrafvonDeldenz.Der StammvaterdesbaierischenKönigshauses(1526–1569) (Munich, 1893). 24 Tremellius to Conrad Hubert, 15 December 1557, ZbZ MS S 91, 47.

BRIDGING THE GAP: ZWEIBRÜCKEN AND HORNBACH

89

more formal sources that have survived relating to teaching, such as teaching manuals and more prescriptive guides. While they indicate what ought to have taken place, it is likely that Tremellius’ letter would give a more accurate indication of what actually happened. It thus serves as an interesting casestudy of education at this level offered during this period. In addition, it offers a neat contrast with the instruction which Tremellius offered to those students who were rather more advanced in age.25 Tremellius begins by explaining that his attentions are directed towards the education of the duke’s eldest son, who is now aged 11; no mention is made of his other children. To an extent this is understandable. After all, it would have been expected that the eldest son would succeed him as Duke of Zweibrücken (though in fact it would be the younger son who succeeded him on his death in 1569). He then sets out his achievements over the previous three years: When I first entered the school, he could at least recognise letters, but he was barely able to read German. But now he has progressed so that he can read German and Latin without difficulty and Greek at least tolerably. And he has committed to memory the German catechism, he has learnt Latin grammar and syntax, and he can recite from memory all the couplets of Cato, in Latin and German, and is able to recite them immediately on command. He can also say the Gospels, or as they say ‘dominicalia’, of the whole year.26

Tremellius admits that he is unable to give a truly accurate account of his working practices, because these are so frequently interrupted. Instead he says that he will describe his current schedule: in some ways this is actually more revealing, as we get the sense that he is not trying to be overly schematic in his portrayal of his activities. Interestingly, Tremellius also notes that this schedule has been approved by the duke and his advisors: unfortunately we do not get a clear indication of the extent of their involvement, but the implication is that this schedule was the result of some negotiation between teacher and employer. The duke had himself attended Sturm’s school in Strasbourg, and it is possible that he hoped Tremellius would be able to replicate certain features that he had valued; if this is the case, the fact that Tremellius had taught at Sturm’s academy, albeit in the upper classes, may further have recommended him to the duke in the first place. Tremellius notes that the prince receives instruction with seven classmates; he says nothing more about them, but it is likely that they were sons of leading men in the Bipontine Palatinate. Their day starts at 25 See, by way of comparison, James M. Kittelson, ‘The Significance of Humanist Educational Methods for Reformation Theology’, Lutherjahrbuch 66 (1999), pp.219–36 and Pierre Mesnard, ‘The Pedagogy of Johann Sturm (1507–1589) and its Evangelical Inspiration’, StudiesintheRenaissance 13 (1966), pp.200–19. 26 Tremellius to Conrad Hubert, 15 December 1557, ZbZ MS S 91, 47.

90

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

6am with prayers in German before breakfast; in the winter they start an hour later. Once breakfast is over, their instruction proper begins, but the religious context and purpose of education remains apparent: ‘And one of them, who has been selected by order for that day, reads one chapter from the New Testament in Latin, in a clear and distinct voice. And when he has finished I, to the best of my ability, show them the lessons and doctrine in it, which I judge would be able to shape their habits and cultivate piety.’27 Tremellius sought, he goes on, to encourage them to read the scriptures, and to live a life which would be pleasing to God. Such ambitions, of course, underpinned the Reformation emphasis on education as a whole. Thereafter, his pupils move on to deal with rhetoric. The previous evening Tremellius would have given them a passage in German, which they are now expected to translate into Latin. In so doing, they are asked to justify the rendition that they have made. Tremellius says that he praises the student who makes fewest mistakes, writes most elegantly and is able to retain the sense of the original most fully, believing that praise will encourage the students to seek to emulate each other.28 Then Tremellius goes on to perform a similar exercise himself with one of Cicero’s LetterstohisFriends, this time translating from Latin into German, and explaining what he has done. He then leaves the students the remaining time up until lunch, which is taken at midday, to commit to memory all that they have learnt. In passing, Tremellius provides us with a revealing insight into his attitudes towards translation. While it is evident that he did teach grammar, the emphasis was clearly on developing the ability to move between languages smoothly, especially Latin and German, and to reflect on particular aspects of the process, which indicates a desire to pursue this beyond a mere level of functionality. This is also indicated by the various factors which he highlights as contributing to a successful translation: accuracy, elegance and correct meaning. These were of course factors which Tremellius sought to balance in his own writings. After lunch, their studies follow a similar pattern. The students read a chapter from a German text, which Tremellius then expounds to them. Thereafter, they go through what they had learnt that morning from the letter of Cicero, with different students analysing various aspects of the passage: ‘one the author’s intention, a second the force of the words, a third the translation, and a fourth the syntax’. They then work on a writing exercise up until 2 o’clock. The next hour is devoted to play; given this level of study, it is perhaps easy to forget that the pupils are still little more than ten years old. At 3 o’clock, they would return to their studies once more: Ibid. This was in marked contrast to the teaching which Tremellius himself received from Farissol in Ferrara, where fear seems to have been regarded as a more important pedagogical tool. 27 28

BRIDGING THE GAP: ZWEIBRÜCKEN AND HORNBACH

91

‘Then from the proverbs of Solomon, using the Latin version of Melanchthon, following the procedure which I have indicated above, I explain one sense, and then another; and a little later, I ask the childreneach of them, and I follow the same order as before.’29 It is interesting to note in passing that Tremellius makes it quite clear that he uses the translation made by Melanchthon. The duke was a Lutheran, and while he must have appreciated Tremellius’ religious outlook, that does not seem, at least at this stage, to have dissuaded him from employing him on these grounds; Tremellius, for his part, demonstrates a readiness to conform to the prevailing confession of faith, despite his own apparent sympathy for the Reformed faith. Tremellius would then end the day by giving his students a text which would be discussed the following day. This was the pattern which Tremellius followed six days a week; on Sundays, he would engage his students in a separate, although still quite similar, set of activities. In the morning, they were involved in a ‘holy reading’; in the afternoon, they would be called to recite from memory the catechism, the Gospels, issues of grammar and syntax, and the couplets of Cato. This goes up to, and beyond, dinner. Tremellius ends his letter by apologising to Hubert for his slowness in replying to his request, but he says that the demands of this position hardly leave him any free time. Given his activities as he describes them here, involving a seven-day teaching week, running from six in the morning through until dinner time, this was probably not much of an exaggeration. This letter gives a comprehensive account of the instruction which Tremellius offered to the son of the Duke of Zweibrücken and his classmates. In fact, the range of activities included is fairly conventional; they reflect both the long-standing concern with piety and religious instruction, and the more recent impact of Renaissance humanism. The religious dimension is established at the start of the day, which is marked with prayers, and continues throughout with various exercises arranged around the catechism and both testaments. The humanist element, represented in Tremellius’ curriculum through the writings of Cicero and Cato for instance, is also reflected more generally in the concern with Latin and Greek, and with the emphasis that is put on grammar, syntax and the ability to offer accurate and elegant translations. Incidentally it is worth noting that despite his specialism as a Hebraist, Tremellius has not included this in his lessons; this is hardly surprising as Hebrew was traditionally introduced to education at a late stage in Christian circles, but it does highlight again the fact that this was not the most natural post for Tremellius to hold. Tremellius held the post of tutor to the children of the Duke of Zweibrücken between 1554 and 1558, but he did not spend all of his time at the ducal court during these years. At some point in 1555, he followed 29

Tremellius to Conrad Hubert, 15 December 1557, ZbZ MS S 91, 47.

92

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

the duke to Amberg, the principal town in the Upper Palatinate; he was certainly there by June of that year.30 Unfortunately, while he was there he fell ill with dropsy, which obliged him to spend about six months through the winter into 1556 in hospital there. Indeed, it was on these grounds that in May he explained to Conrad Hubert why he had not been able to write to him for some time.31 Other than this we do not know how Tremellius spent these years, but as we have seen his teaching activities would have occupied most of his time.32 While he may have been able to devote his spare time to his own work, he did not publish anything during this phase of his career. Rector at Hornbach Early in 1559, Tremellius received a new post: he was appointed the first rector of the academy which the Duke of Zweibrücken established in Hornbach, a town about 10 kilometres from Zweibrücken, in a former cloister school of the Benedictines. It has sometimes been suggested that this appointment was a response by the duke to the attention that was being directed towards his Hebraist by Calvin and his colleagues in Geneva, but this does not seem likely. One would hardly go to the trouble of establishing an academy simply to keep a scholar in one’s employment, no matter how able he was.33 More importantly, it would seem that the decision to appoint Tremellius to the position of rector had already been made by the time that Calvin made his first approach to him. Although his appointment would not be confirmed until 1559, news that the duke was looking for someone to replace Tremellius as tutor to his children had certainly reached Geneva by August the previous year.34 We know virtually nothing about Tremellius’ activities as rector. Even Friedrich Butters, whose biography was entitled EmanuelTremellius,First RectoroftheZweibrückenGymnasium, and was written to coincide with the 300th anniversary of that institution, has surprisingly little to say about this phase of his life. He does, however, record reports that Tremellius may have been an ineffectual rector. Various nineteenth-century historians of the Gymnasium claimed that Tremellius, while a learned individual, 30 Tremellius to Conrad Hubert, 17 June 1555, ZbZ MS S 84, 6 which was sent from Amberg. 31 Tremellius to Conrad Hubert, 15 May 1556, ZbZ MS S 84, 7. 32 Butters, Tremellius, p.21 speculates that Tremellius may have had a role in drafting Duke Wolfgang’s church order in 1557, and also that he instructed him to translate the church order into Latin, French and English, a task that he was unable to fulfil. 33 Butters, Tremellius, p.20 in fact claims that the duke wished to give the post to Caspar Olevianus. 34 John Calvin to Tremellius, 29 August 1558, CO2944.

BRIDGING THE GAP: ZWEIBRÜCKEN AND HORNBACH

93

was unable to provide sufficient direction or to draft a schedule, that he failed to win the respect of his pupils and that he always suffered from ill-health.35 Much of this seems to be based on the instruction given to his successor in this post, Christopher Hilspach, to introduce better morals and order. Butters also imagines that the fact that Tremellius was a Jew and an Italian could have contributed to his failure to impose himself fully in this post. Certainly all of this is plausible, but it seems to be reading rather a lot into one line. As we will see, Tremellius had no difficulty serving as rector at the University of Heidelberg, and while it is likely that the latter post was less onerous because the institution was already well established, Tremellius was, by this stage of his career, highly experienced, and would have had various models near at hand to draw on for this purpose. Although it is not mentioned in the sources, it is quite likely that Tremellius would have been called upon to teach Hebrew at the academy as well. Ironically, though in some ways unsurprisingly, substantially more material relating to the efforts of Calvin to attract Tremellius to Geneva has survived than for the post that he did actually take up. As we have already seen, the possibility that Tremellius might find a post in Geneva had been raised as early as 1547, and may have arisen again in 1554. On those previous occasions, despite Calvin’s support for Tremellius and his desire to improve the educational provision in Geneva, nothing had come of it. It was only towards the end of the 1550s that he had sufficient financial and administrative support from the magistrates of the city to effect his desired changes.36 During the course of 1558, the new academy began to take shape: money was found for the project, sites for buildings selected and offers made to likely post-holders.37 In March, Calvin first offered the chair of Hebrew to Jean Mercier, a leading French Hebraist and a lecteur royalin Paris.38 When Mercier turned down the offer, Calvin’s attentions turned to Tremellius. Whether or not there was any direct contact during the summer of 1558 is unclear, but from August of that year, we have a letter which Calvin wrote to Tremellius.39 In it the Genevan says that he has heard that an academy had been founded in Hornbach, and that while no mention had Butters, Tremellius, p.22. Karin Maag, SeminaryorUniversity?TheGenevanAcademyandReformedHigher Education,1560–1620 (Aldershot, 1995), pp.8–16. 37 On the academy in Geneva, see especially Maag, SeminaryorUniversity? Also Charles Borgeaud, Histoiredel’UniversitédeGenève(4 vols, Geneva, 1900), vol.1: L’Académiede Calvin,1559–1798and Gillian Lewis, ‘The Geneva Academy’ in Andrew Pettegree, Alistair Duke and Gillian Lewis (Eds), Calvinism in Europe (Cambridge and New York, 1994), pp.35–63. 38 Maag, SeminaryorUniversity?, p.13. 39 John Calvin to Tremellius, 29 August 1558, CO2944. 35 36

94

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

been made of Tremellius in that regard, the fact that a successor for him as tutor to the children of the Duke of Zweibrücken was now being sought had led him to conclude that Tremellius was to serve as a professor there. At this point, Calvin implies that he had considered inviting Tremellius earlier, but that uncertainty had prevented him from doing so: ‘If I had dared to raise in you some expectation of a matter then doubtful, but which is now certain, perhaps the situation might have pleased you. But I could at that time promise nothing except without due consideration. Now, however, I repent and am grieved that I did not go to the length of rashness.’ As he goes on to explain, circumstances in Geneva had now changed: I have at last obtained of the senate that professors of three languages should be appointed, not with those ample salaries, it is true, which are given in Germany, but such, however, as are sufficient to maintain me and my colleagues in a modest mediocrity. The emoluments which I mentioned to you would have been added. Thus you should have a decent competency. The grief for having been unable to secure your service prevents me from fully congratulating you on the subject of the situation which you have obtained. And, if even now it should be in your power to come among us, you would have a much wider field here for your labours in promoting the welfare of the church. But in the present uncertain and almost hopeless state of affairs, I dare not entreat you.

Despite Calvin’s pessimism at this point, this was not an end to the matter. Two months after Calvin had written to Tremellius, the Genevan Senate wrote to the Duke of Zweibrücken.40 After some elaborate flattery, they set out their predicament: In our poverty we have decided to set up a small school, which, like a seminary, will supply pious and properly educated doctors for the future, and in which boys may be prepared and their abilities cultivated. But since there is no suitable professor of the Hebrew language available to us, necessity has forced us to seek help from your highness.

They continue: For Emmanuel Tremellius, who a little while before was appointed master for teaching your children, is in your employment. Since he no longer holds this post, we have considered that in your generosity you might be able to yield him to us without great inconvenience to you. For we would not be so tactless to suggest this if he still occupied that post.

While the Genevan Senate praised the growing reputation of the school that the duke had recently founded, they perhaps rather impertinently noted that he was ‘hardly lacking in learned professors’, and implied that it would be beneficial to them all if he consider letting him go.

40

Genevan Senate to the Duke of Zweibrücken, October [1558], CO4191.

BRIDGING THE GAP: ZWEIBRÜCKEN AND HORNBACH

95

Evidently Tremellius was keen to take up the position: Calvin noted a few months later that Tremellius ‘had written two or three times that nothing would be more consonant with his wishes than if he received permission to come and settle here’.41 Presumably it was for this reason that the Genevan authorities were so confident that their request would be successful. The registers of the Genevan small council for 27 October state that there were to be three public chairs in the Academy: Tremellius would hold the one in Hebrew, Theodore Beza, who had until then been in Lausanne, would teach Greek and ‘someone coming from Paris’ was to teach Latin.42 In the event, this confidence was misplaced. As Calvin subsequently explained to Francis Boisnormand, who had hoped to fill the Chair of Hebrew in Geneva himself, the Duke of Zweibrücken ‘gave us a courteous reply, that he could not possibly part with Tremellius except to the great detriment of his academy’.43 Ultimately the post went to Tremellius’ son-in-law, Antoine Chevallier, who was among the group, which also included Theodore Beza and Pierre Viret, of professors and students who came to Geneva in early 1559 from the University of Lausanne.44 Conclusion Though Tremellius did not, in the event, take up the post in Geneva that had been offered to him, it is still worth reflecting briefly on the wider implications of this invitation. It is impossible to ignore his rapidly shifting fortunes. Following his departure from England, it had proved incredibly difficult to find a post for him at all, and he had been forced, after a series of rejections, into taking a rather lowly position. Yet within a matter of a few years he had been promoted back to the level of professor and rector at one new academy, while being courted by a second. His prestige continued to grow, and his reputation to spread. As we have seen, a wide range of figures were inclined to speak of him in glowing terms. We have also encountered further evidence of his growing association with the Calvinist wing of the Reformed church, although, as we have also seen, this could be both a positive and a negative association as far as his career prospects were concerned. Calvin’s desire to attract Tremellius to the Academy in Geneva is also instructive both as regards Calvin and the church which he was establishing. As we have seen, Calvin seems to have been favourably inclined towards Tremellius almost from the outset, writing a series of letters of commendation for him first, and latterly attempting to appoint 41 42 43 44

John Calvin to Francis Boisnormand, 27 March 1559, CO 3030. Quoted in Maag, SeminaryorUniversity? p.14. John Calvin to Francis Boisnormand, 27 March 1559, CO 3030. Maag, SeminaryorUniversity?, p.14.

96

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

him as a colleague in his own institution. This is all the more remarkable given Tremellius’ background, as a former Jew from Italy. Of course, Tremellius was a convert rather than a Jew, but in the strongly anti-Semitic environment, this was a potentially risky association; similarly as the century progressed, the Italian exiles provided a growing number of individuals who failed to adhere to the confessional requirement made of them in the context of Reformation Europe. Yet while these factors had hindered Tremellius’ career opportunities in other settings, they did not seem to hold Calvin back. One does not have to look too far for an adequate explanation. Calvin saw in Tremellius a fellow scholar of the Bible.45 Perhaps more importantly, Calvin truly appreciated Tremellius’ value as one of the foremost Hebraists of the age. He must have realised how much of a waste it would have been to have this individual teaching Latin grammar to a handful of young children. Rather, as both he and the Genevan Senate indicated, it would be far better if his services could be employed in a setting which allowed him to impart his learning to those men who would be the ministers and doctors of the future. At the root of Calvin’s church movement was a desire to reform the church, and to do so on the basis of a proper understanding of the biblical text. In that context, Tremellius was singularly well placed to provide the Calvinist church with some of the things which it most needed.

45 John L. Thompson, ‘Calvin as a Biblical Interpreter’ in Donald K. McKim (Ed.), TheCambridgeCompaniontoJohnCalvin (Cambridge, 2004), pp.58–73; T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’sOldTestamentCommentaries (Edinburgh, 1986).

CHAPTER SIX

Professor of the Old Testament at Heidelberg The circumstances surrounding Tremellius’ departure from his post at Hornbach are not entirely clear. We can be certain that he was still there in November 1559, the month in which he wrote his final letter from that city, but it is quite possible that he remained there for much of 1560 as well.1 Towards the end of the year, rumours that Tremellius was going to be appointed a professor at the University of Heidelberg gradually began to spread.2 Tremellius would be formally appointed in 1561, but both because of the protracted nature of the negotiations which preceded this, and his involvement in various diplomatic activities in the meantime, it is not possible to determine exactly when his employment by the Duke of Zweibrücken was terminated.3 It has sometimes been suggested that Tremellius departed in acrimonious circumstances, either on account of a disagreement with the duke on religious grounds, or because his demands for an increase in pay were turned down; but others have suggested that he parted company with the duke amiably.4 Following his departure from Hornbach, Tremellius would enter into arguably the most important phase of his career. As Professor of Old Testament studies at the University of Heidelberg, he found a period Tremellius to Conrad Hubert, 9 November 1559, ZbZ MS 96, 38. Thomas Erastus to Heinrich Bullinger, 8 October 1560, StAZ EII 361, 8. 3 It has been more common to assume that these missions were undertaken on behalf of the Elector, but J. Ney, ‘Tremellius, Emanuel’, in J. J. Herzog et al. (Eds), Real-Encyklopädie fürprotestantischeTheologieundKirche (2nd edition, 18 vols, Leipzig, 1877–88), vol.16, p.2 has claimed that Tremellius was still in the official employ of the Duke of Zweibrücken. The surviving sources imply that, at the very least, Tremellius had been in contact with the Elector Palatine by this point. 4 Butters, Tremellius, p.25 claims that Conrad Marius, who had succeeded Tremellius as tutor to the duke’s children, accused his predecessor of having taught them Calvinism. The accession of Frederick III and his establishment of Calvinism as the official religion of the Palatinate may also have contributed to something nearing a Lutheran paranoia. Butters further suggests that Tremellius was imprisoned for several weeks in the aftermath. Becker, Tremellius, p.31, by contrast, says he was imprisoned only for a week. Many writers have followed them in this assumption. More recently Dagmar Drull-Zimmerman, ‘Immanuel Tremellius’ in her HeidelbergerGelehrtenlexikon1386–1651 (Berlin, Heidelberg, New York and Tokyo, 2001) has suggested that a refused request for a pay rise encouraged Tremellius to tender his resignation. Ney, ‘Tremellius’, p.2 and Alastair Hamilton, ‘Tremellius (Joannes) Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in DNB (60 vols, Oxford, 2004), vol.55, p.286 suggest that his departure from Heidelberg was peaceful and occurred in March 1561. 1 2

98

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

of unprecedented peace and security. He would stay there for 16 years. During this time, he was able to exercise his influence, as a teacher, over a substantial number of students. The stability of this period of his life also meant that he was better able to devote himself to his own studies. This was substantially the most productive period of his life: the vast majority of his extant works date from this period, including his most important ones, his editions of the Old and New Testaments. The University of Heidelberg was one of the leading institutions within the Reformed faith, second only to Geneva in terms of theological influence, and arguably even more academically distinguished. More importantly, Tremellius was by no means overshadowed in this company. As a professor in its largest and most important faculty, as an administrator holding various posts, including that of rector, and as a diplomat in the service of the Elector Palatine, Tremellius made a wide range of contributions to the Reformed faith. Diplomatic Activity Before he took up his post in Heidelberg, however, Tremellius found brief employment as a diplomat. His first diplomatic engagement took place in the first months of 1561, and was on behalf of the French town of Metz, the home town of his wife.5 In October 1559, King Francis II of France had ordered the Huguenots to depart from Metz. They requested a year to prepare for emigration, and this was granted to them. On 5 December 1560, however, Francis II died. Catherine de Medici then took over as regent on behalf of her 11-year-old son, Charles IX. The people of Metz hoped to take advantage of the weakened condition of the French monarchy, and Catherine’s efforts to maintain control through a policy of moderation and conciliation, which was most immediately reflected in a decree of January 1561.6 In the same month, Metz therefore sent a delegation, led by Tremellius and Didier Rolin, a burgher of the town, to the French court which was then assembled in Orléans for an Estates General. Of course, Tremellius’ wife, Elisabeth, had originally come from Metz, but it is apparent that there was more to the connection than just this. Antoine Claude de Vienne, Baron de Clervant, a distinguished Huguenot from Metz, had fled from there to Zweibrücken in November 1559, 5 On these events, see Theodore Beza, Histoireecclésiastiquedeséglisesréforméesou royaumedeFrance, ed. G. Baum and E. Cunitz (3 vols, Paris, 1889), vol.III, pp.548 ff., R. P. Meurisse, HistoiredelaNaissance,duProgrèsetdelaDécadencedel’hérésiedanslavillede Metz&danslepaysMessin(Metz, 1670) and Henri-Tribout de Morembert, LaRéformeà Metz.Vol.II.LeCalvinisme1553–1685(Nancy, 1971). 6 On Catherine de Medici’s policy of compromise, see Janine Garrison, A History of Sixteenth-Century France, 1483–1598. Renaissance, Reformation and Rebellion (Basingstoke, 1995), p.256 ff.

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

99

where he made contact with Tremellius. In the same month, Calvin, who was evidently following events in Metz closely, wrote to Clervant, encouraging him at this time of adversity.7 It is quite possible that these various connections, as much as his reputation for learning, earned Tremellius this responsibility. Tremellius and Rolin carried with them a petition signed by 60 leading Huguenots from Metz in the name of all those of their religion. Their demands were as follows: that the Huguenots of Metz should be entitled to practise their own religion, that those who had been forced to flee on religious grounds should be allowed to return and those who had been imprisoned should be released.8 Although the delegation met with a frosty reception at first, it did ultimately achieve a reasonable degree of success: the prisoners were released, the exiles permitted to return, and while the Huguenots of Metz were still not allowed to worship within the city, the civic authorities were required to provide them with a temple as close to the city walls as possible.9 According to Beza, this was largely as a result of the negotiations of Tremellius himself, though this was contradicted by a report subsequently sent to the Privy Council in England by the Earl of Bedford and Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, English ambassadors at the French court, in which they claimed that it was their intervention which was critical in earning the delegation an audience.10 Whether or not the role of Bedford and Throckmorton was as decisive as they suggest, they were evidently still impressed by their meeting with Tremellius. The fact that he was ‘recommended by some of the Princes of Germany’ presumably added to his value. Following the recent death of Mary Tudor, English foreign policy had inevitably entered a period of realignment.11 The Protestant powers of Europe had welcomed the accession of Elizabeth, as the various marriage proposals she received from such figures as Eric XIV of Sweden and Duke John William of SaxonyWeimar indicated. While these did not come to anything, Elizabeth’s advisors appreciated how beneficial it would be to have the goodwill of Protestant rulers in Europe. William Cecil, in particular, was keen that England should strengthen its commercial and political links with its Protestant neighbours. Consequently, the early 1560s witnessed efforts

7 John Calvin to Antoine-Claude de Vienne, Baron de Clervant, November 1559, in Jules Bonnet (Ed.), Lettres de Jean Calvin. Lettres françaises (2 vols, Paris, 1854), vol.2, pp.294–7; de Morembert, LaRéformeàMetz, p.24. 8 Beza, Histoireecclésiastique, p.551. 9 Meurisse, HistoiredelaNaissance, pp.154–5. 10 Bedford and Throckmorton to the Privy Council, 26 February 1561, CSPForeign (1561–62), No.1030. 11 Susan Doran, England and Europe in the Sixteenth Century (Basingstoke, 1999), especially p.92 ff.

100

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

to establish a Protestant league and, concurrently, to obstruct Catholic initiatives, including the Council of Trent which was still under way.12 It was in this context then that Bedford and Throckmorton encountered Tremellius. Although inexperienced as a diplomat, he had already demonstrated his commitment to the Protestant cause, as well as having a number of useful contacts. On 22 February, evidently acting on their own initiative, Bedford and Throckmorton wrote a letter addressed to the Electors and States of the Confession of Augsburg, commending Tremellius to them;13 on the same date they provided him with more detailed instructions for his mission.14 In particular, the English ambassadors hoped to use Tremellius as a messenger through whom arrangements might be made to undermine the Council of Trent, the third session of which was about to commence.15 They made a point of emphasising the existing sympathy for their plan at the French court: the Duchess of Ferrara, they claimed, shared their views, while there was also hope that the Queen Mother, Catherine de Medici, and the King of Navarre might also be persuaded not to give their backing to the Council. The latter two had, moreover, declared their readiness to take soundings from the Empire on this issue.16 The English diplomats evidently hoped to appeal to Gallican sensitivities: they sought to persuade the French not to recognise the Council on the grounds that it had been called by the Pope, and was being held in an episcopal rather than a free town. Bedford and Throckmorton hoped that the German Protestant princes might send envoys of their own to the French court, adding their voices to the argument that the French should not participate in the Council. They further suggested that the princes might propose a free National Council in France, which they would be ready to attend.17 As Throckmorton and Bedford explained to the Privy Council a few days later, they paid Tremellius 100 crowns in advance for his services in this matter.18

12 Hirofumie Horie, ‘The Lutheran Influence on the Elizabethan Settlement, 1558– 1563’, HJ34 (1991), pp.519–37; David J. B. Trim, ‘Sealing a Protestant Alliance and Liberty of Conscience on the Continent, 1558–85’ in Susan Doran and Glenn Richardson (Eds), TudorEnglandanditsNeighbours (Basingstoke, 2005), pp.139–77. 13 Earl of Bedford and Nicholas Throckmorton to the German Protestants, 22 February 1561, CSPForeign(1560–61), No.1020. 14 ‘Instructions for Tremellius’, Earl of Bedford and Nicholas Throckmorton to Tremellius, 22 February 1560, CSPForeign(1560–61), No.1022. 15 On Trent, see A. G. Dickens, TheCounterReformation (London, 1968), pp.107–34 and Michael A. Mullett, TheCatholicReformation (London and New York, 1999), pp.29–68. 16 Bedford and Throckmorton to Privy Council, 26 February 1561, CSP Foreign (1561–62), No.1030. 17 ‘Instructions for Tremellius’, Earl of Bedford and Nicholas Throckmorton to Tremellius, 22 February 1560, CSPForeign(1560–61), No.1022. 18 Bedford and Throckmorton to Privy Council, 26 February 1561, CSP Foreign (1561–62), No.1030.

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

101

Tremellius was again largely successful in his mission. He encountered the German princes assembled at Neuburg, and returned with letters of instruction from them. As he reported to Throckmorton in early May, the essential message of these letters was to recommend that neither the French kings nor their clergy should attend the Council of Trent.19 The Protestant princes also expressed their readiness ‘to assist the King with all their best means in advancing religion’. By the time that Throckmorton passed this news on to his queen, Tremellius had already spoken with the King of Navarre, and was now seeking an audience with the King of France. Less than a week later, Tremellius reported that he had caught up with the King of France at Reims and, in the presence of the King of Navarre and the Cardinal of Châtillon, he had been able to present the letters that he had conveyed from Germany.20 As Tremellius notes, he repeated what he had said before ‘so that they should not pretend ignorance’ and added further arguments of his own to aid the case. These letters and arguments seem to have met with a fairly positive response. After some deliberation, the kings of France and Navarre agreed to instruct their secretaries to draft replies to the German princes, which they would then give to Tremellius to pass on. The King of Navarre and the Cardinal of Châtillon wanted to emphasise to Tremellius and the German princes how grateful they were for the friendly messages which they had received. At this point, Tremellius reports that he again raised the possibility that a Protestant confederation ought to be established, but he conceded that he had been unable to get a decision from them. Tremellius was clearly not confident that anything would come of this, and instead proposed an alternative course of action: he suggested that Elizabeth should write to the Protestant princes individually, and secretly, so that the emperor and other parties could not obstruct their progress. Tremellius expressed the view that this league should be made open to whoever embraced the Protestant religion. He also volunteered his services as a messenger to achieve this aim, if the queen would provide further letters of credence for him. In fact, for a time he seems to have seriously considered devoting more of his energies to diplomatic activity. When he returned from Germany in May he enlisted Throckmorton in a campaign to persuade Elizabeth to take him on as a diplomat. Evidently at Tremellius’ bidding, Throckmorton commended Tremellius to his queen. Although he acknowledged that Elizabeth already had an ambassador, Christopher Mont, in Germany, Throckmorton noted that Tremellius ‘is very desirous to do the Queen 19 Throckmorton to Queen Elizabeth of England, 9 May 1561, CSPForeign (1561–62), No.189. 20 Tremellius to Nicholas Throckmorton, 15 May 1561, CSP Foreign (1561–62), No.197.

102

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

service, and is a very useful man for the same in Germany, where he is both well credited and acquainted, being of that nation, and also entertained by the Count Palatine. He is a sober, wise man, and for his skill in many tongues much to be made of.’21 On the same day, he wrote to William Cecil, who of course had provided assistance to Tremellius during the reign of Edward VI. Here he reiterated his praise, arguing that Tremellius ‘is a very necessary minister for the Queen, wise, honest and sincere, besides that he is well learned in the tongues, and has many of their neighbours’ languages very familiar. Though she has Mont in Germany, yet by Tremellius she shall receive no small increase of service.’22 Whether or not Tremellius hoped to occupy this role in addition to a teaching post at Heidelberg, or in place of it, is unclear, but in fact it is evident that nothing much came of this request. It was not the last time that Tremellius would serve in a diplomatic capacity, but as far as we can tell, he did not receive the commission for which he hoped on this occasion. Although this diplomatic activity was only a temporary development in Tremellius’ career, it is still a revealing episode. The fact that he was chosen by the Huguenots of Metz to lead their delegation, despite only a tenuous connection with the city, reflected his growing prestige. But this post introduced him into new circles: as a diplomat, he was brought into contact with Catherine de Medici, the kings of France and Navarre, various German Protestant princes and, through her leading ambassadors in France, the Queen of England. As Throckmorton, in particular, appreciated, Tremellius began with a range of useful skills, but he also applied himself very effectively to his mission, clearly not being overwhelmed by his interaction with these leading political figures and, on occasion, demonstrating an aptitude to act on his own initiative. This was also a new way in which Tremellius demonstrated his commitment to the Protestant faith: both engagements were explicitly directed at aiding his co-religionists. Importantly, though, it is important to appreciate the form that this took: for the Huguenots of Metz he was seeking religious toleration, while it is apparent that he believed that the Protestant League should be an inclusive enterprise.23 As he was in other aspects of his life, Tremellius was motivated by religious concerns but these seem primarily to have taken a positive rather than a destructive form.

21 Throckmorton to Queen Elizabeth of England, 9 May 1561, CSPForeign (1561–62), No.189. 22 Throckmorton to William Cecil, 9 May 1561, CSPForeign(1561–62), No.190. 23 Tremellius to Nicholas Throckmorton, 15 May 1561, CSP Foreign (1561–62), No.197.

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

103

Professor at Heidelberg While Tremellius was involved in these diplomatic activities, informal negotiations to bring him to Heidelberg were already under way. In October 1560, Thomas Erastus reported to Heinrich Bullinger that discussions were taking place at the university in relation to the appointment of three new professors of theology.24 Pierre Boquin was being lined up for the first professorship and Tremellius for the second, while there was no immediate candidate for the third. As we have seen, Bullinger was already aware of Tremellius, but Erastus referred him to Peter Martyr, who was now in Zurich, for more information. Three weeks later, Erastus wrote to Bullinger again, this time more confidently asserting his belief that Tremellius would receive the second professorship.25 In February 1561, Erastus indicated that the likely professorial line-up would be Boquin, Tremellius and Caspar Olevian,26 but he would only confirm this to Bullinger in July.27 In fact, Tremellius was admitted to the faculty of theology of the University of Heidelberg on 30 June;28 on 8 July he was made a doctor of theology, with a salary of 200 gulden; and the following day, he, along with Olevian, was enrolled as a member of the university senate.29 Tremellius’ appointment at Heidelberg came at a time of rapid change at that institution. Heidelberg was the university town associated with the Electorate of the Palatinate, a collection of territories based in the Rhineland.30 The Reformation had only recently been introduced into this region of Germany. The Elector Frederick II (r.1544–56) had favoured evangelical theology, but it was his nephew, Ottoheinrich (r.1556–59), who had actually been responsible for establishing Protestantism in the Palatinate. Though there was a Lutheran core to his reform, there remained a degree of confessional diversity. It was only with the accession of Frederick III in 1559 that the Palatinate moved in a Reformed direction, the first major German state to do so.31 As a result, Frederick sought to replace the Lutheran professors at his university with those whose attachment to the

Thomas Erastus to Heinrich Bullinger, 8 October 1560, StAZ E II 361, 8. Erastus to Heinrich Bullinger, 30 October 1560, StAZ E II 361, 85. 26 Erastus to Heinrich Bullinger, 12 February [1561], StAZ E II 361, 63. 27 Erastus to Heinrich Bullinger, 16 July [1561], StAZ E II 361, 62. 28 Gustav Toepke, DieMatrikelderUniversitätHeidelbergvon1386bis1662(4 vols, Heidelberg, 1884–1904), vol.2, p.25. 29 ActaUniversitatisHeidelbergensis VIII, 47v. 30 Claus-Peter Clasen, ThePalatinateinEuropeanHistory,1559–1660 (Oxford, 1963). 31 Owen Chadwick, ‘The Making of a Reforming Prince: Frederick III, Elector Palatine’ in R. Buick Knox (Ed.), Reformation,ConformityandDissent:EssaysinHonourofGeoffrey Nuttall (London, 1979), pp.44–69. Henry J. Cohn, ‘The Territorial Princes in Germany’s Second Reformation, 1559–1622’ in Menna Prestwich (Ed.), InternationalCalvinism,1541– 1715 (Oxford, 1986), pp.135–65. 24 25

104

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Reformed religion was clear. It was this development which created the circumstances surrounding Tremellius’ appointment. The University of Heidelberg was one of the most cosmopolitan institutions in Europe.32 Because of its geographical position, the Palatinate had long been exposed to influence from France and the Netherlands, but with this shift in its religious outlook it came to serve as a haven for religious refugees from both countries; this would only increase as the century progressed. In addition, the university acted as a particular draw to people across Europe because of the calibre of its teachers, who themselves reflected the international quality of the institution. Under Frederick III, a substantial number of Calvinist professors from Switzerland, France, Italy and the Netherlands swelled the ranks of home-grown German academics. In addition, in the 1560s and 1570s, when Tremellius was among the teaching staff, the university attracted an average of about 150 students a year, of whom perhaps one third were foreigners, drawn from as far away as Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, Britain and Italy, France and the Netherlands.33 The international character and prestigious nature of the University of Heidelberg were nowhere more evident than in its illustrious faculty of theology, the faculty which Tremellius joined in 1561. Among its most famous members were the Italian Girolamo Zanchi, a long-term friend of Tremellius, Pierre Boquin, François du Jon, or Junius, and Daniel Toussain, all Frenchmen, Jacob Kimedonck, a Dutchman, Zacharias Ursinus from Silesia and Caspar Olevian from Trier.34 The first major achievement of this faculty was the production of the HeidelbergCatechism, which was published in 1563.35 This was arguably the most widely used document of the Reformed faith.36 With the lead being provided by the theological faculty, Heidelberg University rapidly came to enjoy a significant position: within Germany it came to rival Wittenberg, regarding itself as the institution through which the half-finished Reformation of the Lutherans could be completed. But within the Reformed churches as a whole, Heidelberg also emerged as a cultural and theological centre, only rivalled by Zurich and Geneva.37 Clasen, PalatinateinEuropeanHistory, pp.32–42. Clasen, PalatinateinEuropeanHistory,p.37. 34 Clasen, Palatinate in European History, p.35; on Ursinus see Christopher J. Burchill, ‘On the Consolation of a Christian Scholar: Zacharias Ursinus (1534–83) and the Reformation in Heidelberg’, JEH37 (1986), pp.565–83. 35 ‘The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)’ in A. C. Cochrane (Ed.), ReformedConfessions of the Sixteenth Century (London, 1966), pp.305–31. I. John Hesselink, ‘The Dramatic Story of the Heidelberg Catechism’ in W. F. Graham (Ed.), LaterCalvinism.International Perspectives (Kirksville, MO, 1994). Bard Thompson, ‘The Palatinate Church Order of 1563’, CH23 (1954), pp.339–54. 36 Graeme Murdock, BeyondCalvin:TheIntellectual,PoliticalandCulturalWorldof Europe’sReformedChurches,c.1540–1620. (Basingstoke, 2004), pp.104–6. 37 Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation.Europe’sHouseDivided,1490–1700 (London, 2003), p.355. 32 33

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

105

Teaching Although Tremellius’ most obvious role in Heidelberg was that of a teacher, most commentators and biographers have passed over this subject virtually in silence. As with Tremellius’ earlier teaching posts, this is partly a reflection of shifting scholarly interests, and partly the inevitable consequence of the surviving source materials. Nonetheless, a diverse range of sources have survived which provide various insights into the teaching which Tremellius offered at Heidelberg. Especially when these are combined with the impressions that we have received from his other experiences, Tremellius constitutes a fascinating case-study through which to think about education in the sixteenth century; this is all the more valuable given the relative rarity of Hebrew teachers in this period. It is possible, in the first instance, to reconstruct, at least partially, the framework of Tremellius’ teaching duties. In March 1569, the Elector Frederick took the unprecedented step of asking each of the faculties within his university to provide him with information relating to the subjects which were being taught, and to how many students. Tremellius took responsibility for providing the information relating to the theological faculty, which was, incidentally, the first faculty to be recorded.38 By this date, the three professors of the faculty of theology were Tremellius, Pierre Boquin and Girolamo Zanchi. Tremellius begins by noting that Boquin teaches approximately 45 students at nine in the morning, and that he is currently lecturing to them on Ephesians. He then moves on to describe his own activities: I the undersigned teach the Old Testament, and I am currently interpreting the book of Job. I do so at the third hour in the afternoon, which is the time that I have always used since I began to teach here. The size of my audience is not always the same, and I don’t know exactly how many students I have, since many of them go off on business. But those of my students who live with me tell me that this year there are usually 34 in the class, and rarely fewer than 30. immanuel tremellius, professor of the Old testament.39

He concludes by noting that Zanchi is currently away on business, and therefore does not offer any information about his teaching. Judging by the other responses to the Elector’s survey, the classes taught by Boquin and Tremellius were the largest in the university. This is hardly surprising, given the significance that was attached to theology in this period. At the same time, however, it is still striking that he is unable to give 38 See Eduard Winkelmann (Ed.), Urkundenbuch der Universität Heidelberg zur Fünfhundertjährigen stiftungsfeier der Universität (2 vols, Heidelberg, 1884–86), vol.1, pp.308–9. 39 Winkelmann (Ed.), Urkundenbuch,vol.1, pp.308–9.

