一 1f65 一
The@ Guardian@ of@the@Text:
Humanistic@ PHlology@and@
Authority@ @@ Bel
Ⅰ
rmi
o
Osvaldo Cavallar
For@ Roberto@
Bellarmino@ (1542-1621) ， the@ years@ between@
1923@ and
1931@brought@more@radical@changes@in@his@position@in@the@extraterrestrial
hi rarchy@ than@ all@the@ three@ hundred@years@that@
had@ Capsed@
death@ in@ 1621:@ beatification@was@ followed@ by@ canonization
whole@ process@
consequences@
Hs@iconograp
theo
Ⅰ
， and@ the
was@ concluded@ by@ honoring@ him@ as@ a@ Doctor@
According@
Church ，
Snce@ his
to@ the@ microhistorian@
of@ th@@ post ， mortem@
Ⅱ cal@representati
Pietro@ Redondi ，
promo
n@as@well
Ⅰ
，
on@was@
a@
Bellarmi
one@
of@ the
of@ the
radi al@ change@ in
o@was@the@offici
8an@of@the@Roman@church@during@the@pontificate@of@Clement@VIII
and@Pa@@
V ， a@"protagonist@of@the@p
of@Hs@time
， "@ and@tWce@
Ⅱ
a@canddate@
nCpal@poi
for@ the@pap8@
role ， states@ Redondi
， in@ which@
portr3t
， the@expression@on@his@face
．
His@sguardo
cardinal ， one@who@
he@ appeared@
tion ， tRs@ sgnardo@ disappeared;@
in@ his@
That@was@the
pre ， canonization
， was@worthy@of@a@great
，
impressive@ character ， the@ power@
ecstasy" ，，
an@"expresSon
His@ eyes@ lost@ their
to@ pierce@ the@ heart@ of@ the
， and@they@now@seem@"to@wander@along@the@walls@of@the@rooms
of@the@ Holy@office"
，
But@after@the@canoniza
its@place@was@taken@by@
of@ meek@ spirituality@ and@ absentminded@
spectator
ti ra ，
"had@ sailed@through@ all@the@ Roman@Congregations"
and@of@a@"great@politician@of@European@stature"
former@
i 3@ and@reli ious@cases
．"
Yet》he”istory｛f》he『ritten｝ortraits‥oes］ot’ollow》he｝attern
一 1f66 一
described@ by@ Redon4
Here@ the@ different@ sguardi@ appear@
・
result@ of@ the@ peculiar@ interests@ of@ the@ biographers
to@ be@ the
， and@ their@ basic
alteration@ well@ preceded@ his@ beatification@ and@ canonization
Avviso@ (obituary@
Roman@
announcement)@
descri es@Hm@as@"a@brilliant@man
of@ Bellarmino
， an@outstandi
g@theo
ate@ defender@ of@ the@ Catholic@ faith ， a@ hammer@
accordance@with@the@usu@@
criter@@
of@laudatory@adectiveS@
to@the@
"equ3@@
pi
us ，
pher ， Gacomo@
of@ heretics" ，
prudent
Ⅰ
， s@ death
8an ， a@passion ，
of@humanist@biography
@@ the@ Hghest@ degree Ⅰ，2'@ BC
poor@
Ⅰ
Then ， in
， it@adds@a@list
， humble
， and@generous
rmino ， s@ fi st@ Jes ℡ t@ Uogra
Ful i tti， also@ in@ deference@ to@ Ren3ssance@
standards ， opened@wi
h@ a@typi ally@humanis
， s@ family@name;@
honor@of@his@hero
The
，
Ⅰ
literary
c@commonplace@about@the
he@carefully@supported@his@theses@by
references@to@ the@considerable@body@
of@material@ gathered@on@
the@ occa-
sion@of@the@preliminary@inquiry@for@an@eventual@process@of@beatification
including@ Bellarmino
pher ， Arcangelo@
， s@ own@last@will
． 3'@ The@eighteenth
Arcangeli ， approached@
view@ of@ "what@can@be@
，
， century@biogra
him@ solely@ from@ the@ point@ of
useful@ to@ the@ soul@ of@the@ reader" ．
He@ thus@ put
asi e@ most@ of@ the@ historic3@ research@ done@ by@ Hs@ predecessors@
"spiritual@ gifts"， The@ "worth"@ of
changed@the@humanistic@virtues@into@
tHs@bi
appoi
graphy@was@noted@by@the@first@
ted@ to@
re Ⅴ ew@
it "This@
garden@ full@of@ fowers@
・
and
work
of@the@two@ecclesi
， "@ the@ censor@
wrote
sti
@@ censors
， "is@ a@ fie
Ⅰ
，
a
and@ fruits,@ where@ every@ person,@ eccl siastics@ in
particular ，，，，
can@learn@maxims@of@piety@and@doctrine@to@enrich@his@own
soul@and@that@of@his@neighbor
， "41@ Bellarmino
， s@twentieth
， century@biogra-
pher ， James@ Brodrick ， who@ also@ wrote@biographies@of@other@prominent
Jesuits ， sought@to@ strike@ a@balance@between@his@hero
his@sanctity
．
Yet ， as@Brodrick@
himself@put@
， s@ scholarship@ and
it， he@"flaunted@his@love@for
his@hero"@in@a@way@that@Bellarmino@himself@"would@have@found@distress
一 167m
ing" ． He@"hardly@admitted@to@a@single@spot@in@his@sun
concerned
， "he@seemed@to@be@addicted@
of@almost@every@noun
， "@and ， as@style@was
．．．
to@putting@adjectives@in@front
， "@Even@in@1961
， when@he@published@an@abridged@and
revised@ version@ of@ his@ biography
， upgrading@ the@ title@ of@ "blessed"@ to
"saint" ， he@ left@the@ image@he@had@
created@ in@the@ first@ edition@basically
unaltered
・
5'
Meanwhile
Bellarmino
， in@ the@ atemporal@
field@ of@ post-Tridentine@ theology ，
， s@position@remained@immovable@and@unchallenged
i g@to@the@seventeenth
， century@schol
．
Accord
r@Jacques@Bossuet,@@@ was@identi 3
with@the@unchanging@tradition@of@the@Roman@Church@itself
， This@identifi-
cati n@was@still@accepted@@@ the@ te@ni eteenth century
Ⅰ
， when@Ignaz@von
・
DOllinger@ recognized@ in@ the@ definition@ of@ the@ First@ Vatican@
Council
(1869-1870)@ of@ papal@ infallibility@ little@more@ than@ a@ restatement@
Bellarmi
o ， [email protected]'@
， Bellarmino
ever
research ，
Cabora
Ⅰ
longevity
on@
． 7'@
At@the@begi
ning@of@the@twenti
， the@theologian@at@last
The@ hi to
Ⅱ
an@
， became@the@o
of@ dogmas@
two@
others ，
Pontien@
mos
Ⅰ
of
th@century ， how ，
Ⅰ ect@of@historical
Joseph@ TurmC@
of@ a@ posi ive@ theology,@ albe@@
Then@
，
i quired@ i to@ hi
y@ to@
Polman@
demonstrate@
and@
E． A ．
is
Ryan
，
examined@his@historical@scholarship;@
the@former@considered@it@within@the
context@of@the@sixteenth-century@theological@controversies,@the@latter@in
the@context@ of@his@ other@writings ． 8'
Bellarmino
， s@involvement@
in@Galileo
， s@affair ， on@the@other@hand
long@elicited@the@interest@of@historians@of@science
，
Pierre@Duhem
， has
， at@the
beginning@of@this@century,@elevated@Bellarmino@to@the@rank@of@forerunner
of@ the@ epistemology@
of@ modern@
that@was@well@expressed@in@his@i
science-an@
Ⅰ
． 9'@ Out@ of@ deference@for@Duhem
， he@ stated ，
unction@to@Galileo@to@treat@the@Coper
nican@system@as@a@scientific@hypothesis
world
epistemology
， not@as@a@description@of@the@real
， s@view
， Brodrick
， too ， presented
，
一 168 一
him@
scientist@ with@a@ defensible@cosmological@
as@ a@
Morpurgo@
Tagliabue@
theory ， 10)@and@ Guido
has@ also@ reasserted@ the@ soundness@ of@ his@ epis
temol gc@@ position ， '"@ On@ the@ other@ hand ， those@ who@ 4sagree@
Duhem
， s@ views@ have@ presented@ an@ image@
"meek@spi
i u3i
y@and@absentmi
Wth
of@ Bellarmino@ expressing
ded@ecstasy"
． Such
， for@instance
， was
the@way@Giorgio@de@Santillana@described@him@in@his@book@on@Galileo:@
"an
o
， Pagued@with@ill-hea
man
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
h ， harassed@wih@work
， who@found@escape
from@ it@only@ in@prayer@ and@ in@sighing@ for@ the@ consolation@ of@ the@ other
worl
， "@ And@
@@ support@
writings, parHcuIaHy
co 励笏み
dg,
sわe
of@ this@ image
hisDg
， he@ cited@ BC
のcg ん切 0 れぞ 移と色サ恭レ
ルあ 0 移 o 妨Cわ移c 笏移 ， stahng
Dg
rmino
Ⅰ
が
笏
， s@ sPritua
and Dg 彫移ヶ励
thatthiswasindeedwhathe
in erested in.'2)
was
Ⅰ
The
malo
schoars@
て
effect
was@ not@
send@them@to@their@
of beatification and
canonization
to@ force@ them@ to@ change@ Bel
own@archives
，
Ⅰ
rmino ， s@ image ， but@ to
Their@labor@had@the@merit@
ing@a@considerable@body@of@hitherto@untapped@sources
BachCet@
puDished@
Bellarmino
a@
substanti3@
， s@curial@ activity．
aspects@of@BClarmi
of@ documents@
n@
，
Xavier@Marie@Le
．
cti
Ⅰ
of@uncover
re
Ⅰ
ted@ to
Sebastian@Tromp@edited@his@sermons@and
other@theological@writings@as@well
sever3@
co
Jesuit
on
． 13'@ This@documentation@has@revealed
o ， s@acti
ity@that@nCther@i onographers@nor
biographers,@ neither@ hi torians@ of@ sci
nce@ nor@
theologians,@ had@
ever
noticed@or@taken@into@due@consideration:@
his@work@as@a@biblical@philologist ，
The@first@of@these@documents@is@the@so
phy ，
In@ 1613 ， at@ the@ request@
・
of@ Mut@@
Ⅴ tC
general@superior@of@the@Society@of@Jesus
sketched@an@outline@of@Hs@life
a@
biography@ than@
an@
Ⅰ
scH ，
an@
， Claudio@Aquaviva
， 14'@ In@form
autobiography
called@Bellarmino@
．
Autobiogra
assistant@ to@ the
， Bellarmino
， tHs@piece@appears@to@be@more
It@was@written@
at@the@bequest@ of
一 169 一
Francesco@Sacchini@(d
Society
Indeed
．
， 1626) ， who@was@the@semiofficial@biographer@of@the
， @@ the@order@of@its@presentation@it@fo
naire@ provided@ by@ Sacchini@ himself ．
It@ conforms@
biographical@ pattern@long@before@worked@
to@ a@ humanistic
out@ and@tested@ in@the@biogra
phies@Sacchini@had@inserted@in@his@history@of@the@Society
in@ the@ third@ person@
himself
" Ⅰ屯 ":
as
anecdotes
born
was
， such@as@the@Floren
， s@weak@
of@his@sermons@that@he@wou
Ⅰ
in
nor@ e
Ⅰ
七
ne@epi
， 15'@It@is@written
. ." It is rep@ete
year.
ode@of@the@old@lady@who
， wor
w 什h
ed
Ⅱ
， prayed@throughout@
one
get@to@the@end@of@it@safe Ⅰ．161@It@puts@also
Ⅰ
， s@versatile@mind:@"His@talents@were
vated ， but@ suitab
Ⅰ
he
physical@constitution
considerable@emphasis@on@the@author
nCther@ subt
・
and ， to@ disguise@ the@ referent ， the@ author@ refers@ to
"N.
about@ Bellarmino
n
ws@the@questi
Ⅰ
to@ any@ task@
Ⅰ
so@
much@ that@ he
could@ take@up@ any@field@ indifferently， "@ Similarly ， the@ Additiones@ to@ the
autobiographyemphasizeonceagainthisversati@ity;
buttheyidentify
it as
a
gift for comprehending
and exp@aining
" 裾 0 んぴ御し
ナカci ガんバク ぱ 0% 後妨 c磁 わん あ ク
matter:
The
autobiography
commitments
，
a@so presents
gave@
・
denial"
Ⅱ
笏クガどク れ目
は
".17)
of the author,s
his@family ， the@Society@of
It@stresses@the@piety@of@his@parents,@particularly
Ⅴ ng ， prayers
， contempl
tion ，
， It@introduces@the@Society@of@Jesus@in@the@person
， one@of@the@first@nine@companions@of@Ignace@of@Loyola
the@ Spiritual@ Exercises@ to@ Bellarmino
presents@the@author
desc
・
， who@was@"devoted@to@3msgi
of@Paschal@Broet
who@
sort of subject
It@begins@with@a@description@of@the@elements@Bellarmino
Jesus,@ and@the@papacy
fasting ， and@self
ピサ
other aspects
thought@important@for@understanding@his@life:@
of@his@mother
every
， s@particu r@rCation@wi
Ⅰ
bes@@@ one@whose@intel
reflected@ Bellarmino
Ⅰ
ctu3@
accompli
， s@ mother
h@the@papacy
uncle ． 18'
，
Finally ， it
， The@pope@i
hments@as@a@humanist@a
， s@ lifelong@ideals:@ Marcello@Cervini@
was@ indeed@his@compatriot@and@his@
，
Ⅰ
(d ． 1555) ， who
o
--
170
一
The@ second@ thesis@ the@ biography@ advances@
Bellarmino
， s@own@versatility
， The@chief@manifestation@of@this@adaptabil-
ity@ was@his@capacity@for@mediating
，
Indeed
， much@
realm@ of@ theology@ were@ directed@ toward@
apparent
derives@ directly@ from
of@his@efforts@in@the
the@ task@ of@ reconciling@ two
contradctory@roes@he@had@chosen@for@
Ⅰ
theologian@and@that@of@the@pastor
The@modC@
on@whi
．
Hmself:@ that@ of@the
Of@these@two@he@preferred@the@latter
h@he@patterned@h@@
， at@
sermons
ast@untl@he@created
Ⅰ
his@ own@ style@ (or@ thought@ he@ had) ， was@ that@ of@ Cornelio@ Musso@
(1511-
1574) ， the@ renowned@
at@ the
preacher@ who@
the@
gave@
ope Ⅰ ng@
sermon@
Council@ of@ Trent@ and@ whose@ preaching@ style@ was@ "based@ on@ ideas ， not
images"@
and@
"clear@ and@ certain ， not@ dubious"
was@
preacher@ that@ he@ often@ portrays@
himself ．
it@ is@ as@ a
19'@ And@
・
However
， he@
always
was@
careful@to@stress@that@he@preached@only@in@obedience@to@a@command@of@his
superiors
正
ery
ぬぱゐ
with
or
ofCamaldo
crc
サ八/.