106

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

anything beyond an approximation of the size of his class. Of course, as we have noted before, in an age when not all students would matriculate, let alone graduate, the student body was subject to considerable fluctuation. Even so, the numbers, at least by modern standards, are not vast, and one might have expected him to have had a clearer sense of what he was dealing with. Moreover, if one assumes that students would study for an average period of five or six years, it is likely that there was only a turnover of about half a dozen students in his class every year. When one also recalls that Tremellius followed the common practice of having some members of the class live with him, we can imagine that he established some close relationships with his students. This can only have strengthened his impact upon them. But all of this also had implications for what could be achieved in the classroom: he was responsible for a group of students, of considerably varying ability and experience, some of whom at least may have drifted in and out of his classes over time. His response, typical of education at the time, was also the inevitable product of these circumstances: he gradually worked his way through a book of the Bible (in this case Job), seeking to elucidate the text. Six years later, the theological faculty drew up a new set of statutes for itself.40 Whereas Tremellius alone had been responsible for the response to the Elector, this document is presented as having been composed by all three professors, Tremellius, Zanchi and Boquin. As I remarked in an earlier chapter, historians of university education advise a degree of scepticism as regards using university statutes as a means of determining what actually took place.41 Certainly, these statutes of 1575 remain vague as regards what was taught, but they may be considered as fairly reliable at least in terms of what they do cover: we have just encountered the survey of 1569, and the statutes were updated again in 1585, which hardly leaves enough time for the practices they each established to have fallen into disuse. Evidently, practices had changed to some extent in the intervening years. In the statutes of 1575, it is recorded that the Professor of Old Testament Studies is to teach four times a week, on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, at seven in the morning. The survey of 1569 gave no indication whether instruction was given on four or five days, but it would seem that the hour at which Tremellius was to teach had changed. 40 The text of these statutes is given in Johann F. Hautz, Geschichte der Universität Heidelberg…herausgegebenundmiteinerVorrede,derLebensgeschichtederVerfassersund …Personen-undSachsregisterversehenvonK.A.v.Reichlin-Meldegy(2 vols, Mannheim, 1862–4), vol.2, pp.421–5. 41 Laurence Brockliss, ‘Curricula’ in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), AHistoryofthe UniversityinEurope,vol.II:UniversitiesinEarlyModernEurope(1500–1800) (Cambridge, 1996), p.565.

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

107

When we turn our attentions to consider the format that Tremellius’ teaching took we are very fortunate that an anonymous manuscript, made by a student who had attended Tremellius’ lectures in Heidelberg, has survived.42 The first 75 folios contain notes on Isaiah chapters 38 through to the end, made, according to the first page, from lectures delivered by Tremellius. The remaining 16 folios contain notes on Hosea, Joel and Amos which were almost certainly taken from a different lecturer. On folio 76, the manuscript is dated 19 July 1568 at Geneva. As Tremellius never lectured at Geneva, we must conclude that they were made from the lectures of someone else: the obvious candidate for this would be Corneille Bertram, who served as professor of Hebrew in Geneva between 1567 and 1586.43 Thus this manuscript gives a concrete example of the common student practice of moving between universities. In addition, this would imply that Tremellius’ lectures were delivered in around 1567/8. In the discussion which follows, it will make sense to focus our attentions on the notes on Isaiah. Although relatively short, these allow us to evaluate Tremellius’ lectures both in the broader context of university education in this period, and, more specifically, how they compared with his subsequent biblical publications. Recent scholarship has helped to establish some general patterns for the form that university education adopted.44 In general, professors would deliver daily lectures, five days a week, to the class as a whole. Normally these lasted for between an hour and 90 minutes. The lecturer would begin by reading from a standard textbook; his students would be expected to own a copy of this themselves. Then, he would go on to give his interpretation of this passage; the students would often copy down what their professor said verbatim. By way of a conclusion, the professor would examine the class on how well they had understood the previous section, although this section was often omitted, especially if the class was particularly large. In Protestant universities, professors of theology tended to become biblical exegetes who were expected to provide a literal interpretation of the original Hebrew or Greek text. However, it was also frequently felt that some instruction in religious polemic was also required. Judging from the Heidelberg manuscript, Tremellius’ teaching seems largely to have followed these general principles. As we have already seen, throughout his time in Heidelberg he delivered lectures at least four days a week, to all the students of the Old Testament, whom he taught together. 42 Columbia University, New York, X 893 B 476 ObservataexImmanuelisTremellii lectionibus in Jeschaiam Prophetam// et in Hoscheam Joëlem et Amosum// Emanuel Tremellius(breaks indicating different hands). This was among the manuscripts presented to the university in 1892 by the Trustees of Temple Emanu-El, of New York City. 43 Karin Maag, SeminaryorUniversity?TheGenevanAcademyandReformedHigher Education,1560–1620(Aldershot, 1995), p.197. 44 Much of the information in this paragraph is taken from Brockliss, ‘Curricula’, p.565 ff.

108

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

In his lectures, Tremellius followed the standard pattern of exposition, working through a particular book of the Bible, over a series of lectures. This sequential approach is implied by his comments about the book of Job in his report of 1569, but it is made explicit in the surviving manuscript: the notes very clearly follow the order of verses, and their numbers are used to break the notes into sections. Tremellius sought to provide an exegesis of the biblical text in question, though his emphasis was much more on the philological than the theological aspects of the text. If, as was the common practice, his lectures were copied down verbatim, the notes that have survived ought to give a fairly accurate representation of what he actually said in the classroom. As I have just suggested, the notes are set out in an order which explicitly follows the text. Each new chapter receives an underlined subheading, while individual verses are clearly numbered. In fact, there are a number of occasions on which these verses are inaccurately numbered, but it is probable that this simply reflects the context in which these notes were made.45 In the vast majority of cases, the treatment of an individual verse begins with a rendering of that line into Latin. This would seem to endorse the assumption that the students owned their own copy of the Old Testament in Hebrew, so that there was no need for them also to transcribe the original from which the translation was being made. More than that, it would seem that the decision to translate a line was generally prompted by the fact that Tremellius wished to elaborate upon one or more aspects of a verse: the vast majority of verses so translated do then receive comment. Having said that, there are at least a handful of verses for which there are explanatory notes, but no translation,46 and similarly a translation, but no notes.47 This may simply mean that the student failed to record all that was said, or may have been a more conscious decision on the part of his lecturer. The format of these lecture notes gives a good indication of Tremellius’ various aims as a lecturer, which again echoes aspects of his teaching that we have already encountered, and would also find resonances in his published work. The provision of an accurate and useful translation is a central component of his work on the biblical text: indeed, for the most part it is this which provides the central thread of his lectures. Beyond that, however, Tremellius seeks to aid his students in their understanding of the biblical text. When one turns to the material which elaborates upon the biblical text, we gain further insights into the sorts of messages Tremellius wished to impart to his students. A significant proportion of this explanation was devoted to the philological and linguistic aspects of the original text. 45 46 47

For example Isaiah 43.24–28 (fol.19r–19v). For example Isaiah 40.11 (fol.5r). For example Isaiah 44.6 (fol.20r).

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

109

In his notes, for instance, he offers definitions of particular words, sets out declensions, provides etymologies, indicates when particular types of morphology have occurred and draws attention to idiosyncracies of the Hebrew language.48 In many of the cases on which such points are recorded in the student’s notes, is seems very likely that these were intended to be more general lessons about the Hebrew language which could then be applied by the student to other similar examples. In this sense at least, Tremellius’ lectures on Isaiah were about more than the interpretation of that book; it was also being used as a text through which wider lessons about the Hebrew language could be framed. Again, as in Zweibrücken, the concern with the practical application of linguistic understanding seems more central than simply the rote learning of grammatical rules. Most of the insights which Tremellius shared with his students on these chapters of Isaiah dealt with aspects of the language of the text, but on occasions he would also provide more of an exegesis of a passage. However, here too there were quite clear limits on what he would do: such notes generally sought to render the meaning of the text more obvious (by explaining complicated phraseology or by elaborating upon particular elements in the subject matter which reflected the cultural world of the ancient text), and would not therefore have meant much to sixteenthcentury German youths. This latter point, in particular, is one to which I will shortly return. Yet the contrast between the instruction which Tremellius offered and the model to which I referred above should be clear. His concern was with making the text more accessible to his students, both in terms of its language and its cultural-historical content. Unlike many of his contemporaries, however, he did not engage in religious polemic. There is nothing in his lectures which would allow them to be attributed to a particular confessional point of view. One might also wonder whether there was a direct connection between the lectures which Tremellius delivered and his subsequent publications on the same materials. It would certainly be logical to imagine that Tremellius’ publication of the Old Testament in the last years of his life drew on his earlier work on that text. However, a comparison of the verses which are translated in the course of these notes makes it quite clear that they do not constitute the text which would make it into Tremellius’ published version of the same chapters; indeed, they are so dissimilar that it does not appear that the one was even consulted when preparing his published version. Of course, given a lifetime devoted to the study of Hebrew one would expect Tremellius to be able to provide an extempore translation of the biblical text, and to comment on its linguistic features in a similar fashion.

48 For example Isaiah 40.12 (fol.5r), 40.11 (fol.5r), 40.22 (fol.6v), 40.18 (fol.6r), 40.27 (fol.7r) respectively for these different linguistic features.

110

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

If one is not particularly surprised by the difference in translation between these two different renderings, it is perhaps more remarkable that this difference is also apparent in the references with which Tremellius supplemented his translation. One might have assumed that this was something which he would have built up over a career of working on these texts; the detail and frequency of these references and cross-references are such that it would scarcely have been possible to commit them to memory. But again a comparison of Tremellius’ lectures on Isaiah and the equivalent in published form reveals that this is not the case. There are in the lecture notes at least a handful of references to other biblical passages, either for comparison or further explanation. For instance, on Isaiah 41.4, he points to Chapter 4 of Paul’s letter to the Romans. However, this reference does not appear in his published version.49 There are also references to other sources, including both classical and rabbinic texts. For instance, concerning Isaiah 38.21, which refers to a cake of figs applied to a life-threatening boil, the lecture notes include references to both Pliny and Galen in relation to this practice.50 The same verse in the published version receives no annotation whatsoever. Similarly, on Isaiah 41.25, on a minor geographical point, Tremellius refers to Pliny, Ptolemy and Polybius among others in his lectures, but ignores the issue in the published version of the same passage.51 As we will see over the next two chapters, Tremellius certainly did allude to the works of each of these authors in other parts of his published edition of the Old Testament, so to avoid using these seems a little unusual. A further, but perhaps rather more easily explicable contrast between these notes and the later published version is the relatively frequent references made to rabbinic sources in the former. Scholars have shown that Tremellius did make use of such writings in his published version, but this was generally done covertly.52 In his lectures, however, it would seem that Tremellius did not feel the need to be quite so cautious. Indeed, they are present almost from the beginning of the manuscript. David Kimhi and Abraham ibn Ezra, two of the most influential mediaeval Jewish commentators, are both mentioned in a note on Isaiah 38.12, and references to them, especially, are frequent thereafter.53 Admittedly, 25 or so chapters is a relatively small sample on which to build any conclusions about Tremellius’ lectures, but they are certainly suggestive. Not only do they demonstrate explicitly that he was well versed

ObservataexImmanuelisTremellii. Ibid., fol.3v. 51 Ibid., fol.11r. 52 G. Lloyd Jones, The Discovery of Hebrew in Tudor England: A Third Language (Manchester, 1983), pp.51–3. 53 ObservataexImmanuelisTremellii, fol.2v. On Kimhi, see Frank Ephraim Talmage, DavidKimhi.TheManandtheCommentaries (Cambridge, MA and London, 1975). 49 50

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

111

in rabbinic literature, and consciously so, as one would have expected given his background, but they also tell us something about his perception of himself. In his lectures he clearly felt that if it helped him make a point more effectively, he would draw on whatever sources best suited it. When he came to publish, however, he was rather more circumspect. Classical references are reduced in number, and Judaic ones are removed altogether. As a converted Jew, Tremellius appreciated the polemical assistance he would be giving to his opponents if his works were littered with rabbinic references. His publications would be less likely to encounter criticism if he let this area of knowledge shape them covertly rather than explicitly. The contrast between his responses to the two different situations represents quite a subtle assessment of the environment within which he was working. Against this, however, it must also be appreciated that despite these subtle differences, his oral and published approaches to the biblical text still had much in common. His concern was above all with the philological and cultural understanding of the text, not its use for theological discussions or confessional polemic. Tremellius’ Students If we can get a sense of the instruction that Tremellius provided, it is also possible to indicate some of the students for whose education he was responsible. As with Cambridge, it is not possible to provide a complete picture. The Heidelberg matriculation records are complete for this period, but they do not record the subjects studied by the students.54 In addition, it is evident from various pieces of anecdotal evidence that Tremellius taught various students in Heidelberg who did not matriculate. Nonetheless, we can identify a number of interesting and significant figures with whom he can be connected in this way. This selection can go some way towards indicating the range and nature of his influence, as well as suggesting the attitudes of some of those students towards the education that they received from him. In the first place, we know that Tremellius actually taught a couple of members of his own family. His son, who is named as ‘Immanuel Tremellius junior’, appears in the matriculation records in 1561, the same year as his father was made a professor. Similarly, as we have seen in a previous chapter, his grandson, Immanuel Chevallier, who would be appointed lecturer in Hebrew at Corpus Christi College in Cambridge in 1570, had studied at Heidelberg before he transferred to Cambridge in 1569.55 54 According to the Heidelberg University matriculation records, more than 2,000 students matriculated during the time that Tremellius taught there. 55 John Venn and J. A. Venn (Eds), AlumniCantabrigienses. ABiographicalListofall Known Students, Graduates and Holders of Office at the University of Cambridge, from the

112

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Tremellius was also responsible for the education of Rudolf Gwalther and Rudolf Zwingli, both of whom came from Zurich, and both of whom matriculated in Heidelberg in 1570.56 The latter in particular seems to have valued highly the instruction he received from Tremellius. In 1572, Zwingli transferred to Cambridge. Shortly after, he wrote to Bishop Sandys to praise the new environment in which, through the bishop’s assistance, he now found himself: And I rejoice, not so much on my account, as for the sake of my studies, that I have the means and opportunity afforded me of hearing that most famous and learned man, master Anthony Chevallier, to whom our Germany can scarce produce an equal in the knowledge of Hebrew, or one who can bear a comparison with him, except Immanuel Tremellius, whom I heard lecturing most ably at Heidelberg in the Palatinate, and from whose lectures, I think, I derived no small advantage.57

Zwingli’s knowledge of German academic institutions may not have been especially wide, but his suggestion that Tremellius was the most able teacher of Hebrew in Germany is certainly a strong endorsement. Another student was Jean Hortin, who had already studied at the Academy in Geneva from 1563, before matriculating at Heidelberg in 1565.58 There he was taught by Tremellius. As Johannes Haller would subsequently recount to Bullinger: For Jean Hortin of Lausanne came from Heidelberg … since he was sustained there at the house of Dr. Tremellius for almost four years at the cost of our magistrates, he made such progress in knowledge of the Chaldaean and Syriac languages that he had no equal among the younger people, in this area of learning. From which it happened that Dr. Tremellius betrothed to him his granddaughter, the daughter of Dr. Antoine Chevallier, who also once taught Hebrew letters in Lausanne and Geneva with great praise.59

Hortin’s experiences confirm a number of practices to which we have already referred. This endorses the claim that Tremellius had made in his report to the Elector about having students to live with him. It is also made more explicit that these students would pay for the privilege: it provided an additional source of income for the professors who followed this practice.60 Interestingly, Haller notes that Hortin’s expenses were paid for by the magistrates of Berne. EarliestTimesto1900(4 vols, Cambridge, 1922–27), vol.1, p.331. 56 Louis Israel Newman, Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements (New York, 1925), p.509. 57 Rudolf Zwingli to Bishop Sandys, 26 January 1572, ZurichLetters, No.76; StAZ E II 359, 3093b. 58 Jean Hortin to Theodore Beza, 3 November 1579, CB1383. 59 Johannes Haller to Heinrich Bullinger, 18 June 1574, StAZ E II 370, 499ff. 60 Rainer A. Müller, ‘Student Education, Student Life’ in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), AHistoryoftheUniversityinEurope (4 vols, Cambridge, 1996), vol.2, pp.326–54, especially pp.345–9.

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

113

It is a clear indication of the growing importance attached to knowledge of Hebrew that they should invest in his education in this way. It is also emphasised in the extract that Hortin has made considerable progress in his knowledge of these Semitic languages; especially when one considers the lectures discussed above, this may well imply that Tremellius offered complementary classes which focused more explicitly still on these languages. In addition, Hortin receives praise for his knowledge not of Hebrew, but of Chaldaean and Syriac. As we will see in the next chapter, Tremellius played an important role in laying the foundation of Oriental Studies at Heidelberg through his publication of a New Testament translated from Syriac, but it is evident from this extract that he also incorporated these materials into his teaching. And finally, we see the continuing extension of a dynasty of Hebraists: Tremellius, Chevallier, Chevallier’s son Immanuel and Hortin were all Hebraists, and all shared familial links. However, these links would not prevent Hortin from joining others in criticising his grandfather in the last years of his life for his work on the Talmud. David Pareus, from Upper Silesia, matriculated at Heidelberg in 1566. Though he would ultimately become a professor of the New Testament at Heidelberg himself, it is clear that he encountered Tremellius, as his subsequent activity in his defence would suggest.61 Pareus would come to be renowned for his irenic views (publishing a volume on that subject in 1614), and would continue to promote ideas of a pan-European Protestant alliance into the seventeenth century. It would certainly be tempting to imagine that, at the very least, he found in Tremellius a kindred spirit. After all, as we have already seen, he had during the 1560s worked towards a similar alliance himself, while irenicism does seem to have underpinned most of his activities. A further student of Tremellius was Matthias Vehe-Glirius, who matriculated at Heidelberg in 1561, at the age of about 16 or 17.62 He would in due course come to embrace a radical form of anti-trinitarianism, which he disseminated widely from the Palatinate to Transylvania, and from Poland to the Netherlands, during the course of the 1570s and 1580s. The suggestions that he had coverted to Judaism may well have reflected badly on Tremellius, who had taught him during the years immediately preceding this and had provided him with many of the necessary skills to develop this line of thought. Finally, although they do not appear in the matriculation records, it is apparent that Peter Ramus and Philippe du Plessis-Mornay both encountered 61 See Walther Koch, ‘Ehrenrettung des judenchristlichen Professors Immanuel Tremellius durch den Pfälzischen Theologen David Pareus’, BlätterfürpfälzischeKirchengeschichte 27 (1960), pp.140–44. 62 Robert Dán, Matthias Vehe-Glirius. Life and Work of a Radical Antitrinitarian withhisCollectedWritings (Budapest and Leiden, 1982). I am grateful to Robert Evans for bringing this work to my attention.

114

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Tremellius in Heidelberg. Indeed, it would seem both of these figures stayed with Tremellius while they were in Heidelberg. Ramus, the French philosopher and logician, was something of a controversial figure with whom to be associated; Theodore Beza was particularly outspoken in his criticism of him. Banosius, in his life of Ramus, records: ‘For when in Heidelberg we lived at the house of Immanuel Tremellius who was then in his seventieth year. And he was always among French people. And he often took part in the holy Meal, with great fear of God, and reverence of the worship of the divine.’63 Unfortunately it is not clear how long Ramus stayed with Tremellius, nor whether this friendship extended beyond that time. Philippe du Plessis-Mornay would also acquire an international reputation, primarily as author of the key text setting out Calvinist resistance theory, VindiciaecontraTyrannos of 1579.64 Around a decade or so before this, though, he had stayed with Tremellius in Heidelberg, as his wife later recorded in her Mémoires: ‘He spent the winter in Heidelberg, at the house of Monsieur Emanuel Tremellius, the man of Christianity who had knowledge of many languages, but was particularly excellent in Hebrew.’65 Mornay would go on to become a prominent leader of the French Reformed church and professor of theology at the theological academy in Saumur. He was, like Tremellius, a moderate in religious matters, but he is also known to have been quite keenly committed to the so-called Jewish mission. Not only did he write an anti-Jewish polemical work himself, l’AdvertissementsurlavenueduMessie(1607), but he also had Johannes Buxtorf work on preparing an edition of the Pugio fidei for publication, something the latter was reluctant to do because of his own disinclination to get involved in anti-Jewish controversies.66 The examples above simply give an indication of the range of people with whom Tremellius came into contact in Heidelberg, and the nature of the impact that he may have had. In fact, the number of Tremellius’ students must have exceeded one hundred at the very least.67 Nonetheless, Theophilus Banosius, PetriRami.Vita (Frankfurt, 1577). Philippe du Plessis-Mornay, ‘Vindiciae contra Tyrannos’ in J. H. Franklin (Ed.), ConstitutionalismandResistanceintheSixteenthCentury (New York, 1969). 65 Madame de Witt, née Guizot, MémoiresdeMadamedeMornay.Editionrevueles manuscritspubliéeaveclesvariantsetaccompagnéedelettresinéditesdeMretMmePlessis Mornayetdeleursenfants (2 vols, Paris, 1867–69), vol.1 p.26. See also Raoul Patry, Philippe duPlessis-Mornay.Unhuguenothommed’Etat(1549–1623) (Paris, 1933), pp.16–17. I am grateful to Joshua Rosenthal for bringing this connection to my attention. 66 Stephen G. Burnett, FromChristianHebraismtoJewishStudies.JohannesBuxtorf (1564–1629)andHebrewLearningintheSeventeenthCentury (Leiden, New York, Cologne, 1996), p.95 ff. 67 Assuming a minimum of six new students a year multiplied by the 16 or so years during which Tremellius was a professor at Heidelberg would equate to 96 students, and it is likely that the numbers were rather higher than this. 63 64

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

115

there are several main points to take from this. It is evident that Tremellius, like his own patrons such as Bucer and Cranmer, was ready to open his house both to students and to those travelling through Heidelberg. Now he was in a position to return the favour. As a consequence, his influence, both personal and scholarly, can only have been further enhanced. He would have been able to impart his Hebrew learning on to the next generation, but he may also have been able to pass on something of his moderate outlook. And while one might have expected to encounter a number of testimonies to his ability, it is still worth emphasising that the praise of Tremellius from his students, and from those who had any knowledge of his teaching, was universally positive; indeed, no trace of criticism about any aspect of it is apparent in the sources which survive from the period. Positions of Responsibility Although Tremellius was employed in Heidelberg as a professor of theology, it is apparent that this was not all that he did while he was there. He does not seem to have taken an active role in drafting the Heidelberg Catechism, but otherwise, as we have seen, he contributed fully to the various activities of the theology faculty. In addition to the duties that we have already considered, he may well have served as dean of the theology faculty on as many as six occasions: in 1563, 1565, 1568, 1571, 1574 and 1577.68 It is similarly evident that Tremellius held other positions of responsibility while he was in Heidelberg. In 1562 and again in 1575, he held the position of rector.69 He also held the position of vice-rector in 1563. It would perhaps be wrong to assume that one can interpet this as reflecting a particularly high standing within the university: to an extent such posts, which were generally held for a year, rotated among the professorship, and were as much a duty as an honour. Nonetheless, it is still remarkable that he held the position of rector twice, when one considers that foreigners were only elected to this post on 12 occasions between 1560 and 1610.70 One might suppose that his experience of being a rector at the academy in Hornbach only a handful of years before he moved to Heidelberg had prepared him for some of the responsibilities that the job entailed, and indeed that this led to his appointment in only his second year in Heidelberg. The fact that he was then invited to hold the post for a second term would suggest that he applied himself more than competently to the job. Drull-Zimmerman, ‘Tremellius’. Butters, Tremelliusdoes not mention this at all, while Becker, Tremellius, p.35 merely states that he held this position ‘several times’. However, see Winkelmann, Urkundenbuch, vol.II, p.136 and Hautz, GeschichtederUniversitätHeidelberg, vol.II, p.84. 70 Clasen, PalatinateinEuropeanHistory, p.36. 68 69

116

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

On the other hand, of course, there was a significant difference: while the academy in Hornbach had only recently been established, and therefore required an effective and dynamic leader, Heidelberg University was well established, and as the records of the university senate suggest, the role of the rector was now one much more of chairing regular meetings and overseeing the running of the institution. Despite this very full record of service to the university, it is apparent that Tremellius did not spend all his time in Heidelberg. For instance, from a passing comment in a letter that he wrote to Chevallier, we know that he returned to Metz in 1570.71 It is likely that there were other such instances in which he left the city on personal grounds which have simply failed to make an impression in the surviving sources. It is impossible to know how many of these kinds of journeys he made, but this example is already enough to suggest that we should not assume that his time in Heidelberg was monolithic. Tremellius also left Heidelberg at least once on official business. This was when he was appointed an envoy of the Elector Palatine, and sent on his behalf to Queen Elizabeth of England. As we saw at the beginning of this chapter, Tremellius had quite recently acquired some diplomatic experience, and had various connections with England. In the dedicatory epistle to his Chaldaean Grammar, which was published in 1569, Tremellius refers to a visit to England of about six months’ duration on behalf of the Elector Frederick, but he does not give a specific date for this.72 For some reason, virtually every writer who has mentioned this role has assumed that Tremellius carried it out in or around 1565, while the University of Heidelberg was closed due to plague in the Palatinate.73 However, other evidence makes it possible to determine that this mission took place rather later than has traditionally been supposed. The letter in which Frederick commended his legate to Parker is dated 12 February 1568, while the reply of the archbishop to the elector was written on 23 March.74 Tremellius must therefore have arrived in England at some point between these two dates. In addition, a letter written by Tremellius to Parker, sent from Frankfurt and dated 16 September of the same year, was sent once his visit had come to an end.75 In that letter, Tremellius remarks 71 Tremellius to Antoine Chevallier, 16 September 1570, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 2010: Fairhurst Papers, f.19. 72 See the introductory letter in Tremellius, GrammaticaChaldaeaetSyra Immanuelis Tremellii,theologiaedoctorisetprofessorisinscholaHeidelbergensi ([Geneva], 1569). 73 See for example Butters, Tremellius, pp.35–6; Becker, Tremellius, p.38; Hamilton, ‘Tremellius’, p.286. 74 Elector Frederick to Matthew Parker, 12 February 1568 and Matthew Parker to Elector Frederick, 23 March 1568, EpistolaeVirorumIllustrium, pp.9 and 11–14. 75 Tremellius to Archbishop Parker, 16 September 1568, Parker Correspondence, pp.332–3.

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

117

that he has learnt from letters of the Bishop of London that his earlier letters of gratitude for Parker’s hospitality had not been delivered, all of which implies that some time had passed since his departure from England. Taking into account this earlier exchange of letters, and allowing for brief delays, one might conservatively estimate that Tremellius had departed from England by the end of August 1568. These dates would also correspond with Tremellius’ own remarks, in the preface to his ChaldaeanGrammar, about his visit having lasted six months. Tremellius was there primarily in an official capacity, as envoy of the Elector Palatine. Frederick felt somewhat isolated as a Calvinist within Germany, and vulnerable to attack from the Catholics.76 In 1567, his son John Casimir had led an army into France, to provide assistance to the Huguenots, but this had only served to further alienate the Catholic powers of Europe. Early in the following year, the Elector therefore sent Tremellius to Elizabeth to request financial aid from England, and to propose a defensive league. We have two rather different perspectives on Tremellius’ activities at the English court. The first is provided by the ambassador to Philip II of Spain, Guzman de Silva. In his report, sent from London on 27 March 1568, de Silva wrote: A certain Emmanuel Tremelius has been here lately on behalf of the count Palatine. He is a heretic who was formerly in one of the universities here called Oxford, and in the pay of the Queen. He is the son of a Jew of Mantua. It is said he comes for the purpose of arranging a league with this Queen, and will go on to Scotland to discuss a similar matter with the Regent and his government, taking letters from the folks here.77

Clearly there are a number of basic errors about Tremellius here: he had taught at Cambridge, and he was originally from Ferrara rather than Mantua. But, as one would expect, his information relating to Tremellius’ activities in the present, rather than his earlier career, was rather more accurate. Presumably Philip II would have been very interested to learn of these antiCatholic manoeuvres, and Tremellius’ involvement in them. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that because of his role in these activities, Tremellius’ reputation was extended to Spain, one of the few countries of Western Europe which he would not actually visit. A complementary, but rather more detailed account of Tremellius’ activities is contained in a report written by William Cecil dispatched to Sir Henry Norris, the queen’s ambassador in France: Here hath been of good long time, one Emmanuel Tremelius who heretofore, in King Edward’s time, read the Hebrew Lecture in Cambridge, and hath now been 76 Susan Doran, England and Europe in the Sixteenth Century (Basingstoke and London, 1999), p.93. 77 Guzman de Silva to the King [Philip II], 27 March 1568, CSPSpanish, vol.2, pp.16–17.

118

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

sent hither by the Count Palatine the Elector, to inform the Queen’s Majesty of the proceedings of the said Elector, in sending his Son into France, without intention to offend the King and the Realm, or to assist the Prince of Conde in any thing, but onely in the defence of the common cause of Religion, who now upon the ending of these causes in France will depart hence, and truly, in my opinion, the said Elector hath shewed himself to be a Prince of great honor [sic] in this Action.78

Whether or not Tremellius did actually visit the Court of James VI in Scotland is not known. In England, Tremellius was politely received but at that stage Elizabeth was non-committal, preferring not to get dragged into the confessional divisions which marked Europe at this time, and which threatened to upset the precarious balance that she had achieved in England.79 In addition, while he was in England, Tremellius was able to catch up with his old friend, Matthew Parker, who had risen to the rank of archbishop since his last visit. Towards the end of 1568, Tremellius wrote to Parker to thank him for his hospitality.80 In the following year he would dedicate his ChaldaeanGrammar to the archbishop. In the course of the preface, he recollected, with considerable pleasure, the time that he was able to spend in the older man’s company. Presumably Parker would have been particularly honoured by this when he appreciated that the companion volume to this grammar was Tremellius’ edition of the New Testament, which was dedicated to Queen Elizabeth. Writings Tremellius’ time in Heidelberg was also the most fruitful in terms of the writings which have survived from his career. His editions of the New and Old Testaments, which will be considered in the next two chapters, were undoubtedly the most significant, but he was also responsible for several other works at this time. Not only will these give a clear indication of his productivity during these years, but they also provide a helpful insight into the sorts of activities in which he was involved, and contribute to our understanding of the context in which the works for which he is best remembered were produced. 78 Sir William Cecil to Sir Henry Norris, April 8 1568, Cabala, sive Scrinia Sacra. MysteriesofStateandGovernment:inLettersofIllustriousPersonsandGreatMinistersof State,AsWellForeignasDomestick,IntheReignsofKingHenryVIIIth,Q:Elizabeth,K: James,&K:Charles… (London, 1663), pp.146–7. 79 Her attitudes would change as early as 1569, after the rupture with Spain, and the latter part of her reign would see an increasing role in European political and military activities. It has sometimes been suggested that Elizabeth also offered Tremellius a professorship while he was in England, but that he declined. This is entirely plausible given that he had held such a post previously, and had since received strong recommendations from some of her most respected ministers, but no evidence seems to survive by which this might be confirmed. 80 Tremellius to Matthew Parker, 16 September 1568, ParkerCorrespondence, p.255.

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

119

Some of these works had their origins in an earlier part of his career. This was clearly the case with the first two works that Tremellius published in Heidelberg. The first of these was a commentary by Martin Bucer on the EpistletotheEphesians; the second consisted of a lengthy digression on the holy ministry, extracted from the first work, which Tremellius called the Little Golden Book of Martin Bucer.81 According to their prefaces, these works were completed concurrently: the first is dated in Heidelberg on 17 September 1562, while the second was completed the following day. Both works were published by Peter Perna in Basle in that year.82 In the course of the preface to the first of these works, Tremellius explained the circumstances of their posthumous construction. They were based primarily on the lectures which Bucer had delivered in Cambridge in 1550 and 1551; Tremellius had attended these when both men were Regius Professors at that university.83 However, Bucer had died during the course of his lectures, having only reached the fifth chapter of the book (there are six chapters in all). Rather than publish an incomplete work, Tremellius says that he decided to return to Bucer’s earlier work on Ephesians, written while he was still in his twenties, in order to produce a complete work. One might wonder why Tremellius chose to produce these works. But in the course of the prefaces to them, Tremellius puts much more emphasis on the problems facing the church at the time he published them. ‘For Satan, the author of every confusion … never raged more than today’, while ‘the malice of men grows stronger, so that scarcely no conflicts are more acrimonious than today, by which the Church is miserably lacerated’.84 It was also on these grounds that he had praised his dedicatees, the Earl of Bedford and Sir Nicholas Thockmorton. In this context, Tremellius evidently felt that Bucer was a man of rare piety and insight, as he had demonstrated time and again, both from the pulpit and in print. Moreover, he contends that all that Bucer wrote will be beneficial for those who read it. In part, it is possible to regard these works as a tribute to Bucer, who had been both his patron and friend. As we have considered in previous chapters, Bucer had done a lot for Tremellius at various stages in his career, and as the prefaces to these works indicate, the convert held the senior man in high regard, praising, for example, Bucer’s ‘extraordinary

81 Tremellius, Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D.P. ad Ephesios, eximij doctoris MartiniBuceri…Exorepraelegentiscollectae,&…editae (Basle, 1562) and Tremellius, LibellusvereaureusD.MartiniBuceridevietususacriministerii (Basle, 1562). 82 For extracts from the first of these two works translated into English, see D. F. Wright (Ed. and trans.), CommonPlacesofMartinBucer (Abingdon, 1972), pp.107–18 and 201–34. 83 See Chapter 4. 84 Tremellius, Libellus, pp.9–10.

120

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

virtues … intellectual talents, and indefatigable zeal’.85 Given their longstanding friendship, it is quite possible that Tremellius also conceived of these works as tributes to his former friend, and a way of demonstrating his gratitude for all that he had received from him. Yet a further factor slightly complicates this picture. It has sometimes been suggested that Tremellius rushed these works through the press in order to beat an alternative edition of them being prepared elsewhere. Whether this was actually the case is harder to establish: it was, after all, almost a decade since Tremellius had attended the lectures, which does not speak of a particularly tight schedule. On the other hand, its publication does seem to have met with criticism, largely from Conrad Hubert, Bucer’s amanuensis.86 This is all the more surprising when we recall that Tremellius and Hubert had been in regular contact through the 1550s. In those letters there is no evidence of any ill-feeling between the two. It is certainly possible that they fell out over this issue, but it is difficult to explain Tremellius’ actions in this case: these works were unlikely to bring him much money, and he did not need them to win him a new job. Equally, it would be odd were he to risk losing a close friend by an action which seems at least in part to have been intended as a tribute to another mutual friend. The following year, Tremellius published a commentary on the Book of Hosea, which contains an examination and evaluation of older and newer versions of the text.87 This work was published in Geneva by Nicolaus Barbirius and Thomas Courteau, and dedicated to his new employer, the Elector Frederick. This then brought it to the attention of Calvin, who wrote to Tremellius about the work in 1562. Having thanked him for his works based on Bucer’s lectures, he then moves on to discuss the new project: Recently, when the senate sought, as is the custom, to investigate whether your commentaries on Hosea should be permitted to be published, knowledge of this was conveyed to me. And I think it is absurd as if to make a judgement about a doubtful matter. For if it is done in relation to your knowledge, who would assume the part of censor? For the sincerity of your faith has been proved to us, and there is need for an inquisition … And I hope that you will apply yourself to explaining the other Prophets. In the meantime you have made a good start by beginning with Hosea.88

It does rather seem from this that Calvin has not actually read the work himself, but his praise for Tremellius is once again effusive, and further testimony of his high respect for him, his faith and his learning.

85 86 87 88

Tremellius, Praelectiones, p.9. Wright, CommonPlacesofMartinBucer, p.107. Tremellius, InHoseamprophetaminterpretatioetenarratio ([Geneva], 1563). John Calvin to Tremellius, 27 October 1562, CO 3870.

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

121

In 1567, Tremellius also produced a translation into Latin of Jonathan ben Uzziel’s paraphrases of the Prophets written in Chaldaean.89 Very little is known of Jonathan, who is supposed to have lived from the first century bc to the first century ad, although it is said that his translation met with considerable criticism.90 Tremellius justifies his translation of this work on the grounds that the more versions one has of the biblical texts, the better understanding one will have as a result, through a comparative study. Because of his own proficiency in Chaldaean, Tremellius has been able to make available to a Latin-reading audience this previously undervalued version. This situation seems very similar to the one surrounding his version of the New Testament translated from Syriac, where again he was providing a different, and hopefully complementary, version of something which was already in existence. This work, perhaps above all, highlights his interest in some of the rather more esoteric areas of Christian-Hebraica. Finally, in 1569, Tremellius published his Chaldaean and Syriac Grammar. It is hardly surprising that he should produce a grammatical work. As we have already noted, in the period before 1500 knowledge of Hebrew was restricted to a very small number of people, and most of those had received personal instruction either from Jews or from Jewish converts to Christianity. But as Hebrew rose in profile in the early sixteenth century, numerous leading Christian Hebraists, including Conrad Pellican (1503), Johann Reuchlin (1506), Sebastian Münster (1520), Wolfgang Capito (1525) and Sancte Pagnini (1526), produced textbooks and grammars to facilitate the rather more widespread study of the language.91 One might have expected Tremellius to produce a Hebrew grammar of his own, even given the fact that numerous such works were now in circulation: it would have been a way for him to further establish his credentials as a Hebraist; as a Jewish convert it would have been straightforward to establish a claim that his work was more authentic than many of those previously published; and as a professor of Hebrew, responsible for teaching many generations of students during the course of his life, he had a ready-made market. However, his decision not to produce such a work must also have taken into account the fact that, in 1561,

89 Immanuel Tremellius, IonathaneFiliiUzielis,Antiquissimi&summaeapudHebraeos authoritatis Chaldaea paraphrasis in duodecim minores Prophetas, per Immanuelem Tremelium[sic],TheologiaeDoctorem&Professoremlatinereddita (Heidelberg, 1567). 90 See the article on Jonathan ben Uzziel in EncyclopediaJudaica, ed. Cecil Roth (16 vols, Jerusalem, 1971–72), vol.14. 91 D. R. Jones, ‘Appendix 1: Aids to the Study of the Bible: a selective historical account of the major grammars, lexicons, concordances, dictionaries and encyclopaedias, and atlases’ in S. L. Greenslade (Ed.), TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBible,vol.III: TheWestfromthe ReformationtothePresentDay (Cambridge, 1963), pp.520–30.

122

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

his son-in-law, Antoine Chevallier, had published a Hebrew grammar.92 Indeed, Tremellius had contributed a prefatory letter, written in Hebrew, to that work. This proved to be a very popular and successful volume, going through at least six further editions before the end of the century. Especially given his praise for Chevallier’s work, it is possible that Tremellius felt there was little to be gained by producing another Hebrew grammar himself. Instead, his decision to produce a grammatical work was provoked by a rather more specific set of circumstances. In the second half of the 1560s, Tremellius had been working on a Latin edition of the New Testament made from Syriac; it was published in 1569.93 As this language was far from familiar to people in Europe, even the majority of Hebraists, it was logical that Tremellius should preserve his knowledge by publishing a Chaldaean and Syriac grammar.94 The work was published both in conjunction with his edition of the New Testament made from Syriac, and on its own. Clearly Tremellius’ intention with the former was that the reader of his New Testament should be able to use the grammar better to understand his translation. But it was also intended to facilitate the learning of the language in its own right. As he argued, a knowledge of Syriac would help students and scholars to understand biblical passages as much from the Old Testament as from the New. For, having contended that God, Moses and the Prophets all spoke Hebrew, he argues that Chaldaean and Syriac, which were derived from that language, would have been ‘neither profane nor foreign to them’. He continues: ‘For they are not ignorant that Daniel and Esra were written in Chaldaean … And nor is it greatly disputed that Christ and the Apostles spoke with the Jews in the Syriac idiom.’95 Johannes Widmanstetter, who had been principally responsible for the publication of the first edition of the Syriac New Testament, also authored a Syriac grammar, the Syriacae Linguae … Prima Elementa. Whereas that earlier work had merely served as an introduction to reading Syriac, Tremellius’ work was altogether more substantial.96 Following the pattern that had been used by the great Hebrew grammarians, Tremellius sought to describe the whole of the language, setting out in a series of tables the various parts of each form of his model words. Significant changes over time are also highlighted: the volume works as a historical grammar.

92 Antoine Chevallier, RudimentaHebraicaeLinguae.Accuratemethodo&brevitate conscripta. Eorundem Rudimentorum Praxis, quae vivae vocis loco esse possit … De Hebraica Syntaxi canones generales … Praefixa est epistola Hebraea doctissimi viri Ioan. ImmanuelisTremellii,quaoperistotiusutilitascopiosedemonstratur (Geneva, 1561). 93 See Chapter 7. 94 Immanuel Tremellius, GrammaticaChaldaeaetSyra. 95 Ibid., preface p.4. 96 The following discussion draws on Wilkinson, OriginsofSyriacStudies, pp.200–201.

PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT HEIDELBERG

123

And there are many references to passages from the Targums and to the Syriac New Testament when these exemplify particular linguistic features. Conclusion The time that Tremellius spent in Heidelberg clearly marked the culmination of his career. He played a prominent role in the largest faculty at what was arguably the most important educational institution in the Reformed world in the second half of the sixteenth century. As we have seen in the course of this chapter, he enjoyed a wide range of responsibilities, serving the Elector as a professor, dean, rector and ambassador. Tremellius did much also to contribute to the process by which the university grew in terms of academic prowess. Both in the classroom, and in his writings, he played a fundamental role in developing Heidelberg’s position as a centre for Hebraic and Oriental studies. The foundations which he helped to establish would provide an excellent setting for the developments which would take place towards the end of the sixteenth century, and into the seventeenth. In all of this he was helping to consolidate the reputation of the University of Heidelberg, and also of himself. However, it was in the production of his editions of the New and Old Testaments that he truly established his credentials as a biblical scholar of the first order, and sealed his importance to the Calvinist faith. It is to these works that we shall turn our attention over the next two chapters.

CHAPTER SEVEN

The NovumTestamentum The time that Tremellius spent in Heidelberg also saw the publication of his two most important works, his Latin editions of the New and Old Testaments. Both were works of great skill and erudition, but arguably what is more significant is that they were also remarkably successful and influential texts. As such they consequently form the most significant component of his published output, and his most lasting contribution to the early modern period. It is the aim of the following two chapters to subject these works to more detailed analysis. In particular, it is my intention to offer a characterisation of each of these volumes, based primarily on the annotations with which Tremellius supplemented each; in this way I hope to identify what he sought to achieve in the composition of these works, and thereby to come to a fuller understanding of both him, and his contribution to the scholarship of the time. Before we look at these texts in greater detail, it is worth reflecting on why Tremellius should only be publishing them at this stage in his career. After all, his New Testament was first published in 1569, when he was almost 60, while the final volume of his Old Testament appeared a decade later, in the year before his death. Presumably, therefore, they were not intended to enhance his career prospects. However, there are several other possible explanations. Some of the impetus may well have come from the Elector Frederick, who would have seen the production of such works as a means to enhance the reputation of his university as a centre of scholarship; whether or not that was the case, he would die shortly before Tremellius completed the latter work. But some other potential reasons relate more closely to Tremellius. He may, for instance, have imagined that such works would ensure that his reputation lasted beyond his death. Equally, he may have hoped, rather more altruistically, that these works would allow him to continue to aid others’ understanding of the Scriptures, even when he was no longer a physical presence in the classroom. Whatever the case, it is evident that we should consider these two works both the culmination of a career dedicated to the study of the Bible, and a fitting legacy. Yet while his edition of the Old Testament quite clearly corresponds with his activities throughout his career, his involvement in the production of an edition of the New Testament is rather more surprising, and requires further explanation. After all, while he had spent much of his life teaching Hebrew and the Old Testament, he would not generally have worked with the New Testament, at least in a professional capacity. Until this time,

126

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

New Testament scholars in the Christian West worked exclusively with Greek texts. However, while Tremellius was in Heidelberg, various circumstances fell into place which made it possible for him to approach this work from a perspective better suited to his linguistic expertise. Tremellius’ New Testament edition has tended to be overshadowed by his Old Testament, and its importance to the world of early modern biblical scholarship is rarely acknowledged.1 However, to appreciate fully his contribution to the field of sixteenth-century biblical studies, and indeed to come to a proper evaluation of what he brought to the Reformed faith, this work also deserves our attention. The Syriac New Testament From the earliest days of Christianity, Greek texts underpinned New Testament scholarship in Western Europe. Of central importance here was the translation made by St Jerome in the fourth century. During the Middle Ages, very few scholars possessed the requisite linguistic skills to deal with the Scriptures in the original languages, but Jerome’s New Testament, which had been made from Greek texts and which received the official sanction of the Christian church, helped to mediate that tradition to Christian theologians between the eighth and the fourteenth centuries.2 However, beginning in the fifteenth century, humanist scholars started to subject his translation to scrutiny.3 Lorenzo Valla, in particular, returned to the original Greek texts in order to highlight many of the limitations of the Vulgate. His Adnotations remained unpublished on his death in 1465, but when Desiderius Erasmus encountered a copy of this manuscript in a monastic library near Brussels, he arranged to have it published in Paris in 1505.4 In 1516, he then also published the first new and complete translation of the New Testament. This was soon followed, in 1522, by the fifth volume, containing the New Testament, of the Complutensian Polyglot, a collaborative project based around the Spanish University of Alcalá de Henares. 1 A noteable exception to this is Robert J. Wilkinson, TheOriginsofSyriacStudiesin theSixteenthCentury (unpublished PhD thesis, University of the West of England, 2003). 2 Beryl Smalley, ‘The Bible in the Middle Ages’ in D. E. Nineham (Ed.), TheChurch’s UseoftheBible,PastandPresent (London, 1963), pp.57–71. 3 Alastair Hamilton, ‘Humanists and the Bible’ in Jill Kraye (Ed.), The Cambridge CompaniontoRenaissanceHumanism (Cambridge, 1996), pp.100–17. Basil Hall, ‘Biblical Scholarship: Editions and Commentaries’ in S. L. Greenslade (Ed.), TheCambridgeHistory oftheBible,vol.III:TheWestfromtheReformationtothePresentDay (Cambridge, 1963), pp.38–93, especially p.76 ff. 4 Jerry Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance (Princeton, NJ and London, 1983). Bentley, ‘Biblical Philology and Christian Humanism: Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus as Scholars of the Gospels’, SCJ 8 (1977), pp.9–28.

THE NOVUMTESTAMENTUM

127

The advent of the Reformation gave a further impetus to these developments.5 Motivated by a desire to return the church to its original form, and having identified the Bible as the sole religious authority, the Protestant reformers sought to ensure that their understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures was as accurate as possible.6 This enterprise could never be entirely successful if the translation that they used was known to be flawed. For this reason, Protestant scholars attached great value to producing accurate translations of the Bible. Importantly, while the provision of vernacular translations was a central feature of biblical scholarship in the Reformation era, we should not assume that efforts to produce better Latin translations simply ceased.7 Theodore Beza, for instance, produced a translation of the New Testament from Greek into Latin only four years before the appearance of Tremellius’ edition. New Testament biblical scholarship continued to focus on Greek texts throughout the sixteenth century. However, in the second half of that century circumstances arose which opened up the possibility of approaching that text from a new perspective: this was the appearance of versions of the New Testament in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic similar to, but distinct from, ancient Hebrew.8 It has now been established beyond question that the early Syriac versions of the Bible were in fact derived from Greek texts. In the early modern period, however, there was not quite the same level of certainty on this issue. Some at least believed that Matthew and Hebrews had been written in Syriac, and even that God himself had spoken that language.9 Arguably more important, in the confessionally charged circumstances of the sixteenth century, it was believed by some that the Syriac version of the New Testament was older than the Greek texts to which Jerome had had access.10 At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church had reaffirmed

5 Guy Bedouelle and Bernard Roussel (Eds), BibledeTouslesTemps,vol.5,LesTemps desRéformesetlaBible (Paris, 1989). David C. Steinmetz (Ed.), TheBibleintheSixteenth Century (Durham and London, 1990). Jaroslav Pelikan, TheReformationoftheBible.The BibleoftheReformation (New Haven, CT and London, 1996). 6 Roland H. Bainton, ‘The Bible in the Reformation’ in S. L. Greenslade, The CambridgeHistoryoftheBible,vol.III, pp.1–37. 7 John M. Lenhart, ‘Protestant Latin Bibles of the Reformation from 1520–1570. A Bibliographical Account’, pp.416–32. See also the various contributions to ‘Continental Versions to c.1600’ and S. L. Greenslade ‘English Versions of the Bible, 1525–1611’, both in S. L. Greenslade (Ed.), TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBible,vol.III, pp.94–140 and 141–75 respectively. 8 Anon., ‘The Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament’, Church Quarterly Review 26 (1888), pp.257–94. 9 Hall, ‘Biblical Scholarship’, p.73. This was a claim which Tremellius would repeat in his preface. 10 Alastair Hamilton, ‘Humanists and the Bible’, p.108.

128

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

their loyalty to the Vulgate.11 However, the Protestant attitude towards the text was rather more ambivalent. They were undoubtedly aware of its deficiencies, as their readiness to offer new translations indicates. Nonetheless, they were reluctant to be too aggressive in their condemnation of it. This was apparent for instance in the preface to Theodore Beza’s translation of the New Testament in which he felt obliged to follow Erasmus and Lefèvre in questioning Jerome’s authorship of the Vulgate in order to justify his composition of an alternative. Even so, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, despite its patristic origins, the Vulgate was coming to be increasingly regarded as more of a Catholic text. Tremellius must have been aware of this situation, but his preface remains a model of scholarly diplomacy.12 Rather than using it as an opportunity to make a claim for the superiority of the Syriac tradition over the Greek texts used by Jerome, he justifies his translation more on the grounds of its value as a comparative text. The elegance of his Syriac text and the absence of certain canonical works from the Syriac Peschitta are both indications of the text’s early production, he argues, while the differences between the Greek and the Syriac traditions seem no greater than those between different Greek texts. Indeed, he imagines that other Syriac texts might be even more similar.13 Though Tremellius did not make the claim explicitly himself, his contemporaries would have appreciated that if a case were to be mounted against the Vulgate, the fact that Tremellius’ New Testament was based on sources which were older than those used by Jerome provided a convincing foundation. As we will see, it is quite likely that shifting attitudes on this issue had a decisive impact on the subsequent publishing history of this work. Yet while the potential value of the Syriac, both scholarly and confessional, was appreciated, there were very significant practical problems in making appropriate use of it. We have previously considered the practical difficulties associated with the growth in Hebrew studies during this period; these were magnified considerably for Syriac. While Hebrew continued to be spoken by the Jewish populations of Europe, it is possible that no one in Europe could speak or read Syriac at the start of the sixteenth century. Rather, it was restricted to certain areas of the Middle East. However, at the start of the sixteenth century, events arose which prompted its study in Europe.14 At the invitation of Pope Leo X, Simeon, the 41st Maronite Patriarch, sent a delegation to the Fifth Lateran 11 Louis B. Pascoe, ‘The Council of Trent and Bible Study: Humanism and Scripture’, CHR 52 (1966), pp.18–38. 12 Tremellius, TestamentumNovum.EstauteminterpretatiosyriacanoviTestamenti, HebraeisTypisDescripta.Plerisqueetiamlocisemendata.EademLatinoSermoneReddita (Geneva, 1569), preface, p.4. 13 Tremellius, TestamentumNovum, preface, p.4v. 14 On these events, see Wilkinson, OriginsofSyriacStudies, pp.15–31.

THE NOVUMTESTAMENTUM

129

Council (1513–15): both parties hoped that it might be possible to resolve the differences between the Western and Eastern halves of Christendom. When one of the members of this delegation sought permission to celebrate Mass according to the Syriac ritual, Teseo Ambrogio, a Lateran priest, was instructed to learn Syriac, in order to ensure its orthodoxy. Teseo was thus the first Christian to learn Syriac in the early modern period. In due course, he would compose a number of works on the subject, and seems to have had a noticeable influence on several of the leading scholars associated with the study of the language later in the century, most notably Johann Albrecht Widmanstetter, who oversaw the production of the first edition of the Syriac New Testament to be printed in Europe. The Sources for Tremellius’ New Testament Fortunately, in the preface to his New Testament, Tremellius makes it quite clear what were his main sources in the composition of this work. The first of these was the so-called editioprinceps of 1555.15 The original initiative for this enterprise lay with Ignatius III, the Patriarch of Antioch. Faced with the absence of presses in the East, but desiring to have the Syriac New Testament produced in greater quantities, he sent a scribe, Moses of Mardin, to Rome with a manuscript of the New Testament in Syriac.16 In the early 1550s, the atmosphere in Rome sudddenly became substantially more hostile towards Jews and Jewish scholarship, through the influence of Pope Paul IV.17 Instead, this project was brought to fruition in Vienna under the patronage of the King of Austria and future Emperor, Ferdinand I, who evidently hoped thereby to enhance the reputation of his recently reformed university.18 Moses was assisted by Guillaume Postel, the distinguished French Hebraist, and above all by Johann Widmanstetter, the Chancellor of Lower Switzerland, and the scholar in whom Ferdinand had entrusted control over this project.19 One thousand copies of the work were produced, but it was only intended that half of them should be sold in Europe; of the remainder, Moses had instructions to pass on 300 copies to the Patriarch, while he was at liberty to dispose of the other 200 as he saw fit. This had significant implications for the shape that the printed volumes took: they retained many of the features associated with traditional Syriac volumes.20 15 16 17

Wilkinson, OriginsofSyriacStudies, passim but especially pp.166–85. Wilkinson, OriginsofSyriacStudies, p.65 ff. Kenneth R. Stow, CatholicThoughtandPapalJewryPolicy,1555–1593 (New York,

1977). 18 19 20

Wilkinson, OriginsofSyriacStudies, p.166. On these scholars, see Wilkinson, OriginsofSyriacStudies, pp. 64–166. This description draws on Wilkinson, OriginsofSyriacStudies, pp.166–83.

130

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

The canon and order of books follow Syriac usage, the textual divisions reflect those used in the Syriac church and all the titles and subheadings are in Syriac. Perhaps most obviously of all, the text runs from right to left, while the volume itself, from a Western perspective, begins at the back. Unlike Syriac manuscripts produced at the time, there were virtually no signposts for inexperienced Christian readers, while the Latin prefatory material could easily be removed from those copies intended for the Eastern market. Although this was the first such text to be printed, it reflected exceptionally high standards of scholarship. Evidently Tremellius had access in Heidelberg to one of the 500 copies of the editioprinceps which remained in Europe for the production of his own volume. With it Tremellius collated a Syriac manuscript, which he found in the Elector Palatine’s library. In the preface, Tremellius simply refers to ‘a very ancient and excellent manuscript codex, which was to hand in the library of my most generous lord, the most illustrious and pious prince, Frederick III, the Elector Palatine’.21 However, it is possible to identify exactly which manuscript this was; interestingly, just as the editioprinceps had not long been published when Tremellius came to produce this edition, this manuscript had only recently entered the Elector’s possession. In fact, this manuscript came from Guillaume Postel, who, as we have just seen, had also contributed to Widmanstetter’s edition. Postel had first travelled to the East in 1536, and he returned there in around 1549–51, picking up a range of Oriental manuscripts on this visit. However, following his return from the East, and his involvement in the editioprinceps, Postel, short of money and imprisoned by Pope Paul IV in Rome on the grounds of heresy, was forced into selling 15 of these manuscripts in 1554 to the Elector Ottoheinrich, for 200 gulden.22 Among these was an edition of the Syriac New Testament; it was this manuscript which Tremellius employed in the composition of his own work.23 In the preface to the work, Tremellius gives a clear indication of the relationship between these two sources. He evidently believed that the manuscript which he found in Heidelberg was older than the one which had been used in the production of Widmanstetter’s editio princeps, and consequently, in keeping with the principles of the period, assumed that it was the better text.24 Thus, when he came to compose his own version of the Tremellius, NovumTestamentum, Preface, p.4v. These manuscripts are described in Giorgio Levi della Vida, RicerchesullaFormazione del Più Antico Fondo dei Manoscritti Orientali della Bibliotheca Vaticana (Vatican City, 1939), p.293 ff. 23 This manuscript is now held in the Vatican, and has the reference Vat sir 16. Following the Battle of White Mountain and the conquest of Heidelberg during the Thirty Years War, the Bibliotheca Palatina was moved to Rome in August 1623. See Levi della Vida, Ricerche sullaFormazione, pp.303–6. 24 Tremellius, NovumTestamentum, p.5v. 21 22

THE NOVUMTESTAMENTUM

131

Syriac text, it was the Heidelberg manuscript which was the more influential: he used it to correct Widmanstetter’s edition. As we will see shortly, this relationship is reflected in many of the annotations with which Tremellius supplemented his edition of the New Testament. It is significant, though, that the Heidelberg manuscript is only called upon to defend corrections: at no point does Tremellius offer alternative readings from it, without valuing one over the other (a procedure he does use in other instances, as we will see below); nor does he record any instance where he prefers the more modern edition of the Syriac New Testament over his manuscript. The production of Tremellius’ New Testament edition was thus the result of some fortunate timing. The recent publication of Widmanstetter’s editioprinceps had provided the necessary foundation to allow this work even to be contemplated, but it also required the acquisition of the Postel manuscript in 1554, and ultimately for Tremellius himself to move to Heidelberg, for all the necessary pieces to be aligned. More than this, though, it also required Tremellius’ considerable labour and expertise. His achievement ought not to be underestimated. As we will consider in more detail in the next section, Tremellius’ New Testament involved composing a new Syriac text, translating it, vocalising it (that is, putting vowel markings in for those less comfortable working with Hebrew script), setting it alongside other versions of the New Testament and supplementing each version with a substantial quantity of explanatory material. This is all the more impressive when one considers that Tremellius appears to have had no contact with teachers of Arabic and Syriac from the Eastern churches, or with any other scholars of these texts elsewhere in Europe; indeed, he cannot even have heard Syriac spoken.25 Instead, he drew on his extensive knowledge of Jewish Aramaic, and in addition he evidently drew on certain works of reference, including Syriac dictionaries;26 the limitations of such resources are indicated by the very fact that he felt obliged to compose his own Syriac grammar. Ultimately, Tremellius’ NovumTestamentum was of course a Protestant work. This was perhaps most obvious in its dedication to Queen Elizabeth I of England. It seems that it was these confessional issues which lay behind allegations of plagiarism which were subsequently levelled against Tremellius’ edition. In the year of Tremellius’ death, 1580, Gilbert Génébrard, a distinguished Professor of Hebrew at the Sorbonne in Paris, accused Tremellius of plagiarising the edition of the Syriac New Testament which had been composed by Guy Lefèvre de la Boderie; this was part of the Royal Polyglot of Antwerp, a large multivolumed work edited by Christophe Pantin which appeared in 1569–72.27 25 26 27

Wilkinson, OriginsofSyriacStudies, p.190. Cf. his annotation on Ephesians 5.14. Gilbert Génébrard, Chronographiaelibriquatuor… (Paris, 1580), pp.732–3.

132

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

In the year after Génébrard’s allegation, a work entitled Specularius, DialogusPernecessarius appeared which sought to set the record straight.28 Though published anonymously, it has generally been assumed that it was written by Franciscus Junius, with whom Tremellius had collaborated on his edition of the Old Testament. Most of this work, which takes the form of an imagined discussion between Tremellius and Génébrard, is spent exchanging insults between the two protagonists, but its ultimate, and convincing response to the original charge is that Tremellius’ edition appeared in 1569, while that of de la Boderie appeared in 1572, making plagiarism impossible. Ironically, moreover, it would seem that Tremellius had in fact offered his services to Plantin, as had some other Protestant scholars and princes, but that Plantin had felt unable to accept any of this because of his oath of fidelity to his patron, Philip II.29 Publishing History and Appearance The first edition of Tremellius’ New Testament was entitled ΄Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. Testamentum Novum. ‫דיתיקא חדתא‬, and published by Henri Estienne in Geneva in 1569. It was printed in conjunction with Tremellius’ Chaldaean and Syriac grammar; these were then bound together in two folio volumes. As we have already indicated, and its title makes clear, this publication was a polyglot edition. It contained four editions of the New Testament, arranged in columns across two pages. From left to right, these are: the Greek text, Beza’s translation of that text into Latin, Tremellius’ Syriac text and finally Tremellius’ translation of the Syriac text into Latin. As the Syriac Peschitta does not include 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation or the Pericope on the adultress of John 8, Tremellius simply provided the Greek text for these passages, and translated them into Latin. It is also worth making a further point about the Syriac text which Tremellius composed. Because he did not have a Syriac typeface, he produced the text using Hebrew characters. Rather than admit this as a failing, however, he argued that this might enable the text to bring about the conversion of Jews.30 He also pointed out in his introduction that Widmanstetter had himself intended to produce a version of his New Testament in Hebrew characters for that very same purpose, but had been unable to fulfil that aim by the time of his death. In addition, while Widmanstetter’s text was only partially vocalised, and the manuscript 28 [Junius?], Specularius,DialogusPernecessarius,quoseImmanuelTremelliuspurgat ab illis criminationibus, quas Gilbertus Genebrardus Theologus Parisiensis divinarum & Hebraicarum literarum Professor Regius, ipsi in Chronographia, seu universae historiae speculointulerat (Neustadt, 1581). 29 Hall, ‘Biblical Scholarship’, p.55. 30 Tremellius, TestamentumNovum, preface, p.6.

THE NOVUMTESTAMENTUM

133

which had come from Postel not vocalised at all, the text which Tremellius produced was fully vocalised.31 Each of the four versions of the New Testament in Tremellius’ polyglot is then accompanied by a set of marginal notes. Alongside the Greek text, he includes references to other biblical passages, drawn from both the Old and the New Testaments; Beza’s translation of the Greek text has annotations that summarise the content of the text. Next to his Syriac version of the text, and to aid those of his readers who knew Hebrew, Tremellius provided Hebrew roots of some of the words that appeared, and explained certain idioms. Evidently these were intended for those still learning the language. Indeed, it was for this reason that Tremellius had determined to publish this text in conjunction with his Syriac grammar, and in the preface, he explicitly recommended its use.32 Finally, on his translation of the Syriac text, he offers the most extensive set of annotations. These will be discussed below. Almost immediately after its first appearance in 1569, Tremellius’ New Testament was reprinted in Lyon in 1571. Tremellius’ Syriac text and its Latin translation were then published in Cothen in Germany in 1621, and again in 1622. In addition to these free-standing editions of Tremellius’ New Testament, it was also regularly appended to the translation of the Old Testament which Tremellius and Junius would produce, so as to form a complete Bible. In the second edition of the Old Testament to be published, in 1579–80 in London, Tremellius’ New Testament constituted the final part. Much more common, however, was that Tremellius’ New Testament, made from the Syriac, should be published alongside Beza’s translation from the Greek: this was the case for 12 out of the 17 editions which were published between 1581 and 1630. Interestingly, while 15 further editions of the Tremellius-Junius Old Testament were published after 1630, only Beza’s translation of the Greek was included to represent the New Testament. In large measure these dates in fact confirm a more general picture about the appeal of the Syriac tradition.33 The initial appearance of the Syriac New Testament was met with great enthusiasm by scholars on both sides of the confessional divide. Whether as an alternative to the Vulgate, or simply as a text which complemented effectively the Greek tradition, it enjoyed a vogue which extended perhaps for nearly three-quarters of a century. But it would seem that even by the end of the first third of the seventeenth century, its value on either of these grounds was waning. In some ways, then, Tremellius’ New Testament constituted a cul de sac in the history of biblical scholarship. However, it is only with the benefit of 31 32 33

Wilkinson, OriginsofSyriacStudies, p.198. Tremellius, TestamentumNovum, preface, p.6. Anon., ‘Printed Editions’, especially p.257.

134

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

hindsight that we are able to appreciate this; at the time, its value was thought to be significantly higher. And in any case, as I have already argued, this does not undermine in the slightest its value simply as a work of scholarship. The Annotations In the preface to his work, Tremellius explained that his intention here was to provide a literal translation of his source text. As we will see in the next chapter, historians and biblical scholars have regularly drawn attention to this character of his scholarship, particularly in relation to the Old Testament.34 While there is clearly value in a comparative study of the Syriac New Testament and Tremellius’ Latin translation, this is something best tackled by linguists. In fact, from a historical perspective, the materials with which Tremellius supplemented his translation have at least as much to offer in terms of revealing the nature and purpose of that work. For this reason it is my intention to analyse the annotations, and particularly those on the Syriac text, in order to come to a fuller understanding of this work as a whole. In particular, by identifying those features of the text which Tremellius felt worthy of comment, we will be able to ascertain his attitudes towards the text in the first place, and to gain an insight into what he hoped to achieve by producing this volume. The analysis that follows is based primarily on the annotations with which Tremellius supplements his translations of the Gospel of John, and the Epistles to the Romans, the Ephesians and the Hebrews. Not only do these works give a fair representation of the books in the New Testament, but these books were among the most likely to witness expositions on certain key themes. For instance, exegetes have often found in the Gospel of John grounds for attacking the Jews, while Paul’s Epistle to the Romans was one of the most popular books among the Protestant reformers, and was often used as a text upon which they might mount theological attacks upon the Catholic Church. One would expect that if Tremellius were going to use his biblical commentaries to express his views on either of these issues, he would do so in relation to these books. Beyond this, the 600 or so annotations with which he supplements those books represent a substantial figure upon which to base an assessment.35

34 For example Basil Hall, ‘Biblical Scholarship: Editions and Commentaries’ in S. L. Greenslade (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. III, p.73; and most recently, Wilkinson, OriginsofSyriacStudies. 35 There are 128 annotations on the Gospel of John, 285 on the Epistle to the Romans, 32 on the Epistle to the Ephesians and 168 on the Epistle to the Hebrews. This gives a total of 613 annotations on these four books.

THE NOVUMTESTAMENTUM

135

TheSyriacText In one group of annotations, Tremellius offers comments on the Syriac text from which he has made his translation, and in particular seeks to correct errors in Widmanstetter’s printed version. Sometimes, he emends the text without justifying his change. For instance, on Romans 3.7 he simply points out that one word has been written wrongly, as beginning with a letter He, instead of a letter Mem.36 Similarly, on Romans 15.20 he remarks that ‘In the text it was written wrongly as ‫ כד‬rather than ‫כר‬, since there is only a small difference by which a Dalet may be distinguished from a Resh in Syriac.’37 More commonly, however, he does seek to explain the emendations he has made. For example, on Hebrews 3.8, in an instance where he claims that a Mem has been mistakenly used in the place of Caph, he goes on to suggest that the wrong letter was ‘put there in error by one of the copyists’.38 Similar is his treatment of an expression used later in the Epistle.39 In his note, Tremellius remarks that in the Syriac text he finds another word, whose etymology he can trace, but whose use he does not understand. He offers two possible explanations: ‘I think that either this is an error made by a copyist, or else a Mem has been put in the place of a Beth, because of a particular quirk of the language, since both letters are labials.’ In these various annotations, Tremellius demonstrates a clear confidence in his own skills as a scholar. This is all the more remarkable given that, as I have said, he was working here with a text in Syriac, rather than one in the Hebrew that was more familiar to him. In addition, he also reveals the sensitivity of a seasoned philologist who was fully aware of the various difficulties inherent in working with texts which had been transmitted through copying by scribes. Paradoxically, he also reveals his credentials as a scholar by having the confidence to admit his uncertainty. In these examples, Tremellius seems essentially to have worked on the basis of intuition, and his general familiarity with the text of the Syriac New Testament, but it is evident from other cases that he seeks to support his revisions by other means whenever he can. A good example of this is provided in relation to Ephesians 4.24. In his annotation, Tremellius begins by noting that in Widmanstetter’s text, he encountered a particular word which he has not found anywhere else.40 Instead, he suggests that the word should be emended to the abstract noun for holiness or sanctity. 36 Romans 3.7 (Ch.3, n.6). Because Tremellius numbers his notes consecutively, for the purpose of identification these references will first give the biblical verse, and then indicate the particular note on the given chapter. 37 Romans 15.20 (Ch.15, n.8). 38 Hebrews 3.8 (Ch.3, n.8). 39 Hebrews 12.2 (Ch.12, n.3). 40 Ephesians 4.24 (Ch.4, n.4).

136

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

He notes in passing that ‘it was easy for the typographer to commit this error, given how similar the two words sound’. Perhaps more importantly, however, he remarks that he has looked at the Heidelberg manuscript, in order to confirm that he is not mistaken in making this change. Similarly in an annotation on Hebrews 2.14, he notes that the Syriac text has a word in the plural form.41 However, he is absolutely certain that this is an error of the writer, who ought to have used the singular form. He then goes on to note that consultation of the Heidelberg manuscript has allayed any fears he had about making this alteration. But just as he could use the Heidelberg manuscript to justify the corrections that he made to his text, he could also use it to support the retention of a reading which seemed initially suspect. This is shown, for example, in an annotation on Ephesians 5.15.42 Here he again begins by noting that the Syriac word he has found in his text is not written anywhere else, but that it is very similar to another word which he does recognise: indeed the only difference is a missing Dalet. Even so, Tremellius writes that he ‘would not dare to say that it is an error’, because it appears this way not only in his Syriac text, but also in the Heidelberg manuscript. Instead, he concludes that this must be intentional, and an example of syncope, that is the intentional omission of a letter or set of letters in the middle of a word, something, he adds, which is a common feature of texts written in Syriac. The Heidelberg manuscript was the text by reference to which Tremellius was most ready to justify the corrections he made to his text, but it was not his only source. In the note just mentioned, for instance, he also makes reference to Syriac dictionaries (although unfortunately he provides no further information about these) to defend his assertion that syncope is a common feature of the language. More common was that he should refer to the Greek version of the text. For instance, in an annotation on Hebrews 4.1, he defends his correction of a Resh to a Nun on two grounds.43 First, he points out that ‘No one can be in any doubt that this passage has been corrupted, since it is not possible to make any sense of it.’ As we have already seen, this was the usual starting point for a textual emendation. But here he supports his correction by checking it against the Greek text. The frequency with which Tremellius refers both to the Greek version of the text, and to more general practices of the Greek language, makes it quite clear that even if he were principally a Hebraist, he was also perfectly capable of operating in Greek at quite an advanced level. The types of annotations considered so far all have in common the fact that they relate to the way in which Tremellius worked from his various sources to produce the Syriac text that he did. They serve a number of 41 42 43

Hebrews 2.14 (Ch.2, n.8). Ephesians 5.15 (Ch.5, n.4). Hebrews 4.1 (Ch.4, n.1).

THE NOVUMTESTAMENTUM

137

purposes simultaneously. First, they help to make more explicit the relationship between Tremellius’ principal sources. In so doing, they further allow Tremellius to show how he has moved beyond what was contained in Widmanstetter’s edition. Second they help to establish the scholarly credentials of his work: while he could simply have presented the version of the Syriac text which he felt was most accurate, and then translated that, he evidently felt there was something to be gained by leading his readers through the various stages of the process. But most importantly, they reveal the high priority which Tremellius attached to the reconstruction of as accurate a Syriac text as possible; this was a crucial foundation from which translations, including his own Latin translation, could be made. Exegesis The vast majority of the other notes with which Tremellius accompanied his translation were aimed more at elucidating the text. Again various types of annotation can be identified within this broader category. Undoubtedly the most common type of annotations are those that begin with phrases like ‘id est’ (‘that is’), ‘hoc est’ (‘this is’), ‘vel’ (‘or’) and ‘pro’ (‘for’). All of these introduce alternative renderings of the Syriac word or phrase to which the note refers. Very similar in nature are those notes which he begins with the expression ‘ad verbum’ (‘literally’). Given that his translation was already highly literal in nature, it is striking that he should seek to provide still more literal renderings in his annotations. In one sense, Tremellius seems to have been accepting his limitations as a translator, or even the limitations of the translation process as a whole. By providing these alternate, and sometimes more explicitly literal, renderings of the Syriac text, he hoped to add an extra subtle shade of meaning to his initial translation. In addition, this can only have further confirmed the impression among his contemporaries that from this work one could get a very good sense of the Syriac text which lay behind it. Given how few people had any level of proficiency in Syriac (a circumstance which he had hoped to begin to resolve by the production of a Syriac grammar), this need was all the stronger. A further group of annotations includes expressions which refer to the original texts, and features of the languages he is using. For the Syriac text, these include phrases like ‘Syre’, ‘Syrus’, ‘Syra phrasis’, ‘In voce Syra’, ‘Syriace’ and so on. Very similar are references to Hebrew and Hebrew usage. These are generally signposted by expressions including ‘Hebraismus’, ‘Hebraice’, ‘ex Hebra’, ‘ex Hebraismus’, ‘Similis Hebraismus’, and ‘apud Hebraeos’. As we will see shortly, occasionally Tremellius would elaborate on expressions which were identified in this way, but in the majority of cases they follow the pattern of the previous set of expressions: they introduce

138

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

a more literal version of the text, although here the implication is that the expressions more clearly reflect particular features of the Syriac language. Though distinct, it is apparent that these expressions which allude to the linguistic peculiarities of the Syriac text, or of Semitic languages more generally, have quite a similar impact to the notes in which alternative, usually more literal, renderings of a passage are given. All of them simply seek to give a fuller impression of the qualities of the original text, which the translation cannot convey on its own. Annotations of this sort are very common in Tremellius’ New Testament edition. For instance, on the Epistle to the Romans, Tremellius offers 285 annotations; expressions of the various types just outlined appear on slightly more than 600 occasions. Of course, as these figures imply, annotations could have several different elements, and it is particularly common that a more literal version of a text, or a quirk of the Syriac text, should then also be described as being a Hebraism. Nonetheless, these figures are substantial, and give a very clear indication of where the principal focus of Tremellius’ efforts lies. Tremellius’ main aim was to establish as fully as possible the Syriac text, and make its linguistic features as comprehensible as possible to an audience whose familiarity with that language was likely to be quite limited. In another set of annotations, Tremellius’ aim seems to have been quite literally to put his translation into language his readers will understand. These are notes where he draws comparisons between phrases in the Syriac text and expressions which are used in a range of modern languages. For instance, in the course of his annotations, Tremellius offers a gloss on an expression which he renders as ‘a mortuis’ (‘from the dead’) on four separate occasions.44 On all four, he points out that a more literal translation of the Syriac phrase would be ‘de inter mortuous’ (‘from among the dead’). On three out of the four occasions he then goes on to note that this parallels the French expression ‘d’entre les morts’; on the fourth he simply notes that this expression was a Hebraism. Incidentally the fact that Tremellius should highlight this parallel on three separate occasions within six chapters of the same book, especially when one considers that the point is rather tangential, would imply that he appreciated that his readers would not necessarily be reading the book, or its accompanying notes, in strict order. Elsewhere, there are references to Italian. On Romans 3.6, Tremellius begins by giving a more literal rendering of a phrase in the Syriac text, before commenting: ‘And the Italians also say it this way’.45 Similarly on John 6.7, he notes that another expression is like the Italian ‘un pochetino’.46 Occasionally, he makes reference to more than one 44 45 46

Romans 1.4 (Ch.1, n.6), 4.24 (Ch.4, n.5), 6.4 (Ch.6, n.2) and 11.15 (Ch.11, n.12). Romans 3.6 (Ch.3, n.5). John 6.7 (Ch.6, n.7).

THE NOVUMTESTAMENTUM

139

language in the same note. For instance on Hebrews 5.8, in his discussion of a word which he translates as ‘quamvis’ (‘however much’), he begins his note by giving the Syriac expression, before going on to claim that this expression corresponds exactly to the French word ‘combienque’, and the German phrase ‘Wie woll’.47 Quite what we should make of these examples is hard to determine. The annotations themselves are insufficient to make an accurate judgement of his abilities in Italian, French or German, but one should not assume that he was claiming knowledge which he did not really have. After all, he had spent the first three decades of his life in Italy, he had spent the majority of his career in exile working in Germany and his wife was an exile from France, so it is perfectly possible that he was fluent in each of these languages. On the other hand, one might query whether these annotations really added much to the understanding of readers who were already fluent in Latin. One cannot entirely dismiss the possibility that he simply wanted to showcase his linguistic abilities. A more generous interpretation might be that he was trying to create an international text which could be exploited in countries across Europe, and he was making the biblical message more accessible to its audience. But if that were the case, one might have expected Tremellius to make rather more frequent use of such allusions. It may thus simply be the case that these were reflections that struck him as being noteworthy. Regardless of what motivation lay behind his decision to include such phrases, it is testimony to Tremellius’ skills as a linguist that this edition of the New Testament includes discussion of features of at least seven different languages: Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Greek, French, German and Italian. Tremellius also used his annotations on his New Testament to explain in greater detail particular elements of that text. Such explanation was directed both at the language and the subject matter of the Syriac text. As I have already suggested, one must appreciate that there could be an overlap between the different kinds of notes. For instance, while in many cases he simply notes that a particular choice of phrase was ‘a Hebraism’, on some occasions he would go on to explain in fuller detail how this affected some aspect of the language of the passage in question. But it is important to appreciate that, numerically, these more detailed explanations are outweighed by the types of annotation discussed above. In a number of these annotations, Tremellius deals with aspects of the language of the biblical text. His skills as a philologist are much in evidence, for example, in those annotations where he deals with etymological issues. This is apparent for instance in an annotation which he wrote in relation to Ephesians 2.2.48 In it he begins by explaining the etymology of his Syriac 47 48

Hebrews 5.8 (Ch.5, n.2). Ephesians 2.2 (Ch.2, n.1).

140

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

word, and that the word from which it is derived means ‘the world’. He then goes on to remark: ‘and it is a feminine noun, so that in this way it would have changed form in the Latin voice. And it would seem to mean “worldliness” or “vanity”.’ In other annotations, he deals with grammatical issues relating to the text. On many occasions, these are instances where he provides fuller explanation of points which are identified as ‘Hebraisms’. For instance on Romans 1.7, he points out an instance where the word order has been inverted, in keeping with Hebrew usage.49 On Romans 1.26, he points out an occasion on which the text uses a noun in place of an adjective.50 On Ephesians 5.3, he notes the use of the infinitive and a gerundive, which he says is used not just in the Syriac New Testament but throughout the whole Bible, and has the force of an active verb.51 Elsewhere he points out occasions where an expression in the genitive singular, ‘of the spirit’, is used in place of an adjective,52 and where doubling has been used for emphasis.53 In a further set of annotations, Tremellius deals with particular expressions used in the Syriac text. For instance on Hebrews 2.9 and elsewhere, he notes that ‘To taste death is a Hebraism which means to die.’54 Similarly, on Romans 3.25, Tremellius points out that an expression in the Syriac text literally means ‘to sin a sin’, but that this is ‘a Hebraism, for to commit a sin, or to sin’.55 On other occasions, Tremellius uses his annotations to discuss rather more fundamental matters of syntax. In Hebrews 1.1, for example, he comments that the use of ‘And’ rather than ‘But’ is a ‘Hebrew commonplace’.56 Equally, on Hebrews 13.9 Tremellius explains that the expression ‘It is good … and not’ is a Hebraism which has been used in preference to ‘It is better … than’, but that it does have a similarly comparative meaning.57 In another set of annotations, Tremellius identifies and elaborates upon a number of the figures of speech used in the text. For instances in Hebrews 2.9, in an example we have just considered, Tremellius points out that when the expression ‘to taste death’ is used in place of ‘to die’, in accordance with Hebrew usage, this is an example of metonymy.58 In relation to Ephesians 6.15, he explains a metaphor in which one dresses

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Romans 1.7 (Ch.1, n.10). Romans1.26 (Ch.1, n.46). Ephesians 5.3 (Ch.5, n.1). Romans 8.5 (Ch.8, n.5). Romans 9.6 (Ch.9, n.7). Hebrews 2.9 (Ch.2, n.4). Romans 3.25 (Ch.3, n.9). Hebrews 1.1 (Ch.1, n.2). Hebrews 13.9 (Ch.13, n.4). Hebrews 2.9 (Ch.2, n.4).