their permission. During
Ⅱ， it was
してん
also preached
Be@laTmino
wished
is that of
the@ Tridentine@
norms@
on@
monas-
" 名んⅠ 挽クの
ひひ ぬ 0 iれ
SS 尭 ， ぴ #
Jo㎡ i77iれド "; and
"ク g打 c co 乙 cサれS
to convey
demands@of@his@superiors
brief visit to the
local abbotwho
0 Ⅰ 脇わ 0%9 御乙 ガク晩ヰ 彫s
Mondov@he
implemented@
the
a
ぽ
sM クり Ⅰ i0
ⅠⅠ
わ
a re Ⅱ gious
preaching
．
wh
Ⅱe
he
れ
ド "."0@
The
who
image
fo Ⅱ owed
Yet ， thanks@
in
was
and
to@ the
， he@had@the@opportunity@to@exert@himself@in@the
field of theology
More@important@s
upon@
Bellarmino
love@poetry
Ⅰ
ll， the@autobi
， s@ humanistic@
formation
，
Ⅰ
emphasi
In@ his@ youth ， he@ learned@
， and ， after@spending@more@than@one@night@reading@Virgil
learned@to@ versify@ in@such@
poemsbut
graphy@puts@conSderab
one
Greek@ by@ HmsCf
a@
， when@he@
， he
fashion@that@nothing@could@be@found@
" ひ e めぴ笏 ㎡笘ヶお援れぴ 笏 " after the other.2'@
was@
asSgned@
in@his
He mastered
to@ teach@ Demosthenes@
college@of@Mondovi
． He@barely@knew@the@alphabet
to
at@ the
， when@he@began@the
一 171
course
・
bas@@
ru
He@ therefore@ told@the@ students@that@he@ wanted@ to@start@Wth@ the
s@
Ⅰ
"mastered@
of@
and@ work@
grammar@
day@ by@ day@ that@ wHch@
to@ the@ text ．
up@
he@
was@
goi
g@ to@
In@ th@@
later@ in@ Louvain
， 22'@ Similarly
， when@ he@ was@ ordered@ to@ teach@ Hebrew
resorted@to@the@same@device
，
， he
But,@ with@increased@confidence@in@h@@
，
he
way@
teach@ next@ to@ Hs
pupils";@ and@he@ended@the@course@reading@Isocrates@as@well
years@
一一
own
didactic@capabilities， he@assured@the@students@willing@to@follow@him@that
in@eight@days@they@would@be@
able@to@read@ and@understand@
the@ sole@ help@ of@ a@ dictionary
・
Hebrew@with
Indeed ， he@ learned@ the@ language@ by
himself ， for@ he@ discovered@ that@ the@ traditional@ organization@
of@ the
material@ usually@ adopted@ by@ Jewish@ teachers@ and@ other@ compilers@ of
Hebrew@
manuals@
colleges
did@ not@ meet@ the@ pedagogical@
standards@ of@ Jesuit
． 23'
Equ3
Wth@ the@ huma
consonant@
Ⅰ
stic@ trai i
Ⅰ
g@
is@ Bel
Ⅰ
rmi
o， s
expression@ of@ dissatisfaction@with@ the@ various@ brands@ of@ scholastic
philosophy ， in@which@his@early@philosophical@
had@ s ll@been@bound
，
Ⅰ
He@ deemphasi
logic@ at@ the@ Collegio@ Romano
that@
Ⅰ
me
ed@ his@ studi
s@
of@ phi
Ⅰ
sophy@
and
， observing@ that@ he@ was@sick@ for@most@ of
， 24*@ He@ponted@out@that@professors@at@the@UDverSty@of@Padua
did@ little@but@ read@ printed@ manuals
answer@the@ques
biography
and@theological@ formation
Ⅰ
ons@
， he@was@thus
and@ theologian
， and@ they@ did@ not@ even@
posed@by@[email protected]'@ According@to@
， or@wished@to@appear@as
deign@ to
the@ auto ，
， a@self ， taught@humanist
， but@ one@who@applied@his@humanistic@training@and@learn
，
ing@specifically@ to@ the@realm@ of@theology
The@
autobiography@
furthermore@
sojourn@in@Louvain@marked@a@turning@point@
points@ out@
that@ Bellarmino
in@his@career
・
，s
It@was@there
that@he@was@ordained@priest@and@that@he@took@the@fourth@solemn@vow@of
obedience@to@
the@ pope ， thus@becoming@a@
full@member@of@the@
Society@ of
一 172 一
Jesus ，
It@ was@ there@ that@ he@ changed@
defi iti e@@ the@ subject@ of@ his
teaching@ from@ the@ rhetorical@ arts@to@ theology ． 26'@ It@was@ there@ that@ he
faced@Hs@first@ch3
Short
easy ．
means@
enge@as@a@theologan
leading@ members@
， and@responding@to@it@was@by@no
before@ Hs@ arriv3 ， the@ challenge@ of@ one@ of@ the
Ⅰ
of@ that@ faculty ， Michael@
1589) ， had@been@so@
that@ it@had@been@
strong@
B3us@paid@no@attenton@to@the@i
Ⅰ unc
Baius@ (Michel@ de@ Bay ， d
condemned@by@
on@of@si
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
Rome
，
But
nce@imposed@upon@him
He@ started@ once@ again@ to@ discuss@ his@ theses@ openly@ and@ to@ publish@ a
defense@ of@ them ，
Upon@ his@ arrival， Bellarmino@ found@ the@ university
students@ in@ tumult@ and@
themselves
the@ professors@ sharply@ divided@ among
， 27'
Bellarmino@was@not@immediately@involved@in@the@dispute
assigned@to@teach@at@the@local@Jesuit@college
Baius@
questions@
on@
of@ grace ， i， e ． ， how@
whethe
て
the
concept
of
ん
o 移o zれウひ
ted ， Baius@considered@the@status@of@
Holy@ Spirit@ necessary@
mi
o@
maintai
of@ the@
Ho
Ⅰ
Spirit ，
， on@one@side
on@
the@ relationship
ん S れ ク とれ 勿ねあ
硲 should
be
，
admlt-
rectitude@ and@the@indwelling@of@the
of@ human@
possi ility@ of@ dsti
nature
g℡
，
Bellar
shing@ between
， and@the@rectitudo@and@the@indwelling
the@ other ，
teleologic3@ conception@ of@ human@
concept@
to@ conceive@
for@ the@ completeness@
ed@ the@ theoretic3@
human@nature@in@itself
He@4sagreed@Wth
，
， in@the@terminology@of@that@period
between@natural@and@supernatural@or
on
． But@he@could@not@avoid@it;
s ， s@chief@adversary
and@i deed@he@soon@became@Bai
， for@he@was
In@ short ， wHle@
Bai
being@ and@ consequent
of@ "pure@ natural" ， Bellarmino@ stressed@
an@
s@
Ⅰ
stressed@ a
rejected@ the
ontological@ under
standing@ of@human@ being-one@ that@required@ the@distinction@between
natural@ and@ supernatural
， 28'@ Stripped@ of@ its@ theological@ cloak ， this
dispute@foreshadows@the@recent@debate@on@"nurture"@vs
the@theological@stomach@is@squeamish
， "nature"-or
， at@least@ this@recent@debate@
， if
may
一 173 一
furnish@
to@ approach@that@controversy
a@ way@
．
It@mi ht ， therefore ， appear@as@@@ the@ro
p mary@subject@of@a@theologi
of@grace@was@once@again@the
Ⅰ
al@controversy
Ⅱ
， Yet@a@diverse@understand-
ing@of@the@proper@method@of@theological@
inquiry@was@what@also@
divided
Bellar ㎝ no@and@Baius
．
of@ methodology:@
Bellar ㎝ no@agreed@with@Baius@upon@one@element
the@ importance@
accepted@ Baius ， s@appreCati
of@ patristic@ argument
n@of@poSti
He@ also
，
e@theol gy@@@ contrast@to@
scho
lastic， for@that@was@the@counsel@Ignace@gave@in@his@Exercitia@and@codified
@@ the@
Constitutiones
reliance@
． 29 、1@ He@ 4sagreed@
Augustine@
on@
and@
thought@ that@ Augustine@
grace@and@the@best@
on@
with@ Baius ， s@ amost@
his@ manner@
Ⅰ
ゐⅠ
じ
Cじ尼 5ぬ
・
weapon@against@the@"heretics"@
て
eXp
て
essed thlsconfldence
M は #0
Ⅰれ物
on
AM ぎ絡わ免
て
mlno,
ch Fathe
て
s,G eek aswe@
the othe
て
of@the@ decrees@ of@ the@ councils ，
precedence@
over@
the@ position@ of@ the@ whole
ln themotto:
をⅠⅡ は万じひひ壌移
た
Cぴ笏ク0 後れ ア托タパリ しね
Augustinus@
Hstoric3@
亡
lncludlng a Ⅱ the
Indeed@ the@ councils ， in@ his@ mind ， took
， including@ Augustine
七
，
If@ a
in@agreement@with@Augustine
moreover
to be employed
hatcouldbenon.Au
thattimewerejusttheoppos
agains
A ど庵われ 硲
stood forthelncluslon
The@ decrees@ of@ the@ councils ，
theheresiesof
Ⅰ
Latln. Healso
the@ Fathers@ themselves
histo ㎡ cals 吐 uaUon 一 alanguage
" ひあ
upon
furnishing the theological language
to 封 gh
of@his@time， He@was
for@ him ， because@ the@ Holy@ Spirit@ was@ surely@
councils ，
Baius
hand, lnslsted
Ⅰ
as
0
definition@of@a@council@ seemed@not@to@be@
worse@
si e
could@ provide@ a@ support@ for@ his@ theology@ of
． " Be@a
ひ Zひピ彫
Chu
he
Ⅰ
of@ interpreting@him ，
also@ confident@ that@ Augustine@ represented@
Church,and
exc
on@
，
the@ side@ of@ the
， had@ the@ function@ of
in that particular
靱lsUnian,because
辻 eofthoseAugusHnehad
(初刀 ね拘笏ナ招援o 乙 co 免ぬ携 rie れ放 co れサ 御ヴ び俊ル尻硲
agebat) ． 30 、1@ In@interpreting@Augustine@he@paid@attention@to@the
context@of@his@writings
，
And@Wth@the@support@of@the@"consen
一 l74 一
S郷戸㏄ヰ物
ぴ笏
", he became
convlnced thathls antl.Pelaglan
w
Ⅱ
珪 lngsdld
not@reflect@his@long-term@theological@
views@nor@those@of@the@rest@
of@the
equ3
autho
Ⅰ
Ⅱ
Although@
tati e@Church@
the@ modern@
Fathers
editor@ of@ Bellarmino
， s@ refutation@ of@ Baius
stresses@that@this@debate@hCps@
to@ understand@the@relatonship@between
natural@and@supernatural-a@relationship
， s@condemnation@
of@Baius
Lon-in@rea
Ⅰ
， he@asserts
， that@since@the@time
(1567)@has@not@found@a@definitive@systematiza
ty,@i s@importance@
Ⅰ
es@more@in@BClarmino's@
Ⅰ
rst@adop
Ⅰ
on
of@the@criteria@established@by@the@Council@of@Trent@concerning@the@proper
method@
of@theological@inquiry ． 31'
An@even@more@important@consequence@of@the@dispute@with@Bai
s@was
that@it@brought@Bellarmino@into@contact@with@the@post-Erasmian@theolog
ical@world@of@the@University@of@Louvain
first@time， made@Hm@f
Hebrew
a@ part@
assemb
ly@aware@of@the@importance@of@the@knowledge@of
of@a@ wider@commentary@on@Aquinas
the@ mate
Ⅰ
Ⅱ
So@invo
，
aside@ the@ comP
The@ main@
ti
n@
of@ this@
purpose@
purpose@
noti ed@workS@
Ⅰ
a@
Roman@
authoriti
， Bellarmino@
grammar
Sc ㎡ pture.W4@
asatisfacto
iん放0, めだぴ仇御召れ物
て
y manne
Ⅰ
until@ his
s ， 33'
is@extremely
辻 p ㎡ ma ㎡ ly f0r the
the elementary
一 " ㎡ ん 0 んクと けち c脇W
也 e% ゆピ彫力0㏄が．
"35@
s@
states@ in@ his@ auto
He meant
des 什 ed to master
Hebrew
this@proj ct@that@he@put
from@ his@ conviction@ that@ "Hebrew@
self.taught studentwho
he@ began@to
of@ a@ systemat@@ treatise@ against@ Bai
useful for understanding
ce/fg
hard
requested@by@the@
， stemmed@
thatlanguagein
， s@ Summa@than@
ed ， i deed ， did@he@become@@@
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
for@one@of@h@@
3@
form3@@
n@was@
biography
， for@the
In@fact ， no@sooner@had@he@completed@his@refutation@of@Baius@as
．
grammar
opi i
㍽
． 321@ And@those@contacts
W
structure
co どん
ifio 笏 6%,
Ⅱ h this didactical
in@mind,@ he@divided@ i s@content@in@two@partS@ a@framework@
general@ rules@ and@
an@
exercise@ in@ gramma
Ⅰ
of
cal@ analysis@
on@
of
the@ thi ty-
一 175 一
tHrd@psam
， He@organzed@the@content@of@the@first@secti
structure@he@was@most@familiar@with-namely
a eady@ used@ dong@ under@ the@ gui
sis@of@ the@ text@ word@by@
more@
word
・
on@
， 36'
what@ students@
of@ any@ teacher@ of@ gramma
e@
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
wi g@the
Ⅰ
， that@of@Latin@grammar
Similarly ， he@ patterned@ the@ second@ section@
ana
n@fo
Moreover
were
an
Ⅱ
， to@ render@ the@ exerCse
useful ， he@ filled@ it@with@ references@ to@ the@ grammatical@
indicating@not@only@the@page@but@even@the@exact@location@(top
section ，
， middle
， or
bottom)@on@each@page@where@he@had@explained@the@pertinent@grammatical@rule ， 37'@ Notwithstanding@his@emphasis@on@clarity@and@simplicity
， he
did@not@neglect@to@observe@the@humanistic@standard@of@accuracy
text@of@the@psalm@he@presented@matches@that@
few@mi
ably@successful:@
ments
of@a@modern@edition
takes@that@crept@in@seem@due@more@to@the@p
． 38'@ This@work
to@Bellarmino@himself
， and@the
Ⅱ
ntng@process@than
， first@printed@in@1578
it@ran@through@several@editions
， The
， was@consider
， revisions
， and@enlarge
・
， and@it@was@used@through@the@middle@of@the@seventeenth@century
， 39'
To@ this@ period@ of@ studying@ and@ lecturing@ at@ Louvain@
belongs@ still
another@ work,@ described@ by@ Brodrick@ as@ "partly@ a@ kind@ of@ Hebrew
exercise
， book
， and@ part
a@ commentary@
Ⅰ
ably@wrote@for@the@sake@of@some@pupi
Hebrew
example@
，
A
of@ Bellarmino
fondness@ for@ harmoni
published
． Moreover
ly@ annotated
Ⅰ
gc3@
， "@ which@
eager@to@do@further@exerci
・
es@in
Brodrick ， th@@ work@ presents@ a@good
， s@ independence@
of@judgment@
as@
ing@
interpreta
ons,@
con
he@ prob
Ⅰ
i tng@
， in@the@same@period
Ⅰ
well@
@@
of@ his
as@
was@
never
， he@seems@to@have@conspicuous-
， partly@ in@ Hebrew/a@ Latin@ Bible ， but@unfortunately@
text@has@perished
Bellarmino
Ⅰ
hough ， accor4ng@to@
Ⅰ
on@ Genesis
this
， 40'
， s@progressive@acquaintance@with@the@contemporary@theo
literature@ ch3
Ⅰ
nged@ Hs@ commitment@
engendered@a@conflict@Wth@the@
to@ 6blic3@
pH
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
i terpretati n@of@the@55ical@decrees@of
gy
，
一 17f 一
the@CounCl@
of@ Trent
， and@compC
tion@of@those@decrees
of@ whether@
，
or@ not@
i terpreta
，
In@short ， he@had@to@find@an@answer@to@the@question
his@ humanistic@ training@
theological@ statements@
compati
d@Hm@to@advance@a@new@
Ⅰ
was@
compatible@ with@ the
of@ the@ Tridentine@ Council ， 41'@ In@ his@ quest@ for
ility@he@focused@Hs@attention@on@three@topics:@the@positi n@and
the@reli Llity@of@the@Hebrew@text;@
Septuagint;@
the@3leged@unty@of@authorsh@@
of@the
and ， finally ， the@meaning@of@the@definition@of@the@authentic
ity@of@the@Latin@Vulgate
， Beyond@these@issues@and@the@contingent@variety
of@the@ languages ， there@ is@a@single@and@unifying@question:@how@can@one
be@sure@of@the@authority@of@a@text@when@its@materiality42'@is@indisputably
liable@ to@ errors?@ Then
reader:@ the@ a6lity@
， in@ the@ case@ of@ a@ translation
of@the@trans
Ⅰ
tor ，
judgement@
of@the@ reader?@ In@ contrast@
theol 8ans
， Bellarmi
case@
o ， s@ pH@
study ， for@he@ had@the@
ments@of
of@phi@
Ⅰ
gi
extratextu8@
acti
3@
Approximately@
ose@confi
since@ the@
popes@
urati n@of@the@ Lands@
body@politic ， indeed@a@principate
i y@ consti
Ⅰ
even@
gy@was@not@al
if@it@was@
g
achi
ve
， application
ne@@@ its@quest@to
only@ that@ of@ a@ text
returned@ to@ Rome@
of@St ，
of
utes@ an@engagi
， the@humanists
gy@to@Scri ture ， 43'@Yet ， pHlo
， or@ the
tools@ to@ understand@the@
， and@assess@the@charges@pressed@by
Ⅰ
authority
the
to@ the@ preceding@generations@
i tClectu8@
redefine@ and@ challenge@ authority ，
Ⅰ
an@
， what@ assures@
from@ Avignon
Peter@became@
a@hi h
Ⅰ
， the
Ⅴ
si
Ⅰ
， and@the@role@of@its@regent@also@required
redefinition@not@only@in@relation@to@the@Papal@State@but@also@in@relation
to@ the@ modern@
autonomy
， 44'@ And
his theory of the
States@ progressively@ asserting@ their@
， tellingly ， Bellarmino@is@present@in@this@field
ク o た SヵS
universal@ monarchy@and@
absolute
own@
， too ， with
iれ切花Cね of the Pope 一 a ba@ance between
the@denial@ of@any@ temporal@
In@focusing@his@attention@on@the@Hebrew@text
power
． 45'
， one@of@the@preliminary
questions@Bellarmino@had@to@face@was@that@of@the@philological@reliability
一 177 一
of@ the@ transmitted@
He@ readi@@
text ，
admitted@ that@ the@ manuscri
ts
ts
cont3ned@the@usual@kind@of@errors@due@to@the@negligence@of@the@copyi
He@was@more@embarrassed
， however,@by@the@thesis,@recently@rediscover
ed@and@reappropriated@by@several@theologians
the@ Old@ Testament@
unreliable
， that@the@Hebrew@text@of
was@ doctored@ by@ Jewish@ scholars@ and@ thus@ made
， 46'@ In@the@highest@theological@pronouncements@of@his@age
decrees@of@the@Council@of@Trent
that@ argument
to@ counter@
．
， the
， he@found@nothing@that@could@be@helpful
For@ the@ Council@ in@ con$de
ng@
Ⅱ
the@ recent
developments@in@the@field@of@biblical@studies@paid@attention@only@to@their
pastoral@ or@canonical@dimension
， not@to@ their@philological@implications ，
The@only@positive@indication@he@could@derive@from@that@debate@was@that
of@ the@ fathers@ at@ the@ Council@ had@ i deed@ manifested@ the@ desire@ to
some@
have@an@edition@of@the@Bible@that@was@free@of@errors
rary@theological@debate
of the
au
た
． 47'@ In@the@contempo
， on@the@other@hand
henhc 什 y of the " ひ % 硲乙
， he@found@that@the@declaration
ひひ
㎏切物 " was
one
of the strongest
arguments@against@the@need@of@learning@and@going@back@to@the@
Hebrew
@@
an@ argument@
nience ，
Why@
that@ took@ the@ form@ of@ an@ objection@ based@
take@ the@ trouble@ of@ mastering@ that@ language@ when@ the
Latin@text@was@so@opportunely@declared@to@be@exempt@from@errors?@
was@
precisely@ the@ fear@ of@ Gerolamo@
superi r@of@the@Eremitans@and@pap@@
Council ， when@ he@ opposed@
a@
reality．
Spani h@Domi
In@ fact ，
i an@Me
Ⅰ
This
Seripando@ (d ． 1563) ， the@ erudite
gate@dur* g@the@
Ⅰ
st@phase@of@the
Ⅰ
the@ plan@ for@ a@ too@ hasty@ edition@ of@ the
vulgata ， @@ Yet ， what@for@Seripando@was@still@only@a@fear
became@
，
on@ conve
no@
， for@Bellarmi
o
less@ prestigious@ a@ theologian@ than@ the
hi r@Cano@thought@he@had@so@well@demonstrated
the@ reli bility@ of@ the@ vulgata@ that ， at@ least@ temporar ㎡
need@to@ check@ it@against@the@ Hebrew
．
y，
there@
was@ no
In@ addition ， Cano@ asserted@ that
the@Jewish@scholars@had@tampered@with@the@Hebrew@text
， and ， in@accor
一 17@
dance@with@the@Tri
enti e@criter@@
for@theo
8c3@
Ⅰ
． 49'@ When@
he@buttressed
ry ，
， as@wCl@as@pH
Hs@thesis@Wth@a@full@array@of@patristic@quotations
arguments
qⅦ
i
ⅠⅠ gc3
the@ first@ prefect@ of@ the@ Congregation@
for@ the
Council ， cardinal@ Gianpietro@ Carafa ， then@ Paul@ IV ， stated@that@the@best
way@to@safeguard@the@positi
n@of@the@vulgata@
of@its@authority
ⅠⅠ gc3@
， not@@@ a@pH
position@ of@ the@ Hebrew@
precari
y@@@ a@sweepi
Ⅰ
g@extensi n
comparison@with@the@ori
text@ and@ Hebrew@
i 3s ， the
studies@ became@
even@
us ． iio)
In@ focusi
confront@
Hs@ attenti
g@
the@
n@ on@
Septuagnt
text@generally@surrounded@by@neglect
a@
BC
，
translation@and@ thus@
one@
Ⅰ
rmi
tors ． 51'@ The@Tri
o@
， for@ it@was@
step@below@ the@ original@ Hebrew
was@thought@to@have@been@corrupted@by@the@Jews
wCl@as@trans
Ⅰ
a@ mere
， and@ its@text
， at@
Ⅰ
ast@i iti l ， further
Ⅰ
weakened@its@position@by@adding@their@own@parochial@concerns:@
hing@T
to
， who@also@did@not@score
enti e@Fathers
important@passages@used@in@establi
had@
Renaissance@biblical
．
philologists@considered@ it@of@ secondary@ importance
Ⅱ
it@lacked
ni a Ⅱ an@and@Ch
Ⅱ
stoogi
al
and ， since@it@was@also@the@official@text@of@the@orthodox@Church
dogmas;@
i s@ use@ would@
scHsmati
be@ too@ big@ of@
， 521@ However
studies ， Guglieimo@
tion@ between@
taking
more
什
concesSon@
a@
， especia
Ⅰ
，
to@ a@ church@ regarded@
after@the@erudte@scho
Sirleto@ (d ． 1585) ， pointed@
as
r@of@patristi
Ⅰ
out@ to@ Cervini@
the@
connec
the@ Apostolic@ Church@ and@ the@ Septuagint@ and@ suggested
asthemodellfora
uniqueand
normativeedition
the@general@attitude@of@the@Fathers@changed
ofthe
vぴ ㎏クぬ ，
． 53'@ In@the@final@formulation
of@the@decree@on@Scripture,@the@bishops@removed@any@reference@to@it@and
limi ed@ the@@
concerns@to@
the@ La
Ⅰ
n@tranSa
Ⅰ
on@
3one
， 54'@ Thus,@
even@
this@case， Bellarmino@found@no@help@for@solving@his@problems@connected
with@ its@alleged@unity@of@authorship
．
To@ a@ scholar@ familiar@ with@ both@ Greek@ and@ Hebrew@
and@ endowed
in
Wth@
a@
keen@ percepti
n@ for@ subtle@ stYistic@ vari ti ns ， the@ text@ of@ the
Septuagint@had@something@unconvinCn8@
vary@
Ⅰ
一
179
the@sty
and@the@phraseo
Ⅰ
gy
Ⅰ
too@ widely@ from@ one@ book@ to@ the@ other@ to@ substantiate@ the@ tradi
on3@
assump
Ⅰ
translators ，
on@ regardng@
the@ uni
achi ved@ among@
those@ seventy
For@ instance ， the@ translator@ of@ the@ book@ of@ Job@ had@
remarkable@command@of@Greek
sed@ by@ modern@
Solomon@
y@
a
， but@not@of@Hebrew-a@view@also@endor
scholarship55'-
excelled@ in@Hebrew@but@
， while@ the@ translator@ of@ the@ book@ of
not@ in@Greek ， The@ conclusion@derived
from@philological@
analysis@was@cogent:@the@unity@allegedly@achieved@by
the@translators@crumbled
Epiphanius
， the@authority@of@the@text@was@endangered
， and
， s@ description@ of@his@visit@ to@ the@ cells@ where@ the@ translation
had@ been@ made@ was@ also@ bereft@ of@ credibility-in@ other@ words ， the
authority@ of@ the@ authorities@who@ supported@ the@ text@ was@ also@ slowly
being@under
Ⅲ ned
，
On@the@third@topic@he@was@interested@in@(the@meaning@of@the@definition
of@the@authenticity@of@the@Vulgate)@Bellarmino@found@a@precise@definition
ofan elus@ve teXt:'6) the " ノクナ郷クナひ ぴ盾 ク 地切 砺0"sh0uld
be
the@ authentic@ version@ for@ the@ Roman@
soon@
Church ． 57'@ Yet@
て
ega
丁
ded
as
after@ the
Council@ its@interpreters@divided@into@two@groups@of@sharply@contrasting
views:@
on@ one@
side ， those@ who@ interpreted@it@in@ a@ dogmatic@
claimed@ that@ authenticity@ meant@ verbal@ accuracy;@
those@ who@ construed@ it@as@ a@ disciplinary@measure@
authentiCty@meant@absence@of@errors@@@
For@the@former@group
respect@ of@ the@ usage@
and@ maintained@ that
matters@of@f3th@and@mor8s
Ⅰ
， 58'
respect
tter,@ it@guarantees@ to@ the@ user@ i
or@ the@ way@ the@ text@ has@ been@ used ，
instance ， the@Franciscan@theologian@Andreas@de@Vega@(d
of@ the@ first@ attempts@
and
on@ the@ other@ side,
， the@authentiCty@guarantees@to@the@user@@@
of@the@ qu8ity@ of@ the@ text;@ for@ the@
sense@
to@ i terpret@ that@ defi
iti
When
， for
， 1556)@made@one
n@
by@ poi ti
g@ out@
the
一 180 一
presence@of@errors@@@
the@Vugate@and@the@need@to@resort@to@the@o
by@vi wi g@the@authenti
conSde
ng@
Ⅱ
i y@as@a@Sgn@or@expresSon@of@deference
the@ occaSonal@
of@ Roman@
ion ，
Phiip@
approbation
Still ， it@ was@ Carafa@
，
MCanchthon
，
John@
， 6Q)@ Hence
getic@co
Ⅰ
rati
， the@ whole@
a@ very@
C3vin
attacked@ the@ definition@ for@ what@
narrowness
，
， and@by
agreed ， although@ with@ the
dismissed@ that@ whole@ interpretation@ as@
addi
8nals
character@ of@ that@ deci ion,@ the@ Portuguese
theologian@ Diego@ de@ Paya@ de@ Andreada@
caveat@
Ⅱ
they@
debate@
，
(d ， 1559)@ who
bold@ position ， 59'@ In
and@
Mar
thought@ was@
received@
an@
z
Chemni
n@
Ⅰ
its@ myopic
additional@ apolo ，
n，
More@ important
， however
， was@ that@ the@ Tridentine@ decrees@ also
implied@a@positive@step:@the@production@of@a@text@(the@Vulgate)@"with@the
一 (4% 移クW 何 % ぬ㎡笏e).6,) Although
fewestpossibleerr0rs"
al@work@began@during@the@first@phase@of@the@Council
， it@was@not@complet
ed@ until@ the@ last@ decade@ of@ the@ century
enthusiasm@ guided@ these@ efforts，
stalled@the@editorial@ commission@
Subor4na
Ⅰ
ng@ph
Ⅰ
In@ 1569 ， when@ Pius@ V@ formally@ in
for@ the@ Vulgate ，
of@cardinals@and@the@other@of@scholars
modifications
THs@procedure
changed@
phase@ began
Ⅱ
Ⅱ
ty ， Pius
， one@composed
， The@task@of@the@latter@group@was
to@ point@ out@ i correct@ readi gs@ and@ suggest@
，
These@ findings@
cardi als ， who@ had@to@deci
text ．
a@ new@
c terion@of@autho
divided@the@labor@of@the@commission@among@two@groups
proper@
e@ wHch@readi
， first@for@contrasti
and@ then@ for@ the@ deCsi
，
， 62'@ In@ the@ beginning ， Cervini ， s
logy@to@the@extratextu@@
strictly@ pHlolo8cal:@
the editori
n@ to@
were@
then@ examined@
by@ the
g@sho ℡ d@ enter@ i to@ the@new
g@opi
i ns@on@what@should@be
edt@ the@ text@ of@ the@ Septuagi
turned@ out@ to@ be@ slow@ and@ irksome
Since@Sirleto ， with@whom@Bellarmino@was@acquainted@from@the@time
of@his@studies@at@the@Collegio@ Romano
the
， was@one@of@the@members@of@the
t，
一 lSl 一
editori3@ commissi
n@for@the@Vu
the@expert@to@be@profitab
Ⅰ
ate ， BC
consulted
Ⅰ
less@ than@
behalf-no@
a@
o@resol ed@that@he@was
， 631@ He@wavered
of@ his@ confreres@ also@ wanted@
some@
rmi
Ⅰ
， however
him@ to@ submit@
confutation@
， but@since
a@ request@
their
on@
of@ the@ writings@ of@ the@ biblical
scholars@ who@ dared@to@ disparage@the@Vulgate-he@
overcame@his@initial
His@first@question@was@on@the@meaning@of@authenticity
，
reserve
not@be@a@definition@of@philological@nature
． It@could
， he@thought
， for@he@had@plenty
of@evidence@that@ the@translators@of@the@Vulgate@sometimes@nodded@
and
departed@from@the@meaning@of@the@o
Ⅱ
gina Ⅰ． H@@ second@one@centered@on
the@reliability@of@the@Hebrew@text@of@the@Bible:@
was@it@truly@so@doctored
that@no@ authority@ at@ all@could@be@granted@except@in@case@of@a@complete
agreement@between@all@the@codices?@
His@final@question@was@on@the@unity
of@the@Septuagint
， The@only@solution@he@could@think@of@was@to@consider
珪 sorlglnal
teXt lostoreX
he ascrlbed
to lt a classlcal quotatlononorlglnalsln:
4
S0
%e,
㌃と
尹包ク
staunch
mucH@
c
Ⅰ ク笘ノ
defender
@@
any@
七Ⅰ
77%2S %ぴ ニS
6S
Ⅰワ
ofthe
emelyco
Ⅰ
て
ぴケ侮務多俺とテ
Septuaglnt
case@he@d@@
not@
ruPted,soco
形
ひ 肋6
Ⅰ
て
uPted,lnfact,that
れク毎
S
ぴアヶビ
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
0
ケア犠
毎
， in@a@section@opportunely@titled@De@
he@ declared@ that@ the@ Hebrew@
form ． 66'@ In@ compliance@
argumentation
a て gllment"d
ed@by@Justine@and@Augustine
God ， s@ providence@ has@
falsi ica
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
on,@for@Sc
七
o0
of@ the
verbo@ Dei ． Frst@of@all
，
text@ had@ survi ed@ @@ an@ unadulterated
Ⅰ
im@by@refer
クのひ 訊6%
Ⅰ
．
サ肋
Ⅱ
",which
ng@to@a@patristic@thesis
wasaI
て
surely@ preserved@ it@ from@
however,@ requi
pture@was@entrusted@to@the@Church@as@i
es@
，
eady eIaborat.