THE NOVUMTESTAMENTUM

141

as a soldier for spiritual conflict. And in relation to Romans 1.3, he identified an example of synecdoche where the word ‘flesh’ is used to mean the whole man. In a final set of annotations, Tremellius seeks to explain more fully the subject matter of the biblical text. For instance in talking of the ‘laws’ in Ephesians 2.15, he explains in the corresponding note that ‘this means that multitude of ceremonies by which Israel is distinguished from the other Gentiles’.60 On Romans 5.15, in relation to ‘excessus’ (‘trespass’), he elaborates: ‘that is, a transgression, by which the Law is clearly violated, since he does not remain within the limits which it itself prescribes’. And on Romans 11.16, in relation to the ‘first fruits’, he comments that ‘this alludes to the first new things of the harvest, which were offered every year, so that they would be blessed every year’.61 In each of these examples, and many more like them, Tremellius was bringing to bear his considerable knowledge of Jewish customs and practices from the time of Christ. In these annotations, unlike the other sets, Tremellius was particularly concerned with the cultural aspects of the text. 59

Conclusion The range of annotations which have been discussed in the previous section give a clear indication both of how Tremellius approached this project, and what he hoped to achieve by publishing his polyglot edition in 1569. In the first place, we saw that a significant component of the annotations with which he accompanied his translation was intended to explain the shape that his original Syriac text had taken, and in particular where he had differed from Widmanstetter’s editioprinceps. As we also saw, many of these corrections were based on the strength of consultation of a manuscript which had only recently been brought back from the East. Of course, there was a very good reason for this: Syriac studies in the European West were still very much in their infancy, and there remained a lot of work to be done to ensure that the texts from which biblical scholars worked were reliable. As we will see in the next chapter, there was far less need to do this in relation to the Hebrew of the Old Testament, as it had been subjected to the labours of numerous highly trained scholars before Tremellius. Nonetheless, this close attention to making sure that the text from which the translation was made was as accurate as possible was a fundamental task: for Tremellius, it would seem that his commitment to his scholarship seems to have been paramount, but he cannot have been 59 60 61

Ephesians 6.15 (Ch.6, n.5); Romans 1.3 (Ch.1, n.2). Ephesians 2.15 (Ch.2, n.6). Romans 5.15 (Ch.5, n.6); Romans 11.16 (Ch.11, n.13).

142

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

unaware that it was also crucial to the use of the polemical conflicts which characterised the sixteenth century. In the remainder of the annotations, Tremellius sought to elucidate the translation that he has provided. Of course, this was the purpose of such accompaniments to any translation, but the aspects of the text to which he chooses to devote most attention give a clear insight into how he viewed the text, where his particular skills lay and how he hoped that they would be of use to his readers. The most numerous annotations were those in which Tremellius simply sets out alternative translations to what was already a highly literal translation. His aim in these annotations is clearly to reveal as many of the nuances of the Syriac text as possible, almost as if by a process of triangulation. In a closely linked set of notes, he draws attention to the linguistic quirks of the Syriac language from which his text has been translated. Here it should again recall that the first edition of Tremellius’ New Testament was a polyglot edition, and that he published with it a Chaldaean and Syriac grammar: evidently he anticipated that many of his readers would themselves wish to return to the Syriac text, whose various characteristics and qualities he sought to explain as fully as possible. The final main purpose of his annotations was to reveal more about the biblical text, both for those who were inclined to read the Syriac, and for those who were content simply to deal with it on the strength of his translation. His analyses in these notes have a variety of elements. He identifies certain features of the text as a piece of literature, drawing attention to various literary techniques which have been exploited. He also seeks to explain the meaning of that text when its meaning is not entirely clear, elaborating also upon the implications of some of those concepts. The exegesis which these annotations contain sometimes reveals a particular interpretation of the text; unlike most of the other notes that he includes, these are not necessarily ones with which all scholars would have agreed. On the other hand, it is also clear that he does not move from gentle exegesis into polemical conflict, even in those passages where others had done so. While it was perfectly possible that scholars would have disagreed with his interpretation on specific points, there was surprisingly little which would have caused offence to readers of any religious persuasion. Indeed, it was for this reason that the work met with a remarkably sympathetic response from the compilers of the 1571 Antwerp Index of Forbidden Books. Though it was condemned, it was noted that the work would be useful once the preface had been eliminated, and only about 130 annotations had been corrected. The analysis of this chapter would, in many ways, endorse their judgement. This was, first and foremost, a work of scholarship. Though one could envisage ways in which it might be used to advance the Calvinist

THE NOVUMTESTAMENTUM

143

church, Tremellius himself does not draw explicit attention to these. The result is thus something of a paradox: Tremellius had produced in his Syriac New Testament a text from which a strong attack could be made on the Catholic faith, yet this text is surprisingly lacking in confessional quality. This contradiction in many ways encapsulates Tremellius’ position more generally within the Calvinist church.

CHAPTER EIGHT

The TestamentiVeterisBibliaSacra Tremellius’ edition of the Old Testament has been described as ‘one of the classical works of the Reformation’.1 In the historical writing of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there is an overwhelming consensus not only that this work was Tremellius’ most important contribution to his age, but also that his was the foremost Protestant Latin translation of the period. This is certainly the impression that emerges from the standard reference works. For instance E. I. Carlyle, in the original Dictionary of National Biography, remarked that, while it was far from faultless, Tremellius’ translation ‘evinced very thorough scholarship, and for long, both in England and on the continent, was adopted by the reformers as the most accurate rendering’.2 Much more recently, Brian Armstrong, writing in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, noted that: ‘Tremellius is best known for his Latin translation of the Hebrew Scriptures … long used as the most accurate Latin Bible’.3 Such opinions are endorsed by more specialist literature. For example, in her monograph on the Renaissance Bible, Deborah Shuger went even further when she described Tremellius as the ‘translator of the major Protestant Latin Bible’, and, shortly after, refers to the translation as ‘the great Protestant Latin Bible’.4 Despite this general appreciation of the significance of Tremellius’ Old Testament, surprisingly scant attention has been paid to it. His nineteenth-century biographers could hardly pass over it without comment, but their treatments are inevitably short and superficial.5 It is also clear that even in the field of biblical scholarship, Tremellius’ work has not received anywhere near the attention that it deserves.6 For this reason 1 D. de Sola Pool, ‘The Influence of Some Jewish Apostates on the Reformation’, JewishReview, 2, no.7–12 (May 1911–Mar 1912), p.340. 2 E. I. Carlyle, ‘Tremellius, John Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in DNBvol.57 (1899), p.187. 3 Brian G. Armstrong, ‘Tremellius, John Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in J. D. Douglas (Ed.), TheNewInternationalDictionaryoftheChristianChurch(Exeter, 1978), p. 984. 4 Deborah Kuller Shuger, The Renaissance Bible. Scholarship, Sacrifice and Subjectivity (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA and London, 1998), pp.16, 23. 5 Butters, Tremellius devotes little more than three pages to his subject’s biblical translations, pp.31–4; while Becker, Tremellius, which has done so much to shape the subsequent reception of Tremellius, spends less than a page describing these volumes, pp.37–8. 6 For instance, S. L. Greenslade (Ed.), TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBible,vol.III:The WestfromtheReformationtothePresentDay (Cambridge, 1963) is almost 600 pages long, yet there are only five references to Tremellius’ Bibles (pp.62, 71–3, 75, 83, 167), and on only one of these is there even a brief consideration of the nature of these works. More recently, in the 800-page work, Guy Bedouelle and Bernard Roussel (Eds), LesTempsdesRéformes

146

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

it is the intention of this chapter to subject this work to a more thorough analysis, again seeking, as in the last chapter, to offer a characterisation of the particular qualities of that work. Composition of the Work Unfortunately, unlike his New Testament, Tremellius says very little about the genesis of his edition of the Old Testament. It has sometimes been suggested that he only began working on it in 1573 when Franciscus Junius, his collaborator in the work, arrived in Heidelberg.7 Junius (1545–1602) had been born in Bourges in France, and had studied Hebrew and theology at Geneva in the early 1560s; Tremellius’ son-in-law, Antoine Chevallier, was among his teachers there. In 1565, Junius had become a pastor in Antwerp, but in 1567 he was forced to leave the Low Countries, and became pastor of the French-speaking refugee church in Schönau, near Heidelberg. In 1573 he was brought to Heidelberg, where he remained until 1578. Thereafter he served as Professor of Hebrew at Neustadt, Heidelberg and Leiden. However, the traditional supposition that Junius became Tremellius’ son-in-law seems to have no foundation. Other historians, however, have suggested that Tremellius’ publication of his Old Testament edition was the culmination of a much longer process, perhaps stemming as far back as his time in Cambridge in the early 1550s.8 Of course, given that Tremellius had worked with the Old Testament for his entire career, there seems little need to assume that he delayed working on this project until the arrival of Junius. One could also imagine that over the course of this career he had accumulated a large body of material and insights which he wished to share with a wider audience. During the 1560s, as we have seen in the last two chapters, his attentions were diverted by various other academic projects, but from 1570 there was nothing to prevent him from beginning work on the Old Testament. But this raises a second fundamental issue: the relative contributions of the work’s two authors. The title-page simply indicates that the Bible was ‘recently translated into Latin from Hebrew, and explained through brief notes by Immanuel Tremellius and Franciscus Junius’. The only indication of how the task had been divided between them is the additional remark etlaBible (Paris, 1989), there are only six references to Tremellius (pp.147, 149, 188, 264, 270 ff., 432), and the only one of these which is more than a single sentence merely provides a brief biographical sketch. 7 Erich Wenneker, ‘Tremellius, Immanuel’ in Friedrich Wilhelm Bautz (Ed.), Biographisch-BibliographischesKirchenlexikon(Herzberg, 1997), vol.12, col.446, is one of the most recent scholars to suggest that work only began with the arrival of Junius. 8 For instance, this is the assumption of W. K. Jordan, EdwardVI:TheYoungKing. TheProtectorshipoftheDukeofSomerset(London, 1968), p.197.

THE TESTAMENTIVETERISBIBLIASACRA

147

that ‘the books which are generally called the Apocrypha’ were the work of Junius alone. This latter comment has on occasion been taken to mean that Junius’ contribution was in fact essentially limited to the Apocrypha, but this is surely an exaggeration.9 Junius was himself an accomplished Hebraist, as his subsequent revision of the work and his appointment as Professor of Hebrew would both confirm. Nonetheless, given their relative age, experience and prominence, it is reasonable to assume that Tremellius was the senior partner. The first edition of the Old Testament was published by Andreas Wechel in Frankfurt am Main in five volumes, which appeared between 1575 and 1579.10 His descendants would see several more editions of this work through their presses.11 The Wechels were a distinguished printing house, and as Robert Evans has commented, this Bible was ‘the most important book they ever published’.12 Each of the five volumes was given its own title. The first volume, called the FiveBooksofMoses, of course contains the Pentateuch. The second contains the so-called HistoricalBooks, running from Joshua to Esther. Volume three contains what are termed the Poetical Books, namely Job through to the Song of Songs. The fourth volume, the PropheticalBooks, includes Isaiah to Malachi, while the Apocrypha constitutes the fifth. The Old Testament was almost immediately reprinted in London in 1579 to 1580, with Tremellius’ Latin rendering of the New Testament constituting a sixth part.13 Thereafter, Tremellius’ and Junius’ Old Testament went through a significant number of reprintings in locations throughout Europe, including Frankfurt, London, Geneva, Hanau and Amsterdam.14 Following Tremellius’ death, Junius made sufficient revisions to the text and additions to the annotations to merit releasing them as revised editions. Thus a ‘second version’ appeared in 1590, a ‘third’ in 1596 and a ‘fourth’ in 1603. With the exception of the original Frankfurt edition, every edition included a version of the New Testament. The first London edition, which used Tremellius’ translation from Syriac, was exceptional; every subsequent edition had Beza’s translation from the Greek and Tremellius’

For example Carlyle, ‘Tremellius’, p.187. Tremellius and Franciscus Junius, Bibliorum Pars Prima, id est, Quinque Libri MoschisLatinirecensexHebraeofacti (Frankfurt am Main, 1575–79). 11 R. J. W. Evans, ‘The Wechel Presses: Humanism and Calvinism in Central Europe, 1572–1627’ in PP, supplement 1975, pp.1–74. This includes an extensive appendix of books published by the Wechel dynasty. 12 Evans, ‘Wechel Presses’, p.41. 13 Tremellius and Franciscus Junius, TestamentiVeteris…libriCanonici…Latini… facti (London, 1579–80). 14 See Appendix. 9

10

148

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

translation from the Syriac printed together in parallel columns, or else joined Tremellius’ Old Testament with Beza’s New Testament.15 Unlike his New Testament, which as we saw in the previous chapter included four versions of the text, the edition of the Old Testament which Tremellius produced with Junius only had one version of the text, a Latin translation made from the Hebrew (though no information is given about the Hebrew version which was used). Presumably the factors which had motivated him to produce a polyglot edition of the earlier work were not as relevant: in particular, whereas Syriac studies were still in their infancy, the same could not be said of Hebrew, and there was consequently less need to explain so much of the groundwork. As we will shortly see, these differences contributed to a number of further differences in character between the two works. As with Tremellius’ New Testament, the translation is characterised above all by its literalness. This is compounded by a Hebraising tendency evident, for example, in his use of Hebrew names such as Mosche for Moses. Evaluating the accuracy and quality of a biblical translation is a subjective enterprise, and they are not, in any cases, issues on which I would feel suitably qualified to pass judgement. Rather, as in the previous chapter, it is my intention to subject the annotations on a representative selection of books to detailed analysis. Not only have these received even less attention from biblical scholars than his translation, but they also more clearly give an insight into his mindset, and provide a more explicit indication of how he approached the text, and how he expected that it would be handled by its readers. They thus offer an opportunity to complement the view, already well established, that the translation itself was both literal and generally accurate, and to characterise the work as a whole. The books which I have selected for analysis here largely follow Tremellius and Junius’ approach to the Old Testament, and their division of it into sections: from among the books of Moses, Genesis has been chosen; Ezra from among the historical books; Psalms, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs from among the poetical books; the prophetical books are represented by Hosea. Tremellius and Junius’ Old Testament is extensively annotated, even by comparison with the notes which accompany his New Testament. Indeed, it is quite common for the annotative material on a given chapter to equal, or even exceed, the length of the biblical text to which it refers. The biblical text itself is divided into two columns on each page. Each book of the Old Testament, which starts on a new page, begins with an argumentum, usually of about half a dozen lines, running across the top of both columns, in which Tremellius sets down the principal ideas of the book. Then, at the start of most, but not all, chapters, there are a few lines (usually between 15

See Appendix.

THE TESTAMENTIVETERISBIBLIASACRA

149

one and four) to introduce the content of that chapter; where such lines are omitted, it is apparent that he feels the two chapters should be treated together, and introductory lines thus provide a synopsis of both together. Down the side of the text are marginalia, placed as close to the points of the text to which they refer as is possible. These are listed according to the letters of the alphabet. The annotations which come after each book are far more extensive. They are arranged as a continuous text, unlike the marginalia, which had always been given a new line for each note. The numbers of these annotations identify the verses to which they correspond. The Hebrew Text In the previous chapter we saw that a substantial part of the annotative material with which Tremellius supplemented his translation of the New Testament related to his construction of the Syriac text from which it was made. The reasons for this were clear: Syriac studies were themselves still in their infancy, few people had any familiarity with the language and little attention had been devoted to establishing that text, at least in a European context. The situation was rather different when one considers the circumstances surrounding the Old Testament. Knowledge of Hebrew was more widespread and several generations of scholars had brought their skills to bear on the Hebrew text of the Old Testament by the time that Tremellius came to produce this work. Nonetheless, these elements did not entirely escape comment in his edition of the Old Testament. Comments on the text itself are generally located within the marginalia. The majority of these, as with the earlier work, simply introduce alternative and usually more literal Latin renderings of Hebrew phrases. Most commonly these are introduced with the abbreviation ‘Heb.’, though as in the New Testament they can also be signalled by expressions like ‘id est’.16 A handful of examples will rapidly demonstrate the subtle nature of the majority of the changes that Tremellius has made in order to create his slightly more idiomatic Latin translation. For instance, his notes on Hosea explain that the Hebrew text had ‘principio’ for ‘primo’ in the text,17 ‘visitabo super illam’ for ‘animadvertam in illam’,18 ‘filios Jisraelis’ for ‘Jisraëlitas’19

16 Incidentally, it should be pointed out that the text of a letter, written in Chaldaean, forms a sizeable part of the book of Ezra; Tremellius treats this as he does the Hebrew text, although, of course, the marginal annotations begin ‘Chal.’ rather than ‘Heb.’. 17 Hosea 1.2 Annot. (b). As in the previous chapter, these annotations will give first a reference to the particular verse, and then to the appropriate system of numbering used by Tremellius in his annotations. 18 Hosea 2.13 Annot. (h). 19 Hosea 3.1 Annot. (b).

150

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

and ‘post te’ for ‘posterior te’.20 The limited extent to which Tremellius has veered from a truly literal translation is further indicated by the fact that a number of these notes relate to essentially the same emendation. For example, again in the early chapters of Hosea, his annotations suggest that the Hebrew original of the phrase he has rendered ‘Jisraëlitarum’ was ‘filiorum Jisraëlis’,21 that ‘Jisraëlitas’ was ‘filios Jisraëlis’22 and that ‘Jisraëlitae’ was ‘filii Jisraëlis’.23 Beyond this, Tremellius does offer comments on the Hebrew text, and further, although rarely, he goes as far as to explain the grounds upon which he has manipulated the original text, or to offer reasons as to why he has produced the translation that he has. For instance, on an expression used in Genesis 3, ‘gratissimam esse illam oculis’, Tremellius writes: ‘Hebrew: to be a delight to the eyes: but through a quirk of the language, an abstract substantive (as they call it) is put in place of a superlative adjective …’.24 Later in the same chapter, he compares a Latin expression with its Greek equivalent, when he writes: ‘hac voce σωεκδοχικϖς bonos Latinitatis autores secuti utimur, propter inopiam Latinæ linguæ: Græci αβιλισκον dicunt: vulgus laminam sive folium’.25 On Genesis 2, which describes the Creation, on the expression ‘opus suum quod fecerat’, Tremellius writes: ‘Heb. opere suo, quod creaverat Deus, faciendo. Verborum εµπλοκη quam nos, ut sensus planior esset, mutavimus’.26 The contrast with his version of the New Testament is evident. In that earlier work, notes of this sort were among the most numerous. Here not only are there far fewer, but they also occupy literally a more subsidiary role: they are located in the margins next to the text, whereas the analysis of other issues is left until the end, where greater space allows them to be treated more fully. Of course, Tremellius’ Latin version of the New Testament was the first to be made from the Syriac. Consequently, the procedure of correcting the base text was more appropriate in that case. In relation to the Old Testament, however, which had been subjected to much scholarship in the preceding century, there remained far less ground for discussion or improvement, and this type of annotation is consequently rather more rare. That Tremellius should still occasionally add to this is noteworthy, but it is also clear that his general approach to the Hebrew text was one of comment rather than emendation. Nonetheless, these remain a significant component within his annotative materials. Not only is this consonant 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Hosea 5.8 Annot. (e). Hosea 1.10 Annot. (i). Hosea 3.1 Annot. (b). Hosea 4.1 Annot. (a). Genesis 3 (c), v.6. Genesis 3 (g), v.22. Genesis 2 (a), v.2.

THE TESTAMENTIVETERISBIBLIASACRA

151

with the fact, already mentioned, that his was a literal translation, but it further indicates that whenever he moved away from that literalness, he was still keen to show his readers what the text said exactly. This no doubt reflects both his own efforts at academic accuracy and, presumably, an appreciation that his work would be used by those whose knowledge of Hebrew was not as great as his own. Again, Tremellius was using both the translation and the annotations to bring his reader to as close an understanding of the Hebrew original as was possible, without reading the text in that language. Cross-Referencing In addition, these marginal annotations contain references to other biblical passages. In these notes, Tremellius seeks to draw the reader’s attention to other locations, scattered through both the Old and the New Testaments, where either similar names or subject matter is described,27 or where the same linguistic construction is used.28 It is evident that the Bible, and that term is used to include both the Old and New Testaments, is considered as a unity, and indeed, can even be used as the key to its own interpretation. The most obvious and common type of biblical referencing, apparent both in the marginal annotations and in the notes which follow each of the chapters, are those occasions where parallel passages are highlighted. For instance, in a note on Ezra 3, Tremellius writes: ‘that is, while it still existed: for the house was destroyed after sixty years, that is, eleven of captivity, 2 Kings 25, 2 Chronicles 36, and Ezekiel 40’.29 On Ezra 1, on the word ‘cujuscunque’, the note reads: ‘i.e. of the other tribes, as is evident from 1 Chronicles 9.3’;30 in the following chapter, which consists of a list of those exiles who returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem, the annotation on ‘Gibbaris’ directs the reader to the list of exiles in Nehemiah 7 to indicate who was meant.31 This type of note is ubiquitous throughout the annotations on the Old Testament. Generally, they direct the reader to other passages where extra information relating to what is being discussed may be found, or else to parts of the Bible where the same subject matter is being treated. This can be at both a tangible and an intangible level: objects and ideas can each be so illustrated. Similar, but more technical, is where the same approach is applied to the language of the biblical text. This is especially, but not universally, the case where the words used in the Scriptures are unusual in some way; as these 27 28 29 30 31

For example Genesis 10.4 (b). For example Genesis 8.3 (a). Ezra 3.12. Ezra 1.5. Ezra 2.20.

152

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

annotations deal with the Hebrew text itself, it is much more common for these notes to appear in the annotations which run alongside the text, rather than in those which follow it, but this is not an absolute rule. For instance, in one of the marginal annotations on Genesis 1, on the word ‘alata’, Tremellius writes: ‘Heb[rew] ‘ale’: substantive construction, for its adjective, as below in verse 30’.32 Similarly, in the marginalia of Ezra 3, on the word ‘unanimiter’ (‘unanimously’), the annotation reads: ‘Heb[rew] ‘just as one man’: as at Judges 20.1’,33 while in the notes which accompany Ecclesiastes 2, on the verb ‘factum est’ (‘it was made’), Tremellius writes: ‘Heb[rew] ‘they made’: personal verb for an impersonal one, as at Job 7.3’.34 More generally, he sometimes allows the text to explain itself, through his annotations. On Psalm 9, for instance, one note refers to an idea raised in one verse, and indicates that it can be understood from the Psalm itself: ‘as the four following verses explain’.35 Similarly, in the early chapters of Ezra, the following comments appear in the annotations: ‘the main points of all of this are set out in the following verse’36 and ‘as may be gathered through a comparison of this verse with the preceding and next verses’.37 Genesis 23 has a similar annotation: ‘just as is evident from the end of the next chapter’.38 This attention to what is contained both in adjoining passages, and in those further away, must have had an impact on his translation as a whole. Underlying his approach was that, at least in part, the Bible could itself be used as an interpretive key. It is unlikely that such notes would have been of direct use to those of his readers who simply wished to understand what the Bible said. Instead, it seems more probable that they served a rather more academic function. Tremellius is helping the reader to gain a more accurate picture of the text of the original, but at the same time he is also defending the particular way that he has translated these expressions. Drawing on similar examples from other parts of the Bible, he demonstrates his broader knowledge of the language of the Bible as a whole, indicates his consistency through his translation of the Old Testament and indeed uses the Scriptures themselves to back up his translation. Moreover, this type of annotation gives something of an insight into the way Tremellius has arrived at his translation. By and large, the translation simply exists; at best, Tremellius provides a more literal version of an expression he has rendered differently in the final version, or else he provides an alternative translation, but almost without exception, his preferences 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Genesis 1 (e), v.21. Ezra 3 (a), v.1. Ecclesiastes 2 (n), v.13. Psalms 8.6. Ezra 1.10. Ezra 2.60. Genesis 23.2.

THE TESTAMENTIVETERISBIBLIASACRA

153

are left unexplained. Indeed, Tremellius offers disappointingly little to the historian wishing to get at the principles which lie behind his translation of the Old Testament. Yet these annotations, just discussed, where similar expressions from other parts of the Bible are cited in defence of a particular translation, begin to hint at one way in which Tremellius worked. Even considered together, these types of annotations are far rarer than those which deal with the Hebrew text.39 At one level, these annotations may simply demonstrate Tremellius’ familiarity with the Bible as a whole, both in terms of its content, and the language used throughout. But one must imagine that they were not simply included to showcase his erudition. These annotations perhaps helped to highlight the coherence of the biblical text, and particularly that between the two testaments. They must also have been intended to help his readers, both by drawing attention to passages which might provide extra illumination, and by offering a range of cross-references which might allow writers and sermonisers to use them as an additional reference work. The Argumenta Tremellius begins each book with an argumentum, in which, as was customary, he set out the main ideas of the book which followed. First and foremost, these would contain a brief summary of the contents of that book. But even this was often more than simply a matter of providing a synopsis: it could also offer an early indication of how the text would be approached. This combination is apparent from the very first lines with which Tremellius accompanied the biblical text, the argumentum to Genesis. It begins: ‘The first book of the Pentateuch describes the origin of the earth and the Church of God, and its doctrine, religion, and growth, and follows its wonderful course over 2368 years, through to the death of Joseph.’40 This strikingly precise figure is then supported by a list of every generation, from Adam through to Joseph, and the supposed lifespan of each, adding up to his total. The argumentum to the book of Ezra demonstrates a similar approach. In it, Tremellius lists the four Persian rulers from Cyrus through to Artaxerxes, during the course of whose reigns the events of the book of Ezra took place, and the lengths of each, amounting to the ‘seven times seven’ or 49 years.41 Several points are worth making here. First, it is apparent that these two argumenta do not provide a representative synopsis of events. The book of Genesis focuses on particular figures between Adam and Joseph, and the 39 There are only eight such notes on the book of Hosea: 2.18, 9.4 (a), 9.9, 10.11 (g), 12.4, 13.6, 13.9 and 14.3. 40 Genesis, Argumentum. 41 Ezra, Argumentum.

154

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

majority of figures in Tremellius’ list are only really mentioned in passing; one would not get this impression from the argumentum. Similarly, the argumentum to Ezra is more concerned with the history of the Jews, and the list of kings relates to the political history, but there is no mention of the priest who gave his name to the book itself. On the other hand, it is evident that Tremellius was concerned with chronological accuracy. Significantly, the information is not strictly additional: in the argumentum to Genesis, for example, most of the lengths of generations are taken from chapters 5 and 11 of that book. But in gathering the material together in the form of a list, it is made more accessible. Incidentally, a very similar repackaging of the information takes place in 1 Chronicles: there, much of the material relating to the tribes of Israel and the descendants of each is presented in the form of a series of what amount to family trees. These two examples would thus suggest that the argumenta were intended less to serve simply as a summary of the text (Tremellius most likely assumed that his readers would have known this already), and more as a source of reference. More generally, it is possible that he was seeking to demonstrate that the events described in these books could be located within an independent historical reality. Tremellius used the argumenta to other books to address further issues. In both those of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, Tremellius has something to say about the authorship of these works: in both not only is it noted that Solomon was their author, but also that he had been inspired by God in the process (‘ductus spiritu Dei’; ‘θεοπνευζως’).42 It was quite common for writers to offer comments on the author in an argumentum, but there may have been more to it than that: the canonicity of the Song of Songs, in particular, was a matter of debate.43 By referring to these books in this way, Tremellius was indicating, in quite subtle fashion, his acceptance of their orthodoxy. Tremellius uses still other argumenta to introduce issues which will receive fuller discussion in later annotations. For instance, in his treatment of Hosea, he uses the argumentum to address the related issues of genre and structure. As Tremellius demonstrates, the book has been structured in such a way as to assist its prophetic message; this is something that he will subsequently develop at a more detailed level.44 Similarly, Tremellius uses the argumentumto the Song of Songs to set up his interpretation of that book: he follows the traditional line of interpretation which sees it as a metaphor for the ‘spiritual betrothal which it pleases Christ to enter

Ecclesiastes, Argumentum; Song of Songs, Argumentum. Sebastian Castellio was denied ordination to the ministry in Calvin’s Geneva on the grounds that he rejected the divine inspiration of the Song of Songs. Bainton, ‘Bible in the Reformation’ in S. L. Greenslade (Ed.), TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBible,vol.III, p.8 ff. 44 Hosea, Argumentum. 42 43

THE TESTAMENTIVETERISBIBLIASACRA

155

with the Church’. He then spends another eight lines laying out each of the separate phases of this, repeatedly drawing parallels between the Church and the bride in this book. Here again, then, the content of the book is presented, but so too, and at the same time, is the key to its interpretation, at least as far as Tremellius understands it. In the argumentum to the book of Psalms, Tremellius offers a remarkable statement about his attitude to the Old Testament. He begins by noting that the book contains sacred songs, which were written in the old church up to the destructive times of Antioch. For this reason, he continues, the book is ‘just like an epitome of the Old Testament, the image of the grace of God, and a perfect anatomy of a whole man’.46 He continues: 45

Evidence of all kinds is included, concerning the promises and actions of God towards those whom he favours, his severity towards his adversaries, and faith to all: also about our faith in his promises, about obedience, about weaknesses, patience, constancy, and our freedom in adverse things, about the legitimate use of good things, and … and finally, about our complete obligation towards God, and his faith towards us in Christ: concerning which there are very elegant and very distinguished prophecies everywhere for the consolation and confirmation of the church.47

Chapter Headings After the argumenta, the next significant element of Tremellius’ annotative material is the chapter headings. These are far shorter than the argumenta, often only a sentence or even just a clause in length. The heading for Chapter 1 of Genesis reads: ‘The creation of the world is completed in six days’,48 while Chapter 2 is entitled: ‘The seventh day is consecrated by God, it is narrated that the work of creation was completed with a seventh day of rest, and the first establishment of holy marriage is described’.49 The heading of Chapter 10 is ‘The propagation of the sons of Noah, and the origin of all peoples from them is described’.50 As the use of verbs of narration and description in these last two examples indicate, a principal purpose of these headings was simply to relate what was contained in a given chapter; the majority of headings in fact fall into this category.51 These neatly complement the argumenta. Having identified the broad interpretative issues in the argumenta, the chapter headings of this sort, we may assume, were intended primarily to aid readers in finding specific passages they were looking for, and perhaps to provide a minimal level of orientation. 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Song of Songs, Argumentum. Ibid. Ibid. Genesis 1, Heading. Genesis 2, Heading. Genesis 10, Heading. All ten of the chapters in Ezra follow this basic approach, for example.

156

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

However, the purely descriptive chapter headings are not the only sort to be found in Tremellius’ translation. On other occasions, he uses them to draw out what he feels to be the most important lesson of the text. For instance, on Genesis 3, which describes the Fall, he writes, ‘Human nature, deceived by the diabolic serpent, revolted against God, and it weakened his likeness, the renewal of which was achieved through Christ, as the child of a woman.’52 Chapter 7 deals with the Flood: ‘It describes the universal flood, and the preservation of the remaining men and animals in the ark: and it is very clear evidence of the justice, compassion and providence of God.’53 Even in these two notes, Tremellius shows his readiness to draw connections between the two Testaments, to include allusions to the role of Christ and to identify the hand of God in the events which are described. These themes are common to his exegesis, and they certainly go beyond what is actually contained in the biblical text. A similar readiness to move beyond the biblical text is also evident in the chapter headings to the Song of Songs. As we have already noted, Tremellius considers the book as a metaphor for the relationship between the Church and Christ, leading up to the marriage of the two. For instance, in the heading to Chapter 4 he writes: Christ praises the perfection of the Church: and just as he exclaims as if carried away by love of it, he celebrates the smoothness of its conversation, ornaments, faith, duties and its fruits. For which reason the Church appreciating, that whatever good it has has been achieved by Christ, celebrates it more, and seeks to be there and to do good: and Christ approves.54

The Annotations However, the vast majority of extra material Tremellius includes to supplement his Latin translation of the Old Testament is contained in the annotations which follow each of the chapters. Of course, in a number of respects, it is possible to see these annotations as an extension of the critical apparatus already discussed. Just as the argumentum laid out the basic ideas of the book as a whole, and the chapter headings set forth the contents of each of the chapters, the annotations which follow the chapters break the biblical text down still further, and offer comments at the level of individual verses. As we will see, on many occasions these annotations allow Tremellius to develop the particular line of analysis that had been indicated in these earlier synopses. But as we will also see, these annotations offered the opportunity for more specific comments which did not fit so neatly into that broader structure. It is the intention of the 52 53 54

Genesis 3, Heading. Genesis 7, Heading. Song of Songs 4, Heading.

THE TESTAMENTIVETERISBIBLIASACRA

157

remainder of this chapter to identify a number of the most common features of these annotations, to establish what would seem to be programmatic and thereby to draw conclusions about the roles they were intended to fulfil. One of the clearest ways in which these annotations were connected to those we have already encountered occurs when Tremellius discusses the structure of the text in question. A good example of this comes from Chapter 6 of the Song of Solomon. The annotations begin with an overview of the whole chapter: There are three main parts to this chapter …: the first part, up to verse 8, is where the groom consoles his distressed and lamenting bride in relation to her blame; the second part, in verse 8, is where the groom relates his desire to complete their nuptials; and the third is where he shows his desire and zeal towards the church, as the day of the wedding approaches, from verse 9, through to the end.55

At various points through the subsequent annotations, Tremellius does then refer back to this framework, further breaking down the structure beyond these three main parts. Many of the Psalms are also subjected to this kind of analysis. A typical example is provided by the second Psalm. As part of the first note on this psalm, he writes: ‘There are three parts to this; a Proposition, for two verses; a Narration, from verse 3, and a Conclusion, at the end of the Psalm.’56 This division is then reinforced by later annotations. On the third verse, Tremellius writes: ‘The second part, the Narration, as we said on verse 1 …’.57 In an annotation on verse 4, he breaks things down further when he writes: ‘subsequent narration, of which there are two parts,’ the first covering verses 4 to 6, and the second running from there through to verse 10.58 Finally, returning to the main structural divisions, he writes on verse 10: ‘The third part of the Psalm, the conclusion …’.59 In fact, it would seem that it is very much the exception for the Psalms not to be analysed in this way. Indeed even when the annotations are not used to develop this dimension of analysis as fully as the example just quoted, Tremellius does tend, at the very least, to identify the basic structure of the poem in one of the earliest verses. But analysis of this sort was not restricted to the ‘poetic’ books, such as the Psalms and the Song of Songs. Tremellius also uses his annotations to provide a degree of guidance as regards structural features of other books. In his first note on the book of Hosea, for instance, he begins by claiming that the first two chapters ought to be considered together (and he consequently 55 56 57 58 59

Song of Songs 6.1. Psalms 2.1. Psalms 2.3. Psalms 2.4. Psalms 2.10.

158

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

puts his annotations on both these chapters after the second chapter). He then establishes how these two books have complementary subject matter, reflecting the literal and anagogical interpretations of the prophecy. And he continues: ‘And thus there are three parts of this prophecy in total: a καθολικη, or universal, inscription, in verse 1; a prophetic form, for the remainder of the first chapter; and anagogically or an adaptation of it, in Chapter 2.’60 The parallels between these two chapters are then drawn out in a number of his annotations on them both. These annotations and the comments on structure allow Tremellius to begin to direct how readers should approach the biblical text as a whole. A further way in which structural comments might be used for other purposes is provided by the very next chapter of Hosea. In the first annotation on that chapter, Tremellius writes: ‘This second prophecy contains a type not entirely unlike the previous one, for three verses, and its explanation in verses 4 and 5.’61 Here, as in the examples above, Tremellius is identifying the simple structure of what is a particularly short chapter, giving verse references for ease of comprehension. Yet in this instance, as with the quotations drawn from the first two chapters of Hosea, Tremellius is doing more than that. He is also assisting in the interpretation of these passages, and illustrating the different ways in which the message of God is conveyed. In the latter example in particular, moreover, Tremellius is supporting the integrity of the biblical text. He shows how the prophecy is immediately followed by the key to its interpretation. In other places, Tremellius can use this structural analysis to show when certain events prophesied in one part of a biblical book then do actually transpire. A good example of this is provided in a note on Genesis 7.21: referring to the death of all things not on the Ark during the Flood, Tremellius writes ‘as was predicted above 6.17 and in verse four of this chapter’.62 In this way, these annotations have a certain didactic quality: they emphasise the lessons of the scriptures relating to the fulfilment of God’s word. The concern with the literary aspects of the biblical text apparent in a number of the examples above becomes more apparent when one considers other features of these annotations. A second major element in these notes, for instance, is a concern with literary genre. Again, this is most evident in the Psalms where each chapter may in one sense be regarded as a separate text. Generally in the first annotation, Tremellius seeks to identify the literary genre in which the Psalm might best be placed; more often than not, he uses Greek terminology to do so, before offering an explanation in Latin. For example, Psalms 1 and 2 are described as ‘άνεπιγραϕος’ or

60 61 62

Hosea 1.1. Hosea 3.1. Genesis 7.21.

THE TESTAMENTIVETERISBIBLIASACRA

159

‘of a didactic type’, while Psalms 3, 5 and 6 are described as ‘έυκτικος’.64 Psalm 9 is characterised as being ‘′έπαινετικος’, or ‘laudatory’.65 Psalm 57 is described as ‘έπευκτικον or, (as we might say) a prayer against death and destruction’.66 In the opening annotation to Psalm 15, Tremellius says that it is ‘διδασκαλικος of the form διαλογοςικης, containing questions and answers’. These handfuls of types are used very frequently throughout the Psalms, often in conjunction with each other. Psalm 4 is considered to be ‘έυκτικος & διδασκαλικος’,67 as is Psalm 7,68 while Psalm 33 is described as ‘άνεπιγραϕος, partly ′έπαινετικος’ and partly ‘έυκτικος’. For other books, the argumentum is the more logical location for such comments. This is apparent for instance in the argumentum to the book of Hosea, where Tremellius, rather stating the obvious, comments; ‘The book of the Prophet Hosea should be located entirely in the prophetic genre.’69 But on other occasions, Tremellius uses the annotation on the first verse of a book to make these sorts of comments. For instance in the first annotation on the Song of Songs, he writes ‘The argument is a most excellent epithalamium or marriage song.’70 Similar is the first annotation on chapter one of Ecclesiastes, where Tremellius begins with the words: ‘This book is entirely didactic.’71 It is apparent that the annotations which treat both genre and structure constitute a basic level of literary criticism. Tremellius is here treating the Scriptures as a literary text. Closely connected to the issues of structure and genre are questions relating to the linguistic features of the biblical text. In particular, Tremellius often refers to sections of the biblical text by phrases and expressions which reflect a rhetorical approach. We have already encountered a number of examples of these above in relation to Tremellius’ divisions of the text at hand. Once again, such features are most frequently used in relation to the Psalms. In its simplest form we saw this in Psalm 1, which he divided into a Proposition, Narration and Conclusion. Similar is his treatment of the ninth Psalm which he explains may be divided into two parts: the first 11 verses are praise (‘laudatio’), while verses 12 and 13 are an exhortation (‘hortatio’).72 A very similar concern is evident in Tremellius’ identification of many of the figures of speech which appear in the Old Testament. Examples of synecdoche come in for very regular explanation. For instance, on Ezra 4, 63

63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

Psalms 2.1. Psalms 3.1, 5.1, 6.2. Psalms 9.2. Psalms 57.1. Psalms 4.1. Psalms 7.2. Hosea, Argumentum. Song of Songs 1.1. Ecclesiastes 1.1. Psalms 9.2.