Granted@the@importance@of@the@Scripture
on ， 671@ Divine@ providence,@
Ⅱ
a
て
with@ the@ Tridentine@ criteria@ of@ theological
， he@supported@his@c
in thiscase,the
Fo
， 65'
Bellarmino@ presented@ his@ own@ solution@ in@ the@ first@ volume@
Controversiae
ケ色しナ多パ
p 戸 obably
o ， s@questions
Bellarmi
ナナ色ぴ
アルア
パ乙 ナナ ． "64)
@ke Slrleto thlswas
answer@
ピ
any@
，
substantial
human@
coopera-
s@foremost@treasure
一 182 一
@@ pmecipuum@
thought@
thesaurum
Th@@
．
of@ his@ contemporary@
some@
ative ， lacked@due@care
preci Cy@ the@ pont@
was@
fellow@ theologians@
， and@mishandled@a@
where@
were@
precious@treasure
he
uncooper
In@fact ， he
．
did@not@understand@how@they@could@state@that@the@sources@did@not@deserve
any@ trust;@ how@they@
originals;@
and ，
could@argue@
codices@ in@ total@ agreement
explanation@
disregard@ the
， how@ they@ could@ maintain@ that@ only@
moreover
version@ survived@ uncorrupted@
unadulterated@
that@it@was@possible@to@
when@ there@
one
two@ Latin
were@ not@ even@
， 681@ If@ the@ thesis@ that@ the@ text@ survived
is@accepted,@argued@ Be
Ⅰ
armino,@ the@only@point@requiring
is@the@ role@ of@ Esdras@ in@ the@ post ， exilic@ restoration@ of@ the
Law ， 69@ First,@ he@ considered@ the@ theory@ that@ heT4@ that@ the@ Scripture
perished@ at@ the@ time@ of@ the@ BabYoHan@
restored@it@
authori
upon@4ctati
scho
a Ⅰ ve@
Ⅰ
n@
of@the@ HOy@
r@ than@
capti Ⅴ ty ， but@ then@ Esdras
SPrit;@
Ⅵ
ty ，
no@
as
wrote@
under@ inspiration,@he@ should@ have@ rewritten@ the@ whole@
Testament@in@Aramaic
theo y" (0 ウ
He@ then@ 4smissed@
・
theory
an
Ⅱ
て
Ⅰ
後 0
Ⅰ
ヶ冤タ托ゐ
はあ
正ア
祇
S)because,
， for@that@ was@his@mother@tongue@and
tHs
i Esdras
Ⅰ
Old
， indeed
language@in@which@he@wrote@the@book@that@bears@his@name
，
， the
Bellarmino
a o@regarded@as@highly@improbab@@
the@oPnion@that@du
the@copies@of@the@Scripture@perished
， even@those@in@the@hands@of@private
Ⅰ
Ⅱ
citizens ， But@to@dismiss@the@opinion@of@a@Church@Father
more@powerful@argument
．
so@
bibli al@hi tory ． 70'@Consequen
eⅠ
tors
・
Ⅰ
3l
， he@needed@a@far
was@
not@
those@ deCared@
among@
it@was@ not@ the@ best@ kind@ of@ source@
that@Esdras@acted@as@an@e
ng@the@exi
And@he@found@it@in@the@decrees@of@the@Council
of@ Trent:@ Esdras ， s@ fourth@ book@
canonical@ and@
ss
BaSl@ had@ proposed@ and@ supported@ @@ wi h
data@ drawn@ from@ the@ fourth@ book@ of@ Esdras
"un Ⅱ kely
for ， @@ anti
Ⅰ
y ， he@regarded@
to@ reconstruct
@@ more@re3i
Ⅰ tor ， the@same@as@any@of@the@si
to@ be
t@@ to@hold
teenth-century
一 183 一
In@his@insistence@upon@adherence@to@the@Hebrew@text
Wlli g@to@make@excepti
Taki
ns ，
scholars@ (for@ example
g@a@cauti
， the@ Dominican@
us@
， Bellarmino@was
attitude@ toward@ those
translator@ and@ editor@ Sante
， he@admit-
Pagnini)71'@who@overestimated@the@purity@of@the@Hebrew@text
ted@ the@ presence@
gence@
of@ errors@ "that@ crept@ in@ partly@ because@ of@ the@ negli ，
ignorance@ of@ the@ librarians
or@
ignorance@ of@the@rabbis@who@
ti
n ， "@ Yet@
to@ the@ i norance@
Ⅰ
of@errors@ imputaLe@
schoars@
the
of
of@punctua
of@ punctuation@
occaSon
， @@ was@not@unlikely@that@
was@
belonged@ more@
Ⅰ
in@ wHch@
added@ to@ the@ text ，
to@ Christians@ could@ have@ been@ introduced ，
the
On@ that
a@reading@less@favorable
On@ grounds@
that@ these
to@ the@ history@ of@ the@ Jewish@ people ， he
suggested@ignoring@altogether@the@Massoretic@system@of@punctuation
this@
what@was@bothering@scholars
was@
，
to@ the@copYsts
to@ the@ moment@
Massoretic@ system@
circumstances@
because
tters@of@Smilar@shape,@ and@those@imputab
of@ JeWsh@
， he@granted
partly
added@ the@ Massoretic@ system@
he@limited@the@spectrum@
to@the@confuSon@between@
and
， if
， 72'
The@other@exception@Bellarmino@was@willing@to@make@was@to@admit
those@passages@that@appeared@to@him@to@have@the@support@of@a@liturgical
tradti
was
n@or@whose@deletion@was@i
， for@instance
In@ antiquty
，
Ⅴ
sa5e@for@pastoral@reasons
， the@case@of@the@thirteenth@psalm
has@Cght@verses@less@than@@@
codces
ad
， which@in@the@Hebrew
the@Septuagint@and@in@the@mao
， Ori en@ and@ Jerome@
on@
a@
stri tly@ philo
n
8ca
， s@authority
they@ crept@ first@ into@ the@ Septuagint@ and@ subsequently@
back@ into@ the
， but@he@feared@that@their@removal
might@ di turb@ and@scand3ize@the@common@bCi
persuaded@
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
to@ them ， these
verses@were@a@collection@from@different@psalms@and@on@Paul
， He@accepted@this@explanation
ty@of@La
Ⅱ
ground@ had@ already@ solved@ this@ difficulty． According@
Vulgate
This
，
ver ，
by@ and@ eaSly@ agree@ wi h@ the@ arguments@
who@ would@not@be
of@ phi
Ⅰ
logy ．
In
一 184
addition, these verseshad
they fellunder
七
the Church."@
亡
here
for
a
Tridentine
heT
て
Indeed,
he
Ⅰ
was
サ
0i
long per@od oftime,and
a
forau
メ携挽
S6c ぴ
rema@@
Ⅰ
た
henticity: thelong
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
七
8% ク 0 托ヶみヶノ匂 76
0 Ⅰ ぴ 脇路 ぴヶんゆ
S位
@@ thCr@tra
・
ti
Ⅰ ヶ後ナ
8cc
Pace
n3@
hey
Ⅰ
o expand
じ
theSs
， quo
Ⅰ
useby
had
been
j echoesthe
S Ⅰ ". In this
ア
the
The@ pastor3
， s@practice@both@of@correcting@some@of@the
that@ crept@ into@ the@ text@ and@ of@ tolerating@ others ．
rCnforced@th@@
hus
later in his Dg, eタ肋n れ ic んぱ ガれ 携りぴ ㎏乙妬
on
Here@he@referred@to@the@Church
errors@
七
， even@for@
， after@ all， part@ of@ the@ Scri ture ．
were
た
て
て
definit@on "70 れ 90
reasons
fo
e
Bella mino,s eXpression "since
@ong time" (c ぴ瑠 i0免妊 0
that@ they@
reason@
て
identinecriter@on
， these@ verses@cou
way
been)the
ng@Jerome
He@ then
， who@expressed@concern@about@not
hurting@ people ， s@ feelings@ with@ his@ textual@ revision ， and@ also@ reporting
the@ case@ of@ the@ ancient@ Roman@
Church ， which@ persisted@ in@ using@ the
translation@of@ the@ ps3ms@
on@
had@made@availab
h@@
Ⅰ
based@
the@ Septuagi
， more@fai
new@one
t@ even@ after@ Jerome
hful@to@the@origin@@
and@more
elegant ． 74'@ And@ this@ was@ done ， he@ argued ， not@ out@ of@ disregard@ for
Jerome
a Ⅰ liti
， s@
popular@upheaval
The
who
posihon
た
一 but
was
て
he
knowledge
みぴ後
hy
matter
demonstrate@
sure
hatthese
produced
that@the@ text@cou
after@Christ ． They@ 3so@
Ⅰ
土石
弩 ranted,
whether
一 " 免 gscio
七
falsi ed by
q ぴアぷピ燭み 0 れ ぴ挽
一 "z をⅠ ぴ撹
equally
not
ar ど
uments
or
た
intentions
ofthe
adulterated
as
of hese scholars,he
f." Worststillwas
weighty
of@ avoi
purpose@
of reliability also ruled out the objechon
regarded the teXt
p aisewor
， but@ for@ the@
i g@
a
． 75'
declarahon
Jews. The
translator
s@ as@ a@
dictated by
" in his
own
cked@some@
know
to ignore
Jerome,
Ⅰ
wo
arguing with
Sc ぬれ サ肋挽
scholarsseemed
not@have@been@
he malice of the
mightbe
were
は れ㏄し
びんはぴ挽
by Origen,
Ⅰ
they
亡
of those
and
て
ds
full
．．．
co ん屋 nた
otally the
Augushne
to
f3sifi d@ Cther@before@or
dge@of@the@respect
， to@the
一 185 一
point@of@verging@on@superstition
， the@Jews@had@for@Scripture
． Tampering
with@the@text@would@hardly@be@the@action@of@the@same@people@who@called
for@a@few@days@of@fasting@if
on@the@floor
． 76'@ But@in@this@case
a@ better@ weapon
．
they@ had@ done@
a@
with@
tamper@
， even@by@accident
any@
， they@dropped@their@scrolls
， Bellarmino@thought
， philology@could@be
If@the@ Jewish@ scribes@ had@ tried@ to@ falsify@ Scripture ，
rather@ poor@job ．
As@
of@ fact ， they@ did@ not
a@ matter@
specific@ messianic@ prophecy;@ and ， Hebrew@
text@ at
hand ， he@pointed@out@that@in@Ps@2@
and@in@Is@53@the@messianic@prophecies
were@much@more@explicit@in@the@origin3@
than@in@the@Latin@tranSaLon
To@the@argument@that@there@is@a@contradicti
． 771
n@between@the@Hebrew@and
， he@pointed@out@that@some@codices@and@printed
the@Latin@text@in@Gn@8:7-8
g ， But@he@also@attempted@to@accom
e4tions@supported@the@Latin@readi
modate@the@Hebrew@reading@to@that@of@the@Vulgate@by@simply@changing
the@place@were@the@raven@returned
， which@was
， after@all ， not@specified@by
the@ text 78'
・
Similarly ， he@ruled@ out@the@ objections@of@those@ who@ referred@to@ the
Church@ Fathers@ as@ witnesses@ of@ the@ textual@ alterations， In@ this@case@ he
went@back@
to@their@originals
， examined@the@context@of@their@quotations
，
and ， lo ， that@ position@turned@out@to@be@based@not@upon@the@Hebrew@but
， 79'@To@the@authority@of@writings@of@the
the@Greek@text@of@the@Septuagint
Fathers@ he@ also@ appealed@ when@he@
from the Tareum.
whose@
Thiswasthe
had@ to@
answer@
caseoftheso-calIed
textual@ interventions@ were@ sometimes@
．
"f 屋ぴ W
considered@
proof,@ and@one@gven@by@the@Jews@themsCves,@
med@by@their@doctors
objection@ drawn
an@
of@the@a
Ⅰ
as@
an@instance@
of@corrupti
n@
of@the@text
"。
as@ a@ patent
Ⅰ
ons@perfor ，
Yet@he@considered@these@interventions@as@a@
of@the@editorial@activity@of@Esdras@and@other@"prophets"@after@the@exile
not@
era
So ゆ乃 ryW
part
，
．
Even@when@he@was@entrusted@with@the@task@of@checking@the@writings
一 186 一
of@ the@ Jews ， 80'@BC
rmi
Ⅰ
o@
acted@ as@
"censor"@ g Ⅱ ded@by@ a@humaDsti
a@
understanding@of@history@and@philology
， defending@the@historicity@of@the
Old@Testament@against@what@he@thought@to@be@an@explanation@overload
． @ 、1@ In@parti
ed@Wth@fabHae
@@ f grant@ contra
℡
ar@he@chastised@those@references@that@were
cti n@Wth@
Ⅰ
the@ "factu8"@ meani
tive:@ the@ story@ that@ the@ patriarch@Jacob@
king@David@did@
g@of@bi li
3@ narra
・
was@ still@alive ， the@ story@ that
not@sin@ in@committing@adultery
， and@ the@belief@ that@ the
creation@of@the@Law@took@place@thousands@of@years@before@the@beginning
of@the@wor
， Smi
Ⅰ
r
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
， thefabZa@connected@Wth@the@Septua8nt@itself
，
that@from@the@moment@of@its@completion@darkness@covered@the@earth@for
three@ days@
as@
divine@ punishment
Flavius@ Josephus@ mentioned@
teachi
mor3@
g@par@excC
Ⅰ
nce
， had@ to@ go@ because@ neither@ Philo@ nor
it， 82'@ For@ him@ history@
，
Thus@unedfYng@epi
semi
of@the@women@brought@to@Samson@to@be@i
was@ a@ source@
of
odes ， such@as@that
ated ， had@to@be@r
Ⅱ
ed@out ，
because@they@polluted@the@sanctity@of@Scripture@and@did@not@inspire@youth
Wth@ hi h@@ mor8@
i e3s ， 83'@ For@ the@ very@ same@
， the@ satirist
reason
Martial@was@expurgated@before@being@used@to@teach@pupils@Latin@in@the
Jesuit@ colleges ．
Bellarmino
， s@ position@ regarding@ those@ parts@ of@ the@ Old@ Testament
that@survived@ only@in@Aramaic@was@exactly@the@same@as@that@regarding
the@ Hebrew:@
they@had@ the@same@unquestioned@authority
to@consider@the@position@
esteemed@
of@the@Aramaic@
Targum
．
， This@led@him
Since@ it@was@highly
by@ the@ Jews ， he@ regarded@ it@as@ useful@ even@ for@ Christians ，
Although@he@contested@its@interpretation@of@the@messianic@prophecies@in
a@collective@sense@and@its@presentation@of@unreliable@details-such@as@the
made@of@sapphire-following@the@editors@of@the
tables@of@the@decalogue@
ComPutensian@
par
Ⅰ
culaTy@
POygot
， he@ va
for@ an@understanding@of@
Ⅰ
ed@ it@as@ an@ appropriate@
the@ Pentateuch
， 84'
i strument
，
一 187 一
Even@when@he@was@entrusted@with@the@task@of@censuring@the@Aramaic
trans
c3@
ti n@of@the@Ps3ms
Ⅰ
consideraLons
， BC
True
．
rmi
Ⅰ
o@based@
， he@dd@not@accept@the@i
existence@and@validity@of@that@text
l@@ i serti
Ⅹ
departing@from@the@
with@the@following@
Concerni
ea@of@an@independent
and@fidelity@to@the@ Hebrew
In@ Ps@ 50:13@ he@ noted@ the@ presence@
， also@ presented@a@
was@
， besi
es
reading@not@ reconcilable
． 85'
verse
g@the@Syri c@text@of@the@od@Testament
， Bel
that@it@did@not@have@the@same@authority@as@the@Hebrew
books@
In
，
of@ an@ obvious
n ， and@@@ Ps@110:1@he@remarked@that@the@text
Hebrew
，
， he@pointed@out@their@departure@from
the@case@of@Ps@54:10@and@Ps@87:4-5
post-e
g
ⅡⅠⅠ
， but@he@criticized@it@mostly@from@the
point@of@view@of@its@internal@coherence@
all@the@ other@ texts ，
Ⅱ s@judgment@on@p
Ⅰ
rmi
o@stated
， since@none@of@its
originally@ written@ in@ that@ language ， 861@ Nevertheless
， he
valued@it@for@its@antiquity@and@the@support@it@lent@to@no@less@controversial
a@topic@than@the@soundness@of@certain@Catho
chapter@ headi gs@he@ found@va
of@fasting
ab
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
， the@veneration@of@the@cross
c@prac
ces ． In@i s@ⅠⅠ es@and
Ⅰ
references@to@support@
the@practi
， prayers@for@the@dead
， and@other
similar@devotions@that@came@under@fire@by@humanists@and@
Reformers
Still@ @@ the@ first@secti n@of@ the@ Controversiae ， BC
his@position@on@the@Septuagint
perceptive@philological@
i e@ nature@
rmi
o@
． 87'
presented
． He@apparently@put@aside@what@his@erher
considerations@had@thought@him@on@the@compos
of@ th@@ tranSa
opinions@of@the@Church@
Ⅰ
and@ reconSdered@
on@
Fathers ，
he@ accepted@as@the@best@date@
．
． Following@Epiphanius
， s@authority
，
of@ its@trans ti n@the@seventeenth@year@of
Ⅰ
Against@Flavius
Justine ， Clemens@of@Alexandria
@@ according@ to@ the
He@thus@began@to@gather@texts@with@a
view@to@number@rather@than@to@value
Ptolemy@Philadelphus
Ⅰ
e
， Irenaeus
， Philo ， and@Jerome
， Epiphanius
， but@quoting
， and@Eusebius
maintained@ that@ the@ original@ translation@ contained@ the@ whole@
， he
Old
一 188 一
Testament
，
doubts@
to@ its@ miraculous@
as@
In@spite@ of@the@authoritative@opinion@of@Jerome
origin ，
， he@had@no
He@ asserted:
Vere［iraculum’uit〈uod》ot”omines《imul…onferendo
， tarn｜revi
tempore
potue
Ⅱ
nt
conveni
Ubi@enim@est@multitude
But@ most@
probably@
expeTlence w
W
Vulgate.
Ⅱ
辻
in@ th@@
and
kept
Ⅰ
was@not@
against@
た佛
always@
complex@
more@
such
七
Ⅰ。S(i 乃 ね めれと
him ．
of the editing of the Latin
姥ア各
For@his@
he %9
ぬ
ゐ挽 icは
g@
). However,Je
㎎わ肋S".
one;@
have@accepted@a@
He
errors@
an
什
prophets
noted ，
was
inferred@ from@ his
did, after
a Ⅱ，
emend
its
itself， only
Ⅰ
text@ that@was@less@than@a@very@good@rendering
more@
having@
that@
cor ，
gnal@translaLon@was
than@
a@
thousand@
wo
℡
d@not
． 89'@ But
， it@assembled@such@a@large
of@errors@that@a@ revision@ became@indispensable,@
believe@ that@
ve
oome,sauthority
for@the@learned@li rari ns@of@Alexandr@@
if ， in@its@first@three@hundred@years@of@existence
new@
commonly@
Ⅰ
inspired@ text@is@subjected， is@a@ byproduct@ of
h@ PHlo@ and@Jerome@he@held@that@the@o
a@very@fathf@@
number@
て
attitude ， Bellarmino@
one@
nega
he considered
its@textual@ rCi 5lity ， Bellarmino@ recogHzed@
ruption ， to@ which@even@an@
Wi
that
against Jerome
by@ h@@
crept@ in ， 88*
In@assessi
．
mo
Ⅰ
vated@
ones
Ⅰ
also@
， and@he@also@did@not@blame@the@translation@
the@errors@that@
me
as
cepta
．
， vel
caIIing those seventy bilingual Jews
anslato
to
Latin@translation
Ⅰ
and
was@
and@ subtle@ than@ the@
"back
motto:
ni i@post@longas@di
non@
he@
h teamwork,
クア nゅん e e),nott
に
vC@
什 h Augustine
nspired text
transferendi
sentent@
， diversitas@judiciorum@evitari@non@potest
conveniunt,@
numquam@
Sngul@
in
e
years@
it@was@hard@to
could@ have@ elapsed@ without
crept@ in ．
Stil@ in@the@same@sec
Ⅰ
on@of@the@ Controversiae,@Be
Ⅰ
armino@presented
一 189Hs@ parti l@answer@
to@ the@ thrd@ question ，
Although@
the@ nature@
of@ the
work@ led@ him@ to@ consider@ the@ objections@raised@by@ the@ Protestants ， he
cast@Hs@whole@confutati
n@into@the@frame@of@a@Hstoric3@
， He
argument
presented@first@a@detailed@description@of@the@history@of@the@Vulgate
i entifi ation@of@ the@ contri
uti
n@
of@ its@di
erse@ trans
， with
tors ， 90'@ He@ then
Ⅰ
examined@ its@position@from@ the@time@of@Jerome@ and@ Augustine@ to@ the
council@of@Trent
taLve
， and@il
strated@the@reasons@why@it@became@so@authori
Ⅰ
In@accordance@wih@
．
a@commonp
ce@
Ⅰ
of@humanis
Ⅰ
c@
histo
ogra
Ⅱ
phy ， he@pointed@out@that@the@Middle@Ages@witnessed@a@general@decline@of
learning ， with@a@ concomitant@shortage@of@Hebrew@and@Greek@scholars;
under@ such@ circumstances@
counCl,@for@examp
Ⅰ
it@would@ be@ unrealistic@to@ pretend@ that@
,@would@invi e@some@Jewi
interpretation@of@Scripture
viable@alternative
had@sanc
a@theo
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
be@wrong
，
h@doctors@to@give@the@ ght
Ⅱ
， Hence@the@use@of@a@Latin@text@was@the@only
In@this@way
， he@concluded
oned@was@a@century
gc3@ presumpti
a
， long@prac
H@
Ⅰ
the@Church
， what@the@council@of@Trent
ce,@but@a@prac
Ⅰ
ce@that@entai
d
Ⅰ
， s@use@of@the@Scri ture@could@not
， 91'
For@ Bellarmino@ the@ Tridentine@ definition@ aimed@ also@ at@ reassuring
believers@that@in@matters@of@faith@and@morals@the@Vulgate@contained@no
．
errors
Against@Chemnitz@and@Calvin
， he@refuted@their@allegations@that
the@ Council@ had@ absolutized@ one@ version@ to@ the@ disadvantage@
of@ the
ori i as ， and@that@it@d@@ attri ute@the@errors@of@the@copYst@to@the@Ho
Spirit ， 92'@ To@the@translator@of@the@Vulgate
， although@with@hesitation
， he
denied@ the@ gift@ of@ inspiration， not@ in@ the@ least@ because@ Jerome@
open
Ⅰ
di C3med@
translators@to@errors
it@even@ for@ HmsCf
，
Yet ， wH
， he@thought@it@correct@to@assert@that
fact,they dld noterrln
thetranslat@on
Ⅰ
笏をcどル 5%
had
he@ suDected@
the
， as@a@matter@of
accepted by theChurch
イ ?cz 均郷れ 0 れ ピア z晩 Xり 勿が 妨ひ6%zo れ e, 40%
Ⅰ
一 " 肋笏りれ
0めゆ托み d ㎡f.
り
93)
一 190 一
Cognizant@ of@ the@
p
Ⅰ
of@ errors ， Bellarmino@ listed@ and@
presence@
，
exem
fied@ the@ cases@ in@ which@ he@ thought@ it@was@ correct@ to@ resort@ to@ the
originals． An@evident@ error@ of@the@ copyist@ required@ such@
was
the
㎡ひ
ひ勿， "
instead of "ad
0bserved,
Mo
て
because
214)
ひ oJ ぴ免ぬ
' クみ De ぴ招 力竹tg招
aHty
between
wi ぬ the
打 ル勿" was
naturally
て
the presence
se
ofambiguities
eXp
inv 什 ed.94@
elegantt
It@was ， however
て
ん
oW
Ⅰ
免
Ⅰ
あ
硲
・
A
Ⅰ
W
Ⅰ移しあ
硲あ 0 後ク りひ 0
・
Ca
anslatlon, too, senthlm
て
e
fo
back
て
p
て
0pe
て
て
Ⅰ
傍
0f
va ㎡ ety
also requ 廿 ed consultaU0n
amblgulty 0f" 抄笏んoW
ク篠， n0t
。 。 加乃姥卸 "
ession 。 。 sifiひねク免
て
て
" modlfles
place,he
"乃 rfg 例 " and
c0uld be solved by consultlng the G eek, whe
サバ
slon and
Ⅱ
began
ve
the 0rlglnals. Thusthe
(Lk
had
・
the reading 。 70
readings and
the old text
De ぴ勿乃庇移ひずひ ひ移 " The err0rto0k
of the sim
since the
eover,
勿忽 "
of Ps 41:3, where
case
This
a@ step ，
0f
れ免肋ナ岱
"
e '。 み 0 免 ほと
ty of
eXp
て
es.
to the orlglnal.95)
， @@ Hs@ De@ editione@ Latino@ Vulgata@that@ BC
Ⅰ
rmi
o
presented@systematically@the@gist@and@the@
implications@of@the@decree@on
the@Vulgate
．
The@ main@thesis@he@supported@here@was@that@authenticity
is@a@theological@concept
， not@a@philological@one
． He@structured@his@proof
in@three@ stages:@ a@ presentation@ of@ the@ common@position@
of@ the@ theolo
gians@ who@ interpreted@ the@ decree ， the@ conclusion@ he@ thought@ could
legitimately@ be@ drawn ， and@
translation
a@
list@of@ errors@ contained@ in@ the@ Latin
， 96'
The@ authenticity@of@ the@ Vulgate ， he@ emphasized
derives@only@from@the@long@use@of@that@text@by@the@Church
， is@theological@and
． No@philologi
，
cal@conclusion@on@the@superiority@of@the@Latin@to@the@Greek@and@Hebrew
can@
therefore@be@ inferred@from@that@
definition． At@ the@ same@ time ， the
presence@of@errors@can@be@inferred@from@its@long@use,@and@this@point@was
eⅤ
dent@ from@ the@ writi gs@ of@ the@ Church@ Fathers ， who@ attested@ to@ the
practice@of@consulting@the@originals
， 97'@Similarly ， his@views@on@the@nature
一 191 一
of@ the@ object@ of@ a@ conciliar@ definition@ led@ him@ to@ the@ same@
conclusion ，
Since@its@object@is@disciplinary@or@theological
， the@sufficient@condition@for
its@soundness@is@the@absence@of@errors@in@matters@of@faith@and@morals
， by ， word@fide
a@perfect@correspondence@or@a@word
to@the@ori
i 3s
・
He@supported@t
Ⅱ s@position
to@ be@ the@ i tri sic@ limitations@ of@ pH
ty@of@the@translation
Ⅰ
， adduci
logy ．
Ⅰ
， not
g@what@he@thought
The@ too@
and
numerous@
disparate@variant@readings@of@the@manuscripts@made@it@extremely@awk
ward
， if@not@impossible
， to@reconstruct@a@unique@and@definitive@text
， The
text@ itself， in@ its@continuous@ perfectibility， could@ not@ be@ the@ absolute
warranty@of@the@truth@of@a@statement
， hence@he@thought@it@was@the@role
of@ the@ Church@to@ supply@ the@ certainty@ the@ text@ did@not@ possess
， 98'@ An
additional@ dimension@ of@ this@ position@ is@ the@ theory ， not@ peculiar@ to
Bellarmino@ alone@but@also@held@by@other@sixteenth
， century@theologians
，
of@the@"obscurity"@of@the@text:@the@text@is@a@game@that@requires@interpre
，
tation ，
In@ the@ same@
treatise@ Bellarmino@ defined@ the@ authenticity@ as@ the
" ㎡どれ れ 附 d む c彫ナ 肋が 移 " ofone
teXt among
many.
The
Vulgate required
such@a@definition@because@it@was@a@translation， whereas@the@
Hebrew@and
Greek@ text@ were@ already@ authentic@ in@ themselves@ and@ prior@ to@ any
conciliar@ definition．
Consequently
translations ， not@ the@ originals，
， the@ Vulgate@ stood@ out@ among@
He@ supported@ this@ interpretation@ by
poin ng@out@the@absence@in@the@CounCl's@deci
Ⅰ
positions@ of@ the@ originals-a@
insider-Cervini
ion@of@any@reference@to@the
position ， he@ said ， that@ had@ already@ been
stressed@ and@ formulated@ in@ canon@
objections ， he@quoted@no@
the
law ． 99'@ Then ， to@ forestall@ further
less@ a@reliable@ interpretation@than@that@
， who@in@a@note@to@Vega
of@ an
， had@partly@anticipated@his@own
thesis ， loo)
At@the@time@of@his@letter@to@Sirleto
， Bellarmino@did@not@seem@to@have
一 192 一
been@ concerned@
ment
Wth@ the@ critico textu3@
As@devCoped@by@the@humani
，
pro5ems@
・
authorship@ and@ canonici
of@ the@ New@
Testa ，
ts ， these@problems@centered@around
y．
In@ no@ Lme@ they@ become@
so@
controverS3
that@ they@were@ among@the@first@ topics@discussed@at@the@Council ， 101'@To
eradicate@ all@doubts ， the@ bishops@ listed@ all@the@ books@ that@ the@ Roman
Church@
regarded@
attri uti
n ， 102)@It@was@perhaps@this@unambi
as@
canonical@ and@
books@ and@ the@unenlightened@
uous@listing@of@the@canoDc3
decision@in@matter@
Bellarmino@to@treat@these@critico
Hs@ Contraversiae
restated@ their@ traditional
of@authorship@that@
led
， textual@ problems@for@the@first@time@in
．
To@ limit@ the@ treatment@here@
e ， BC
suffi iently@representati
to@ the@ Epistle@ to@ the@ Hebrew
Ⅰ
rmi
， for@ it@is
o@knew@that@Erasmus@doubted@its
authorship@and,@more@importantly,@he@was@aware@of@the@development@of
these@doubts@into@a@rejection@of@its@traditional@authorship@by@the@general
of@ the@ Dominicans
，
Cardinal@ Tommaso@
de@ Vio@
Cajetan ， 103'@ He@ also@ knew@ of@ the@ argument@
(d ．
advanced@
1534) ，
called
by@ the@ Centur
iators@of@Magdeburg:@a@flagrant@contradiction@between@the@description
of@ Paul ， s@ conversi
n@
@@ Heb@ 2:3-4@ (taught@by@ the@ apostles)@ and@ that@ i
Gal@ 1:11-19@ (revelation@by@ God) ．
To@ be@
he@
sure ，
was@
convinced@ that
truth@preceded@error,@orthodoxy@heresy,@and@good@evi;@
for@this@was@the
pattern@established@from@the@creation@of@the@world@and@described@in@the
ear
Ⅰ
chapters@of@Genesis
， 104'@ Thus
， he@co ℡ d@not@understand@why@there
coNd@still@be@room@for@doubts@when@such@early@Wtnesses@as@Cement@of
A xand
Ⅰ
Ⅱ
a@
and@ Di nySus ， allege4y@
recognized@the@
some@
epistle@ as@ Pauline ．
a@
di Cp
Ⅰ
of@ Pa
℡
HmsCf
， had
He@ also@ could@not@ understand@why
scholars@ still@insisted@ on@ sowing@ doubts@ when@ the@ Church@
had
accepted@the@epistle@ as@genuine ， even@having@it@read@during@the@solemn
mass@ of@ Christmas
・
For@ him@ these@ scholars@ displayed@ bad@ taste@ for
一 193 一
bringing@up@"a@
It@was@
a@ sense@
olim@ sopita)， 10@
of@ duty@ that@ led@ Bellarmino@ to@ consider@ these@ argu-
To@ solve@ the@ stylistic@ oUections@ of@ Erasmus@
．
ments
question@already@settled"@(qnaestio@
supposed@
and@ Cajetan@ he
that@ the@ epistle@ could@have@ been@ written@ with@ the@ help@ of@ a
secretary@or@that@it@was@first@written@@@
Hebrew@and@then@trans
Greek
And@ of@these@two@equally@probable@solutions@he@chose@the@first
．
for@ @@
ted@into
Ⅰ
was@
simpler@ and@ quicker
ancies@this@was@the@greatest@
，
For@ solving@ the@ phiological@ discrep
・
concession@that@ a@ post ， Tridentine@ biblical
scholar@could@make@without@ignoring@the@decree@on@the@canonical@books
In@advancing@such@
a@solution ， Bellarmino@was@not@alone
Ⅲ， 106'@To@rebut@the@argument@advanced@by@the
had@already@preceded@hi
Centuriators@of@Magdeburg
talking of "con ガア W は fioんり
was
笏尻i0 んとタ gr
， he@resorted@to@a@harmonistic@interpretation
of@ Paul ， s@ conversion ，
of@ the@ two@ accounts@
observed,
み
ocf ㎡免は移 ",
he could reckon
， for@Seripando
himself
as
wasthe
among
Paul@ in@ Heb@ 2:3-4 ， he
かⅠ 瑠Ⅰ 粍cぴ劫
case
those who
", not of "co ん刀 た
in Gal l Ⅱ 1-1g, and therefore
received the fa 辻 h from
the
Apostles.l07)
ln obedience to the letter of the decree on
denied@one@of@the@achievements@of@the@huma
matter@of@authorshi
Ⅰ
Schpture,
Be@armino
stic@bi lic3@ phi
logy@i
Ⅰ
， Although@he@wanted@to@preserve@the@canonicity@of
the@ePstle ， he@readi@@
established@beyond@doubt
granted@that@the@ traditi nal@ attri ution@was@not
．
Whoever@
its@author@may@be
， he@argued
， the
only@important@ point@ is@that@it@should@ not@be@ stripped@of@its@apostolic
authority ．
He@ singled@ out@ Barnabas@
probable@candidates@for@the@authorsh@@
and@ Clement
， two@ of@ the@ most
of@the@ePstle ， as@"viri@apostolici"
@@the@nearest@position@to@that@of@a@neo-testamentarian@writer@he@could
find
・
Still@ applying@ a@ patristic@ criterion， Bellarmino@ passed@ over@ such
一 194 一
debated@ topics@ as@ that@ of@ the@ original@ language@ of@ some@
New@Testament@
(Matthew
， Mark
parts@ of@ the
， and@the@Letter@to@the@Hebrews)
． By
， and
some@humanist@scholars@Syrian@was@supposed@to@be@that@language
its@status@
was@further@enhanced@by@the@belief@that@
it@was@the@ language
spoken@by@Jesus@himself
・
108'@Bellarmino
， instead@ of@entering@ into@that
debate ， simply@ pointed@ out@ that@ the@ problem@
had@ already@been@
solved
when@ the@ Fathers@ accepted@ Greek@ as@ the@ language@ of@ the@ New@
ment
，
Testa
Thus@ even@ an@ eventual@ discovery@ of@ the@ original@ Syrian@ text
would@not@alter@that@decision
， Similarly
， he@confined@to@the@realm@of@"so
they@believe"@ the@claim@of@the@Syrian@church@that@its@translation@of@the
New@ Testament@
could@Tnd@no@
was@the@work@
of@the@evangelist@
patristic@evidence@to@support@such@
On@ the@ value@ of@ the@ Greek@ New@
"9 仇ね0
の osfo
ん
Mark@ himself 、 for@he
a@Caim
Testament@
． 109'
he@ was@ certain:@ the
ca" had the highest autho ㎡ ty. He recog ㎡ zed the integ.
rity of the codices, butwarned
tha they were
Ⅰ
not Ⅴひ % ぬ S クひたむ蕊笏俸 ".