160

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

while the text itelf records that Rehum and his scribe wrote a letter of accusation against the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the annotation which accompanies this passage reads: ‘that is, the whole Senate, by synecdoche: for these two were presiding’.73 Similarly, on Ecclesiastes 2, when the expression ‘I will mix wine gladly’ is used, Tremellius explains: ‘the words of the man by themselves stand for the many things which make life joyful. For one type of commodity, by which men are made joyful, is mentioned: but by synecdoche, all things are meant.’74 Metaphors too are often identified, and commonly explained. In Psalm 4, on the expression ‘you have given me a place in my difficulty’ [‘in angustia dilatasti mihi locum’], Tremellius writes: ‘that is, you are freed from restraints: metaphor’.75 Similarly, on Psalm 9, where the biblical text reads, ‘The Lord is a stronghold (‘editus locus’) for the oppressed’, the corresponding annotation reads ‘that is, a fortress and defence, metaphor’.76 Again, while figurative language was especially prevalent in the more poetical books of the Bible, Tremellius draws attention to its appearance elsewhere as well. For instance, a note of this sort appears in Ezra 9. On the expression ‘giving us walls in Judah and Jerusalem’ (‘dando nobis maceriam in Jehudah & Jeruschalaimis’), he writes: ‘that is, with us defended on all sides: metaphor’.77 Many more examples of these features appear, even within the selection of books considered for the purposes of this analysis. In addition, numerous figures of speech, including apostrophe,78 paraphrase,79 metonymy,80 prosopy (that is, personification)81 and hyperbole,82 to name only some of the most common, also receive comment. Just like his concern with structure and genre, and the use of rhetorical terminology, these annotations endorse the view that a significant proportion of Tremellius’ annotations treat the Scriptures simply as a text which can withstand the same kinds of scrutiny as the humanists applied to all texts. When one further considers that Tremellius was inclined to provide as literal a translation as possible (and his use of the marginal annotations to give further clues as to the nature of the original text), one can see that he had a very high regard for the Hebrew scriptures, not only for their content, but also for the way in which they were written. Underlying Tremellius’ attitude, then, is the 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Ezra 4.8. Ecclesiastes 2.2. Psalms 4.2. Psalms 9.10. Ezra 9.9. For example Song of Songs 1.7, 2.7, 2.14, 6.10; Hosea 4.5, 4.6, 4.15, 8.5. For example Song of Songs 5.11, 6.11, 7.6; Ecclesiastes 1.17; Hosea 5.2. For example Song of Songs 5.15; Ecclesiastes 2.3; Hosea 4.12. For example Hosea 10.13. For example Song of Songs 6.19; Hosea 4.3; Psalms 6.7.

THE TESTAMENTIVETERISBIBLIASACRA

161

belief that the Old Testament, as well as being the most important source for the Christian life, was a well-written text. In poetical books like the Psalms, explanations of the literary features of the text are pre-eminent. In other books, however, there is a greater effort to elaborate upon some of its subject matter. A further regular feature of the annotative material of Tremellius’ Old Testament, is the provision of extra information to aid the comprehension of what is being said in the biblical text. Here he again shows his predilection for chronological accuracy. Where the biblical text of Genesis refers to events occurring in the 600th year of the life of Noah, Tremellius has included a note in which he says: ‘this was the year 1656 of the world’.83 Similarly, on the following chapter, referring to the date on which the Ark came to rest on Mount Ararat, a note reads: ‘that is on the 151st day from the beginning of the flood’.84 Early in the book of Ezra, where the text refers to the seventh month, Tremellius provides an annotation which says: ‘that is, in Autumn: since the first anniversary festival prescribed by God, after their return happened in that month’.85 The text of Ezra 6 talks of the month of Adar, so in the corresponding note Tremellius writes: ‘which is the twelfth, and mostly corresponds to our February’.86 These annotations, it would seem, are simply intended to facilitate the reader’s comprehension of the text, and to place it in its chronological context. Although there is nothing preventing the individual reader from working these details out themselves, Tremellius has considered them worth including. Again, it appears that he was keen to provide as much as possible that might be helpful for whatever way his audience chose to approach the Bible. The explanation of historical and especially geographical features of the text constitutes a significant part of these notes. On many occasions, this is done in quite straightforward fashion. For instance, in a note on the expression ‘in terra Schinhharis’, Tremellius writes ‘that is, the lower part of Mesopotamia, which lies under the mountains of Singara’.87 In this example, Tremellius simply presents the information as fact, but in many more cases the attributions are evidently a little more tentative, and for this reason he seeks to support his line of interpretation. In relation to ‘Hhedene’ mentioned in Genesis 2, he remarks that this is ‘in part of Mesopotamia, as is clear from the following verses; on the same, see Isaiah 37 and Ezekiel 27’.88 On other occasions he simply makes reference to ‘authors’ and ‘geographers’ who endorse his point, without specifying who he has in mind.89 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

Genesis 7.11. Genesis 8.4. Ezra 3.1. Ezra 6.15. Genesis 10.10. Genesis 2.8. For example Ezra 4.9, 6.2.

162

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

But on a significant number of occasions, Tremellius does make explicit reference to the authors whose works he has consulted. A good example of how this works in practice is provided by a note dealing with a list of places mentioned in Ezra 2. In his annotation he writes: ‘these are the names of places in Babylonia and Mesopotamia, but it seems that the place Tel Melach is the town which Ptolemy calls Telme; for it means salty or barren mound, just as were the fields below Ure Chaldaeaorum, into which the streams of the Euphrates flowed: see Pliny, Natural History, book 6.27’.90 The following note, from the same verse, deals with another area, Tel-Charscha: ‘to the east of Babylon, as its name suggests: perhaps it is the area which Ptolemy says stretches from Talatha to the Tigris’.91 In fact, the range of classical works to which Tremellius makes reference in his annotations is extensive. In the selection of books on which this discussion is based, I have found references to Pliny,92 Strabo,93 Ptolemy,94 Justinus,95 Diodorus Siculus,96 Tullius,97 Ovid,98 Cicero99 and Dioscorides.100 As we have seen in one of the examples above, Tremellius did on occasion provide a specific reference, but this was by no means guaranteed: frequently the book is not mentioned let alone a chapter or page reference. While one cannot ignore the possibility that, at least in part, Tremellius was seeking to demonstrate his own learning, these references help to build up a general picture of academic authority arraigned in defence of the Scriptures. At the same time, however, the references are rarely complete, and in fact often contain nothing more than the name of the relevant author: as a result, it would be far from straightforward for his readers to pursue these references themselves. In other places, Tremellius sought to explain more cultural matters. For instance, on Psalm 5, Tremellius devotes quite a lengthy note to discuss the nature of the musical instruments mentioned in the opening verse. He writes: ‘The Hebrews are speaking of these types of musical instrument which are hollowed out and blown; for the trumpets (‘tubae’) of the priests, and the trumpets (‘buccinae’) of the Levites were of this sort.

Ezra 2.59. Ezra 2.59. 92 Genesis 2.10 and 2.14, 6.14, 11.3; Ezra 2.59; Song of Songs 1.14, 1.17, 6.1, 6.18; Ecclesiastes 1.6, 1.7, 1.7. 93 Ezra 6.2. 94 Two in Ezra 2.59 and 8.15 Genesis 8.4. 95 Ezra 6.22. 96 Ezra 6.22. 97 Ecclesiastes 2.1. 98 Ecclesiastes 2.9. 99 Ecclesiastes 2.15. 100 Genesis 2.12. 90 91

THE TESTAMENTIVETERISBIBLIASACRA

163

And since the sound of this type of instrument is produced by emiting air, they are called “pneumatic”.’101 An extension of this approach is when Tremellius moves from providing extra material relating to the practicalities of the biblical text, to commenting on some of the ideas contained within the Old Testament. This is not exegesis of a kind one would automatically associate with religious writers of the sixteenth century. There is little in the way of an over-arching confession of faith around which his comments are arranged, and indeed, as the preceding analysis had indicated, there were many things which he was trying to achieve in his translation and the accompanying annotations. His gentle exegesis should be considered in this context: it was essentially just another way in which he was seeking to make the text more accessible to his audience. Of course, as the subsequent paragraphs will show, certain underlying principles can be identified, but this remains an unconfessional work. There is relatively little with which any Christian, of whichever branch, would have taken issue. At the most basic level, Tremellius simply helps his reader with the interpretation. This is the case for instance in the very first annotation which he makes on the Old Testament. In his note on the first verse of Genesis, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’, Tremellius writes: ‘The sense is, God in the beginning would create the heavens and earth, he created an unrefined chaos, which afterwards provided the material for forming the heavenly and terrestrial bodies.’102 Similarly, on the second chapter, in a verse describing the nakedness of Adam and Eve immediately before the Fall, Tremellius writes: ‘the sense is, he was not shameful before the fault, but afterwards, because of the sin he was made shameful’.103 In these instances, he is simply making more clear the ideas contained within these verses. These are typical of the vast majority of the exegetical annotations. Very occasionally there are lines which at least suggest rather broader theological ideas. Evident right at the start of Genesis is Tremellius’ concern with the Trinity. For instance, in verse 3 of Chapter 1, where God creates light (‘Tum dixit Deus: Esto lux, & fuit lux’), Tremellius writes: ‘God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: thus in turn in the work of creation’.104 He is even more explicit when he comes to deal with the creation of man, in verse 26 (‘Postea dixit Deus, faciamus hominem in imagine nostra, secundum similitudinem nostra …’), writing: he does not address the Angels here, but the elements, for the glory of creation serves him alone: and nor does he thus speak about him in the cause of honour, 101 102 103 104

Psalms 5.1. Genesis 1.1. Genesis 2.25. Genesis 1.3.

164

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

since that was not the ancient custom, but retained in the first person: but with him stands God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God but three distinct persons. And here the evidence of the Holy Trinity is not obscure.105

These two references to the Trinity seem rather gratuitous: there is no need for them to be included in the annotations, and they are not prompted directly by the text. Rather, it seems that Tremellius has added them in himself, with some specific aim in mind. It may have something to do with a desire to prove his orthodoxy as a converted Christian; in particular it may have been prompted by the wish to distance himself from the antitrinitarianism prevalent in certain parts of Italy, from where he himself originated. Alternatively, and more positively, it may reflect a belief that such remarks were prompted by these passages or the belief that certain basic principles ought to be promoted in his work. In any case, it is evident that these views would have been acceptable throughout Christendom; indeed in the mid-sixteenth century, Servetus’ advocacy of anti-trinitarian views had brought upon him the criticism of all branches of the Christian faith; by contrast, Tremellius’ remarks could be expected to bring praise from all quarters. Also apparent is Tremellius’ Christocentrism. This is apparent throughout his treatment of the Song of Songs, for instance. In his annotation on the first verse of that book, Tremellius writes: ‘… The argument is an excellent epithalamium, or wedding song, in which Solomon sings to his most distinguished and most beautiful bride to be, and the marriage of Christ and the Church, on account of his eternal love towards the Church, and he protects it, and promises it kindnesses.’106 The allegorical interpretation according to which Tremellius treated the Song of Songs, seeing the love song as describing the relationship and ultimate union between Christ and the Church, as has been noted before, was a familiar one, and it might be considered unrepresentative on this theme. Nonetheless, when Solomon later describes the bride as a garden through which flows a fountain, Tremellius’ comments on this fountain have a particular resonance. He says, ‘by these words are the numberless and infinite kindnesses of Christ’.107 The expression he uses, ‘benificentia Christi’, calls to mind the key Italian reform text, the anonymous Beneficio diCristo, which, as we saw towards the start of this study, was composed in exactly the same circles as Tremellius’ conversion to Christianity had taken place. It would be unrealistic to imagine that Tremellius was making an explicit allusion to that text, but it does bring to light a further theme which ran throughout the course of his life. 105 106 107

Genesis 1.26. Song of Songs 1.1. Song of Songs 4.15.

THE TESTAMENTIVETERISBIBLIASACRA

165

Tremellius’ concern with Christ was in fact prevalent throughout the Old Testament. In Psalm 2, where God refers to ‘filius meus’, Tremellius writes: ‘that is, he was chosen for vocation and the administration of the kingdom of God; and it ought to be applied figuratively to David, and completely to Christ’,108 and indeed there are numerous references to Christ in this and several of the other Psalms. Again it may be objected that these as poetical books leave themselves particularly open to this level of interpretation, and that to do so was quite a familiar activity in the sixteenth century, but the Christological references are not even restricted to the ‘poetical’ books. In his consideration of Genesis, on the tree of life, mentioned in chapter 2, Tremellius writes: ‘it was not in this life: but it was a symbol of Christ, who is our life, and it was given, so it would be of life by divine influence for accepting and conserving the agreement’.109 Though not ubiquitous (there is no mention of Christ in Ezra, for instance), Christological references would seem to be a regular feature of Tremellius’ annotations. More often than not, he would seem to be highlighting locations where commenting on Christ was not unprecedented. On the other hand, given the low level of exegesis throughout his annotations, this is still highly noteworthy. The remarks about his attention to the Trinity are equally valid in this regard. At one level they may have deflected criticism from his work, but they could equally reflect his own viewpoint. Perhaps more importantly, they could not have, in themselves, prompted criticism from any branch of the Christian faith. Again, they would seem in keeping with his irenic approach to his Christianity. That this was a key element in his exegesis goes some way to explaining how his edition of the Bible met with such widespread acclaim. Conclusion: Reading Tremellius’ Bible Tremellius’ Latin Bible was one of the most important works to emerge from the Reformation, even if it has received only scant attention from historians since. Yet the preceding analysis has identified a number of its chief qualities, and the reasons why contemporaries were so impressed by it. At this stage, and by way of some concluding remarks, it may be worth considering how Tremellius hoped his Bible (and here we may speak of his Old and New Testaments together, because they were clearly directed towards the same ends) would be read, and what messages he wished to impart. In so doing, not only should we come to a better understanding of Tremellius’ enterprise, but we may also be in a stronger position to

108 109

Psalms 2.7. Genesis 2.9.

166

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

appreciate both the reasons for, and the nature of, the impact which these works had upon their audience.110 Given the spirit of the times, Tremellius’ concerns in the production of his translation of the Bible may strike us as rather surprising. There was a theological element to his annotations, but the ideas that he did include were far from developed or contentious. His Christocentricity and Trinitarianism were concepts which would have been acceptable to members of all the main Christian faiths; at the same time, they served to distance Tremellius from his Jewish heritage, and thereby to strengthen his Bible’s claim to orthodoxy. Elsewehere, as we have seen, in his annotations on the Old Testament, Tremellius does occasionally go in for rather smaller and more subtle pieces of exegesis, but in those instances, it is evident that he seeks to let the biblical text speak for itself: if there is any indication of his Calvinist affiliation, it is only ever of the most gentle kind. Especially when compared with other works to emerge from the period, this disinclination to become involved in confessional polemic is in fact one of the most striking features of Tremellius’ work as a whole.111 Although at least nominally intended to bolster the Calvinist faith, these books would have been acceptable to virtually all Christians. Indeed, as we saw in the previous chapter, his New Testament only just fell foul of the Catholic censors; there would have been very little in his edition of the Old Testament either which might have provoked their condemnation. At the same time, however, this was not a work for everyone. It was a translation into Latin, rather than one of the vernaculars; consequently, its audience would have been limited, but international. But Tremellius was doing more than simply providing another Latin rendering of the Scriptures. The annotations with which he supplemented both volumes dealt with issues relating to the original text of both testaments, to the language used in them and to explaining obscure passages, unfamiliar details and alien practices. Tremellius, as a Bible translator and commentator, was making this essential text as comprehensible for his audience as possible. One was not supposed to draw specific lessons from his treatments of different passages, as was the case with certain other translations; after all, Tremellius was first and foremost an academic and a humanist, rather than a theologian. His proficiency in Hebrew and his experience of Judaic culture and practices, which distinguished him from almost all of his contemporaries in Europe during this period, simply 110 For a broader discussion of how a range of works from antiquity were read in this period, see Anthony Grafton, CommercewiththeClassics:AncientBooksandRenaissance Readers(Ann Arbor, MI, 1997). 111 See for instance the discussion of Calvin’s exegesis of the Book of Job in Susan E. Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Calvin’s Exegesis of Job from Medieval and ModernPerspectives(Chicago IL and London, 1994), especially pp.121–55.

THE TESTAMENTIVETERISBIBLIASACRA

167

provided him with a reservoir of knowledge which he then sought to share with his contemporaries. Underlying his attitude was the belief that the Bible, much like any other text from antiquity, could withstand scrutiny from linguistic and philological angles; indeed, one’s appreciation of the text would be enhanced when these issues were considered. Moreover, he sought to provide extra material to further elucidate the content of these works. Yet ultimately, he left it up to his readers what they did with the text. In many ways, this reflects the open-mindedness which, as we saw, was a product of his early years in Italy. Within the Protestant sphere, this allowed his work to be used to serve a particular set of related motives. In its literalness and fidelity to the original, features further drawn out in many of the annotations, moreover, Tremellius’ Bible, at least indirectly, staked a strong claim to becoming a viable alternative to the Vulgate. In the production of such a work, Tremellius was providing an exceptionally important tool for his faith: if Calvinism could claim the most accurate version of the Bible, it gained a major advantage in the confessional struggles of the period. Both with this high level of translation and all the material with which Tremellius supplemented it, it could be used by sermonisers and religious writers, to a variety of different ends. It also meant that, perhaps most significantly of all, such enterprises, including the provision of vernacular translations, could be pursued independently from the Vulgate, upon which the Catholic Church, with all its perceived failings, continued to rest. In facilitating this break, Tremellius played a crucial, if frequently undervalued, role in the Reformation as a whole.

CHAPTER NINE

The last years Between 1575 and 1579, the five volumes of Tremellius’ magnum opus rolled off the presses in Frankfurt in fairly rapid succession. But even at this late stage in his career, and having established an international reputation as a first-rate Hebraist, he was not free from the turbulence which had characterised his entire career. Some of this he shared with his colleagues: when the Elector Frederick was succeeded by his Lutheran son, most of the teaching staff at Heidelberg University were forced to seek employment elsewhere. As we have seen throughout this study, this was part and parcel of the confessional conflicts which shaped the century. But some of the trouble which Tremellius faced in these years was much more specifically targeted at him, and was triggered by two aspects of his career which made him such a fascinating character in the first place: his Jewish background and, perhaps more importantly, his continuing involvement with Hebraic materials. As the experiences of the last years of his life would highlight, there were clear limits to the texts with which one could work, no matter how great the academic reputation. Yet as we will see in the course of this chapter, this controversy, and the manner in which he handled it, was entirely characteristic of the individual whose life we have followed. From Heidelberg to Sedan Ultimately, as had happened on so many occasions before in his career, circumstances beyond Tremellius’ control forced him to move on once more. In 1576, the Elector Frederick died and was succeeded by his son, Ludwig VI. Ludwig was known to be sympathetic towards the Lutheran church, and it was widely expected that he would reintroduce Lutheranism on his accession; indeed, his father had made the provision of carving out a principality within the Palatinate for John Casimir, his son, who was a fellow adherent of the Reformed church. Nonetheless, when Frederick died, the inhabitants braced themselves for the inevitable changes that Ludwig would introduce. Needless to say, the leaders of the church in Geneva were kept well informed about developments in Heidelberg. A letter written by Daniel Toussain to Beza in February 1577 gives both a good indication of the uncertainty which existed in Heidelberg, and also reveals the close

170

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

connections between these two leading cities of the Reformed faith.1 He begins by thanking him for his condolences on the death of Frederick, but quickly moves on to describe the apprehension in the Palatinate about what the future will hold. Some members of the university had, he noted, already received invitations from elsewhere: Olevian had been invited to Dordrecht for instance (though looked more likely to accept the invitation of the Count of Wittgenstein), while Toussain had offers from both Belgium and Holland. Towards the end of the letter, Junius and Tremellius are mentioned among the many professors who send their regards to Beza. Almost as an afterthought, Toussain then expresses the hope that their translation of the Bible, which was still ongoing, would be completed under the auspices of John Casimir. Clearly this work was being anticipated by the wider Reformed church even before its completion. As far as Tremellius was concerned, the uncertainty about his prospects would remain through until the end of the year. He was finally deprived of his Chair at the university on 5 December 1577, along with Boquin and Zanchi. The university attempted to intervene on their behalf on 11 and 20 December, but with no effect. Again, the information was soon passed on to Geneva, on this occasion by Ursinus. In this letter, Ursinus noted that these three professors had been ordered to cease from their posts ‘since they had been teaching Calvinism up to this point’; he also noted that they had been informed that they would not be able to enjoy their homes or stipends beyond Christmas day, by chance the day on which his letter was written. Again Ursinus seeks to bring Beza up to date with the moves which the various members of staff hoped to make. He also noted that because so many schools had closed, John Casimir intended to establish a new school in his territory. Evidently Zanchi and Tremellius had already offered their services. In the event, John Casimir established his school, the Collegium Casimirianum, at Neustadt, in April 1578. But while Zanchi, Ursinus and Toussain all became professors there, Boquin and Tremellius did not. The former returned to France to serve briefly as a pastor, before becoming a professor at the University of Lausanne in 1580. Meanwhile, Tremellius, now in his late 60s, also headed to France. It has often been claimed that his first port of call was Metz, and sometimes suggested that Daniel Toussain to Theodore Beza, 2 February 1577, CB 1234. Zacharias Ursinus to Theodore Beza, 25 December 1577, CB 1283. 3 Eduard Winklemann (Ed.), Urkundenbuch der Universität Heidelberg zur FünfhundertjährigenstiftungsfeierderUniversität(2 vols, Heidelberg, 1886), vol.2, p.140. 4 Zacharias Ursinus to Theodore Beza, 25 December 1577, CB 1283. 5 Gustav Adolf Benrath, ‘Das Casimirianum, die reformierte Hohe Schule in Neustadt an der Haardt (1578–1584)’ in Claus-Peter Westrich (Ed.), NeustadtunddieKurpfalz.Die UniversitätHeidelbergundihreBeziehungenzurlinksrheinischenPfalz (Heidelberg, 1986), pp.39–51. 1 2

171

THE LAST YEARS

it was his wife who was principally responsible for the move. She was of course a native of that city, so it is possible that she may have wished to return to her family. In addition, as we have seen, Tremellius had gone to Metz on at least two previous occasions (in 1560, when he had been instrumental in winning religious refugees liberties for the Protestants of that city, and again in 1570), and would also seem to have been inclined to a policy whereby he retraced his steps in moments of crisis. He may have believed that he would be able to find another teaching post there. In early 1578, Tremellius was invited to Sedan, also in France, by Henri La Tour d’Auvergne, Viscount of Turenne and Duke of Bouillon. Henri had recently established an academy intended primarily for the Huguenot aristocracy. Tremellius was appointed its first Professor of Hebrew. As it turned out, this was the last job he held. 

Tremellius and the Talmud But if we know disappointingly little about his activities at the Academy of Sedan, we do know rather more about a controversy which flared up during this period. This centred around his involvement in a project relating to the publication of the Talmud. As Tremellius would subsequently report to Beza, while he was still in Heidelberg, Ambrosius Froben, a printer from Basle, had passed through the city on his way to the book fair at Frankfurt. Froben asked Tremellius whether he would help him by proofreading volumes of the Talmud which he intended to publish, and to remove whatever might be considered blasphemous and contrary to the Christian faith. Tremellius remarks that he was happy to do this, and indeed suggests that he was particularly assiduous in removing offending passages, ‘not only the blasphemous parts, but also the evil judgements they couldn’t help from making against those people they call the Gentiles, among whom they include Christians’. Once he had completed the volumes he had received he returned them to Froben, fully annotated, giving his various reasons for the passages he had excised. In addition, he 6 For example J. Ney, ‘Tremellius, Emanuel’ in Philip Schaff (Ed.) TheSchaff-Herzog EncyclopaediaofReligiousKnowledge (12 vols, New York and London, 1908–12), vol.11 (1911), p.504; E. I. Carlyle, ‘Tremellius, John Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in DNB vol.57 (1899), p.186; ‘Tremellius (Emanuel)’ in Biographie Universelle, Ancienne et Moderne, vol.46 (Paris, 1826), p.469; Charles Henry Cooper and Thompson Cooper, ‘Tremellius’ in Cooper and Cooper, AthenaeCantabrigienses(3 vols, Cambridge, 1858–1913), vol.1, p.426; Friedrich Wilhelm Cuno, BlatterderErinnerunganDr.KasparOlevianus,herausgegebenzu dessen dreihundertjährigen Todestage (Barmen, 1887), p.44. This suggestion presupposes that Tremellius’ wife was still alive by this point. 7 Cooper and Cooper, AthenaeCantabrigienses, vol.1, p.426 in fact suggest that he did teach Hebrew while he was there, but there does not seem to be any evidence for this. 8 Tremellius to Theodore Beza, September/October 1579, CB 1373.

172

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

had drafted a short preface in which he expressed his reservations about the Talmud more generally; he had not dismissed it entirely, however, and commented that he had been able to use some materials drawn from it in the composition of his edition of his polyglot New Testament. In the meantime, however, word had got out about his involvement in this project, and he gathers that false rumours are circulating about him. Indeed, in exasperation, he told Beza that he had now heard three or four complaints about his work on the Talmud, and wishes that he had never got involved with it in the first place. He claims both innocence and ignorance against various charges, before pointing out that he had eliminated so much of the book that it would not have appealed to Catholics (an alternative censored version of the Talmud had recently been approved by the Council of Trent), or to the Jews, since so little of the original text was left. He discusses these matters in further detail before asking Beza to communicate with whomever has been offended by it to explain the full story, and to eliminate any such offence. Two aspects of this episode merit particular comment. First, there is Tremellius’ behaviour in all of this. He was ready to get involved in the project in the first place, when it appeared to him as a matter of scholarship. As he sets out his attitude, even in these difficult times, moreover, he is ready to go on record as saying that the Talmud does contain material that is useful for a Christian audience; although he does, at the same time, indicate that it needs to be treated with great caution. In fact, there are echoes here of his work in other areas: he is making available subject matter that he thinks is valuable for a wider audience. But in doing so, and especially as a converted Jew, he was putting himself into a dangerous position by embarking on this activity in the first place. He was clearly very sensitive to that, and his immediate reaction was to drop the project entirely. But the second aspect of his response is revealing in other ways too. The fact that he should write to Beza suggests a number of things. It is apparent that they had considerable mutual respect for each other, both as scholars and individuals. This is perhaps best reflected in the publication, in parallel columns, of their respective translations of the New Testament. It also indicates that, following the death of Calvin who had, for so long, looked after his interests, Tremellius had turned his attentions to Beza. Even a scholar of such high standing and great seniority within the Reformed church as Tremellius would benefit from having well-placed friends. Indeed, it is quite remarkable that, even in the last years of his life, Tremellius should still have to look to others to vouch for his orthodoxy and credibility.

THE LAST YEARS

173

Tremellius’ Death According to various accounts from the early seventeenth century, Tremellius died in Sedan on 9 October 1580, his will having been made only shortly before, on 31 July. Unfortunately, it does not seem that his will has survived, so this cannot be independently confirmed. Tremellius’ final moments in fact remain among the most contentious of his life. According to Jacques Cappel, a professor of theology at the Academy of Sedan, writing in 1616, ‘Messrs Remand and Fernier have no shame in saying that [Tremellius] came back to and died in his Judaism’. To a large extent, this episode would seem to be a legacy of his conversion 40 years previously, and to reflect the anxieties of those who had viewed it, and Tremellius’ subsequent life as a convert, with suspicion. Death and the possession of a clear conscience were considered of such importance that many who believed they had lived falsely, in whatever sense, would renounce their errors before death. It seems likely that these Catholic writers were seeking to undermine Tremellius’ contribution to the Reformed tradition by calling into question his adherence to Protestantism. Needless to say, his fellow Protestants were quick to endorse his commitment. Johann Grynaeus, in his ‘Apothegm Morientium’, claims that Tremellius’ dying words were ‘Vivat Christus, pereat Barabas’, and these are quoted in several works in defence of his orthodoxy.10 This restatement of an attachment to Christ, one of the key tenets distinguishing Christianity from Judaism, and the rejection of Barabbas, who clearly represents the Jewish faith here, encapsulates such a notion. One may doubt, however, that Tremellius would have actually said such a thing: the phrase is surely merely apocryphal, and a response from his co-religionists to the challenges to his orthodoxy. On the other hand, Tremellius’ supporters from Cappel onwards have directed attention to his will. Not only did he supposedly leave 30 ecus to the poor of Sedan, but he also thanked God for having drawn him away from Judaism, and for having led him to know Jesus Christ.11 Claims about his will do need to be treated with some degree of scepticism, since we are unable to verify them, but the weight of probability must lie with those who defended him against his opponents. Although perhaps never the most hard-lined of Calvinists, it is not necessary to assume that Tremellius 9 Jacques Cappel, LesLivréesdeBabel,oul’HistoireduSiègeRomain (Sedan, 1616), p.iii. It is also quoted in Paul Colomies, Italia et Hispania Orientalis, sive Italorum et HispanorumquiLinguamHebraeamvelaliasorientalesexcolueruntvitae…editaeetnotis instructae a Jo. Christophoro Wolfio (Hamburg, 1730), pp.110–12. 10 Colomies, ItaliaetHispaniaOrientalis, p.111; Becker, Tremellius, p.41; and Johannes de le Roi, DieevangelischeChristenheitunddieJudenunterdemGesichtspunktderMission geschichtlichbetrachtet(3 vols, Karlsruhe and Leipzig, 1884–92), p.55. 11 Cappel, LesLivréesdeBabel, p.iii.

174

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

had harboured a covert attachment to Judaism through the last 40 years of his life. Yet once again, this episode, much like the trouble he encountered in relation to his work on the Talmud, emphasises very effectively how Tremellius could never entirely escape this element of his background.

Conclusion It is clear that Immanuel Tremellius made a significant contribution to the early modern period. During his own lifetime, he rose to a position of considerable prominence and renown, primarily on account of his activities as a teacher. Through a period of over 40 years, with very few gaps, he taught in some of the most prestigious educational institutions, and was sought after to join still others. It is clear that he was, at least to an extent, the beneficiary of some fortunate timing. On many occasions, he was either the first, or at least among the first, teacher of Hebrew or Old Testament studies to be employed by the academies and universities in which he taught. The great advances which took place in terms of educational provision in Europe, under the influence of the Renaissance and Reformation, undoubtedly helped to create a more welcoming environment for Tremellius. More than that, however, Tremellius possessed abilities which were shared by only a very small number of academics, and was considered to be first rate even amongst them. In addition, Tremellius enjoyed a considerable number of high-profile connections, which included political figures such as the rulers of England, France, Navarre and various German states, leading churchmen, including three archbishops of Canterbury, and a wide range of other prominent religious figures associated with the Reformed church, such as John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Peter Martyr Vermigli and Martin Bucer. Perhaps more importantly than simply being in contact with figures of this stature, it is evident that Tremellius was very well regarded by his contemporaries: on almost every occasion on which he is mentioned in sources from the time, it is in highly positive terms. Equally, he seems to have conducted his business with them in a very effective manner. However, it was primarily Tremellius’ writings which helped to cement his reputation in the last years of his life, and on which his legacy would be based. His translation of the New Testament from Syriac into Latin of 1569 was an impressive piece of scholarship in its own right. Though it could not serve the confessional purpose which some hoped quite as effectively as it might, it demonstrated a wide range of skills, and was a work which very few individuals could even have contemplated composing. It and several of his other works of Christian-Hebraica, moreover, did much to establish Heidelberg as a centre of Oriental studies into the seventeenth century. However, it was for his edition of the Old Testament, above all, that Tremellius is remembered. This was, again, a remarkable piece of scholarship, and one of the most important texts to be associated with the Reformation. It came to be published in the sixteenth, seventeenth and even into the eighteenth centuries, in locations across Europe. In terms of its publishing

176

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

history, indeed, it was very clearly the most successful Latin rendering of the Bible to emerge from the sixteenth century. Both through this and through the incorporation of much of its material in other works, including various vernacular Bibles, its impact on European culture was vast. Despite all of this, however, Tremellius has tended to be overshadowed by many of his contemporaries, and consequently he has been rather overlooked in the historiography on the European Reformation. This undoubtedly reflects Tremellius’ own character: not only did he avoid putting himself in the most controversial and dramatic situations which have most readily attracted the attentions of contemporaries and historians, but if anything he in fact seems to have sought to drop into the background wherever possible. It is in fact quite likely that he did so as a conscious policy, triggered by his status both as an Italian in northern Europe and as a convert from Judaism. Paradoxically, as I have sought to suggest over the course of this study, it is these aspects of his life, which could often work against him and which he may have hoped to leave behind, that actually did much to give shape to the particular contribution to the early modern period. But Tremellius’ disappearance from the historical radar must also be attributed to the interests of modern historians. The more polemical characters have tended to draw the attentions of later generations because of the force and volume of their opinions; but in recent years, the more moderate figures have also begun to receive fuller attention. Similarly, as an academic rather than a theologian, he does not fit with standard perceptions of what best characterises the Reformation, but the regard in which he was held by his contemporaries, and the success of his writings clearly obliges us to re-evaluate Tremellius’ contribution, and perhaps, by extension, the criteria by which such judgements have traditionally been made. In subjecting Tremellius’ life to a fresh analysis, this study has thrown light on several important aspects of the early modern world. Two areas in particular merit some brief reflection. The first of these relates to Tremellius’ position as a Jew and then a Jewish convert. He is, at the most simple level, another case-study through whom we may evaluate the Jewish contribution to life in the early modern period. More importantly perhaps, it is evident that in various ways, Tremellius does not conform to the established patterns for such individuals. Perhaps the clearest example of this is in his relation towards Jews. While it had been traditional for Jewish converts to defend themselves by attacking their former brethren, Tremellius seems to have been more open and friendly towards them, hoping instead for their conversion, and producing works which may have contributed to that goal. Moreover, as we have seen, it may well be that his actions contributed to a gradual shift in attitudes towards the

CONCLUSION

177

Jews more generally. As we have seen, it was the case that other converts would subsequently follow him in the tone that they adopted in speaking to Jewish communities. This positive attitude towards the Jews as people also chimed with his enthusiasm for Judaism and Hebrew texts as sources of wisdom, beneficial to Christians as well as to Jews. This accounts for his continuing to work with Jewish materials throughout the course of his life. Even the Talmud, he believed, as we saw in the last chapter, could usefully be exploited in a Christian context, although it is clear that many of his contemporaries drew the line at that. Nonetheless, Tremellius devoted his life to dealing with aspects of Jewish language, culture and wisdom, and helped to disseminate much of this both in the classroom and through his writings. And indeed, the successful career, and the prestigious positions which he occupied, should alert us to a further important point in relation to this theme. During the course of this study, we have, of course, encountered many circumstances in which anti-Semitic prejudice seems to have hindered his progress. But it would have been impossible for him to enjoy the career that he did without the support and approval of a number of well-placed contemporaries. Again as we have seen, there was a growing body of people who genuinely appreciated the insights with which Tremellius could provide them. Their support for him may well have been personal, but it also reflected their high evaluation of what it was he represented: in the sixteenth century, Hebrew learning was something that really mattered. While this study of the career of Tremellius tells us much about the Jewish contribution to the early modern world, it also provides various insights into the Christian community into which he was received. We have seen that various leaders of the Reformed churches of Europe, most notably John Calvin, were very enthusiastic supporters of Tremellius. Again while this may in part be attributed to some level of personal feeling, it was also the case that he brought with him skills which were held to be invaluable in the confessional struggles which ensnared Europe at this time. Indeed there is something of an irony in the fact that a figure who seems to have been largely warm and irenical in outlook should, through his scholarship, lead to the creation of a range of powerful weapons on behalf of his adopted faith. For Calvin, as for the other reformers of this era, the Bible was at the centre of the reform programme that he wished to bring about. It was on these grounds that the initial break with Rome had been made, that the Reformation had split into different confessions and on the understanding of which these new churches were to be built. In all of this, it was paramount to have as accurate a text as possible, to understand its meaning as fully as possible and to have the requisite skills to handle it as effectively as possible. These were all attributes which Tremellius was able to provide. His Latin

178

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

translations of the Bible were highly successful because they offered a more accurate, and Protestant, alternative to the Vulgate. His annotations were valued because they helped to reveal the many dimensions of the biblical text. And in the classroom, and his involvement in grammatical works, he was able to provide future generations with the skills to engage in such activities themselves. To understand why Tremellius enjoyed the successful career that he did, despite the innate prejudices against him, we need to appreciate how profoundly valued were these various contributions; and if we appreciate that, we will go some way to understanding what it was that lay at the heart of the Reformation itself.

Appendix Editions of Tremellius’ Bible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Year

Location

Size

Printers/Publishers

1575–79 1579–80 1581 1585 1590 1592–93 1596 1596 1592–97 1602 1603 1607 1617 1618 1618 1623–24 1627 1628 1630 1631 1632 1633 1639 1640 1648 1651 1656 1661 1669 1673 1680 1688 1703 1715

Frankfurt London London London Geneva London Hanau Hanau London Hanau Hanau Sancti Gervasi Geneva Hanau Hanau Hanau Amsterdam Amsterdam Geneva Amsterdam Amsterdam Amsterdam Amsterdam London Amsterdam Amsterdam London London Amsterdam Zurich London Amsterdam Zurich Hanau

folio 4to 4to 4to 4to folio folio 8vo folio 8vo folio folio folio 4to 8vo folio 12mo 12mo folio 12mo 12mo 12mo 12mo 12mo 12mo 12mo 12mo 12mo 12mo 8vo 12mo 12mo 8vo 8vo

Andreas Wechel Middleton; Barker Middleton Middleton; Barker Tornaesius; Wechels Bishop; Newbery etc. Wechels; Aubri Wechels; Aubri Bishop; Newbery etc. Wechels; Aubri Wechels; Aubri Sumpt. Cal. Soc M. Berjon Wechels; Aubri Wechels; Aubri Wechels J. Jansson G. I. Caesium Philip Albert G. I. Blaeuw J. Jansson Blaeuw Blaeuw Flesher J. Jansson I. Blaeuw E. Tyler & A. M. E. Tyler I. I. Schipper Bodmerianus Norton; Ponder J. Jansson D. Gessner N. Forster

New Testament* -------------Trem. Beza Trem./Beza Trem./Beza Trem./Beza Trem./Beza Beza Trem./Beza Trem./Beza Trem./Beza Trem./Beza Trem./Beza Trem./Beza Beza Trem./Beza Beza Beza Trem./Beza Beza Beza Beza Beza Beza Beza Beza Beza Beza Beza Beza Beza Beza Beza Beza

*this column indicates which edition of the new testament was used to create the complete Bible.