HeilIustratedhisthesisbygivingafew eXamplesofthebetterreadings
ofthe Laun codices: heshortending
ofthe Lord,sprayer;
七
lIwherethe
Launhad
SovXevovrev;
"Do
笏Ⅰ移の㏄㈹われ
サ
㏄"instead
RomansI2:
oftheGreek
ガ折 p あ
， and@ 1@ Cor@ 15: 7.@ In@ tHs@ last@ case@ he@ ventured@ even@ to
quote@the@opinion@of@his@archrival
， Calvin ， as@an@example@of@a@scholar
who@ supported@the@reading@of@the@Latin@codices
Bellarmino
． 1101
， s@ theological@ and@ philological@knowledge@
qualified@ him
for@a@more@personal@form@of@involvement@in@the@program@of@actualizing
the@ Tridentine@ biblical@ decrees@ by@ participating@ in@ the@ labors@ of@ the
commission@
for@ the@ edition@ of@ the@ Vulgate ．
pontificate@ of@ Gregory@
commission
(1585-1590)
At@ the@ beginning@ of@ the
XIV@ (1590-1591) ， he@ was@ appointed@ to@ that
， His@task@was@to@clear@up@the@mess@left@behind@by@Sixtus@V
，
Sixtus
， s@editorial@
activity ， to@borrow@
Bellarmino
， s@termi
一 195 一
nology ， revealed@
"zeium"@
more@
patient@ pH ⅠⅠ gcal@
acumen
than@
"scientia"， ruthlessness@ than
His@ e4ti
．
of@ Ambrose
n@
rehearsal@for@the@upcoming@edition@of@the@Vulgate
as@ one@
of@ the@ worst@
i serti
n@of@spuri
made
ever@
us@works
also chashsed
什
， 11@@ Yet@ Si tus@ wanted@
whole@
Church
， LudWg@Pastor
editor@ of@ Ambrose
， for 辻 s ed 吐 or worked
suum"
of
， is@generally@regarded
n@ of@the@popes
regarded@ it@ as@ "disastrous ， "@ The@ modern@
Schekel,
Knd@
a@
Bellarmino@ himself@ criticized@ it@for@ its
・
A@Hstori
，
，
，
， Karl
mostly " はガ乙グ 6% んね笏
it@to@ be@ the@ normati
e@
edti
n@
for@ the
Sixtus ， frustrated@by@the@slowness112'@of@the@work@on@the@Vulgata@but
flattered@by@the@success@and@speedy@edition@of@the@Septuagint@(published
in@1587) ， and@confident@of@the@divine@assistance@on@which@he@believed@he
could@rely@even@in@matters@of@textual@criticism
of@the@Vulgate@
in@his@own@hands
his@ pontificate ， Yet ，
， took@the@editorial@work
， dedicating@to@ it@the@ last@two@ years@of
as@ soon@ as@
the@ first@ copies@ were@ distributed， he
began@to@patch@up@the@text@by@sending@out@corrections
， After@his@death
，
the@ reaction@ to@ his@ editorial@ labors@was@ as@violent@ as@his@ intervention@in
the@ field@ of@ textual@ criticism@
Gregory
lt
was
XIV to clearup
thatmessby
for thisnewly
his short treaUse De
treahse reveals
Ⅰ
hathe
was@
authoritarian ，
appoinung
a new
appointed commission
移ガ0 打
じ
commissi0n.l@
tha Bellarmino
Ⅰ
㏄㈹ほ れぬ 庖 B 巧ガぬ
regarded methodology
It@ was@ the@ task@ of
co/
んぎ
瞬
wro
亡
e
gれ d ゐ ． u4@ This
as a matter
ofeXtreme
importance;@for@a@general@agreement@on@methodology@would@solve@most
of@ the@ previous@ editorial@ difficulties@ and@ also@ would@ have@ forestalled
future@oUections
，
To@that@end@it@sought@the@broadest@consensus@on@the
methodological@rules@and@procedures@to@be@employed@in@the@edition
was@not@
intended@to@focus@
on@the@approbation@
was@ running@ short ， this@ consensus@
of@ the@text ．
． It
Since@ time
could@ be@ sought@ right@ there@ in@ the
-196
一
cosmopolitan@world@of@Rome
The@syndic@of@the@theological@faculty@of
・
Paris ， who@was@then@sojourning@in@Rome
， could@be@profitably@consulted
，
and@the@same@could@be@done@with@other@scholars@who@also@were@residing
in@ Rome
Then ， to@ shield@ their@ labors@ from@ obnoxious@
，
critiCsm@ that@ could@ endanger@
rⅥ
es@shou
the@ authority@ of@ the@ papacy
be@submitted@to@the@pope@for@hs@approbati
Ⅰ
criticism， a
， the@ set@ of
n．
pri ted@text@with@the@rules@could@be@forwarded@to@the@theo
Ⅰ
Fn3l
， the
8ans@at@the
universities@so@that@they@might@form@their@own@judgment@regarding@both
of@ them
・
115'
The@ treatise@ goes@ on@ presenting@ the@ advantages@
of@ this@ plan ，
It
points@out@that@the@commission@would@be@able@to@show@the@rationale@for
editing@ the@ text@ in@ a@ particu
unaccountable@
suLectivity
form@ emendation@could@
Ⅰ
rather@ than@ rCyi
r@ manner,@
It@stresses@ that@
，
be@ produced
a@
on@
an
truly@ coherent@ and@ uni
It@indicates，
，
g@
moreover
， that@ the
adoption@of@a@clear@methodology@could@expedite@their@labors@by@avoiding
a@futile@dragging@out@caused@by@
the@diversiy@of@opinions@ among@those
who@wanted@to@keep@the@text@unaltered
and@those@who@chose@
a@
， those@who@wanted@to@change@all
middle@position
， 1161
Bellarmino@ based@ his@ methodology@
four@main@texts@of@Scripture
， i．
，
on@ the@ agreement@
e ，， Hebrew
， Aramaic
， Greek
between@
the
， and@Latin
Already@from@the@beginning@he@ruled@out@some@of@the@combinations;@
for
example
， there@was@ no@ question@ about@changing@
with@the@Hebrew@agai
based@
on@ a@
combinations@
st@Greek@and@Aram3c
translation@ from@ Hebrew
by@ considering@
， because@the@Vu
Ⅰ vocal@reading,@and@when@@@
first@ questi
n@ was
Ⅰ
He@ further@ narrowed@
two@ main@ instances:@
presents@a@u
without@vari
・
the@ Latin@ if@it@agreed
presents@va
Ⅱ
ate@was
these
when@ the@ Latin
ant@readngs
．
Hi
， therefore ， what@ should@be@ done@ when@ the@ Vulgate ，
nts ， departed@from@the@Hebrew
， Aram3c
， and@Greek
．
His
一 197 一
second@one@was@what@should@be@done@when@the@Vulgate@had@the@support
of@ the@ Greek@ but@
was@
opposed@to@ the@ Hebrew@
repeated@the@same@two@
variants ．
minor@va
nor@
questions@ but@considering@now@the@presence@of
ants@that@would@have@neiher@a
Ⅱ
it@more@
The@ nature@
obscure
・
of@ Bellarmino
to@ the@ rest ，
aiming@
was@
questions ． Ryan@speculated@
He@ recognized
"more@
at@ was@
rmi
Ⅰ
o ， s@
Greek.
Here
Greek
suppose@
Vulgate
Ⅰ
have
Latin
"6
ナ
Ⅰ
on@
gist
examples@
no@
Gn@ 8:21 ， he@ exemplified@
Sぴ 0 ． " Since
， that@is@corrupted
exemplified@an@instance@
the
the
戸 e were
textu3
the@ case@ in
and
Hebrew
no
and
reasons
， In@his@remarks@on@Gn@38:12
old@manuscripts@
varlant
て
eadlngs,
',0 御後
respectfor the Hebrew,he
8S
Ⅰ o 援 zc6S
dld n0tstop
。
， he
to@ the@ Hebrew
，
supporting@ the@ Hebrew
were@found,@and@the@erroneous@reading@became@even@more@manifest
yet@another@annotation@he@remarked@that
七
， it@is@the@ reading@ of@ the
in@which@the@Latin@is@opposed@
but@ after@ a@ long@ search@ some@
no
of
to@ the@ Hebrew@
" 尻ク打切はとね 行
り， "
whereas
has
れれヶれど 0z は Ⅰ
， he@concluded
Ⅰ
manner@a@specimen@of@h@@
kind@ of@ alteration@in@the@ sources
any@
・
critical@ edition@ of@ the
ate ， Wth@ no@ vari nts ， is@ opposed@
the
what@ Bellar
み仇0 れを L クガれク V ぴ ㎏ほ屋 hasindicati0nsthat
In@ his@ observations@
the@ Vu
a@
De@ ratione@ servanda@ presents@
permit@us@to@reconstruct@in@a@plausib
wHch@
than@
， that@
be@counterchecked@by@any@philo
Ⅰ
teXtualemendahons,hisDeg
criticism．
， however
， s@object@was@clear:@ a@revision@of@the@text
based@upon@the@sources@that@cou
Bel
that@ Bellar ，
negatively@ to@ the@ first@ two@ questions@ and
Vulgate" ． 118'@Yet@ Bellarmino
Athough@
ered@the@meaning@of@the@text
， s@ edition@ of@ the@ Vulgate@ depends@ on@ the
mino@ would@ have@ answered@
affirmatively@
Ⅰ
"7'
answer@to@his@methodological@
the
He@ then
，
To@ further@ simplify@ the@ work,@ he@ suggested@ disregarding
made@
mino@
and@ Aramaic
，
In
， although@the@Vulgate@presents
co れ Se 打ぱ ぴ後
even when
z z免
ピア アり形 ． り
faced wlth
In hls
Jer0me's
一 198 一
rendltlon.
In Gn
24:32, Jerome
cク笏ぢ 0 竹れ移裾ヮ 0 れ 移，ワぴ ひ ちんとれ切れ
ク ピイり s
ⅠⅠ
Ⅰ
と
suggesting speculat@onson
Ⅰ
ar
the@ water@
Ⅰ
was@
Ⅰ
thepuzzllng
the feet of the camels.
c
translated: " イと み れクqz
Yet
for@ the@ came
cぴ移と0,, 一 a
ナ
custom
Bellarmlno
Ⅰ
ク移
passage
anslatlon
er ， s@ feet ， not@
wash
the Hebrew,
and
for@ the@ camCs
， 119'
text ， from@ 1@ Chr@ 4:22@ he
deleted ， without@losing@any@of@his@admiration@for@the@miracle
anti,Copernican
七て
ofglvlng waterto
@ooked up
Still@ because@ of@ Hs@ esteem@ for@ the@ Hebrew@
りガ肋ひクんノう 5
， a@potential
一 " リヴ㎡トル花ルじわ
S0 旭川" 一certainly
unaware
that@ it@ could@ be@ very@ convenient ， say ， in@ the@ case@ of@ a@ stubborn
Galileo
， 120'
The@members@of@the@commission@ignored@Bellarmino
， s@memo
decided@ instead@ to@ redo@ what@ Sixtus@had@undone
suppressed
， suppress@what@he@had@added
ged ， and@ revise@ the@ punctuation
．
They
， restore@ what@ he@ had
， reconsider@what@he@had@chan
They@ also@ established@ that@ nothing
，
should@ be@ altered@ without@ real@ necessity:@ variations@ of@ small@ impor
tance@could@be@neglected;@
variations@of@importance
set ed@by@recourse@to@anci
nt@manuscFpts@@@
Ⅰ
， however
accordance@wi
laid@down@by@Augustine@and@other@Church@Fathers
， should@be
h@the@ru
， 121'@ The@only@sugges
tion@ they@ accepted@was@that@of@not@proscribing@the@
of
，
At@the@moment@of@pri
standards@of@text@edti
one@co
，
Sixtine@edition ， but
as@ quickly@ as@ possible@ to@ revise@ and@ reedit@ it， still@under@ the@ name@
Sixtus
s
Ⅰ
℡
ti g@the@text， @@ comPi
g，
BC
Ⅰ
rmi
o@ i
sisted@ on@the@i serti n@of@what
d@cal@a@sort@of@"critic@@apparatus"
taken@ from@ ancients@manuscripts
handy@library@in@one@single@volume
nce@Wth@Ren3ssance
． 122)@A@selecti n@of@vari nts
， he@observed
， would@be@like@having@a
， and@readers@would@be@more@prone@to
buy@such@ an@edition ， He@reported@the@authoritative@opinion@of@Jerome
who@ advised@ to@ note@ on@ the@ margins@
，
the@ cases@ in@ which@ the@ Latin
departed@ from@ the@ Hebrew
， and@ that@ of@ Augustine
-199
一
， who@ esteemed@
the
variants@for@the@understanding@they@provided@of@the@diverse@meanings@of
the@text
an@
Finally
．
apologetic@
"herehcs"
no
た
it@ would@ furnish@
reasoH@
attacked
avail:
" ぴサこク
， he@noted@that@the@apparatus@was@convenient@even@for
Ⅰ
he teXtof
he d て ecUve
encoded
Ⅱ
Cガ 0 れを S
name@
in the "P 彫ルガ
0
ほぱ正と
wasof
cAo 解移" 一 namely,
俗解Ⅰ れヶ笏 りほみれ
0
サ
とれ
サぴ
Ⅰリ
After this futile appeaI, the on@y thing he
to draftthe preface, where
was
of@ Sixtus@ as@ he@ maintai
Controversiae,@despi
サリスニ
Ⅰ
to do for thisediHon
second@ line@ of@ defense@ if
he Vulgate. Hisargumentation
ほ げ笏はx留 免ピ移ゆSⅠ ぴ S
ひぱググクと
ー retained 吐 s full force.l23@
had
七
a@
ed@ it@@@ the@ dedicati
e@their@bCng@shelved@tempora
ⅡⅠ
n@
he kept the
of@Hs@ text@ of@ the
by@the@Congrega-
tion@ of@ the@ Index ， 124'
Ithasnotbeen
h 什 herto noted,butthe
SiXUne
an@illustrious@precedent:@Justi ian ， the@promu
civil ぬ ， who,
ordered@
in the opening constitutlon of the
"that@no@one
into@ Greek@
ばん 0
Ⅰ
and@ the@ composition@
ねん 励r"has
ator@of@the@Corpus@
iuris
D はesf (const. OWne
， of@those@who@are@skilled@in@the@law@
to@append@any@commentary@to@these@
移 ),
， ．． may@dare
ws" ， save@for@liter3@trans ti
Ⅰ
of@ explanatory@
notes@
on@
n
difficult
(paratitia)， 12@@ That@ stern@ Sixtine@ "dictate"@ not@ only@brushed
passages@
aSde@
Ⅰ
" れ 8%
a@
pat
Ⅱ
stic@
but@ a o@disregarded@
counsC@
the@creative@
Ⅰ
prac
of
ce@
Ⅰ
the@Middle@Ages@by@which@countless@scholars@with@their@interlinear@and
marginal
name@
gl0sses
created
七
ha
七
remarkable
system
known
under
he
of@ "ins@ commune"}2@
In@ h@@
Ⅰ
te@ years@
BC
Ⅰ
rmino@
writings ， for@his@daily@involvement@
was@
wCl@
known@
for@ h@@ spiritu3
in@the@ affairs@ of@the@ Roman@
Curia ，
and@ for@his@ role@ in@Galileo@Galilei， s@troubles@with@the@ Roman@tribunal@
the@ Inquisition．
Greek
た
New
He@ is@not@ equally@ known@
Testament.
True,Copernicus,sDe
of
for@ Hs@ attempt@ to@ edt@ the
托ひ 07M お 0 打 妨ぴ s,Ga Ⅲeo,s
一 200 一
celestial@discoveries
Bible@
Yethe
working@
was@
the@ best@ manual@
was@ not@
concerns.
， and@Antonio@Foscarini
wasequally
， s@ attempt@to@show@that@the
for@ astronomy@
「
emoved
of@ his@ main
were@ none@
a " 勿㏄クはサ肋庵 ぬお． "Forhe
什om
to@ realize@ one@ of@ the@ still@unfulfilled@desiderata@ of@ the
Council@ of@ Trent:@ the@ edition@ of@ the@ Greek@ New@ Testament
．
Quite@probably@Bellarmino@began@to@think@ about@ editing@the@Greek
New@Testament@during@his@Capuan@exile@(1603)
to@run@through@the@cF
Ⅰ
co ， textual@
， when@he@had@the@leisure
annota
of@his@old@acquaintances@from@Louvain
just@ sent@him
ons@on@the@Vulgate@that@one
Ⅰ
， Francis@Lukas@of@Bourges
If@that@reading@strengthened@
，
Bellarmino
， had
， s@awareness@of
the@insufTCenCes@of@the@Vulgate,@@@
also@got@Lukas@to@pursue@wih@more
determi
ati n@Hs@task@
as@a@philoogst
．
Then@@@
another@ proof@ of@his@ philological@abilities ，
readings ofthe
va ㎡ ant
ofa
fourGospels,
edition and remarked
new
involved:
" ㎡㎡ ル /0
that
for the
辻
had
namely@Venice@and@its@interdict
a@
consummate@
free@ from@
Domini
七
庖珂 e ば o
he had
to se
pressing
a more
． 127'@ It@ was@
Cacciniwent
te "クれり eⅩ o れ eK はガ 0 後 eS%e
Ⅰ
じ 0 後 Sじヶ
of the commission
Greek
Testament.l28@ To cho0se
readi
Rega@(the@pol
例ぴカ バ，
gs@ was@
idea
problem,
urgent
apparently
a@ year@
Bellarmi
got@of@Antwerp)
七
o
to@the@Roman@
Rome
七
o
七
entrus
七
ed with
the task
a teXtupon
o ， s@ first@ step
．
on
putBe
こ刮
which
Ⅰ
thesame
Ⅱ a Ⅰ m@n0
of editing the
[o c0llate
He@ sCected@
， Then ， duri g@the@ear
of@ St
inqui i ion
estify
eれ f 9,"thatPaulV
at the head
variant@
he idea
aside that
七
and
in@ 1615 ，
."@Ni co@@ LoFni,@ denounced@Galileo@
New
乙わ cが抗ク
o㏄e
， when@ the@ self ， styled@ "white@ and@ black@ dog@
and hisconfrereDomenico
ma
七
， which@required@all@the@abilities@of@such
controversialist
care
of@ annotations@ on@the
wasperhapsHmetogetthepope
ぬズ 励が 挽ゆ Sぴ珂 ce れo
pope
a@ set@
BelIarmino reconsidered
仮 S暖れ 確c携み 0 Sぴ笏珂
0 ク 0 れサ旅 ci." But
temporari@y,
1606 ， when@Lukas@sent
七
the@ BLi
summer@of@the
he
一 201 一
same
for the collatjona@ work
year,
bring outofthe
four
Vatican
others from
hbrary
the Va
Ⅱ
six very
ancientcodicesand
・
pe
nmission
confreresto
co Ⅱhateitw
叶 h thetextofthe
クだ巳
for to the
ピ s.s とれw れタ乙だ ぴ援
ど た移 ssos
he asked
In
亡
codex
ea
て
ly
ofthe
ofhislocal
one
Biblia Regia and to send him
the "va わぬ lgciioれ es." By thattime,however,
the collatIonal work,
Ⅰ
therewasa
6% ほ笏 6箱 携ル se ガめ物 ， "
Ⅰ
れ os 肋nt8
e nan KKed.