Bibliography Primary Sources ManuscriptSources Heidelberg: Universitätsarchiv RA 660 (formerly I, 3 Nr 8) RA 661 (formerly I, 3 Nr 9) RA 662 (formerly I, 3 Nr 10) RA 663 (formerly I, 3 Nr 11) RA 707 I, 3 Nr 41 London: British Library MS Lansdowne 2 MS Royal London: Lambeth Palace Library MS 2010: Fairhurst Papers Munich: Staatsbibliothek Collectio Camerariana MS 8, 269 MS 8, 271 Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale de France MSS Fonds Français Dupuy 268 no.12 Dupuy 348 no.120 Paris: Bibliothèque Ste-Geneviève MS 1458, ‘Epistolae Haereticorum’ Zurich: Staatsarchiv E II 336, 286 E II 346, 551 E II 347, 815/16 E II 359, 3093b E II 361, 8

182

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

E II 361, 85 E II 361, 62/63 E II 368, 565 E II 370, 199 E II 370, 200 E II 370, 499r Zurich: Zentralbibliothek MS S 84, 6 MS S 84, 7 MS S 91, 47 MS S 91, 111 MS S 93, 154 MS S 95, 158 MS S 96, 13 MS S 96, 38 MS S 124, 123 PrintedWorks Adamus, Melchior, ‘Immanuel Tremellius’ in Melchior, Decades Duae ContinentesVitasTheologorumExterorumPrincipum,quiEcclesium Christi Superiori Seculo Propagarunt et Propugnarunt (Frankfurt, 1618), pp.142–3. Ayre, John (Ed.), TheSermonsofEdwynSandys,D.D.,SuccessivelyBishop of Worcester and London and Archbishop of York … (Cambridge, 1842). Banosius, Theophilus, PetriRami…Vita(Frankfurt, 1577). Baumgarten, Hermann (Ed.), SleidanusBriefwechsel (Strasbourg, 1881). Beza, Theodore, Histoireecclésiastiquedeséglisesréforméesauroyaume deFrance, edited by G. Baum and Eduard Cunitz(3 vols, Paris, 1889). Beza, Theodore, Icones,idestVeraeImaginesvirorumdoctrinasimulet pietateillustrium(Geneva, 1580). Beza, Theodore, Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze, edited by H. Aubert, H. Meylan and A. Dufour (Geneva, 1960–). Blaurer, Ambrosius and Thomas, Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer 1509–1567, edited by Traugott Schiess (3 vols, Freiburg, 1908–12). Bongi, Salvatore, InventariodelR.ArchiviodiStatoinLucca.Documenti degliarchiviToscani(4 vols, Lucca, 1872–88). Bozza, Tommaso (Ed.), Nuova Studi Sulla Riforma in Italia, vol.1 Beneficio diCristo(Rome, 1976).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

183

Bullinger, Heinrich, Heinrich Bullinger Briefwechsel, edited by Ulrich Gäbler et al. (Zurich, 1973–). Cabala,siveScriniaSacra,MysteriesofStateandGovernment:inLetters ofIllustriousPersonsandGreatMinistersofState,AsWellForeignas Domestick,IntheReignsofKingHenryVIIIth,Q:Elizabeth,K:James, andK:Charles… (London, 1663). Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, edited by R. H. Brodie (5 vols, London, 1924–29). CalendarofStatePapersDomestic,EdwardVI,PhilipandMary,Elizabeth, editedbyRofertLemon(9 vols, London, 1856–72). CalendarofStatePapers,Foreign, edited by William. B. Turnbull et al. (23 vols, London, 1863–1950). Calendar of State Papers, Spanish, edited by Royall Tyler (15 vols in 20 , London, 1862–1954). CalendaroftheStatePapersrelatingtoScotland, edited by Joseph Bain and William K. Boyd (9 vols, 1858–1915). Calvin, John, Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, edited by Wilhelm Baum, Eduard Cunitz, Eduard Reuss et al. (Corpus Reformatorum, vols 29–87) (Braunschweig, 1863–1900). Calvin, John, Lettres de Jean Calvin, recueilles pour la premiére fois et publiéesd’apréslesmanuscritsoriginaux, edited by Jules Bonnet (2 vols, Paris, 1854). Calvin, John, LettersofJohnCalvin,compiledfromtheoriginalmanuscripts andeditedwithhistoricalnotes, edited by Jules Bonnet and translated by David Constable (4 vols, Edinburgh, 1855–57). Calvin, John, ‘Catechism of the Church of Geneva’, in Rev. J. K. S. Reid (trans.), Calvin:TheologicalTreatises (London, 1954), pp.88–139. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill, (2 vols, Philadelphia, 1960). Cappel, Jacques, Les Livrées de Babel, ou l’Histoire du Siège Romain (Sedan, 1616). Chevallier, Antoine Rodolph, Rudimenta Hebraicae Linguae, accurata methodo & brevitate conscripta. Eorundem Rudimentorum Praxis, quae vivae vocis loco esse possit. Omnia recognita & aucta ab ipso authoreAnt.RodolphoCevallerioeiuslinguaeprofessore.DeHebraica Syntaxi canones generales, nunc primum editi. Praefixa est epistola Hebraea doctissimi viri Ioan. Immanuelis Tremellii, qua operis totius utilitascopiosedemonstratur([Geneva], 1561). De Bujanda, J. M. (Ed.), Index des livres interdits III: Index de Venise 1549;VeniseetMilan1554(Geneva, 1987). Dedekind, Frederick, Proverbium Solomnis … liber, carmine elegiaco redditus per Fridericum Dedekindum. Subjecta est singulis capitibus versioImmanuelisTremellii(Lyon, 1584).

184

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Donne, John, The Lamentations of Jeremy, for the most part according to Tremellius’ in Donne, TheCollectedPoemsofJohnDonne, edited by Roy Booth (London, 1994), pp.273–85. Doreslaer, Abraham, Biblia Sacra … na de Hebreusche ende Grieksche Waerkeytgetrouwelyckverduytschet.MetverclaringenendeAnnotatien, vanE.Tremellius,F.Junius,T.BezaendeJ.Piscator.Endenuinonse NederlantscheTaleovergeset,doorAbrahamumàDoreslaer(Arnhem, 1614). Du Plessis-Mornay, Philippe ‘Vindiciae contra Tyrannos’, in J. H. Franklin (Ed.), ConstitutionalismandResistanceintheSixteenthCentury (New York, 1969), pp.138–99. Edwards, John (Ed.), TheJewsinWesternEurope,1400–1600 (Manchester and New York, 1994). Erpenius, Thomas, OrationestresdeLinguarumEbraeae,atqueArabicae Dignitate(Leiden, 1621). Flaminio, Marcantonio, Lettere, edited by Alessandro Pastore (Rome, 1978). Génébrard, Gilbert, Chronographiaelibriquatuor… (Paris, 1580). Gilby, Anthony, The Psalmes of David, Truly Opened and explaned by Paraphrasis…TotheWhichisAddedabriefeTable,shewingwhereunto every Psalme is particularly to be applied … Set foorth in Latine by …TheodoreBeza.And…translatedintoEnglish,byAnthonieGilbie. And by him newlie purged from sundrie faultes escaped in the first print …(London, 1581). Gleason, Elisabeth G. (Ed. and trans.), Reform Thought in SixteenthCenturyItaly(Ann Arbor, MI, 1981). Gorham, George Cornelius (Ed.), Gleaningsofafewscatteredears,during theperiodoftheReformationinEnglandandofthetimesimmediately succeedingA.D.1533toA.D.1588(London, 1857). Harding, Thomas, A Reiondre to M. Iewels Replie Against the Sacrifice of theMasse…(Louvain, 1567). ‘The Heidelberg Catechism’, in A. C. Cochrane (Ed.), ReformedConfessions oftheSixteenthCentury (London, 1966), pp.305–31. Herminjard, Aimé Louis, Correspondancedesréformateursdanslespays delanguefrançaise:recuielleetpubliéeavecd’autreslettresrelativesà la réforme et des notes historiques et biographiques (9 vols, Geneva, 1866–97). Hill, R., The Contents of Scripture: containing the sum of every Booke andchapteroftheoldandnewTestament.GatheredfromTremellius, Iunius,Beza,Piscatorandothers(TheConsentofthefoureEvangelists: OrThelifeofChrist:collectedbyC.I.[i.e.CorneliusJansenius]and placedbeforehisHarmony.EnglishedforanappendixtotheContents

BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

ofScripture.TothisareaddedanhundredAphorismes…containing thematterandmethodofM.CalvinsInstitutionsetc.(London, 1596). Hudon, William V. (Ed. and trans.), TheatineSpirituality.SelectedWritings (New York, 1996). James I, TheEssaysofaPrentise.IntheDivineArtofPoesie(Edinburgh, 1584, reprinted Amsterdam and New York, 1969). Jones, G. Lloyd et al. (Ed. and trans.), JohannReuchlin:OntheArtofthe Kabbalah,1517 (Lincoln and London,1993). [Junius, Franciscus?], Specularius, Dialogus Pernecessarius, quo se Immanuel Tremellius purgat ab illis criminationibus, quas Gilbertus GenebrardusTheologusParisiensisdivinarum&Hebraicarumliterarum ProfessorRegius,ipsiinChronographia,seuuniversaehistoriaespeculo intulerat (Neustadt, 1581). Kluckhohn, August, Briefe Friedrich des Frommen. Kurfursten von der PfalzmitverwandtenSchriftstücken(2 vols, Braunschweig, 1870). Le Neve, John, FastiEcclesiaeAnglicanae:oraCalendarofthePrincipal Ecclesiastical Dignitaries in England and Wales, and of the Chief Officers in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (3 vols, Oxford, 1854; revised edn, Athlone Press, 1962–): 1300–1541 (12 vols); 1541– 1857 (4 vols). Luther, Martin, OntheJewsandtheirLies (1543) http://www.fordham. edu/halsall/mod/luther-freedomchristian.html. Luther, Martin, Le Livre de l’Ecclésiaste, autrement dict le Prescheur, familièrementexpliquéparM.Luther,avecdeuxversionsdutexte,dont cellequiestenlettreitaliqueestdeM.EmanuelTremel…(Geneva: J. Crespin, 1557). Mayer, Thomas (Ed.), TheCorrespondenceofReginaldPole:ACalendar (3 vols, Aldershot, 2002–04). Mémoires. Edition revue sur les manuscrits publiée avec les variants et accompagnée de lettres inédites de Mr et Mme Plessis Mornay et de leurs enfants, edited by Madame de Witt, née Guizot (2 vols, Paris, 1867–69). Merkel, Gerhard (Ed.), Protocollum Contubernii. Visitation und Rechnungsprüngvon1568–1615(Heidelberg, 2000). OriginalLettersRelativetotheEnglishReformation,WrittenDuringthe Reigns of Kinge Henry VIII, King Edward VI and Queen Mary: Chiefly fromtheArchivesofZurich,edited by H. Robinson (2 vols, Cambridge, 1846–47). [Parker, Matthew?], De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae & Privilegiis Ecclesiae Cantuariensis, cum Archiepiscopis eiusdem 70 (London, 1572).

186

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

J.T. Perowne, Correspondence of Matthew Parker D.D., Archbishop of Canterbury … Letters written by him and to him from A.D.1535 to A.D.1575, edited by J. Bruce and T. T. Perowne(Cambridge, 1853). Piscator, Johannes, Commentarii in omes libros Veteris Testamenti: antehacaliquotiesseparatimediti:nuncveroinunumvolumencollecti (Herborn, 1646). Piscator, Johannes, QuaestionesinPentateuchum…quarumexplicatione loca obscura declarantur; et insuper in quatuor libris posterioribus versio Tremellio-Juniana examinatur per J. Piscatorem … Addita est Consideratio quaestionis controversae de punctis Hebraici in vetere testamento(Herborn, 1624). Registres de la Compagnie des Pasteurs de Genève (10 vols, Geneva, 1962–). Saperstein, Marc (Ed.), Jewish Preaching, 1200–1800: An Anthology (New Haven, CT and London, 1989). Sidney, Sir Philip, ‘An Apologie for Poetrie’ in G. Gregory Smith (Ed), Elizabethan Critical Essays (Oxford, 1904), pp. 148–207. Simler, Josias, OratiodeVitaetObituClarrissimiVirietPraestantissimi Theologi D. Petri Martyris Vermilii, Sacrarum literarum in Schola TigurinaProfessoris(Zurich, 1563). Simonsohn, Schlomo, TheApostolicSeeandtheJews.Documents1394– 1464 (Toronto, 1988). Strauss, Gerald (Ed.), Manifestations of Discontent in Germany on the EveoftheReformation.ACollectionofDocuments (Bloomington, IN and London, 1971). Toepke, Gustav, Die Matrikel der Universität Heidelberg von 1386 bis 1662(2 vols, Heidelberg, 1884–86). Tomson, William, In Canticum canticorum quod scripsit Schelomo, explanatiofacilima,&coelestisplenaconsolationis;authoreGuilielmo Tomson(London, 1583). Tossanus, Paul, IndexinSacraBiblialocupletissimus,exLatinaI.Tremellii etF.Juniiversione,quoadVetusetT.BezaequoadNovumTestamentum, justapostremameditionem,collectus(Hanau, 1624). Tremellius, Immanuel, SeferHinukhbehireiYah ([Paris], 1554). Tremellius, Immanuel, LibellusVereAureusD.MartiniBuceridevietusu SacriMinisteriicumingeneretumdesingulispartibuseius,nunquam antehactypisimpressus (Basle, 1562). Tremellius, Immanuel, Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D. P. ad Ephesios, eximii doctoris Martini Buceri, habitae Cantabrigiae in AngliaAnnoMDL&LI.Exorepraelegntiscollectae,&nuncprimum inlucemeditaediligentiaeImmanuelisTremellii (Basle, 1562). Tremellius, Immanuel, In Hoseam Prophetam Interpretatio et Enarratio ([Geneva], 1563).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

187

Tremellius, Immanuel, IonathanaeFiliiUzielis…Chaldaeaparaphrasisin duodecimminoresProphetas…latinereddita (Heidelberg, 1567). Tremellius, Immanuel, Grammatica Chaldaea et Syra Immanuelis Tremellii, theologiae doctoris et professoris in schola Heidelbergensi ([Geneva], 1569). Tremellius, Immanuel, Testamentum Novum. Est autem interpretatio syriacanoviTestamenti,HebraeisTypisDescripta.Plerisqueetiamlocis emendata.EademLatinoSermoneReddita([Geneva], 1569). Tremellius, Immanuel, BibliorumParsPrima,idest,QuinqueLibriMoschis LatinirecensexHebraeofacti (Frankfurt am Main, 1575–79). Tremellius, Immanuel, Psalmi Davidis ex Hebraeo in Latinum Conversi (London, 1580). Tremellius, Immanuel, Historia Esther, in Latinum Sermonem Conversa … (Hamburg, 1618). Valdés, Juan de, Alfabeto Cristiano, edited with an introduction by Massimo Firpo (Turin, 1994). Venn, John (Ed.), GraceBookΔ,containingtheRecordsoftheUniversity ofCambridgefortheseyears1542–1589(Cambridge, 1910). Vermigli, Peter Martyr, TheLife,EarlyLettersandEucharisticWritings of Peter Martyr edited by Joseph C. McLelland and G. E. Duffield (Oxford, 1989). Vermigli, Peter Martyr, Peter Martyr Vermigli: Early Writings. Creed Scripture Church Edited by Joseph C. McLelland (Kirksville, MO, 1994). Wakefield, Robert, OnTheThreeLanguages[1524] Edited and translated with an introduction and notes by G. Lloyd Jones (New York, 1989). Winkelmann, Eduard (Ed.), UrkundenbuchderUniversitätHeidelbergzur FünfhundertjährigenStiftungsfeierderUniversität (2 vols, Heidelberg, 1884–86). Wright, D. F. (Ed. and trans.), CommonPlacesofMartinBucer (Abingdon, 1972). Zanchi, Girolamo, Operum Theologicorum D. Hieronymi Zanchi, (8 vols, Geneva, 1619). TheZurichLetters, edited for the Parker Society by Hastings Robinson, (2 vols Cambridge, 1842/45). Secondary Sources Aaron, David H., ‘The Doctrine of Hebrew Language Usage’ in Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck (Eds), The Blackwell Companion to Judaism (Oxford, 2003), pp.268–87.

188

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Abray, Lorna Jane, The People’s Reformation. Magistrates, Clergy and Commons in Sixteenth-Century Strasbourg, 1500–1598 (Ithaca, NY and Oxford, 1985). Adorni-Braccesi, Simonetta, «UnaCittàInfetta»LaRepubblicadiLucca nellacrisireligiosadelCinquecento(Florence, 1994). Alford, Stephen, Kingship and Politics in the Reign of Edward VI (Cambridge, 2002). Alting, Jacobi, Schilo, seu de Vaticinio Patriarchae Jacobi Quod Genes XLIXvers.10exstat.(Franeker, 1662). Ames, Joseph, TypographicalAntiquities,oranHistoricalAccountofthe OriginandProgressofPrintinginGreatBritainandIreland…1471– 1600.Considerablyaugmented…byWilliamHerbert(3 vols, London, 1785–90). Anderson, Marvin W., PeterMartyr.AReformerinExile(1542–1562).A ChronologyofBiblicalWritingsinEnglandandEurope(Nieuwkoop, 1975). Anon., ‘The Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament’, Church QuarterlyReview26/No.52 (1888), pp.257–94. Arbel, Benjamin, TradingNations:JewsandVenetiansintheEarlyModern EasternMediterranean (Leiden, 1995). Armstrong, Brian G., ‘Tremellius, John Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in J. D. Douglas (Ed.), TheNewInternationalDictionaryoftheChristian Church(Exeter, 1974, 1978). Augustijn, Cornelis, Erasmus: His Life, Works and Influence (Toronto and Buffalo, NY, 1991). Augustijn, Cornelis, ‘Calvin in Strasbourg’ in Wilhelm H. Neuser (Ed.), Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor. Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture(Grand Rapids, MI, 1994), pp.166–77. Austin, Kenneth, ‘Immanuel Tremellius’ Latin Bible (1575–9) as a Pillar of the Calvinist Faith’ in David Adams and Adrian Armstrong (Eds), PrintandPowerinFranceandEngland,1500–1800 (Aldershot, 2006), pp.27–38. Austin, Kenneth, ‘Immanuel Tremellius, the Jews and ChristianHebraica’ in Achim Detmers and J. Marius J. Lange van Ravenswaay (Eds), Bundesheit und Gottesvolk: Reformierter Protestantismus und JudentumimEuropades16und17Jahrhunderts(Wuppertal, 2005), pp.71–86. Austin, Kenneth, ‘Immanuel Tremellius’ Latin Bible (1575–9) as a Pillar of the Calvinist Faith’ in David Adams and Adrian Armstrong (Eds), Elites,PrintedMediaandSocialControlinBritainandEurope,1500– 1800 (Aldershot, 2006), pp.27–38. Ayris, Paul and David Selwyn (Eds), Thomas Cranmer: Christian and Scholar(Woodbridge, 1993).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

Bacchelli, Franco, ‘Science, Cosmology and Religion in Ferrara, 1520– 1550’ in Luisa Ciammitti, Steven F. Ostrow and Salvatore Settis (Eds), Dosso’s Fate: Painting and Court Culture in Renaissance Italy (Los Angeles, CA, 1998), pp.333–54. Bähler, Eduard, Dekan Johannes Haller und die Berner Kirche von 1548–1575. III Haller und die religiösen Strömungen in der deutschbernischenKirche (Berne, 1924). Bainton, Roland H., ‘The Bible in the Reformation’ in S. L. Greenslade (Ed.), TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBible,vol.III:TheWestfromthe ReformationtothePresentDay(Cambridge, 1963), pp. 1–37. Bainton, Roland H., ErasmusofChristendom(London, 1972). Barker, Nicolas, ‘The Perils of Publishing in the Sixteenth Century: Pietro Bizari and William Parry, Two Elizabethan Misfits’ in Edward Chaney and Peter Mack (Eds), EnglandandtheContinentalRenaissance.Essays inHonourofJ.B.Trapp(Woodbridge, 1990), pp.125–41. Baron, Salo Wittmayer, ASocialandReligiousHistoryoftheJews.(18 vols, New York and London, 1952–76). Barton, F. Whitfield, CalvinandtheDuchess (Westminster and Louisville, KY, 1989) Barr, James, ‘St. Jerome’s Appreciation of Hebrew’, BulletinoftheJohn RylandsLibrary49 (1966–67), pp.280–302. Bataillon, Marcel, Erasmeetl’Espagne:Recherchessurl’histoirespirituelle duXVIesiècle(Geneva, 1937, 1991). Bayer, Andrea, ‘Dosso’s Public: The Este Court at Ferrara’ in Peter Humfrey, Mauro Lucco and Andrea Bayer (Eds), DossoDossi.CourtPainterin RenaissanceFerrara(New York, 1998). Bebb, Phillip N. and Sherrin Marshall (Eds), The Process of Change in Early Modern Europe. Essays in Honor of Miriam Usher Chrisman (Athens, OH, 1988). Becker, Wilhelm, ImmanuelTremellius.EinProselyntenlebenimZeitalter derReformation(Leipzig, 1890). Bedouelle, Guy and Bernard Roussel (Eds), BibledeTouslesTemps.Vol. 5.LetempsdesréformesetlaBible(Paris, 1989). Benedict, Philip, Christ’sChurchesPurelyReformed:ASocialHistoryof Calvinism (New Haven, CT and London, 2002). Benrath, Gustav Adolf, ‘Das Casimirianum, die reformierte Hohe Schule in Neustadt an der Haardt (1578–1584)’ in Claus-Peter Westrich (Ed.), NeustadtunddieKurpfalz.DieUniversitätHeidelbergundihre BeziehungenzurlinksrheinischenPfalz (Heidelberg, 1986), pp.39–51. Benrath, Karl, BernardinoOchinoofSiena:AContributiontowardsthe HistoryoftheReformation(London, 1876). Bentley, Jerry H., ‘Erasmus Annotationes in Novum Testamentum and the Textual Criticism of the Gospels’, ARG 67 (1976), pp.33–53.

190

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Bentley, Jerry H., ‘Biblical Philology and Christian Humanism: Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus as Scholars of the Gospels’, SCJ 8 (1977), pp. 9–28. Bentley, Jerry H., HumanistsandHolyWrit:NewTestamentScholarship intheRenaissance(Princeton, NJ and London, 1983). Bernard G. W., ‘The Making of Religious Policy, 1533–1546: Henry VIII and the Search for a Middle Way’, HJ 41 (1998), pp.321–49. Berschin, Walter, ‘400 Jahre Handschriftenforschung in Heidelberg’ in Wilhelm Doerr et al. (Eds), Semper Apertus: Sechshundert Jahre Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg 1386–1986 (4 vols, Berlin, 1985), vol.4, pp. 21–28. BiographieUniverselle, AncienneetModerne, ‘Tremellius (Emanuel)’ (83 vols, Paris), vol.46 (1826). Biundo, G., ‘Tremellius, Immanuel (1510–80)’ in DieReligioninGeschichte undGegenwart.HandwörterbuchfürTheologieundReligionswissenschaft (6 vols, Tübingen, 1962), vol.6, columns 1010–11. Blaisdell, Charmarie Jenkins ‘Renée de France between Reform and Counter-Reform’, ARG63 (1972), pp.196–226. Blau, Joseph L., The Christian Interpretation of the Cabala in the Renaissance (New York, 1944). Blount, Sir Thomas-Pope, ‘Immanuel Tremellius’ in Blount, Censura CelebriorumAuthorum,siveTractatusinquoVariaVirorumDoctorum deClarissimiscujusqueSeculiScriptoribusjudiciatraduntur(London, 1690). Bochart, Samuel, OperaOmnia(3 vols, Lyon, 1712). Bonfil, Robert, JewishLifeinRenaissanceItaly (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA and London, 1994). Bonfil, Robert, ‘Aliens Within: The Jews and Antijudaism’ in Thomas A. Brady Jr, Heiko A. Oberman and James D. Tracy (Eds), Handbook ofEuropeanHistory1400–1600:LateMiddleAges,Renaissanceand Reformation(2 vols, Leiden, 1994–95), vol.1, pp.263–302. Bonfil, Robert, Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (Oxford and Portland, OR, 2004). Borgeaud, Charles, Histoire de l’Université de Genève, (4 vols, Geneva, 1900), vol.1:L’AcadémiedeCalvin,1559–1798(1990). Bornkamm, Heinrich, Luther and the Old Testament (Philadelphia, PA, 1969). Bouwsma, William J., ‘Postel and the Significance of Renaissance Cabalism’ in Paul Oskar Kristeller and Philip P. Wiener (Eds), RenaissanceEssays. FromtheJournaloftheHistoryofIdeas(New York, 1968), pp.252–66. Bouwsma, William J., Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty: Renaissance Values in the Age of the Counter-Reformation (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA, 1968).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

Bouwsma, William J., John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York and Oxford, 1988). Brady, Thomas A. Jr, RulingClass,RegimeandReformationatStrasbourg, 1520–1555(Leiden, 1978). Brady, Thomas A., Heiko A. Oberman and James D. Tracy (Eds) Handbook ofEuropeanHistory,1400–1600:LateMiddleAges,Renaissanceand Reformation (2 vols, Leiden, 1994–95). Brandi, Karl, TheEmperorCharlesV.TheGrowthandDestinyofaMan andofaWorldEmpire(Brighton, 1980). van den Brink, J. N. Bakhuizen, JuandeValdésreformateurenEspagneet enItalie1529–41(Geneva, 1969). Brockliss, Laurence, ‘Curricula’ in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A HistoryoftheUniversityinEurope,vol.II:UniversitiesinEarlyModern Europe(1500–1800) (Cambridge, 1996, 1997), pp.565–620. Brook, V. J. K., ALifeofArchbishopParker(Oxford, 1962). Burchill, Christopher J., ‘Girolamo Zanchi: Portrait of a Reformed Theologian and His Work’, SCJ15 (1984), pp.185–207. Burchill, Christopher J., ‘On the Consolation of a Christian Scholar: Zacharias Ursinus (1534–83) and the Reformation in Heidelberg’, JEH 37 (1986), pp.565–83. Burckhardt, Jacob, TheCivilizationoftheRenaissance(London and New York, 1944). Burke, Peter, The Italian Renaissance. Culture and Society in Italy (Cambridge, 1999). Burke, Peter, ‘Humanism and Friendship in Sixteenth-Century Europe’ in Julian Haseldine (Ed.), FriendshipinMedievalEurope(Stroud, 1999), pp.262–74. Burnett, Stephen G., ‘Calvin’s Jewish Interlocutor: Christian Hebraism and Anti-Jewish Polemics During the Reformation’, BHR 55 (1993), pp.113–23. Burnett, Stephen G., ‘Distorted Mirrors: Antonius Margaritha, Johann Buxtorf and Christian Ethnographies of the Jews’, SCJ 25 (1994), pp.275–87. Burnett, Stephen G., FromChristianHebraismtoJewishStudies.Johannes Buxtorf(1564–1629)andHebrewLearningintheSeventeenthCentury (Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1996). Burnett, Stephen G., ‘A Dialogue of the Deaf: Hebrew Pedagogy and AntiJewish Polemic in Sebastian Münster’s MessiahsoftheChristiansand theJews (1529/39)’, ARG 91 (2000), pp.168–90. Burnett, Stephen G., ‘Reassessing the “Basel-Wittenberg Conflict”: Dimensions of the Reformation-Era Discussion of Hebrew Scholarship’ in Allison P. Coudert and Jeffrey S. Shoulson (Eds), HebraicaVeritas?:

192

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

ChristianHebraistsandtheStudyofJudaisminEarlyModernEurope (Philadelphia, PA, 2004), pp. 181–201. Butters, Friedrich, Emanuel Tremellius, erster Rector des Zweibrücker Gymnasiums. Eine Lebensskizze zur Feier des dreihundertjährigen JubiläumsdieserStudienanstalt(Zweibrücken, 1859). Butterworth, Charles C., The Literary Lineage of the King James Bible 1340–1611 (Philadelphia, PA, 1941). Cameron, Euan, TheEuropeanReformation (Oxford, 1991). Campbell, Stephen J., Cosmè Tura of Ferrara. Style, Politics and the RenaissanceCity,1450–1495(New Haven, CT and London, 1997). Cantimori, Delio, ‘Italy and the Papacy’ in G. R. Elton (Ed.), The New Cambridge Modern History, vol.2: The Reformation 1520–59 (Cambridge, 1990), pp.288–312. Cantimori, Delio, Eretici Italiani del Cinquecento. Ricerche Storiche (Florence, 1939, 1967). Cantor, Norman, The Sacred Chain: A History of the Jews (London, 1996). Caponetto, Salvatore, The Protestant Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Italy(Kirksville, MO, 1999). Carlebach, Elisheva, DividedSouls:ConvertsfromJudaisminGermany, 1500–1700 (New Haven, CT and London, 2001). Carlyle, E. I., ‘Tremellius, John Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in TheDictionary ofNationalBiography57 (1899), pp.186–7. Carraciolo, Antonio, ‘Compendium Inquisitorum. Notizie intorno gli eretici delle principali città d’Italia’, reprinted in La Rivista Cristiana (Florence, 1876), pp.129–36. Cesareo, Francesco C., Humanism and Catholic Reform: The Life and WorkofGregorioCortese(1483–1548)(New York, Berne, Frankfurt and Paris, 1990). Chadwick, Owen, ‘The Making of a Reforming Prince: Frederick III, Elector Palatine’ in R. Buick Knox (Ed.), Reformation, Conformity and Dissent: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Nuttall (London, 1979), pp.44–69. Chrisman, Miriam U., StrasbourgandtheReform:AStudyintheProcess ofChange(New Haven, CT and London, 1967). Chrisman, Miriam U., Lay Culture, Learned Culture. Books and Social Change in Strasbourg, 1480–1599 (New Haven, CT and London, 1982). Church, Frederick Corss, TheItalianReformers,1534–1564(New York, 1974). Ciammitti, Luisa, Steven F. Ostrow and Salvatore Settis (Eds), Dosso’s Fate: Painting and Court Culture in Renaissance Italy (Los Angeles, CA, 1998).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

193

Clasen, Claus-Peter, The Palatinate in European History, 1559–1660 (Oxford, 1963). Cohen, Jeremy, TheFriarsandtheJews.TheEvolutionofMedievalAntiJudaism (Ithaca, NY and London, 1982). Cohn, Henry, ‘The Territorial Princes in Germany’s Second Reformation, 1559–1622’ in Menna Prestwich (Ed.), InternationalCalvinism:1541– 1715(Oxford, 1986), pp.135–66. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism (London, 1992). Collett, Barry, Italian Benedictine Scholars and the Reformation: The CongregationofSantaGiustinaofPadua(Oxford, 1985). Collinson, Patrick, ‘England and International Calvinism, 1558–1640’ in Menna Prestwich (Ed.), InternationalCalvinism:1541–1715(Oxford, 1986), pp. 197–224. Collinson, Patrick, TheReformation (London, 2003). Colomies, Paul, ItaliaetHispaniaOrientalis,siveItalorumetHispanorum quiLinguamHebraeamvelaliasorientalesexcolueruntvitae…editaeet notis instructae a Jo. Christophoro Wolfio (Hamburg, 1730), pp.110–12. Cooper, Charles Henry and Thompson, AthenaeCantabrigienses(3 vols, Cambridge, 1858–1913). Coudert, Allison P. and Jeffrey S. Shoulson (Eds), Hebraica Veritas? ChristianHebraistsandtheStudyofJudaisminEarlyModernEurope (Philadelphia, PA, 2004). Cross, F. L., ‘Tremellius, John Immanuel’ in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford, 1957), p.1373; 1974, p.1392; 1997, pp.1638–9. Cuno, Freidrich Wilhelm, BlätterderErinnerunganDr.KasparOlevianus, herausgegeben zu dessen dreihundertjährigen Todestage (Barmen, 1887). Daham, Gilbert, The Christian Polemic Against the Jews in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, IN, 1998). Daiches, David, TheKingJamesVersionoftheEnglishBible.AnAccount of the Development and Sources of the English Bible of 1611 with SpecialReferencetotheHebrewTradition(Chicago, IL, 1941). Dán, Robert, Matthias Vehe-Glirius. Life and Work of a Radical Antitrinitarian with his Collected Writings (Budapest and Leiden, 1982). D’Andrea, Antonio, ‘Geneva 1576–78: The Italian Community and the Myth of Italy’ in Joseph C. McLelland (Ed.), PeterMartyrVermigliand ItalianReform(Ontario, 1980), pp.53–63. Davies, Ceri, ‘The Welsh Bible and Renaissance Learning’ in Richard Griffiths (Ed.), The Bible in the Renaissance. Essays on Biblical

194

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

CommentaryandTranslationintheFifteenthandSixteenthCenturies (Aldershot, 2001), pp.176–98. Davis, Robert C. and Benjamin Ravid (Eds), TheJewsofEarlyModern Venice (London, 2001). De le Roi, Johannes F. A., Die evangelische Christenheit und die Juden unterdemGesichtspunktderMissiongeschichtlichbetrachtet(3 vols, Karlsruhe and Leipzig, 1884–92). De Morembert, Henri-Tribout, LaRéformeàMetz.Vol.II.LeCalvinisme, 1553–1685 (Nancy, 1971). De Vries, Jan, EuropeanUrbanization,1500–1800 (London, 1984). Della Vida, Giorgio Levi, Ricerchesullaformazionedelpiùanticofondo deimanoscrittiorientalidellaBibliotecaVaticana(Vatican City, 1939). DeMolen, Richard L. (Ed.), EssaysontheWorksofErasmus(New Haven, CT and London, 1978). Detmers, Achim, and J. Marius J. Lange van Ravenswaay (Eds) Bundesheit undGottesvolk:ReformierterProtestantismusundJudentumimEuropa des16und17Jahrhunderts(Wuppertal, 2005). Di Simone, Maria Rosa, ‘Admission’ in Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A History of the University in Europe, vol.II: Universities in Early ModernEurope(1500–1800) (Cambridge, 1996). Dickens, A. G., TheCounterReformation (London, 1968). Dickens, A. G., TheEnglishReformation(London, 1989). Doerr, Wilhelm et al. (Eds), SemperApertus:SechshundertJahreRuprechtKarls-UniversitätHeidelberg1386–1986 (4 vols, Berlin, 1985). Doran, Susan, EnglandandEuropeintheSixteenthCentury (Basingstoke, 1999). Doran, Susan and Glenn Richardson (Eds), Tudor England and its Neighbours (Basingstoke, 2005). Douglas, Richard M., Jacopo Sadoleto, 1477–1547: Humanist and Reformer(Cambridge, MA, 1959). Dowling, Maria, ‘Anne Boleyn and Reform’, JEH 35 (1984), pp.30–46. Drull-Zimmerman, Dagmar, Heidelberger Gelehrtenlexikon 1386–1651 (Berlin, Heidelberg, New York and Tokyo, 2001). Dubnow, S. M. HistoryoftheJewsinRussiaandPolandfromtheEarliest TimestothePresentDay. Vol.1 (Philadelphia, PA, 1946). Duffy, Eamon, TheStrippingoftheAltars:TraditionalReligioninEngland, c.1400–c.1580 (New Haven, CT and London, 1992). Edwards, John, TheJewsinChristianEurope,1400–1700 (London and New York, 1991). Edwards, John, TheJewsinWesternEurope1400–1600(Manchester and New York, 1994). Eells, Hastings, MartinBucer (New Haven, CT and London, 1931). Elton, G. R., ReformationEurope,1517–1559(London, 1963).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

Elton, G. R., ReformandRenewal:ThomasCromwellandtheCommon Weal (Cambridge, 1973). Elton, G. R., ReformandReformation (London, 1977). Elukin, Jonathan M., ‘From Jew to Christian? Conversion and Immutability in Mediaeval Europe’ in James Muldoon (Ed.), Varieties of Religious ConversionintheMiddleAges (Gainesville, FL, 1997), pp.171–89. Engel, Charles, L’Ecole Latine et l’Ancienne Académie de Strasbourg 1538–1621(Strasbourg and Paris, 1900). Evans, R. J. W., ‘The Wechel Presses: Humanism and Calvinism in Central Europe, 1572–1627’, PP, supplement 2 (1975), pp.1–74. Evans, R. J. W., RudolfIIandHisWorld:AStudyinIntellectualHistory, 1576–1612(London, 1997). Fabricius, Johann Albert, Historiae Bibliothecae Fabricianae (Hamburg, 1719). Fatio, Olivier and Pierre Fraenkel (Eds), Histoire de l’exégèse au XVIe siècle(Geneva, 1978). Febvre, Lucien and Henri-Jean Martin, The Coming of the Book. The ImpactofPrinting1450–1800(London and New York, 1998). Fenlon, Dermot, HeresyandObedienceinTridentineItaly:CardinalPole andtheCounterReformation(London, 1972). Firpo, Massimo, Traalumbradose«spirituali».StudisuJuandeValdéseil Valdesianesimonellacrisireligiosadel’500italiano(Florence, 1990). Firpo, Massimo, Riformaprotestanteederesienell’ItaliadelCinquecento. Un profilo storico (Bari, 1993). Firpo, Massimo, ‘The Italian Reformation and Juan de Valdés’, SCJ 27 (1996), pp.353–64. Francke, Johann M., ‘Eman. Tremellius’ in Francke, CatalogusBibliothecae Bunavianae(3 vols, Leipzig, 1750–56). Freher, Paul, ‘Emanuel Tremellius’ in Freher, Theatrumvirorumeruditione clarorum(2 vols, Nuremberg, 1688), part 1, section 3, p.248. Freytag, Friedrich Gotthilf, ‘Emanuel Tremellii, Catechismus Hebraicus’ in Freytag, Analecta Litteraria de Libris Rarioribus (Leipzig, 1750), p.1008. Friedman, Jerome, Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Total Heresy (Geneva, 1978). Friedman, Jerome, ‘Sebastian Münster, the Jewish Mission, and Protestant Anti-Semitism’, ARG 70 (1979), pp.238–59. Friedman, Jerome, ‘Sixteenth-Century Christian-Hebraica: Scripture and the Renaissance Myth of the Past’, SCJ 11 (1980), pp.67–85. Friedman, Jerome, The Most Ancient Testimony: Sixteenth-Century Christian-HebraicaintheAgeofRenaissanceNostalgia(Athens, OH, 1983).