was
て
thatin one library ofAugsburg
Gospels " 庖クと窩免稗篠れ抄
borrowed
celiana Library.'29@ On July 25, "no
ワぴ携なァぬ アクア り妨た in 免召 o ce れ Sぴれ Ⅰ " the
1617,knowing
he requested papal permission to
hehad
almostcompleted
confrere he notified " 笏 os ル御
same
?鋒しc.ro 解wd 携免は乙りは わ w ん 8 Ⅳ@0ひ
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
屋 s肋約6打 h
・
G 托eci."130)
Although
completed,
Be
Ⅱ
Earmlno'sedltlon wasneverpublished,forlt
dld not recelve the flnal approbatlon
田打わ妃タ 9/
助ひg/e
Eudaem0n,
a member
inqui
て
ひ oな e
y
rema
打タ肋㏄ヰ勿は佛ん0
of Bellarmino,s
fo thebeatification,sp
て
Ⅰ
ocess,"
打切お㏄ 乙 肋 S肋勿力 &." 、 3l) TheJesu
Ⅰ
account
丘
Jean@M
of Paul V. "。 E
傍
7ぬ Sヵ別ク a,"
household,
Ⅰ
「
乙れば M.n
epo
「
sn俊
ノうみ
a
ted And
「
eas
at the preliminary
タを Ⅰ ん 0 箱 So cんじ 砲ナaco7 府．．．
れ 0移
辻 histo ㎡ an Trompaccep
亡
edthat
， and@on@the@reason@for@the@sudden@suspension@of@this@project@he
ked laconlca
Ⅱ y,
" 箸れ 0 用笏郷
クサ
箸れ 0 托施移郷．
"Theblbllcalschola
Ⅱ
， Voste@argued@plausibly@that@the@reason@for@not@publishing@it@was
the@fear@of@repeating@the@bitter@experience@of@the@Sixtine@Vulgate
．
popularity@ and@ the@immediate@ pastoral@utility@
of@the@Vulgate@
perhaps@ complementary@
the@ Greek@
Voste@
reasons@
New@Testament@
a
Ⅰ
o@
pope
the@ cri ical@ quali
An@edition@of@the@New@Testament
a@
， he@remarked
y@
were
， s@ diminished@ interest@ in
and@its@ultimate@suspension
questoned@
could@ be@ done@ in@ such@
for@ the@
The
，
of@ BClarmino's@
edi ion ．
， was@not@something@that
short@ period@ of@ time ， and@ therefore@ Paul@ V
prudently@refrained@from@giving@his@approbation@to@a@critica
y@impaired
Ⅰ
一 202 一
text@that@could@have@dishonored@the@papacy
Yet@Hs@views@reflect@more
，
the@knowledge@of@a@modern@biblical@scholar@than@Renaissance@philologistandards ， The@amount@
c3@
of@ time@ BC
Ⅰ
rmi
on@the@ text@was
o@spent@
no@shorter@than@that@of@any@other@Renaissance@edi
The@Compluten
or ，
San@team@prepared@it@in@a@period@of@two@years,@and@Erasmus@in@just@less
than@ two ， 132'@ Robert@ Estienne@ published@ three@ editions@ in@ four@
years
(1546 ， 1549 ， and@ 1550);@ in@ his@first@two@he@used@the@Complutensian@and
Erasmian@
texts ， in@ his@ third@ he@ added@ only@ a@ well-developed@
apparatus
was@
， Moreover
and@ informed@
secure@
ancient@manuscripts
B@(Cod
， Bel
Ⅰ
rmino
， s@choce@of@codices
by@ the@ huma
Ⅰ
， though@not@broad
stic@ refra@@
Nicolaus@of@Cusa
， vat ． gr ． 354) ， written@in@the@year@949;@
， 133'@ Unfortunately
Vallicelliana@Library@cannot@be@so@
The@
e
Bellarmino
borati
Ⅰ
n@
of@
a@ set@
of@ rules@
was@
a@
characteristic@ of
He@ did@ it@for@ the@ edition@ of@ the
New@
Testament
them@ in@ the@
Ⅰ
tter@ instance ． 134'@ According@
s@
He@
， would@have@been@i
point@ out@ that@
one@
was
Ⅰ
to
to@ Ryan ， these
， for@"the@text
． ，，，had
Ⅰ ured@by@a@criterion@entirely@extrinsic@to
the@edition@of@a@Greek@text":@the@authority@of@the@Vulgate
Ⅰ
．
in@ the@ former@ case,@ but@ he@ hoped@ he@ would@ be@ ab
rules@reveal@a@grave@limitation@of@his@methodology
it@appeared
that@ belonged@ to
precisely@identified
ate@ and@ 3so@ for@ that@ of@ the@ Greek@
imPement@
and
， the@codices@he@borrowed@from@the
， s@ policy@ for@ text@ editing ．
unsuccessful@
ru
g@ to
， vat ． gr ， 1209) ， which@was@used@to@edit@the@text@of@the@Septuagint;
another@ codex@ of@ the@ Gospels@ with@ a@ commentary@
Ⅰ
"accordi
，
， "@ He@sCected,@in@fact,@the@famous@Codex@vatcanus
a@codex@of@the@Gospels@(Cod
Vu
critical
of@ h@@ constant@
． Indeed ， these
points@ of@ reference@ was@ the
Vulgate ， and@ one@ of@ his@ objects@ was@ to@ give@ the@ broadest@ philological
support@
to@ the@ readings@ of@the@ Vulgate
．
His@ fourth@ rule ， for@ instance ，
states@that@an@agreement@of@a@Greek@manuscript@with@the@readings@of@the
一 203 一
Vulgate@ should@ be@ pointed@ out@ in@ the@ critical@ apparatus
Moreover
．
，
some@kind@of@reference@to@the@Vulgate@appears@in@four@of@the@six@rules
To@be@sure
， Bellarmino@never@concealed@his@satisfaction@when@the@Greek
text@ supported@ the@ Vulgate
Augsburg
"q ぴ 0 ガ
In@ writing@ to@
．
of@ his@ confreres@ in
one@
， he@ reported@the@discovery@of@an@agreement@
Yetfo
んり うんひ援 A花ク功ピ
㍑ 完 ""5@
・
that@a@ ful@ex9anati
n@shou@@
て
any
be@8ven@@@
と
eX
亡
and@ commented
ualchange
the@apparatus
he
て
equired
Moreover
．
， i
is@only@in@the@third@rule@that@he@introduces@a@noticeable@limitation@in@his
edtori
l@criteri ． It@permits@a@change@to@be@i
w 辻 h little and
mostly
negaUve
Ⅱ㍑㎏ ほ ぬれ 0 れ解力也 臼は f%r,"
co ん加 リバク㏄
f
" 乙 附目or
R 笘ね: 珂ひた脇
Ⅰ R 笘妬 " F0r
・
the rest, the Latin isused
some@contemporary@edi
a@better@under ，
the@ case@ "When@words@
． "@ In@ Mt@ 4:10 ， he@ observed
， the@expression@
the@similarity@with@Mt@
lack@ of@ manuscript@ support
to
． Most@of@these@examples@refer@to
the@ text@ from@ another@ sacred@ author@ no@ attenti
introduced@because@of@
税し ん osc パ Pfo ル用
P 援 ys
of@the@ Regia@permit@
， s@methodology
his@ sixth@ rule ， which@considers@
them
" の(0 箱 ガ 0
in favor ofcertain readings.
A@few@ examples@of@corrections@
standing@of@Bellarmino
the@Greek@text
evidence in the codices:
吐 states,
shiftthe balance of weight
troduced@@@
n@
have@ crept@ into
shou
"oxicrui@
be@ pa@@ to
Ⅰ
IJ． OV"@
16:23.@ He@then@noted@its
， its@omission@ by@ the@ Church@
Fathers@ and
ors,@and@a o@is@absence@in@the@Vulgate
Ⅰ
case@of@Mt@6:18@he@argued@in@a@similar@manner
had@ been
， In@the
， He@styled@the@expression
"ev@ TW@ (fxxvepcS"@
an@unwarranted@explanatory@clause@and@ concluded
"foJ 功励r."ln Mt l0:l2he refused thereading " 入色 yoW
which@ also@ had@ the@ support@ of@ the@ Vulgate ，
critic3@ mark@of@Louvai
parallel@pericope@of@Luke
examp
Ⅰ
s@ serve@
， s@Bi
Ⅰ
， whi
㏄ ダ oftheRegia,
He@ then@ referred@ to@ the
h@i di ated@a@borrowi
， and@ruled@out@the@verbal@form
to@ reveal@ his@ respect@ for@ the@ manusc
g@from@the
． 1361@ These@few
Ⅱ
pt@ tradi ion-a
一 204 一
respect@more@e
dent@in@the@practi
Ⅴ
cal@ formulation@
e@of@text@edti g@than@@@ the@theoreti-
of@editorial@principles
More@ importantly,@ these@ rules@ manifest@ BClarmino's@
Ⅰ
anaccompanylngcrltlcaIappa
commands@the@fifth@rue
て
， "ad@finem@
satus:
uniuscuinsque
Ⅱ
・
theneedfo
携 免れ
emphaSs@
on
0 % わ 0 ん S 万傍れ f,
六
ク
リ
capitis ， "@ In@Hs@mi
d
they@served@to@give@the@rationale@beyond@the@text@as@well@as@to@illustrate
the@soundness@of@the@Vulgate
from@ the@ negati
， They@also@mark@a@remarkable@departure
e@ attitude@ toward@
critic3@ apparatus@ that@ emerged
during@the@preparatory@work@for@the@Vulgate@edition@and@was@emphas
ized@in@the@plain@edition@of@the@Vulgate@itself
． When@Niccolo@Majorano
@@ the@ classical@ scholar
plementing@the@
on@
， bishop
Ⅰ
victim@
Tridentine@decree@on@bishops
the@ variants@ of@ the@ Codex@
usefu
， and@
ess@of@puUishi
Francesco@Torres
a@
discussion@
． On@that@occasion
， one@of@the@collaborators@of@Sirleto
thought@ such@divulgation@perilous
， s@ zeal@
in@ im ，
， residence-was@working
Vaticanus@ B ，
g@such@a@work
of@ Carafa
arose@
on@
the
， the@opiHon@of
， prevailed
． 1371@ He
， for@he@feared@that@these@notes@could
be@used@by@"heretics"@to@persevere@in@their@own@errors@or@to@attack@the
Church ，
On@ the@ other@ hand ， Sirleto@ distinguished@ between@
variants@ and@ their@ elaboration ，
Accordingly
the@ sole
， he@ placed@ Majorano
work@ under@ an@ official@ ban@ but@ let@the@ classical@ scholar@ Andrea@
have@a@collation@of@the@sole@variants@of@the@Codex
consistent@ in@ h@@
poS
Ⅰ
on,@ and@
indeed@
， 138'@He@was
so@
，s
Masio
， however
，
consistent@ that@ he@ avoded
publishing@his@own@critical@annotations@on@the@New@Testament
． 139'@ It@is
likely ， therefore ， that@when@Bellarmino@insisted@on@the@necessity@of@the
critical@apparatus
to@
overcome
，
， he@had@in@mind@this@negative@attitude@that@he@wanted
In@ tHs@regard
ti ns@and@its@apologetic@nature
to@ Renaissance@
standards
， Hs@critic@@
apparatus
， desPte@
its@ limita ，
， would@have@brought@the@whoe@work@up
一 205In@ sPte@ of@ the@ theo
Ⅰ
8c3@ pri ci
"ecclesia@ semper@
Ⅰ
those@ecclesiastical@personalities@whose@primary@
reformanda
task@ is@to@ check@ that
the@principle@operates@in@reality@easily@grow@tired@of@reform
to@ what@ happened@
in@ the@ field@ of@ the@ humanities
， Contrary
， where@ the@ ideals@ of
classical@antiquity@could@be@imitated@or@even@surpassed
， in@the@theologi
cal@ realm@ the@ high@ ideal@ set@ by@ the@ Council@ of@ Trent-the@
Fathers-could@
be@
imitated
，
never@
，"
surpassed
Age@ of@ the
Humanist@
，
，
biblical
scholars ， in@ their@ efforts@ to@ restore@ the@ text@ of@ the@ Scripture@ to@ its
pristine@integrity ， endeavored@to@bridge@the@gap@between@themselves@and
the@Apostolic@Church
pHloogc3@
5Li
@@
， At@the@beginning@of@the@seventeenth@century@their
efforts@seemed@to@have@acHeved@that@particu
scho
Ⅰ
rsHp@came@to@a@standsLll
his@ approbation@
Marcanton@@
Co
， s@ Greek@
of@ Bellarmino
Ⅰ
nna ， s@
， not@o
r@end ， Thus
Ⅰ
y@when@Paul@V@Wi
Ⅰ
New@
Testament@
attempt@ to@ e4t@ the@ Hebrew@
O
ワぴ 0
ん初棚
claimed
Testament
， but@also@when@the
in@ the@ preface@ of@ its@ edition@ of@ the@ New
。 。 f笏動移 し怨 0
%め ㏄，後㍑
免c
携あ
oW 免わゐ移 Cゆ励移， 庖
ヶ笏移ぴ肋脇笏移尻coryuzpp 励移あ 移硲 " When,
canonist Francisco
・
Pena, recommended
himself to be the censor
ly@over
All@these@ i stances@may@
to Pau@
V
in l609, the
nobody
of the perfectly Tridentine work
cristianello" (BellCarmino,s Co
reform@was@certai
when
e@monastery
of@St ． Giovanni@in@Verdara1401@(if@not@with@his@death)
Testament
or@
Ⅰ
ended@Wth@Hs@request@to@borrow@the@co4ces@of@the@Patavi
Elzevir@ Press@ of@ Leyden@
hhCd
んサ櫛
vgrs 肋e), the age
else but
of "auesto
of the Tridentine
． """
wCl@exemPi
y@the@progresSve@wihdraw3
of@the@post ， Tridentine@Church@from@the@field@of@active@cultural@produc-
tion-here@the@emblematic@case@of@Galileo@should@be@mentio
one@of@the@best@known@instances@of@this@disengagement
of@biblical@
philology@ the@long-term@
consequences@
， 142'@ For@the@field
of@this@withdrawal
一 206 一
were@not@totally@negative
The@task@of@text@edting
，
， after@a@parentheti-
cal@ interlude@ such@ as@ was@ seen@ in@ the@ authoritarian@ edition@ of@ the
Vulgate@
phi
Ⅰ
by@ Sixtus ， was@ then@ returned@ to@ the@ hands@ of@ specialized
gi ts ， where@ it@had@ started@ 3most@
Ⅱ
and@ Erasmus
The
more@
a@ century@ ea
Ⅱ
ier@ with@ V3la
，
" 勿は わ肋ね移ク
0 物移 " and
that
a papacy
Ⅰ
was
寮 owing
and
m0re
into@ a@ visible@ body@ poli ic@ placed@ Bellarmino@ in@ the@ pos@ ion@ of
being@ regarded@ as@ the@ chief@ ideologist@ of@ the@ Tridentine@ Reform
Considering@
the@ challenges@ he@ had@ to@ face ， from@ Baius@ to@ Protestant
theologians ， from@
Dominicans@
the@ controversy@
to@ the@ Venetian@
controversy@on@the@
on@
this@ juncture ， where@
autho
Ⅱ
Ⅰ
gy@seems@backward@looKng
， In
philology@ shattered@ a@ long@ cherished@ view@ of
attempted@
ty@and@philol
of@the
h@he@was@engaged,@his@acceptance@of@most@of
tative@texts,@such@as@Scripture@and@the@Corpus@
versatile@ mind@
Jesuits@ and
interdict， from@ Galileo ， s@ affair@ to@ the
the@achievements@of@Ren3ssance@philo
Ⅱ
between@
"potestas"@ of@the@pope ， just@to@mention@a@few@
m3or@controversies@in@whi
autho
grace@
gy ，
iuris@ canonici,@hi
to@ reconcile@ the@ conflicting@ demands@
By@ advancing@the@theory@of@the@"obscu
Ⅰ
of
ty@of
the@text"@ he@thought@ to@ settle@
the@upheaval@ philology@ had@ started@and
ended@ up@ placing@ a@ "guardian"@ (which@ hardly@ allowed@ emancipation)
beside@an@"underage"@text
，
Yet ， even@under@the@unpredictable@mantle@of
"obscuritas"@there@seems@to@be@one@possibility:@
let@scholars@live@with@the
contingent,@ yet@ perfectible,@results@ of@ philological@research ，
Naive
medieval@scholars@thought@and@taught@that@"textus"@came@from@"texere"
( oweave)and
亡
increase)
" の ぴ cfo アリ， andltscogna
七
e
Ⅱの
ぴ cfo ガ%アド り， fⅠ om
． 143'@ It@is@not@to@ be@doubted@that@the@invention@and@dffusi
pri ting@ has@ 3tered@
" ク Ⅰ僻9%', (to
n@of
our@ perception@ of@ the@ text ， fi i g@ it@to@ benefit
diffusion@and@forestall@manipulation
，
Bereft@of@its@"augere
， "@the@concep
一 207 一
tion@of@the@author@also@has@changed:@
authors@became@the@fathers@of@the
text ． The@locus@of@authority
， too ， changed:@
from@the@multijurisdictional
world@of@the@Middle@Ages@to@the@unijurisdictional@world@of@the@"absolute
state" ， With@this@specter@looming@large@on@the@horizon
surprise@ that@ BC
rmino@put@
Ⅰ
a@
， it@comes@as@no
"guardian"@beside@the@text
Notes
1@)@ P ． Redondi
wo
ノ
て
0
2%
k
by
羽口 f
れク
， Galileo@ eretico@ (Torino ， 1983) ， pp ． 5-7;@ also@ see@ a@ review@ of@ this
V.