196

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Fuller, Thomas, ‘The Life and Death of Immanuel Tremellius’ in Fuller, Abelredevivus;orThedeadyetspeaking.TheLivesandDeathsofthe ModernDivines(2 vols, London, 1867), vol.2, pp. 45–6. Funkenstein, Amos, ‘Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic in the Later Middle Ages’, Viator 2 (1971), pp.373–82. Ganoczy, Alexandre, TheYoungCalvin (Philadelphia, PA, 1987). Gardner, Edmund G., DukesandPoetsinFerrara.AStudyinthePoetry, Religion and Politics of the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries (London, 1904). Garrison, Janine, A History of Sixteenth-Century France, 1483–1598. Renaissance,ReformationandRebellion (Basingstoke, 1995). Gerdes, Daniel, ‘Tremellii (Emanuelis) Catechismus Hebraicus’ in Gerdes, Florilegium Historico-Criticum Librorum Rariorum (Groningen and Bremen, 1763), pp.346–7. Gerdes, Daniel, ‘Emanuel Tremellius’ in Gerdes, Specimen Italiae Reformatae, sive observata quaedam ad historiam renati in Italia tempore reformationis evangelii, una cum syllabo. Reformatorum Italorum(Lyon, 1765), pp.341–3. Gerson, Christian, Des jüdischen Thalmuds fürnehmster Inhalt und Weiderlegung(Leipzig, 1685). Gilly, Carlos, ‘Juan de Valdés: Übersetzer und Bearbeiter von Luthers Schriften in seinem Diálogo de Doctrina’, ARG74 (1983), pp.257–305. Gilmont, Jean-François (Ed.), TheReformationandtheBook (Aldershot, 1998). Ginzburg, Carlo and Prosperi, Adriano, ‘Le due redazioni del “Beneficio di Cristo”’ in EresiaeRiformanell’ItaliadelCinquecento:Miscellanea I (Florence and Chicago, IL, 1974), pp.135–204. Gleason, Elisabeth G., ‘Sixteenth-Century Italian Interpretations of Luther’, ARG60 (1969), pp.160–73. Gleason, Elisabeth G., ‘On the Nature of Sixteenth-Century Italian Evangelism: Scholarship, 1953–1978’, SCJ 9, 3 (1978), pp.3–25. Gleason, Elisabeth G., Gasparo Contarini: Venice, Rome and Reform (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA and Oxford, 1993). Glick, Leonard B., Abraham’s Heirs. Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe (Syracuse, NY, 1999). Goodman, Anthony and Mackay, Angus (Eds), TheImpactofHumanism onWesternEurope(London and New York, 1990). Gordon, Bruce, ‘Italy’ in Andrew Pettegree (Ed.), TheReformationWorld (London and New York, 2002), pp.277–95. Gould, Cecil, ‘The Golden Age of Painting at Ferrara’ in Matthiesen, Patrick et al., FromBorsotoCesared’Este,1471–1505.TheSchoolof Ferrara1450–1628.AnExhibitioninAidoftheCourtauldInstituteof ArtTrustAppeal1984(London and Leicester, 1984), pp.12–13.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

197

Grafton, Anthony, DefendersoftheText.TheTraditionsofScholarshipin anAgeofScience,1450–1800(Cambridge, MA, and London, 1991). Grafton, Anthony, Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and RenaissanceReaders(Ann Arbor, MI, 1997). Grafton, Anthony and Lisa Jardine, FromHumanismtotheHumanities. Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Europe(London, 1986). Graham, W. Fred (Ed.), Later Calvinism: International Perspectives (Kirksville, MO, 1994). Grane, Leif (Ed.), UniversityandReformation.LecturesfromtheUniversity ofCopenhagenSymposium(Leiden, 1981). Graves, Michael A. R., Burghley.WilliamCecil,LordBurghley (Harlow, 1998). Green, Lowell C., ‘The Bible in Sixteenth-Century Humanist Education’, StudiesintheRenaissance19 (1972), pp. 112–34. Greengrass, Mark, The Longman Companion to the European Reformation,c.1500–1618 (London and New York, 1998). Greenslade, S. L. (Ed.), TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBible,vol.III:The WestfromtheReformationtothePresentDay(Cambridge, 1963). Greenslade, S. L., ‘English Versions of the Bible, 1525–1611’ in Greenslade (Ed.), TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBible,vol.III:TheWestfromthe ReformationtothePresentDay(Cambridge, 1963), pp. 141–74. Grendler, Paul F., ‘The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press, 1540– 1605’, JMH 47 (1975), pp.48–65. Grendler, Paul F., TheRomanInquisitionandtheVenetianPress,1540– 1605(Princeton, NJ, 1977). Grendler, Paul F., ‘The Circulation of Protestant Books in Italy’ in Joseph C. McLelland (Ed.), PeterMartyrVermigliandItalianReform(Ontario, Canada, 1980), pp.5–16. Grendler, Paul F., ‘The Destruction of Hebrew Books in Venice, 1568’ in Grendler, CultureandCensorshipinLateRenaissanceItalyandFrance (London, 1981), pp.103–30. Grendler, Paul F., SchoolinginRenaissanceItaly:LiteracyandLearning 1300–1600(Baltimore, MD and London, 1989). Grendler, Paul F., TheUniversitiesoftheItalianRenaissance (Baltimore, MD and London, 2002). Griffiths, Richard (Ed.), TheBibleintheRenaissance.EssaysonBiblical CommentaryandTranslationintheFifteenthandSixteenthCenturies (Aldershot, 2001). Guggisberg, Hans R., Sebastian Castellio 1515–1563. Humanist and Defender of Religious Toleration in a Confessional Age, ed. Bruce Gordon (Aldershot, 2003).

198

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Gundersheimer, Werner L., Ferrara.TheStyleofaRenaissanceDespotism (Princeton, NJ, 1973). Haag, Eugène and Emile, ‘Tremellius (Emmanuel)’ in Haag, La France Protestanteouviesdesprotestantsfrançais(10 vols, Geneva, 1846–59), vol.9, pp.418–19. Hagen, Kenneth, A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther: The LecturesonHebrews(Leiden, 1974). Hagen, Kenneth, Hebrews Commenting from Erasmus to Bèze, 1516– 1598(Tübingen, 1981). Haigh, Christopher, EnglishReformations:Religion,PoliticsandSociety undertheTudors (Oxford, 1993). Haigh, Christopher (Ed.), TheEnglishReformationRevised (Cambridge, 1996). Hailperin, Herman, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (Pittsburgh, PA, 1963). Hale, John R., RenaissanceEurope,1480–1520(Glasgow, 1990). Hale, John R., The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance (London, 1994). Hall, Basil, JohnCalvin(London, 1956). Hall, Basil, ‘Biblical Scholarship: Editions and Commentaries’ in S. L. Greenslade (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. III: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day (Cambridge, 1963), pp.38–93. Hall, Basil, ‘Martin Bucer in England’ in D. F. Wright (Ed.), MartinBucer. ReformingChurchandCommunity(Cambridge, 1994), pp.144–60. Hallman, Barbara M., ‘Italian ‘National Superiority’ and the Lutheran Question: 1517–46’, ARG 71 (1980), pp.134–48. Hallman, Barbara M., Italian Cardinals, Reform and the Church as Property(Los Angeles, CA and London, 1985). Hamilton, Alastair, William Bedwell The Arabist 1563–1632 (Leiden, 1985). Hamilton, Alastair, ‘Humanists and the Bible’ in Jill Kraye (Ed.), The CambridgeCompaniontoRenaissanceHumanism(Cambridge, 1996), pp.100–17. Hamilton, Alastair, ‘Tremellius, (Joannes) Immanuel (1510–1580)’ in DNB (60 vols, Oxford, 2004), vol.55, pp.285–7. Hautz, Johann Friedrich, Geschichte der Universität Heidelberg … herausgegeben und mit einer Vorrede, der Lebensgeschichte der Verfassers und … Personen- und Sachregister versehen von K.A. v. Reichlin-Meldegy(2 vols, Mannheim, 1862–64). HeidelbergerUniversität,Die.AusstellungzumGedächtnisdes150Jahres tagesIhreNeugründung.KurpfälzischesMuseumderStadtHeidelberg 13Maibis4Oktober1953(Heidelberg, 1953).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

Heller, Henry, Anti-Italianism in Sixteenth-Century France (Toronto, Buffalo, NY and London, 2003). Hendrix, Scott H., ‘Toleration of the Jews in the German Reformation: Urbanus Rhegius and Braunschweig (1535–1540)’, ARG 81 (1990), pp.189–215. Hesselink, I. John, ‘The Dramatic Story of the Heidelberg Catechism’ in W. F. Graham (Ed.), Later Calvinism. International Perspectives (Kirksville, MO, 1994). Hintzelmann, Paul (Ed.), AlmanachderUniversitätHeidelberg1886für dasJubiläumsjahre1886(Heidelberg, 1886). Hirt, Johann Friedr., OrientalischeundGregetische(Jena, 1772). Hopf, Constantin, Martin Bucer and the English Reformation (Oxford, 1946). Horbury, W., ‘The Basle Nizzahon’, JournalofTheologicalStudies, N.S. 34 (1983), pp.497–514. Horie, Hirofumie, ‘The Lutheran Influence on the Elizabethan Settlement, 1558–1563’, HJ 34 (1991), pp.519–37. Horowitz, Elliott, ‘Jewish Confraternal Piety in Sixteenth-Century Ferrara: Continuity and Change’ in Nicholas Terpstra (Ed.), The Politics of RitualKinship.ConfraternitiesandSocialOrderinEarlyModernItaly (Cambridge, 2001), pp.150–71. Hsia, R. Po-Chia, The Myth of Ritual Murder. Jews and Magic in ReformationGermany (New Haven, CT and London, 1988). Hsia, R. Po-Chia, Trent 1475: Stories of a Ritual Murder Trial (New Haven, CT, 1992). Hsia, R. Po-Chia (Ed.), ACompaniontotheReformationWorld (Oxford, 2006). Hudon, William V., Marcello Cervini and Ecclesiastical Government in TridentineItaly(De Kalb, IL, 1992). Hughes, Philip E., Lefèvre. Pioneer of Ecclesiastical Renewal in France (Grand Rapids, MI, 1984). Humfrey, Peter, Mauro Lucco and Andrea Bayer (Eds), Dosso Dossi. CourtPainterinRenaissanceFerrara(New York, 1998). Humfrey, Peter, ‘Dosso Dossi: His Life and Works’ in Humfrey, Peter, Mauro Lucco and Andrea Bayer (Eds), DossoDossi.CourtPainterin RenaissanceFerrara(New York, 1998), pp.3–16. Hundsnurcher, Franz, ‘Die Heidelberger Juden 1500 bis 1648’ in Geschichte derJudeninHeidelberg(Heidelberg, 1996), pp.42–5. Israel, Jonathan I. EuropeanJewryintheAgeofMercantilism,1550–1750. (Oxford and Portland, OR, 1998). James, Frank A. III, ‘Juan de Valdés before and after Peter Martyr Vermigli: The Reception of Gemina Praedestinatio in Valdés’ Later Thought’, ARG83 (1992), pp.180–208.

200

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Jardine, Lisa, WorldlyGoods,ANewHistoryoftheRenaissance(London, 1996). Jarrott, C. A. L., ‘Erasmus’ Biblical Humanism’, StudiesintheRenaissance 17 (1970), pp.119–52. Jarrott, Catherine A. L., ‘Erasmus’s Annotations and Colet’s Commentaries on Paul: A Comparison of Some Theological Themes’ in Richard L. DeMolen (Ed.), EssaysontheWorksofErasmus(New Haven, CT and London, 1978), pp.125–44. Jedin, Hubert, AHistoryoftheCouncilofTrent(2 vols, London, 1957–61). Johnson, Paul, AHistoryoftheJews (London, 1987). Jones, G. Lloyd, The Discovery of Hebrew in Tudor England: A Third Language(Manchester, 1983). Jordan, W. K., Edward VI: The Young King. The Protectorship of the DukeofSomerset(London, 1968). Jordan, W. K., EdwardVI:TheThresholdofPower:theDominanceofthe DukeofNorthumberland(London, 1970). Jung, Eva-Maria, ‘On the Nature of Italian Evangelism in SixteenthCentury Italy’, JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas14 (1953), pp.511–27. Kalkar, Christian A. H., IsraelunddieKirche.GeschichtlicherÜberblick derBekehrungenderJudenzumChristenthumeinallenJahrhunderten (Hamburg, 1869). Kamen, Henry, ‘The Mediterranean and the Expulsion of the Jews’, p.120 (1988), pp.30–55. Kent, F. W., Patricia Simons, with J. C. Eade (Eds), Patronage, Art and SocietyinRenaissanceItaly(Canberra and Oxford, 1987). King, John N., EnglishReformationLiterature.TheTudorOriginsofthe ProtestantTradition(Princeton, NJ, 1982). Kingdon, Robert M., ‘The Business Activities of Printers Henri and François Estienne’ in G. Berthoud et al. (Eds), AspectsdelaPropagande Religieuse(Geneva, 1957), pp.258–75. Kingdon, Robert M., ‘International Calvinism’ in Thomas A. Brady Jr., Heiko A. Oberman and James D. Tracy (Eds), HandbookofEuropean History,1400–1600:LateMiddleAges,RenaissanceandReformation. (2 vols, Leiden, 1994, 1995), vol. 2, pp.229–48. Kittelson, James M., Wolfgang Capito. From Humanist to Reformer (Leiden, 1975). Kittelson, James M., ‘Marbach vs. Zanchi: The Resolution of Controversy in Late Reformation Strasbourg’, SCJ 8, 3 (1977), pp.31–44. Kittelson, James M., ‘Martin Bucer and the Ministry of the Church’ in D. F. Wright (Ed.), MartinBucer:ReformingChurchandCommunity (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 83–94. Kittelson, James M., ‘The Significance of Humanist Educational Methods for Reformation Theology’, Lutherjahrbuch66 (1999), pp.219–36.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

Knecht, R. J., Renaissance Warrior and Patron. The Reign of Francis I (Cambridge and New York, 1994). Koch, Walther, ‘Ehrenrettung des judenchristlichen Professors Immanuel Tremellius durch den Pfälzischen Theologen David Pareus’, Blätterfür pfälzischeKirchengeschichte27 (1960), pp.140–44. Kraye, Jill (Ed.), TheCambridgeCompaniontoRenaissanceHumanism (Cambridge, 1996). Le Long, Jacobus, BibliothecaSacra,seuSyllabusomniumfermeSacrae Scripturae(Leipzig, 1709). Leedham-Green, Elisabeth, BooksinCambridgeInventories.Book-Lists fromtheVice-Chancellors’CourtProbateInventoriesintheTudorand StuartPeriods(2 vols, Cambridge, 1986). Lenhart, John M., ‘Protestant Latin Bibles of the Reformation from 1520– 1570. A Bibliographical Account’, pp.416–32. Leonard, Emile G., AHistoryofProtestantism(2 vols, London, 1965–66). Levine, Hillel, EconomicOriginsofAntisemitism:PolandanditsJewsin theEarlyModernPeriod (New Haven, CT and London, 1991). Lewis, Gillian, ‘The Geneva Academy’ in Andrew Pettegree, Alastair Duke and Gillian Lewis (Eds), CalvinisminEurope1540–1620(Cambridge and New York, 1994), pp.35–63. Lienhard, Marc, UnTemps,UneVille,UneRéforme.LaReformationà Strasbourg.StudienzurReformationinStrassburg, (Norfolk, 1990). Lindberg, Carter, TheEuropeanReformations (Oxford, 1996). Loach, Jennifer, EdwardVI, edited by George Bernard and Penry Williams (New Haven, CT and London, 1999). Loades, David, The Reign of Mary Tudor. Politics, Government and ReligioninEngland,1553–58(London and New York, 1991). Loades, David, Politics,CensorshipandtheEnglishReformation(London, 1991). Lockwood, Dean P. and Roland H. Bainton, ‘Classical and Biblical Scholarship in the Age of the Renaissance and Reformation’, CH 10 (1941), pp.125–43. Loewe, R., ‘Christian Hebraists (1100–1890)’, Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol.8, pp.10–71. Logan, F. Donald, ‘The Origins of the So-Called Regius Professorships: An Aspect of the Renaissance in Oxford and Cambridge’ in Derek Baker (Ed.), RenaissanceandRenewalinChristianHistory. (Oxford, 1977), pp.271–78. Logan, Oliver M. T., ‘Grace and Justification: Some Italian Views of the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries’, JEH20 (1969), pp.67–78. Longhurst, John E., Erasmus and the Spanish Inquisition: The Case of JuandeValdés(Ann Arbor, MI and London, 1980).

202

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Louthan, Howard, JohannisCratoandtheAustrianHabsburgs.Reforming aCounter-ReformCourt(Princeton, NJ, 1994). Louthan, Howard, TheQuestforCompromise.PeacemakersinCounterReformationVienna(Cambridge, 1997). Maag, Karin, ‘Education and Training for the Calvinist Ministry: the Academy of Geneva, 1559–1620’ in Andrew Pettegree (Ed.), The Reformation of the Parishes. The Ministry and the Reformation in TownandCountry(Manchester and New York, 1993), pp.133–52. Maag, Karin, Seminary or University? The Genevan Academy and ReformedHigherEducation,1560–1620(Aldershot, 1995). Maag, Karin, ‘Education and Literacy’ in Andrew Pettegree (Ed.) The ReformationWorld (London and New York, 2002) pp.535–44. Maccoby, Hyam (Ed. and trans.) Judaism on Trial: Jewish – Christian DisputationsintheMiddleAges (Oxford and Portland, OR, 2003). MacCulloch, Diarmiad, TheLaterReformationinEngland,1547–1603 (London, 1990). MacCulloch, Diarmiad (Ed.), The Reign of Henry VIII. Politics, Policy andPiety (London, 1995). MacCulloch, Diarmaid, ThomasCranmer:ALife(New Haven, CT and London, 1996). MacCulloch, Diarmaid, Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the ProtestantReformation (London, 1999). MacCulloch, Diarmaid, Reformation. Europe’s House Divided, 1490– 1700 (London, 2003). MacDonald, Alan R., TheJacobeanKirk,1567–1625:Sovereignty,Polity andLiturgy (Aldershot, 1998). Maddison, Carol, MarcantonioFlaminio:Poet,HumanistandReformer (London and Chapel Hill, 1965). Manuel, Frank E., The Broken Staff. Judaism Through Christian Eyes (Cambridge, MA and London, 1992). Markus, Ivan G., RitualsofChildhood.JewishAcculturationinMedieval Europe (New Haven, CT and London, 1996). Marshall, Peter (Ed.), TheImpactoftheEnglishReformation (London, 1997). Martin, John J., ‘Popular Culture and the Shaping of Popular Heresy in Renaissance Venice’ in Stephen Haliczer (Ed. and trans.), Inquisition andSocietyinEarlyModernEurope(Totowa, NJ, 1987), pp.115–28. Martin, John J., ‘Salvation and Society in Sixteenth-Century Venice: Popular Evangelism in a Renaissance City’ in JMH60 (1988), pp.205–33. Martin, John, Venice’sHiddenEnemies:ItalianHereticsinaRenaissance City(Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA and London, 1993). Matheson, Peter, CardinalContariniatRegensburg(Oxford, 1972).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

203

Matthiesen, Patrick et al., FromBorsotoCesared’Este,1471–1505.The SchoolofFerrara1450–1628.AnExhibitioninAidoftheCourtauld InstituteofArtTrustAppeal1984(London and Leicester, 1984). Mayer, Thomas F., ‘If Martyrs are to be Exchanged with Martyrs: The Kidnappings of William Tyndale and Reginald Pole’, ARG81 (1990), pp.286–308. Mayer, Thomas F., ‘A Sticking-Plaster Saint? Autobiography and Hagiography in the Making of Reginald Pole’ in Thomas F, Mayer and D. R. Woolf (Eds), TheRhetoricsofLife-WritinginEarlyModern Europe.FormsofBiographyfromCassandraFedeletoLouisXIV (Ann Arbor, MI, 1995), pp.205–22. Mayer, Thomas F., ‘When Maecenas Was Broke: Cardinal Pole’s “Spiritual” Patronage’, SCJ 27 (1996), pp.419–35. Mayer, Thomas F., ReginaldPoleinEuropeanContext:aViaMediainthe Reformation (Aldershot, 2000). Mayer, Thomas F., Reginald Pole. Prince and Prophet (Cambridge, 2000). McGrath, Alister E., Reformation Thought: An Introduction (Oxford, 1988). McGrath, Alister E., A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of WesternCulture(Oxford, 1990). McKane, William, Selected Christian Hebraists (Cambridge and New York, 1989). McKim, Donald K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin (Cambridge, 2004). McLelland, Joseph C. (Ed.), Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform (Waterloo, Ontario, 1980). McNair, Philip, PeterMartyrinItaly:AnAnatomyofApostasy(Oxford, 1967). McNair, Philip, ‘Peter Martyr in England’ in Joseph C. McLelland (Ed.), PeterMartyrVermigliandItalianReform(Waterloo, Ontario, 1980), pp.85–105. McNeill, John T., The History and Character of Calvinism (London, Oxford, and New York, 1954). Menzel, Karl, WolfgangvonZweibrücken,PfalzgrafbeiRhein,Herzogin Baiern,GrafvonDeldenz,derStammvaterdesbaierischenKönigshauses (1526–1569)(Munich, 1893). Mesnard, Pierre, ‘The Pedagogy of Johann Sturm (1507–1589) and Its Evangelical Inspiration’, StudiesintheRenaissance13 (1966), pp.200–219. Methuen, Charlotte, Kepler’s Tübingen. Stimulus to a Theological Mathematics(Aldershot, 1998). Metzger, Bruce M., TheBibleinTranslation.AncientandEnglishVersions (Grand Rapids, MI, 2001).

204

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Meurisse, R. P., HistoiredelaNaissanceduProgrèsetdeladécadencede l’hérésiedanslavilledeMetz&danslepaysMessin(Metz, 1670). Meyer, Gerhard, Die Entwicklung der Strasburger Universität aus dem Gymnasium und der Akademie des Johann Sturm. Ein Beitrag zur KulturgeschichtedesElsass(1926), reprinted in Roth and Meyer – Zu den Anfängen der Strassburger Universität (Hildesheim, 1989). Mombert, Rev. J. I., English Versions of the Bible. A Handbook with Copious Examples Illustrating the Ancestry and Relationship of the SeveralVersions,andComparativeTables(London, 1907). Montgomery, John Warwick, ‘Sixtus of Siena and Roman Catholic Biblical Scholarship in the Reformation Period’, ARG 54 (1963), pp.214–33. Moore, R. I., TheFormationofaPersecutingSociety.PowerandDeviance inWesternEurope,950–1250 (Oxford, 1987). Mormando, Franco, ThePreacher’sDemons:BernardinoofSienaandthe SocialUnderworldofEarlyRenaissanceItaly (Chicago, IL, 1999). Muldoon, James (Ed.), Varieties of Religious Conversion in the Middle Ages (Gainesville, FL, 1997). Muller, Richard A. and John L. Thompson (Eds), BiblicalInterpretationin theEraoftheReformation(Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, 1996). Muller, Richard A., ‘Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: The View from the Middle Ages’ in Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson (Eds), BiblicalInterpretationintheEraoftheReformation (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, 1996), pp.3–22. Mullett, Michael A., TheCatholicReformation (London and New York, 1999). Murdock, Graeme, BeyondCalvin:TheIntellectual,PoliticalandCultural World of Europe’s Reformed Churches, c. 1540–1620. (Basingstoke, 2004). Naphy, William G., Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation (Manchester, 1994). Nauert, Charles G. Jr, HumanismandtheCultureofRenaissanceEurope (Cambridge, 1995). Neve, John Le, FastiEcclesiaeAnglicanae:oraCalendarofthePrincipal Ecclesiastical Dignitaries in England and Wales and of the Chief Officers intheUniversitiesofOxfordandCambridge(3 vols, Oxford, 1854). Newman, Louis Israel, Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements (New York, 1925). Ney, J., ‘Tremellius, Emanuel’ in J. J. Herzog et al. (Eds), Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche … In zweiter durchgängig verbesserter und vermehrter Auflage … (18 vols, Leipzig, 1877–88), vol.16 (1885), pp.1–3. Ney, J., ‘Tremellius, Immanuel’ in Albert Hauck (Ed.), Realencyklopädie fürprotestantischeTheologieundKirche.BegründetvonJ.J.Herzog.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

In dritter verbesserter und vermehrter Auflage … (24 vols, Leipzig, 1896–1913), vol.20 (1908), pp.95–8. Ney, J., ‘Tremellius, Emanuel’ in Philip Schaff (Ed.), The Schaff-Herzog EncyclopaediaofReligiousKnowledge (12 vols, New York and London, 1908–12), vol.11 (1911), p. 504. Niceron, R. P., ‘Emanuel Tremellius’ in Niceron, Memoirespourservira l’histoire des hommes illustrés dans la republique des lettres, avec un catalogueraisonnédeleursOuvrages(43 vols, Paris, 1729–45), vol.40 (1739), pp.102–7. Nichols, John, LiteraryAnecdotesoftheEighteenthCentury,comprising BiographicalMemoirsofWilliamBowyer,Printer,F.S.A.,andmanyof hisLearnedFriends(6 vols, London, 1812–15), vol.4. Nickson, M. A. E., Early Autograph Albums in the British Museum (London, 1970). Nieto, José C., JuandeValdésandtheOriginsoftheSpanishandItalian Reformation(Geneva, 1970). Nieto, José C., ‘Was Juan de Valdés an ordained priest?’, BHR32 (1970), pp.603–6. Nineham, D. E. (Ed.), The Church’s Use of the Bible. Past and Present (London, 1963). Nischan, Bodo, ‘The Palatinate and Brandenburg’s “Second Reformation”’ in Derk Visser (Ed.), ControversyandConciliation.TheReformation andthePalatinate1559–1583(Allison Park, PA, 1986), pp.155–73. Nischan, Bodo, ‘Confessionalism and absolutism: the case of Brandenburg’ in Andrew Pettegree, Alastair Duke and Gillian Lewis (Eds), Calvinism inEurope(Cambridge and New York, 1994), pp.181–204. Nischan, Bodo, Prince,PeopleandConfession.TheSecondReformation inBrandenburg(Cambridge and New York, 1994). Noyes, Ella, TheStoryofFerrara(London, 1904). Oberman, Heiko A., TheRootsofAnti-SemitismintheAgeofRenaissance andReformation (Philadelphia, PA, 1984). Oberman, Heiko A., ‘Discovery of Hebrew and Discrimination Against the Jews: the VeritasHebraicaas Double-Edged Sword in Renaissance and Reformation’ in Andrew C. Fix and Susan Karant-Nunn (Eds), Germania Illustrata: Essays on Early Modern Germany Presented to GeraldStrauss(Kirksville, MO, 1992), pp.19–34. Overell, Anne, The Reception and Influence of the Italian Reformation in England(unpublished dissertation). Overell, M. A., ‘Peter Martyr in England 1547–1553: An Alternative View’, SCJ15 (1984), pp.87–104. Overell, M. A., ‘The Exploitation of Francesco Spiera’, SCJ 26 (1995), pp.619–37.

206

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Pabel, Hilmar M. ‘Erasmus of Rotterdam and Judaism: A Reexamination in the Light of New Evidence’, ARG87 (1996), pp.9–37. Packer, J. I., ‘Calvin the Theologian’ in G. E. Duffield (Ed.), JohnCalvin (Abingdon, 1966), pp.149–75. Pade, Marianne, Lene Waage Petersen and Daniela Querta (Eds), LaCorte diFerraraeilsuomecenatismo,1441–1598.TheCourtofFerraraand itsPatronage (Copenhagen, 1990). Parker, T. H. L., Calvin’sNewTestamentCommentaries(London, 1971). Parker, T. H. L., JohnCalvin:ABiography(London, 1975). Parker, T. H. L., Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh, 1986). Parker, T. H. L., Calvin’sPreaching(Edinburgh, 1992). Pascoe, Louis B., ‘The Council of Trent and Bible Study: Humanism and Scripture’, CHR 52 (1966), pp.18–38. Pastor, Ludwig, TheHistoryofthePopes(40 vols, London, 1906–53). Pastore, Alessandro, Marcantonio Flaminio. Fortune e sfortune di un chiericonell’Italiadelcinquecento(Milan, 1981). Patry, Raoul, Philippe du Plessis-Mornay. Un huguenot homme d’Etat (1549-1623)(Paris, 1933). Payne, John B., ‘Erasmus and Lefèvre d’Étaples as Interpreters of Paul’, ARG 65 (1974), pp.54–83. Payne, John B., ‘The Significance of Lutheranizing Changes in Erasmus’ Interpretation of Paul’s Letters to the Romans and the Galatians in His ‘Annotationes’ (1527) and ‘Paraphrases’ (1532)’ in Olivier Fatio and Pierre Fraenkel (Eds), Histoire de l’exégèse au XVIe siècle (Geneva, 1978), pp.312–30. Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Reformation of the Bible. The Bible of the Reformation (New Haven, CT, 1996). Peter, R., ‘Calvin and Louis Budé’s Translation of the Psalms’ in G. E. Duffield (Ed.), JohnCalvin (London, 1966), pp.190–209. Pettegree, Andrew, ForeignProtestantCommunitiesinSixteenth-Century London (Oxford, 1986). Pettegree, Andrew, EmdenandtheDutchRevolt.ExileandtheDevelopment ofReformedProtestantism (Oxford, 1992). Pettegree, Andrew, EuropeintheSixteenthCentury(Oxford, 2002). Pettegree, Andrew, ReformationandtheCultureofPersuasion (Cambridge, 2005). Pettegree, Andrew (Ed.), TheReformationWorld (London, 2002). Pettegree, Andrew (Ed.), TheEarlyReformationinEurope (Cambridge, 2002). Pettegree, Andrew, Alastair Duke and Gillian Lewis (Eds), Calvinism in Europe,1540–1620(Cambridge and New York, 1994).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

Philippi, Paul, ‘Sylvanus und Transylvanien. Ein Stück Toleranzgeschichte zwischen Heidelberger und Siebenbürger’ in Wilhelm Doerr et al. (Eds), SemperApertus:SechshundertJahreRuprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg1386–1986, (4 vols, Berlin, 1985), vol.1, pp.213–30. Poliakov, Léon, The History of Anti-Semitism, vol.1: From the Time of ChristtotheCourtJews (London, 1966). Pollard, Albert Frederick, ThomasCranmerandtheEnglishReformation, 1489–1556(London and New York, 1927). Polus, Matthew, SynopsisCriticorumaliorumqueScripturaeinterpretum (London, 1669). Pool, D. de Sola, ‘The Influence of Some Jewish Apostates on the Reformation’, JewishReview, vol.2/No.7–12 (May 1911–Mar 1912), pp.327–51. Porter, R. and M. Teich (Eds), The Renaissance in National Context (Cambridge, 1992). Press, Volker, Calvinismus und Territorialstaat. Regierung und ZentralbehördenderKurpfalz1559–1619(Stuttgart, 1970). Prestwich, Menna (Ed.), International Calvinism, 1541–1715 (Oxford, 1985). Prestwich, Menna, Introduction: ‘The Changing Face of Calvinism’, in Prestwich, InternationalCalvinism,1541–1715(Oxford, 1985). Prosperi, Adriano, ‘L’eresia in città e a corte’ in Marianne Pade, Lene Waage Petersen and Daniela Querta (Eds), LacortediFerraraeilsuo mecenatismo 1441–1598. The Court of Ferrara and Its Patronage (Copenhagen, 1990), pp.267–81. Pullan, Brian, RichandPoorinRenaissanceVenice:TheSocialInstitutions ofaCatholicStateto1620(Oxford, 1971). Pullan, Brian, TheJewsofEuropeandtheInquisitionofVenice,1550– 1670(London and New York, 1997). Racaut, Luc and Alec Ryrie (Eds), Moderate Voices in the European Reformation (Aldershot, 2005). Raitt, Jill, ‘The Elector John Casimir, Queen Elizabeth and the Protestant League’ in Derk Visser (Ed.), Controversy and Conciliation. The ReformationandthePalatinate1559–1583(Allison Park, PA, 1986), pp.117–45. Rashkow, Ilona N., ‘Hebrew Bible Translation and the Fear of Judaization’, SCJ 21 (1990), pp.217–33. Rex, Richard, Henry VIII and the English Reformation (Basingstoke, 1993). de Ridder-Symoens, Hilde (Ed.), AHistoryoftheUniversityinEurope, vol.II,UniversitiesinEarlyModernEurope(1500–1800) (Cambridge, 1996). Ridley, Jasper, ThomasCranmer (Oxford, 1962).

208

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Ridolfi, Roberto, LifeofGirolamoSavonarola (New York, 1959). Roget, Amédée, HistoireduPeupledeGenèvedepuislaRéformejusqu’à l’Escalade(Nieuwkoop, 1870–83). van Rooden, Peter T., Theology, Biblical Scholarship and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century: Constantijn L’Empereur (1591– 1648)ProfessorofHebrewandTheologyatLeiden(Leiden, New York, Copenhagen and Cologne, 1989). Rosa, M., ‘“Il Beneficio di Cristo”: Interpretazioni a Confronto’, BHR40 (1978), pp. 609–20. Rosenberg, Charles M., TheEsteMonumentsandUrbanDevelopmentin RenaissanceFerrara(Cambridge, 1997). Roth, Cecil, AShortHistoryoftheJewishPeople (London, 1948). Rowan, Steven, ‘Luther, Bucer and Eck on the Jews’, SCJ 16 (1985), pp.79–90. Rubin, Miri, GentileTales:TheNarrativeAssaultonLateMedievalJews (Philadelphia, PA, 2004). Rublack, Ulinka, ReformationEurope (Cambridge, 2005). Ruderman, David B., The World of a Renaissance Jew. The Life and ThoughtofAbrahambenMordecaiFarissol(Cincinnati, OH, 1981). Rummel, Erika, TheCaseAgainstJohannReuchlin:ReligiousandSocial ControversyinSixteenth-CenturyGermany(Toronto, Buffalo, NY and London, 2002). Rupp, E. G., ‘The Bible in the Age of Reformation’ in D. E. Nineham (Ed.), TheChurch’sUseoftheBible.PastandPresent(London, 1963), pp.73–87. Ryrie, Alec, ‘The Strange Death of Lutheran England’, JEH 53 (2002), pp.64–92. Santossuoso, Antonio, ‘Religious Orthodoxy, Dissent and Suppression in Venice in the 1540s’, CH42 (1973), pp.477–85. Santossuoso, Antonio, ‘Religion, More Veneto and the Trial of Pier Paolo Vergerio’ in Joseph C. McLelland (Ed.), Peter Martyr Vermigli and ItalianReform(Ontario, 1980), pp.43–51. Saxe, Christopher, OnomasticonLiterarium,siveNomenclatorHistoricoCriticus Praestantissimorum omnis aetatis, populorumque scriptorum (8 vols, Utrecht, 1775–1803). Scarisbrick, J. J., HenryVIII (London, 1968). Schelhorn, Johann Georg, Amoenitates Historiae Ecclesiasticae et Literariaequibusvariaeobservationes(2 vols, Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1733–38). Schindling, Anton, Humanistische Hochschule und Freie Reichstadt, Gymnasium und Akademie in Strassburg, 1538–1621 (Wiesbaden, 1977).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

Schlaepfer, H.-L., ‘Laurent de Normandie, 1 Planche Hors-Texte’ in G. Berthoud et al. (Eds), Aspects de la Propagande Religieuse (Geneva, 1957), pp.176–230. Schling, Emil (Ed.), Die evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI. Jahrhunderts(Tübingen, 1969), Vol. 14. Schreiner, Susan, Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Calvin’s Exegesis of JobfromMedievalandModernPerspectives(Chicago, IL and London, 1994). Schutte, Anne Jacobson, Pier Paolo Vergerio: the Making of an Italian Reformer(Geneva, 1977). Schutte, Anne J., ‘Periodization of Sixteenth-Century Italian Religious History: the Post-Cantimori Paradigm Shift’, JMH61 (1989), pp.269–84. Screech, M. A., ClémentMarot.ARenaissancePoetDiscoverstheGospel. Lutheranism,FabrismandCalvinismintheRoyalCourtsofFranceand ofNavarre,andintheDucalCourtofFerrara (Leiden, 1994). Secret, François, Les Kabbalistes Chrétiens de la Renaissance (Paris, 1964). Sforza, Giovanni, ‘Un episodo poco noto della vita di Aonio Paleario’, GiornaleStoricodellaLetteraturaItaliana, vol.14 (1889), pp.50–71. Shagan, Ethan H., PopularPoliticsintheEnglishReformation (Cambridge, 2003). Shatzmiller, Joseph, Shylock Reconsidered: Jews, Moneylending and MedievalSociety (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA and Oxford, 1990). Shatzmiller, Joseph, Jews,MedicineandMedievalSociety (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA and London, 1994). Shuger, Debora Kuller, The Renaissance Bible. Scholarship, Sacrifice and Subjectivity(Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA and London, 1998). Shulvass, Moses A., The Jews in the World of the Renaissance (Leiden, 1973). Silverman, Godfrey E., ‘Tremellius, John Immanuel’ in Cecil Roth (Ed.), EncyclopaediaJudaica (16 vols, Jerusalem, 1971–1972), vol.15 (1971), p.1374. Simon, Richard, HistoriaCriticaVeterisTestamenti,siveHistoriaTextus HebraiciaMoseadnostrausqueTempora(Paris, 1681). Simoncelli, Paolo, IlCasoReginaldoPole.EresiaeSantitanellePolemiche ReligiosedelCinquecento(Rome, 1977). Smalley, Beryl, ‘The Bible in the Middle Ages’ in D. E. Nineham (Ed.), The Church’sUseoftheBible.PastandPresent(London, 1963), pp.57–71. Smyth, C. H., CranmerandtheReformationUnderEdwardVI(London, 1973). Spitz, Lewis W., ‘The Impact of the Reformation on the Universities’ in Leif Grane (Ed.), UniversityandReformation.LecturesfromtheUniversity ofCopenhagenSymposium(Leiden, 1981), pp.9–31.

210

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Spitz, Lewis W. and Barbara Sher Tinsley, Johann Sturm on Education. TheReformationandHumanistLearning(St Louis, MO, 1995). Starkey, David, The Reign of Henry VIII: Personalities and Politics (London, 1995). Stauffer, Richard, ‘Calvinism and the Universities’ in Leif Grane (Ed.), UniversityandReformation.LecturesfromtheUniversityofCopenhagen Symposium(Leiden, 1981), pp.76–98. Steinmetz, David C. (Ed.), The Bible in the Sixteenth Century (Durham and London, 1990). Steinmetz, David, CalvininContext(New York and Oxford, 1995). Stéphan, Raoul, HistoireduProtestantismeFrançais(Paris, 1961). Stinger, Charles L., TheRenaissanceinRome(Bloomington, IN, 1985). Stokes, H. P., StudiesinAnglo-JewishHistory(Edinburgh, 1913). Stow, Kenneth R., CatholicThoughtandPapalJewryPolicy1555–1593 (New York, 1977). Stow, Kenneth R., AlienatedMinority.TheJewsofMedievalLatinEurope (Cambridge, MA and London, 1994). Strauss, Gerald, Luther’sHouseofLearning.IndoctrinationoftheYoung intheGermanReformation (Baltimore, MD and London, 1978). Struvens, Burcard Gotthelf, Ausführlicher Bericht von der pfaltzischen Kirchen-Historie(Frankfurt, 1721). Strype, John, Annals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion andothervariousoccurrencesintheChurchofEngland(4 vols, Oxford, 1709–38). Strype, John, TheLifeandActsofJohnWhitgift,D.D.,TheThirdand Last Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth … (3 vols, Oxford, 1718). Strype, John, TheLifeandActsofMatthewParker,TheFirstArchbishop ofCanterburyintheReignofQueenElizabeth(Oxford, 1821). Strype, John, Ecclesiastical Memorials Relating Chiefly to Religion and the ReformationofIt(2 vols, Oxford, 1822). Stupperich, Robert, Reformatorenlexikon (Gütersloh, 1984). Synan, Edward A., ThePopesandtheJewsintheMiddleAges (New York and London, 1968). Talmage, Frank Ephraim, DavidKimhi.TheManandtheCommentaries (Cambridge, MA and London, 1975). Tanner, Thomas, ‘Tremellius [Emanuel]’ in Tanner, BibliothecaeBritannicoHibernica: sive, de Scriptoribus, qui in Anglia, Scotia, et Hibernia ad saeculi XVII initium floruerunt, literarum ordine juxta familiarum nominadispositiscommentarius(London, 1748), pp. 719–20. Tedeschi, John, The Prosecution of Heresy. Collected Studies on the InquisitioninEarlyModernItaly (Binghamton, NY, 1991).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

211

Teissier, Antoine, ‘Emmanuel Tremellius’ in Teissier, Les Eloges des HommesSavans,Tirezdel’HistoiredeM.deThouavecdesadditions, contenantl’AbbrégédeleurVie,leJugementetleCataloguedeleurs Ouvrages(3 vols, Leiden, 1715), vol.III, pp.178–82. Thompson, Bard, ‘The Palatinate Church Order of 1563’, CH23 (1954), pp.339–54. Thompson, W. D. J. Cargill, ‘The Problem of Luther’s “Tower Experience” and its Place in his Intellectual Development’, in Thompson, Studiesin theReformation.LuthertoHooker (London, 1980), pp.60–81. Thompson, John L., ‘Calvin as a Biblical Interpreter’ in Donald K. McKim (Ed.), TheCambridgeCompaniontoJohnCalvin (Cambridge, 2004). Tiraboschi, Girolamo, Storia della Letteratura Italiana (16 vols, Milan, 1824). Toaff, Ariel, Love Work and Death: Jewish Life in Medieval Umbria (London and Portland, OR, 1998). Todd, Henry John, The Life of Archbishop Cranmer (2 vols, London, 1831). Trachtenberg, Joshua, TheDevilandtheJews.TheMedievalConception oftheJewanditsRelationtoModernAntisemitism (New Haven, CT and London, 1945). Tracy, James D., Europe’sReformations.1450–1650(Lanham, Boulder, New York and Oxford, 1999). Tribout De Morembert, Henri, LaréformeàMetz.Vol.II.LeCalvinisme 1553–1685(Nancy, 1971). Trim, David J. B., ‘Sealing a Protestant Alliance and Liberty of Conscience on the Continent, 1558–85’ in Susan Doran and Glenn Richardson (Eds), TudorEnglandanditsNeighbours (Basingstoke, 2005), pp.139–77. Trinkaus, Charles, InOurImageandLikeness.HumanityandDivinityin ItalianHumanistThought(2 vols, Notre Dame, IN, 1995). Tucker, George Hugo, Homo Viator. Itineraries of Exile, Displacement andWritinginRenaissanceEurope(Geneva, 2003). Tuohy, Thomas, Herculean Ferrara. Ercole d’Este, 1471–1505, and the InventionofaDucalCapital(Cambridge, 1996). UniversitätHeidelberg1386–1961.GeschichteundGegenwart.Ausstellung in Ottheinrichsbau des Heidelberger Schlosses Juni–Oktober 1961 (Heidelberg, 1961). Venn, John and J. A. Venn (Eds), AlumniCantabrigienses.ABiographical List of all Known Students, Graduates and Holders of Office at the University of Cambridge, from the earliest times to 1900 (4 vols, Cambridge, 1922–27). Vinay, Valdo, ‘Die Schrift “Il Beneficio di Giesu Christo” und ihre Verbreitung in Europa nach der neueren Forschung’, ARG58 (1967), pp.29–72.

212

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Visser, Derk (Ed.), Controversy and Conciliation. The Reformation and thePalatinate1559–1583(Allison Park, PA, 1986). Vogler, Bernard, ‘Europe as Seen Through the Correspondence of Theodore de Beza’ in E. I. Kouri and Tom Scott (Eds), Politics and Society in ReformationEurope:EssaysforSirGeoffreyEltononhisSixty-Fifth Birthday(London, 1987), pp.252–65. Vuilleumier, Henri, Histoiredel’EgliseRéforméeduPaysdeVaudsousle RégimeBernois(4 vols, Lausanne, 1927–33). Walker, John, Bellini and Titian at Ferrara. A Study of Styles and Taste (London, 1956). Weinstein, Donald, SavonarolaandFlorence:ProphecyandPatriotismin theRenaissance (Princeton, NJ, 1970). Weisert, Hermann, ‘Die Rektoren der Ruperto Carola zu Heidelberg und die Dekane ihrer Fakultäten 1386–1968’, ZeitschriftederVereinigung der Freunde der Studentschaft der Universität Heidelberg e.V. XX Jahrgang,vol.43 (1968). Weisert, Hermann, Geschichte der Universität Heidelberg. Kurzer Überblich1386–1980(Heidelberg, 1983). Weisert, Hermann, ‘Die Rektoren und Dekane der Ruperto-Carola zu Heidelberg 1386–1985’ in Wilhelm Doerr et al. (Eds), SemperApertus: SechshundertJahreRuprecht-Karls-UniversitätHeidelberg1386–1986, (4 vols, Berlin, 1985), vol.4, pp.299–417. Weiss, Roberto, TheRenaissanceDiscoveryofClassicalAntiquity (Oxford, 1969). Wendel, François, Calvin.TheOriginsandDevelopmentofhisReligious Thought(London, 1974). Wenneker, Erich, ‘Tremellius, Immanuel’ in Friedrich Wilhelm Bautz (Ed.) Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (12 vols, Herzberg, 1997), vol.12, cols 444–8. Wigoder, Geoffrey, ‘Tremellius, John Immanuel’ in The New Standard JewishEncyclopaedia, 5th edn (New York, 1977), col.1880. Wilkinson, Robert J., TheOriginsofSyriacStudiesintheSixteenthCentury (unpublished PhD thesis, University of the West of England, 2003). Wilkinson, Robert J., ‘Immanuel Tremellius’s 1569 Edition of the Syriac New Testament’, JEH (forthcoming). Wirszubski, Chaim, Pico della Mirandola’s Encounter with Jewish Mysticism (Cambridge, MA and London, 1989). Wolfius, Johann Christophorus, BibliothecaeHebraeae,siveNotitiatum auctorum Hebr. cujusque aetatis, tum scriptorum, quae vel hebraice primumexaratavelabaliisconversasunt,adnostramaetatemdeducta (3 vols, Hamburg and Leipzig, 1715–27). Wolgast, Eike, DieUniversitätHeidelberg1386–1986(Berlin, 1986).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

Woolfson, Jonathan, Padua and the Tudors. English Students in Italy 1485–1603(Cambridge, 1998). Wright, D. F. (Ed.), Martin Bucer. Reforming Church and Community (Cambridge, 1994). Young, M., The Life and Times of Aonio Paleario, or a History of the Italian Reformers in the Sixteenth Century Illustrated by Original DocumentsandLetters(2 vols, London, 1860). Zedler, Johann Heinrich, ‘Tremellius (Emanuel)’ in Zedler, Grosses vollständigesUniversal-LexiconallerWissenschaftenundKünste(68 vols, Leipzig and Halle, 1732–54), vol.45 (1745), cols 365–6. Zorattini, Pier Cesare Ioly, ‘Ebrei Sefarditi e Marrani a Ferrara dalla Fine del Quattrocento alla Devoluzione del Ducato Estense’ in Albano Biondi and Adriano Prosperi (Eds), Libri,ideeesentimentireligiosinel Cinquecentoitaliano(Ferrara, 1987),pp.117–30. Zürcher, Christoph, Konrad Pellikans Wirken in Zürich 1526–1556 (Zurich, 1975).

Index Abraham 77 academies, see education, universities Acworth, George 22 Adam 153–4, 163 Adam, Michael 46 Adamus, Melchior 2 Adar 161 Adrian, Matthew 46–7 Alcalá de Henares 126 Aleman, Johann 46 Alexander VI 14 Alexander, Peter 62 Alsace 42 alumbradism 31, 35 Amberg 92 Ambrogio, Teseo 129 Amos 107 Amsterdam 147, 179 anagogy 158 anti-Italianism 41–2, 47, 54–6, 79, 83, 85, 93; seealsoTrinity anti-Semitism xiii, xix, 5–7, 9, 10, 40–42, 47, 54–6, 78–9, 83, 85, 93, 95–6, 129, 177; seealso Jews, Christian attitudes towards anti-Trinitarianism 87, 113, 164 Antioch 129, 155 AntiquitateBritannicae,De 22–3, 25–6, 83 Antwerp 146 Antwerp Index of Forbidden Books 142 Antwerp polyglot 21, 131 apocalypticism 45 Apocrypha147 apostates, seeconverts. apostles 122 Aramaic 127, 131 Ararat 161 Ariosto, Ludovico 5 Ark 156, 158, 161 Armstrong, Brian 145 Artaxerxes 153

Ashkenazim 8 Augsburg, Confession of 100 Augsburg, Diet of 53 Augustine, St. 20 Avignon 12 Avot12 Babylon 162 Babylonia 162 badge of identification 6, 9 Banosius, Theophilus 114 Barbirius, Nicolaus 120 Basle 55, 62, 68, 119,171 University of 41 BasleNizzahon 40–1 Becker, Wilhelm xiv, 2, 11, 19n., 20, 37n., 52n., 86n., 97n., 115n., 145n Bedford, Earl of 99–100, 119 Belgium 170 Bellini, Giovanni 5 Benedictinism 27–8, 30 Beneficio di Cristo 30–1, 164 Bergamo 33 Berne 54–5, 84–6, 88, 113 Bertram, Corneille 107 Beza, Theodore 15, 66, 85–7, 95, 99, 114, 127–8, 132, 169–72, 175 Dehaereticispuniendis 87 NewTestament 127–8, 132–3, 147–8, 179 and Tremellius 85–6, 171–2 Bible xiii–xiv, xvii–xviii, 12–13, 29, 44–7, 63, 69, 96, 106–111, 125–67, 176–7 and the Reformation 127–8 vernacular translations of 46, 127, 166–7, 176 seealsoNew Testament, Old Testament Bignon, Philip 64 Bishops’ Bible 69

216

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Boderie, Guy Lefèvre de la 21, 131–2 Boiardo, Matteo Maria 5 Boisnormand, Francis 95 Boleyn, Anne 60 Bologna 3 BookofCommonPrayer63 Boquin, Pierre 103–6, 170 Borgia, Lucrezia 5, 14 Bourges 146 Brescia 33 Britain 104 Brussels 83–4, 126 Bucer, Martin 39, 42–3, 49–50, 52, 56, 61–4, 115, 119–20, 175 writings of 27, 29, 33, 35, 63 and Reformed Protestantism 49–50, 56, 175 and Tremellius 42, 56, 61, 72–3, 115, 119–20 Bullinger, Heinrich 33, 50, 55, 84–5, 103, 112 Burckhardt, Jacob 4 Bure, Idelette de 52 Butters, Friedrich xiii, xiv, 2, 16n., 19n., 20n., 50n., 52n., 63n., 86n., 92–3, 97n. 115n., 145n Buxtorf, Johannes 41, 114 Cabbala 13, 45, 46, 47 Calvin, John xxii–xxiii, 2, 15–6, 20, 29–30, 33, 35, 39, 48–50, 52–6, 66–7, 75, 77, 80, 84–8, 92–6, 99, 120, 172, 175, 177 InstitutesoftheChristianReligion 15, 49 GenevanCatechism 75, 77–80 Calvinism; seeReformed Protestantism Cambridge 47, 51, 62–75, 111, 118– 119, 146 University of 59, 64–71, 112 Corpus Christi College 66, 68, 111 King’s College 68 Peterhouse College 68 St. John’s College 63–4 Trinity College 64 Canterbury Cathedral 65 Capito, Wolfgang 47, 121

Cappel, Jacques 173 Carafa, Gian Pietro 24, 28 Carlebach, Elisheva, 77 Carlisle Cathedral 69–71 Carlisle, Christopher 68 Carlstadt, Andreas 47 Carlyle, E. I. 145 Carnesecchi, Pietro 84 Casimir, John 117, 169–70 CollegiumCasimirianum 170 Cassinese Benedictinism, see Benedictinism catechisms 44, 75–80, 84, 89, 91, 104, 115 Catherine of Aragon 60 Cato 89, 91 Cecil, William 70–73, 80, 99, 102, 118 Chaldaean xv, 112–113, 121–2 Charles V, Emperor 32, 53, 59 Charles IX, King of France 98, 101–102 Châtillon, Cardinal of 101 Chevallier, Antoine 13, 51, 64–7, 71, 73, 95, 112–113, 116, 121, 146 RudimentaHebraicaeLinguae13, 66, 121 Family of 65–67 And Tremellius 65–67 Chevallier, Immanuel 65–6, 111, 113 Chiari, Isidoro 27 Christian-Hebraica vii, xiii, xvii, xix, 7n., 11–12, 41, 43–8, 76, 78, 96, 113, 121–3, 169, 175 Christian-Jewish relations; seeJewishChristian relations Christocentrism 164–6 Christopher, duke of Wurttemberg 77 Chronicles151, 154 Church fathers 27, 45 Church of England 60–61, 68 Cicero 90–91, 162 Clement VII 23, 34 clerical marriage 51–2 Clervant, Baron de 98–9 Collett, Barry 27 Colonna, Vittoria 29, 34 Complutensian Polyglot Bible 126 Consiliumdeemendandaecclesia 24 Contarini, Gasparo 24, 27–9 conversion 20–21

INDEX

converts xiii, xix, xxiv24, 40, 44, 46–7, 55–56, 76, 79, 121; seealso Jewish mission Cortese, Gregorio 24, 28 Cothen 133 Courteau, Thomas 120 Cranmer, Thomas 55–6, 59–63, 64, 72, 115 Creation 150, 155, 163 Cremona, Marco da 27 Cromwell, Thomas 60 Curione, Celio Secundo 37 CupientesJudaeos 24 Cyrus 153 Damascus 20, 23 Daniel 122 David 165 Délius, Michael 43 D’Este family 2–5, 14 SeealsoFerrara Attitudes to Jews xix, 9–10, 16 D’Este, Niccolo III 3 D’Este, Leonello 3 D’Este, Borso 3 D’Este, Ercole I 3–4, 8–10, 14 D’Este, Alfonso I 4–5, 14–15; seealso Lucrezia Borgia D’Este, Ercole II 15 Diodorus Siculus 162 Dioscorides 162 Dominicans 9 Domuscatechumenorum 24, 40n. Dordrecht 170 Dossi, Dosso 5 Dryander, Francis 62 Eastern Europe 7, 104 Eastern Orthodox Church 14, 129–31 Ecclesiastes 148–65 Eck, Johannes 46 education xvii–xviii, xxii–xxiv, 1, 10–12, 19, 32, 42–4, 59, 64, 75, 88–91, 93, 105–107, 111–113, 123, 175 Edward VI 55, 59, 60, 61, 65, 70, 79, 80, 86, 102, 118 Egidio of Viterbo 46

217

Elizabeth I of England 45, 65, 68, 70, 73, 80, 99, 101–102, 116–118, 131 Ely, bishop of, seeGoodrich, Thomas Emilia 10 England 6, 25, 45, 51–2, 55–66, 59–81, 83–4, 86, 95, 99, 116–118, 145, 175 Reformation in 59–61 Ephesians72, 105, 119, 134–43 Erasmus, Desiderius 14, 31, 34–5, 47, 126, 128 Erastus, Thomas 103 Eric XIV of Sweden 99 Esther 147 Estienne, Henri 132 Estienne, Robert 75 Eugenius IV 6 Euphrates 162 evangelism xx–xxi, 22, 29–30, 33, 37–8, 50; seealso Italy, religious reform in Evans, Robert 147 Eve 163 exegesis 48, 55, 107–9, 132–43, 149–67 Ezra122, 148–65 Ezra, Abraham ibn 110 Fagius, Paul 43, 48, 55, 62–66, 73, 76–77 Falesius, Jacobus 55 Fall of Man 156, 163 Farel, Guillaume 48, 54 Farissol, Abraham ben Mordecai 12–14, 16, 90n. Farnese, Alessandro seePaul III Ferdinand I, Emperor 129 Ferdinand, Philip 47 Ferrara xix, 1–17, 19–20, 21, 25, 117 Jews in 5, 8–12, 14, 19 Religious culture of 14–16 Council of 14 SeealsoD’Este family Ferrara, Duchess of 100 figures of speech 78, 140, 159–61 Flaminio, Marcantonio 22, 25–30, 34, 39–40, 84 Flood 156, 158, 161 Florence 3, 8, 14, 32 Fontanini da Mantova, Benedetto 30

218

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

foreign churches in England 62–3 France 6, 13, 15, 104, 117–118, 139, 146, 170–1 Francis I 15, 75 Francis II 98 Frankfurt 117, 147, 169, 171, 179 Frederick II, Elector Palatine 103 Frederick III, Emperor 46 Frederick III, Elector Palatine 74, 103–6, 116–118, 120, 123, 125, 130, 169–70 French court 98–100 Friedman, Jerome 45, 78 friendship xix, xxiv, 22, 23n., 26n., 32, 34, 39, 40, 49, 52, 59, 62, 67, 69–75, 77–8, 83, 86–8, 90, 101, 104, 114, 118–120, 172; seealso patronage Froben, Ambrosius 171 Galen 110 Gallicanism 100 Garden of Eden 45 Génébrard, Gilbert 21, 131–2 Genesis 148–65 Geneva 15, 33, 42, 48–9, 53–5, 65, 67, 75, 86–8, 92–6, 98, 104, 107, 120, 132, 146–7, 169–70 Italian church of 33 academy in 67, 93–5, 112 Tremellius invited to 93–6 senate of 94–6 GenevanPsalter 15 Germany xv, 10, 37, 42, 53, 56, 72, 80, 93–4, 101–104, 112, 117, 133, 139 Protestant princes of 99–102 Gest, Edmund 68, 69 Ghent 62 God 66, 72, 74–5, 77, 86, 90, 114, 122, 127, 153–65, 173 Gonzaga, Giulia 34 Goodrich, Thomas 65n., 68, 71–2 Gospels 90, 91 grace 27, 155 grammar 12, 43, 64, 85, 89–91, 96

grammar books 13, 36–7, 46, 66, 121–2; seealsoTremellius, Chaldaean andSyriacGrammar Greek language xv, xvii, 12, 33, 43, 63, 75, 76, 85, 89, 91, 95, 107, 132 Grey, Lord John 80, 86 Grunecieux, Dominic de 50–1 Grunecieux [or Grimecieux], Elisabeth de 49–51 Grynaeus, Johann 173 Guymonneus, Hilarius 48, 49 Gwalther, Rudolf 112 Haller, Johannes 84, 85, 112 Hamilton, Alastair xiv Hanau 147, 179 Harding, Thomas 51, 63 HebraicaVeritas 45 Hebrew, language xiii, xv, xvii–xviii, 6, 11, 16, 43–8, 75–9, 94, 127–8 printing 24, 28, 76–7, 131–2 study of xix, 11–13, 43–8, 75–9, 83, 88, 91, 107–15, 121, 128, 133 teaching of 33, 36, 43–8, 51, 93–4, 105, 107–15, 122, 125, 178 Hebrews127, 134–43 Hedio, Caspar 43 Heidelberg 33, 51, 65, 68, 97–123, 125–6, 130–131, 136, 146, 167, 169, 171, 175 University of 51–52, 65, 93, 97–123, 125, 131, 146, 169 HeidelbergCatechism104, 115 Heidelberg Manuscript 130–133, 136, 141 Henry VIII 55, 60–1 Hilspach, Christopher 93 Holy Roman Empire 6, 7, 26, 42, 48, 53, 55, 59, 100 Hornbach, Academy of 92–5, 97, 115–116 Hortin, Jean 112–113 Hortin, Samuel 41 Hosea 107, 120, 148–65 host desecration, charges of 7 Hubert, Conrad 88, 91–2, 120 humanism xvii, xx, 13, 15, 30–1, 35, 45–6, 91,126, 160, 166 Huguenots 98–9, 102, 117, 171

INDEX

Ignatius III, Patriarch of Antioch 129 Index of Forbidden Books see Antwerp Index of Forbidden Books Isaac 77 Isaiah 107, 109–110, 147 Israel 77 Italians, attitudes towards seeAntiItalianism Italy vii, xv–xvii, xx, 1–38, 39–41, 50–2, 56, 78, 95, 104, 139, 164, 167 religious reform in xx–xxi, 1, 14–16, 19, 26–31, 33–8, 41 Jacob 77 James VI, King of Scotland 117–118 Jerome, St. 13, 45–46, 126–8 Jerusalem 151, 160 Jesuits 24 Jewish-Christian relations vii, xxi–xxii, 5–7, 10, 44, 47, 76, 78, 176–7. Seealso anti-Semitism. Jewish converts Status of xxiv, 40 Christian attitudes towards xix, 40 As teachers of Hebrew 46, 121 Attitudes towards Jews 78–79 Jewish Mission, the 75–79, 114, 132 Jews As teachers of Hebrew 46, 121 Christian attitudes towards xix, xxiv, 5, 6–9, 14, 47, 75–79, 134; see alsoanti-Semitism Status in Europe vii, xix, 5–7 Job105, 106, 108, 147, 152 Joel 107 John,Gospelof132, 134–43 Jones, G. Lloyd 63 Joscelyn, John 22 Joseph 153, 154 Joshua 147 Du Jon, François seeJunius, Franciscus Jud, Leo 46 Judah 160 Junius, Franciscus 21, 104, 132–3, 146–8, 170 justification by faith 27, 29–30, 35 Justinus 162

219

Kampen, Jan van 27 Kerlin, Christopher 43 Kimedonck, Jacob 104 Kimhi, David 110 Lacizi, Paolo 33, 42, 43 Lambeth Palace 59, 62–63, 72 Lasco, Jan a 62 Lateran Council, Fifth 128–9 Lateran Council, Fourth 5–6 Latin language xv, xvii, 12–13, 33, 43, 76–8, 85, 89–91, 95–6, 108, 121–2, 125, 130, 132, 139–40, 149, 150, 158, 166 Lausanne 55, 85–8, 112 University of 95, 170 League of Cambrai, War of 8 Lefèvre d’Etaples, Jacques 128 Leiden 76, 146 Leo X 128 Lever, Thomas 68 Levita, Elias 46 Levites 162 LicetabInitio 37 Loans, Jacob ben Jechiel 46 Logic 12 Lombardy 10 London 62–3, 74, 117, 133, 147, 179 London, bishop of 117 Lorraine 51 Louis XII 15 Louvain, college of 46 Lucca 8, 26, 30, 31–37, 39, 43, 59, 62, 84 Ludwig VI 169 Luther, Martin xviii, 14, 16, 20, 27, 29–30, 35, 44–7 Lutheranism 61, 84, 91, 103–4, 169 Lyon 133 Malachi 147 Mantino, Jacob ben Samuel 24 Mantua 117 Marbach, Johann 43, 84 Markus, Ivan 11 Marot, Clément 15 Marranos 8 Martinenghi, Massimiliano Celso 33, 36

220

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Martyr Peter, see Vermigli, Peter Martyr Mary Tudor 61, 68, 70, 79–80, 83–4, 99 Matthew,Gospelof27, 34, 76, 127 McNair, Philip 33, 51 Medici, Catherine de 98–102 medicine 24, 43 Medigo, Elias del 46 Melanchthon, Philip 29, 33, 47, 91 Mercier, Jean 93 Mesopotamia 161–2 metaphor 140, 154, 156, 160 metonymy 140, 160 Metz 51, 98–102, 116, 170–1 Michelangelo 5 Micron, Martin 62 Milan 8 Mirandola, Giovanni Pico della 45–6 Mont, Christopher 101–102 Morone, Giovanni 27 Moses 122, 147–8 Moses of Mardin 129 Mühlberg 53 Münster, Sebastian 46–7, 76, 121 Musculus, Wolfgang 84–5 Myconius, Oswald 55, 62 mysticism 35, 45 Naples 24, 30, 34, 36 Navarre, King of 100–102, 175 Netherlands 104, 113, 146, 170 Neuburg, 101 Neustadt 146, 170 New Testament 13, 41, 46, 55, 76, 90–91, 113, 121–2, 125–43, 147, 151 Greek texts 126–27, 136 Syriac 127–34 Ney, J. J. 36 Noah 155, 161 Norris, Sir Henry 118 Nuremberg 61 Ochino, Bernardino 34, 35, 37, 41, 56, 62, 83 Old Testament 13, 44–48, 91, 105, 109, 110, 122, 145–67 Olevian, Caspar 92n., 103–104, 170 Oratory of Divine Love 28 Oriental studies 45, 76

at Heidelberg 113, 123, 175 Orléans 98 Osiander, Andreas 61 Ottoheinrich, Elector Palatine 103, 130 Ovid 162 Oxford 47, 51, 62–3, 117 New College 51 Padua 3, 8, 19–20, 25–8, 31, 37 University of 19–20, 27 Pagnini, Sancte 36, 47, 121 Palatinate, Electorate of the 74, 98, 102–104, 112–118, 130, 169–70 Pareus, David 113 Paris 75, 93, 95, 126 University of 21, 131 Parker, Margaret 52, 74 Parker, Matthew 22, 52, 69, 116–118 And Tremellius 22, 73–75 Parma 8 patronage xxiv, 4–5, 24, 32, 53–56, 59, 63, 69–73, 80, 88, 115, 119, 129, 132, 172; seealsofriendship Paul II, 3, 14 Paul III 22–5, 32, 37–8 Paul IV 129–30 Paul, St. 20, 27 Pavaranzo, Antonio 40 Perugia 8 Pellican, Conrad 47, 121 Pentateuch 147, 153 Perna, Peter 119 Perne, Andrew 68, 69 Peschitta 128, 132 Philip II, King of Spain 117, 132 Pierson, Andrew 68, 69 Pilkington, James 68 Pirrie, William 69, 71 Plantin, Christophe 131–2 Plessis-Mornay, Philippe du 114 Pliny 110, 162 NaturalHistory 162 Po, River 3 Poland 113 Pole, Reginald 22–32, 36–8, 83–84 Polybius 110 Poullain, Valerand 49–50, 55, 62 Portugal 6, 8

INDEX

Postel, Guillaume 129–30 predestination 86 printing 24, 28, 61, 147 Privy council 70–1, 99–100 prophecy 158 Protestant league 99–102, 113, 117 Protestantism vii, xviii, xx, xxii, 1, 20, 27, 35–6, 38–9, 60, 103, 173; seealso Reformation, Reformed Protestantism Protestants vii, xv, xviii, 13–14, 27–9, 34–5, 38, 45, 47, 52–7, 59–61, 68, 70, 80, 107, 127–8, 131–2, 134, 145, 167, 171, 173, 178 Providence 156 Psalms 148–65 Ptolemy 110, 162 purgatory 29 Rabbinic scholarship xiii, xix, 12–13, 46–8, 110–111 Ramus, Peter 114 Raphael 5 Reformation vii, xiii, xvi–xxiv, 6, 7, 14–16, 26–7, 32, 35, 38–47, 49, 54–5, 59–62, 73, 75, 85, 87, 90, 96, 103–4, 127, 145, 165, 167, 175–7 Reformed Protestantism vii, xiii, xxii–xxiv, 1, 15, 19, 20, 33, 38, 41, 42, 48–50, 55–6, 59, 61–2, 72, 79, 83, 85–8, 91, 95–6, 98, 103–4, 114, 123, 126, 129, 142–3, 166–7, 169–70, 172–3, 175, 177 Regensburg, Diet of 29 Regius Professorships 51, 59, 62–75, 80–1, 83, 88, 119 Rehum 160 Reims 101 Renaissance xvii–xix, 1–17, 43, 46, 91, 145, 175; seealso Humanism Renée of France 15 Reuchlin, Johann 16, 36, 45–7, 121 Rhetoric 12–13, 43, 90 Riario, Francesco Sforza 32 Ritual murder, charges of 7, 9 Rolin, Didier 98–9

221

Roman Inquisition 24, 28, 34, 37–8 Romans 27, 34, 110, 134–43 Rome 3, 8, 14, 19–20, 22–27, 34, 41, 60, 129–30, 177 Ruderman, David 4, 12 Sack of Rome 16, 24 Sacraments 75 Sadoleto, Jacopo 24 San Frediano 26n., 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 56 San Giorgio Maggiore 28 San Pietro ad Aram 34 Sandys, Edwyn 112 Santa Giustina 27, 30, 31 Sapienza 24 Saumur, academy of 114 Savonarola, Girolamo 9n., 14 Saxony-Weimar, Duke John William 99 Scandinavia 104 Schönau 146 schools xvii, xviii, 12, 42, 44, 76; see also education, universities Schmalkaldic League 42 Schmalkaldic War 53 Scotland 117–118 Sedan 169–73 Semitic languages xv, 4, 113, 138 Servetus, Michael 87, 164 Seymour, Edward see Somerset, Duke of Sforno, Obadiah 46 Shuger, Deborah 145 Shute, Dan 36 Silesia 104, 113 Silva, Guzman de 117 Simeon, Maronite Patriarch 128 Simler, Josias 32, 33, 36 sin 29, 140, 163 Singara 161 Society of Jesus seeJesuits solascriptura 46, 127 Solomon 91, 154, 157, 164 Somerset, Duke of 60 SongofSongs147, 148–65 Sorbonne seeParis, University of Spain 6, 8, 10, 34–5, 62, 117, 126 SpeculariuscontraGenebrardum 21, 23, 132 ‘spirituali’ see evangelism

222

FROM JUDAISM TO CALVINISM

Strabo 162 Strasbourg 37, 39–57, 59, 62, 65, 69, 72, 84, 87–9 Gymnasium of 42–3, 48–9, 53, 56, 59, 89 Strype, John, 74 Sturm, Johann 43, 89 Switzerland 55, 104, 129 synecdoche 140, 159, 160 Syriac dictionaries 131, 136 Syriac language xv, 112–113, 121–2, 127–9, 147–50; seealso Tremellius, ChaldaeanandSyriac Grammar,NovumTestamentum Talatha 162 Talmud 12–13, 48, 113, 171–4 Targums 123 Tel-Charscha 162 Tel Melach 162 Telme 162 Ten commandments 75 theology 27–8, 30, 33, 36, 43, 48, 50, 60–1, 63, 67–9, 72, 84, 98, 103–8, 111, 114–115, 126, 134, 146, 163, 166, 173, 176 Throckmorton, Nicholas 80, 99–102, 119 Tigris 162 Tissard, François 13 Titian 5 Toussain, Daniel 104, 169, 170 Translation 90, 91, 108, 110, 166 Transylvania 113 Trebellius, Teodosio 37 Tremellius, Immanuel as a Jew vii, xiii, xv, xix, 5–7, 20, 93, 176 as convert vii, xiii, xv, xix, 7, 39, 41, 47, 55, 78, 85, 95, 111, 120–121, 164, 169, 172–3, 176 as an Italian xvii, 81, 85, 93, 95, 176 as a diplomat 72, 97, 98–102, 103, 116, 123 as a teacher vii, xiii, xxii, 21, 37, 39, 53, 55, 62–75, 83–94, 98, 105– 115, 118, 122, 125, 146, 175 baptism 26, 28–9, 40, 83

conversion of xviii, 1, 14, 16, 20–38, 39–42, 50, 164 education xiii, 1, 11–14, 19–20 family in Italy 10–11, 19–20, 39, 52, 56 family in exile 39, 50–53, 56, 65–6, 80, 83 wife 50–52, 74, 83, 86, 98, 139, 171; seealsoGrunecieux, Elisabeth de in Ferrara 1–17, 19–20 in Rome 20–25 in Viterbo 25–31 in Lucca 31–37 flight from Italy 37–8 in Strasbourg 39–53 efforts to find employment in 1547 53–57 in London 59–63 in Cambridge 63–81 seeks a job in 1554 83–87 in Zweibrücken 88–92 in Hornbach 92–96 offered a post in Geneva 93–5 in Heidelberg 97–167 in Sedan 171–4 writings of xiii, xv, xvi, 1, 13, 98, 118–23, 175 EpistlestotheEphesians 119–20 GrammaticaChaldaeaetSyra 13, 74, 116–118, 121–3, 131–3, 137, 142 InHoseamProphetam 120 IonathanaeFiliiUzielis…121 LibellusVereAureus… 119–20 Meditamenta 36 NovumTestamentum 21, 98, 113, 118, 121–23, 125–43, 146–50, 172, 175 Translation 134, 142 Annotations on 131, 133, 134–43, 149 SeferHinukhbehireiYah 75–79 TestamentiVeterisBibliaSacra vii, xiii, 21, 98, 118, 123, 125–7, 132–4, 137, 145–67, 169–70, 175–77 Translation 148, 160 Argumenta 148, 153–5 Annotations 148–67

INDEX

Tremellius Jr., Immanuel 51, 111 Trent 7, 39 Council of xx, 24, 29, 31, 100–101, 127, 172 Charges of ritual murder in 9–10 Trier 104 Trinity 75, 87, 163–6; seealsoantitrinitarianism Tullius 162 Tura, Cosmè 5 Turenne, Viscount of 171 Universities vii, xiii, xvii, 44–5, 61, 63, 107, 170, 175 Ursinus, Zacharias 104, 170 usury 8–10 Utenhove, Jan 62 Uzziel, Jonathan ben 121 Valdés, Alfonso de 34 Valdés, Juan de 30–31, 34–6 Valla, Lorenzo 126 Vatable, Francis 66 Vehe-Glirius, Matthias 113 Venice 3, 25, 27–8 Vergerio, Pier Paolo 27, 41 Vermigli, Peter Martyr 27, 30–38, 42–3, 51, 56, 62, 65, 70, 73, 83–4, 87, 103, 175 Veron, Jean 62 Verona 33 Vicenza 8 Vienna 129 Vienne 87 Council of 44, 76 Vienne, Antoine Claude de, see Clervant, Baron de

223

Viret, Pierre 53–5, 85–6, 95 Viterbo 26, 31, 36, 37, 40, 46 vocalisation see Vowel points vowel points 79, 131, 132–3 Vulgate 13, 45–46, 126–8, 133, 167, 178 Wakefield, Thomas 63–4, 69 Widmanstetter, Johannes/ Johann 122, 129–32 Editioprinceps 122, 129–32 Corrected by Tremellius 135–7, 141 Syriac grammar 122 Wechel, Andreas 147, 179 Wechels 147, 179 Wittenberg 16, 36, 42 University of 46–7, 104 Wittgenstein, Count of 170 Young, John 68 Zanchi, Girolamo 33, 36, 84, 104–106, 170 Zell, Matthias 42 Zurich 46, 55, 103–104, 112, 179 Zurich disputation, first 16 Zweibrücken 88–92, 98 Academy of xiii Zweibrücken, Duke Wolfgang of 83, 88–9, 94–7, 109 Zerubbabel 151 Zwingli 35 Zwingli, Rudolf 112

St Andrews Studies in Reformation History Editorial Board: Bruce Gordon, Andrew Pettegree and Roger Mason, St Andrews Reformation Studies Insitute, Amy Nelson Burnett, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Euan Cameron, Union Theological Seminary, New York, and Kaspar von Greyerz, University of Basel. TheShapingofaCommunity:TheRiseandReformation oftheEnglishParishc.1400–1560 Beat Kümin SeminaryorUniversity?TheGenevanAcademyand ReformedHigherEducation,1560–1620 Karin Maag MarianProtestantism:SixStudies Andrew Pettegree ProtestantHistoryandIdentityinSixteenth-CenturyEurope (2 volumes) edited by Bruce Gordon AntifraternalismandAnticlericalismintheGermanReformation: JohannEberlinvonGünzburgandtheCampaignagainsttheFriars Geoffrey Dipple ReformationsOldandNew:EssaysontheSocio-Economic ImpactofReligiousChangec.1470–1630 edited by Beat Kümin PietyandthePeople:ReligiousPrintinginFrench,1511–1551 Francis M. Higman TheReformationinEasternandCentralEurope edited by Karin Maag JohnFoxeandtheEnglishReformation edited by David Loades TheReformationandtheBook Jean-François Gilmont, edited and translated by Karin Maag The Magnificent Ride: The First Reformation in Hussite Bohemia Thomas A. Fudge Kepler’sTübingen:StimulustoaTheologicalMathematics Charlotte Methuen

‘PracticalDivinity’:TheWorksandLifeofRevdRichardGreenham Kenneth L. Parker and Eric J. Carlson BeliefandPracticeinReformationEngland:A TributetoPatrickCollinsonbyhisStudents edited by Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger FrontiersoftheReformation:Dissidenceand OrthodoxyinSixteenth-CenturyEurope Auke Jelsma TheJacobeanKirk,1567–1625:Sovereignty,PolityandLiturgy Alan R. MacDonald JohnKnoxandtheBritishReformations edited by Roger A. Mason TheEducationofaChristianSociety:Humanismand theReformationinBritainandtheNetherlands edited by N. Scott Amos, Andrew Pettegree and Henk van Nierop TudorHistoriesoftheEnglishReformations,1530–83 Thomas Betteridge PoorReliefandProtestantism:TheEvolutionof SocialWelfareinSixteenth-CenturyEmden Timothy G. Fehler RadicalReformationStudies: EssayspresentedtoJamesM.Stayer edited by Werner O. Packull and Geoffrey L. Dipple ClericalMarriageandtheEnglishReformation: PrecedentPolicyandPractice Helen L. Parish PenitenceintheAgeofReformations edited by Katharine Jackson Lualdi and Anne T. Thayer TheFaithandFortunesofFrance’sHuguenots,1600–85 Philip Benedict ChristianityandCommunityintheWest:EssaysforJohnBossy edited by Simon Ditchfield

Reformation,PoliticsandPolemics:TheGrowthof ProtestantisminEastAnglianMarketTowns,1500–1610 John Craig TheSixteenth-CenturyFrenchReligiousBook edited by Andrew Pettegree, Paul Nelles and Philip Conner MusicasPropagandaintheGermanReformation Rebecca Wagner Oettinger JohnFoxeandhisWorld edited by Christopher Highley and John N. King ConfessionalIdentityinEast-CentralEurope edited by Maria Crăciun, Ovidiu Ghitta and Graeme Murdock TheBibleintheRenaissance: EssaysonBiblicalCommentaryandTranslation intheFifteenthandSixteenthCenturies edited by Richard Griffiths ObedientHeretics:MennoniteIdentitiesinLutheranHamburg andAltonaduringtheConfessionalAge Michael D. Driedger TheConstructionofMartyrdominthe EnglishCatholicCommunity,1535–1603 Anne Dillon BaptismandSpiritualKinshipinEarlyModernEngland Will Coster Usury,InterestandtheReformation Eric Kerridge TheCorrespondenceofReginaldPole: 1.ACalendar,1518–1546:BeginningstoLegateofViterbo Thomas F. Mayer Self-DefenceandReligiousStrifeinEarlyModernEurope: EnglandandGermany,1530–1680 Robert von Friedeburg HatredinPrint:CatholicPropagandaandProtestantIdentity duringtheFrenchWarsofReligion Luc Racaut

Penitence,PreachingandtheComingoftheReformation Anne T. Thayer HuguenotHeartland: MontaubanandSouthernFrenchCalvinism duringtheFrenchWarsofReligion Philip Conner CharityandLayPietyinReformationLondon,1500–1620 Claire S. Schen The British Union: A Critical Edition and Translation of David Hume of Godscroft’s De Unione Insulae Britannicae edited by Paul J. McGinnis and Arthur H. Williamson ReformingtheScottishChurch: JohnWinram(c.1492–1582)andtheExampleofFife Linda J. Dunbar CulturesofCommunicationfromReformationtoEnlightenment: ConstructingPublicsintheEarlyModernGermanLands James Van Horn Melton SebastianCastellio,1515-1563: HumanistandDefenderofReligiousTolerationinaConfessionalAge Hans R. Guggisberg translated and edited by Bruce Gordon TheFront-RunneroftheCatholicReformation: TheLifeandWorksofJohannvonStaupitz Franz Posset TheCorrespondenceofReginaldPole: Volume2.ACalendar,1547–1554:APowerinRome Thomas F. Mayer WilliamofOrangeandtheRevoltoftheNetherlands,1572–1584 K.W. Swart, translated J.C. Grayson TheItalianReformersandtheZurichChurch,c.1540–1620 Mark Taplin WilliamCecilandEpiscopacy,1559–1577 Brett Usher

ADialogueontheLawofKingshipamongtheScots ACriticalEditionandTranslationofGeorgeBuchanan’s DeJureRegniApudScotosDialogus Roger A. Mason and Martin S. Smith MusicandReligiousIdentityinCounterReformationAugsburg,1580–1630 Alexander J. Fisher TheCorrespondenceofReginaldPole Volume3.ACalendar,1555–1558:RestoringtheEnglishChurch Thomas F. Mayer Women,SexandMarriageinEarlyModernVenice Daniela Hacke InfantBaptisminReformationGeneva TheShapingofaCommunity,1536–1564 Karen E. Spierling ModerateVoicesintheEuropeanReformation Edited by Luc Racaut and Alec Ryrie PietyandFamilyinEarlyModernEurope EssaysinHonourofStevenOzment Edited by Marc R. Forster and Benjamin J. Kaplan ReligiousIdentitiesinHenryVIII’sEngland Peter Marshall AdaptationsofCalvinisminReformationEurope EssaysinHonourofBrianG.Armstrong Edited by Mack P. Holt JohnJewelandtheEnglishNationalChurch TheDilemmasofanErastianReformer Gary W. Jenkins CatholicActivisminSouth-WestFrance,1540–1570 Kevin Gould IdolsintheAgeofArt Objects,DevotionsandtheEarlyModernWorld Edited by Michael W. Cole and Rebecca E. Zorach

LocalPoliticsintheFrenchWarsofReligion TheTownsofChampagne,theDucdeGuise, andtheCatholicLeague,1560–95 Mark W. Konnert EnforcingReformationinIrelandandScotland,1550–1700 edited by Elizabethanne Boran and Crawford Gribben PhilipMelanchthonandtheEnglishReformation John Schofield ReformingtheArtofDying Thears moriendiintheGermanReformation(1519–1528) Austra Reinis RestoringChrist’sChurch JohnaLascoandtheForma ac ratio Michael S. Springer CatholicBeliefandSurvivalinLateSixteenth-CenturyVienna TheCaseofGeorgEder(1523–87) Elaine Fulton