Fe
o/ Mo
Ⅱ
rone
みじ Ⅰ
れ
and
M.
H む fo7T
"vi
低み
imus,hae
て
elemosinarius
etico て umma
Ⅰれ
o
Bella
mi no@ (Rome
士
o
Mic
Ⅰ
ohis orian 鏑 "
士
i . . . 7ヵ fic りタ Ⅱ 2れ ぴ化れ
SC ガクぬ
(Leodh, 1626), Ⅱ b. VII,cap.
ac
fidei Catholicae
p
eus." and"aequepius.
て
udens.hum
．
I1l:
propugnato
Ⅱ
Ⅰ
is,acsumme
"
・
Ⅱ
と
ぅ
Ⅱ
ク77 ㏄Ⅰ れ
れ C劫
eminentissimus
Ⅱ
てて
3) Ibid., P 托/し C
Rn
う
ほめ は れ C# 携は S ガひ e打 アリム乙ア乙鰯
ガ尭
c@a issimus, theologus
Ⅱ
ace
じ
Inquisitors
刀ぬ R0 8れiB8%
QuotedfromG.Fu@giatti,
L Ⅰわれ
Fi Ⅱ po, "From
58 @1986): 485-524.
h. I, cap.
卸7% n屯 o
Ⅰ
(Rome.
七
Ⅱ
1687);
b. II,cap. lV; andD.
Barto Ⅱ． DpJ 伍ノ
㎡， Ⅰ
;アぬ裾
o Ro ルん
P. Tacchi.Ventu
れク
ノア
o B乙 篠
Ⅰ
， 1923)
・
Ⅱ劫は凌ひ
e.後と れbi ル cは rr 竹り ル Ro 鹿れ o B めぬ rrmzi 免 0 . . . ば ㏄ ウ五肋
o (Rome, 1743). pp. 216-331, and the p eface.
5) J. Brod Ⅰ ck, デヵ z L 塊乙れメ姥 %0 柁 o/ BJ ㏄ se ガ Ro eれ E/ ぼれ ぬ C はァはァ免乙 7
4)
A.
Arcangeli,
ノア
みⅠ ぴれガ肪 ofo カリ緩勿
㏄ ァ緩
て
ク
Bが
竹がれ
ぬグ
S 携ヶんク
6
う
OnD
(London,
り
れば
㎝Ⅱ nger,seeWa@te
7) J.Turme@,H
8)
H 後攻 硲乃
(Gembloux,
(Louvain
9・
1961),
pp.
B て andm 廿 @@er, なれ
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
ん
れ Be 沖り /7れ 肪 9,
iX-X.
篠ノo箱 D 刃 ziれ 白 e
Ⅰ
切り物れ 9 れれ 7 カ れ ナ切 0ん (St.
お tnわ e ルぬ
Ⅰ
the [email protected]. see his R0%
c.olo9
ぎわク 0s.ifn
ひりイゆぴぬ
は笏ノ
0低う e免イみ eS
Ott Ⅱ ien, 1977).
㍗ nnigi庵とノ硲ワひ ち び Co
クづ
Wれ ci7ie e
は
(Paris ， 1904)
P. Po@man,
position
て
SC ん o肋 / (Westminster,
f. Ⅱ ク わん 卯Ⅰ 笏條．
Trente@
1928); to
う
L 切e用 とれナカ む fo バイ ぴク
1932);
E. A. Ryan,
， 1936) ． pp ． 133-147
み田れ
5
アル
， gives@ an@
ぬ Co れ 廿のひⅠパク
H ん tta㎡ 倣I
evaluation@
彫 7管 わ硲 とみ ぴ ⅩⅡ
7り Sigc
H が 肋 けれ
Sc ん oぬ俺肋 P oⅠ
of@ Turmel
， s@ and@
Polman
「
e
ヶれク
，s
．
P ． Duhem
， The
Theory
of
Physical Reality
(1st‘d ．
Paris ． 1909;
New
York ，
--?.nS--
1952) ．
Brodrick
じ はか 8%
， Robert
(F@orence.
13
， pp ． 332-378
pp.
Tagliabue
U
ル7
， note・
eめ㏄ ガ
P. c.ガ Ⅰ
G 援 lhim0 e. グクウぬ柁 れ
m ni0 ま ァは (Rome,
1981),
71
cu@tural
pr0per
は
わ
/eo (Chicag0 ， 1955),
in which these manuals
conteXt
pp.
l01-102. F0rthe
of piety pr0@iferated, see E.
/脇ゆ : 7530- J6 コ 0 ． ed. by J. Kir 由ner (L0nd0nandNeW
Cochrane,
York, 1988).
192-193.
0附め
13) Be@larmino, 0 り 8%
Le
， "@ in Noo ㎡ 妬
2㏄-㏄5
， / ウル Ⅰ㏄㎡㎡
12) G. De Sant Ⅲ ana, Ⅰ乃 c C ㎡ 卸 8 が G
pp.
， par㎡ cularly｝p． 365-366
del@ cardinale@ Bellarmino
1984),
11)@ G ． Morpurgo@
pp
Bellarmine
、 "L astronomia@
・
Baldini
Bachelet,
ぢが肋卸んゲれ
れれク 0sf れ移 0 ， ed.
S. Tromp
(R0me,
1942 円945 円Ⅹ．
M.
A り けれわれ 招 B が 肋 Ⅰ 笏庖ぬれれ 笏 ． SM クタ 修笏 gれ f a鵜 OeMor
(Paris, 1913);
id., B 凌肋 /W わ 後クひ携れ f So れ Cは /はレほ肋
カリ
㏄
C は X成れれ
f, J542-J598.
並0後ん携後し 8 とり0 び移 9後お (Paris, 1911); id., Be/ 肋 れれ i後乙肋 B 巧ル S% わー
㎡み れ gれ fi 後 9 めぴ 79 9 は 0し び用 9れ付 れ綾 は /於 (Paris, 1911).
14) D6l Ⅱ nger-Reusch, D ル S
ゆん たせと S K
Bg/ 肋 用ヶれ ，灼ぬ
i乃公 Cんぴれ ガ
ルぴぬ Ⅰ ん れ
m れど ㏄ Cん わん f//c 乃 と %E パ乙ぴル 御後身 8打 (B0nn, 1887); S. Merk@e,"Grunds
zⅡ cheundmeth0dologische
E 6 e ungenzur
Be Ⅱ a minf0 schung," Zg ァお Cん 7% カガ /.
K わり ん cw をeSc ん わん ル 8 (1926); Ryan, T 乃 e H
C携 J S ん 0
ク ， pp. 194-198. The
teXtof hisautobiographywasalso
pub は shedby Brodrick, in 7 梶 L 之はれは廿ん 9
Co
クアマ
し
才
ゲ
とⅠ わし
Ⅰ
ゎァりどァは
クハはァれ援
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
哲七
Ⅰ
Ⅰ士
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
Ⅰ
ぬたりアサ
Ⅰ
ム ケアドん毛
七
Ⅲ0%.
こバ
目
1: 460
481 (hereafter abbreviated as A ぴ f0 ゎケリぽ挽 ク勧 ).
Sacchini asanhistorian,seeE.Cochrane,
H お f0 は然援れガ H 恭 0 0は /はゆんノ
/れ妨9 7f 7加乃 Rg れ ば尽 sはれ Cg (Chicago and London, 1981), pp. 449-457, 463- 471.
16) A ぴ fo ㎡ 0ま ク% 伽， pp. 463- 464. Theuse0f
伍esiglum"N."
canbeinterpretedas
a "sign" of hum Ⅱ 什 y, but れ must be pointed out that on wo 0ther 0ccasi0ns
Bel@armin0
res0rted t0 a similar device: a pseudonym.
F 汁 st, under the
pseudonym
0f "Franc 憶 cus R0mu@us"
he pub@ished. in l587, his R %0 れ ㎡ 0 はぱ
ク の Cゆ穏 Ⅰ ゆァ肋
A タ o/o 解 i彫り 穏8 % 尽 o c援姥 0ん ㏄ ヶ硲 Cパ施ぬ /一against Bel@0y,s
15) Fo
Ⅰ
アサ
Ⅰ
ァブ
は
七
と
A 戸 o/0 ま仮
the second
pub Ⅱ 5shed, ln
1608.
dme,
under the pseud0nym
D クク 。 fes
hls
とほⅠ
e
sぴ 移用
"一agalns
Barclay,s
Dg ク 0め s %f6 クの クれ c.
7
0 z0% ァはク勿 y. p. 461: "Ingenium habuit
como
a um ad 0mnla, ut equa Ⅱ er se habere
七
れⅠ
"Matthaeus
ク 0れ サ仮 し バ
@
Tortus"
@乃花 方ぴ S
ル移ク
he
0挺Ⅰ 妨硲
六
力
士
七
l]0n
七
subti@e et e@eva
ad omnesdiscip
Ⅱ
士
um,
sed
ac,
niscapiendis..,
Also see p. 478.
18) Ibld., p. 460:
corporiscas
Ⅱ
addlc
七
a
erat e@emosinis, o Ⅰ ati0ni et c0ntemplati0n@jejuniiset
gauonis."Seea@soBrodrick.
Cervini,s humanistic
background,
W.
7%e. Z,グレ
V. Hudon,
ほれは
才力
9
M 携 rcello
Ⅲ0所， pp.l-ll. For
Cegの ゲれ /, C ひ ん ほ
Ⅰ
ほれガ
一 209 一
Eク isc ゆ援 A イ笏施 Ⅰ付竹 for
A れ ぬ ㎡ 0ど抑ゆ伽 ， p.465:
(DeKalb,
1992).
"Accid 肚
au
1g)
B 吐 ununi
verbum,
Episcopi,
et
Ⅱ
ecitare
non
preaching, see his Dc
Forpreaching
sine magno
クはわ
in hecon
七
119-120 ， 197.
七
emi@
， utfor elegeretconci0nesC0rne
七
inciperet c0nciones
labo て e." Fo
0箱 ク乃推篠竹
は乙
e
c0 箱 ㎡ 0れゐ， in
efforts tob ㎡ ng humanist
p eaching whilep eservingthe Franciscan
H れれ ク 乃ね t 笘㏄めク篠は F 刑後 cis ㏄)? Ⅱ07M ㏄ : Co
篠ま庖 S% 超 9れ旭 Ce 免サぴゆ Ⅰ ぬゆ (Bern, 1998).
on
て
て
Ⅰ
Bella で mino,s
て
sc ㎡ bere
own
A ひし肋わぴ緩
挽めi0
M 穏S0
Ⅰ
肋ゆ ， pp.
㎡c
亡
o bear
下 E. Norman,
でで
ぱ篠は
on
， pp. 655-657.
styleandrheto
adition,seeCo
ⅠⅠ
ad
views
eXt0ftheThdentineReform.seeCochrane,
On Mussos,s
Ⅲ
七
ad eJus im 吐 ationem
et
P 化 は Cん
C0f ん of わ
・
A ぴ f0670 どれ ゆ伽，
20)
pathsticinsp
Bellarmino@
as@
464-466. In preaching, besides biblical f0undation
pp.
himself@duly@
noted
U ん ㏄ iれ刀
め肋 % 笏㎎
21) lbid.,p.461; forthecloselyrd,atedtopicofmusic,seeA.Bernier,
んぴ笏
s
柁，
れれぬ
クヶれ
t
Ro
liturgique@ (Montreal
into@
the@
わり
t
B が 肋身れ
Ⅰ
novitiate@ and 、 thereafter
(1556-1565)@
governo@
(Rome
A 刀oが 0ま 附かり， p.
464:
ァは
篠，ぱとぬ
C 乙櫛ク 4どれ ゐルノゐu,
， 1939) ． For@Bellarmino
， in@ the@
Sfo パロル
7肋 C07%Pa き れ ヶはイ i G ㏄カゲ 後
22)
and
Ⅱ ation,theconsentofasupehorauthorityshoulda@sobestressed,
Ⅰ
れと
ク
， s@early@training@up@to@his@entrance
Collegio@ Romano
屋 fia, Ⅱ7. L,ゆ0㎝
イ
M．
， see@
Scaduto
，
i G 肋 Co 篠 o L ク i)?c乙
7J
， 1964) ， pp ． 272-282.
"quotidiediscebatquod
23)@ Ibid ． ， pp ． 468-469:@ "applicavit@animum@
aliosdoceret."
ad@ earn@ linguam@ discendam
， et@ cum
didi i set@ alphabetum@ ab@ aliquo@ peFto@ il@us@ linguae ， et@ aliqua@ rudimenta
grammaticae
quam@
， confecit@ ipse@ sibi@ grammaticam@
Rabbini@ sol
theologum
J6.7 ロ 力椛ぴれば
が
24)
R めの刀
刑竹び り
eれ
Bacher,D
H め拓ぬし
姥
(l甜 ed.1892),now
C 抑抑ればバは篠
Co れ
ぅ
Ⅰ
パうぴ九
㍗ ゆ04 れちぱ
A れ to が 0は のゆ勧
method
hebraicam
て
ん
e%6%
ep ㎡ ntedinA
e
． p.463;
intheconteXtofthe
S クれメ
0れ 5 あ
， faciliori@ methodo
linguam@ hebrai
tempore@
am@
，
quantum
s of
用Cんルぬ sc れ S勿ク斤ひ oれ jo. &ね zぴ竹
移付 9ん功用 S 脇刀㏄ 乙肪8 % 0ゅ
For theg
て
amma
Ⅱ
んと
fo りが L 庖 どれ 偲わ cSlV(1974),pp.133-235;
Kukenheim,
ん 乙う
brevi@
et@
satisesse videtu 巧 et instituit Accademiam."
thisperiod.seeW.
an ガはね
ant,@
H.Hirschfeld,Li
L 窃わ 0% ク ゆん じぼ (London,
f,んゐ foi れイ 9 肋
ル獲ゅは
なめり
1926),pp.99 Ⅱ02; andL.
9 のれれ
クバ
ク
功わ箱
足形Ⅰ ワれ e,
ちめ
屋 Re れれ む ㏄れ ce (Leiden, 1g5U.
foraconcisepresentaUon
T ㎡ denhne
ofBellarmino,stheologica@
Reform,
seeCochrane,
fia ゆ ，
pp.
l91-
193.
25)
A れ f08i0 ど篠ゅ伽 ，
ph Ⅱ oSophy,
important
role
in
㏄h0lasUc
p.466. Incidenta Ⅱ y, 旺 mustbepointedoutthatthis
particulaHy logic, unpalatable to humanists,
the
intellectual
formation
of
Galileo;
came
on
to
this ， see
play
an
M ． A．
一 210 一
Finocchia
て
C
o.
Ⅰ用
佗0
SoM 托 es:
冗ん
c He
4れば
施 g A ㎡が Re
M 功ん 0
L りまわ ほ れば Sし わん れc
使0免 4%ど :
R ん村 oガ C移 /
ⅠⅠ
(Dordrecht, 1980); W.A.Wa@ace,
ガ
ガぬ臼e がナルCo7f 笘io R0 用の後
0 7% Ga
0れ S
ぴ れ刀ほお
G 移 7ifeo 4%
ば
が
Hた
んル 0 な Sc ね乃㏄ (Princeton,
1984).
A ぴめ ㎡ 0ど 附か ゆ ， pp. 467-469; Ryan,
A ぴぬ施 0どのかゆ， p.468. Foranovera
26)
27)
dogmatics,J.
Pe@kan,
0/ Do はれ後
e. 丘 ちが 0Ⅰ 篠移九
L0nd0n,
アル
祝 Sc ん oぬぽ乃ゅ ， pp. 37-72.
土
heageofconfessional
ひ
Ⅰ
1984), 4: 374-385.
う
七
Bgf 肋 /
物すれ
日 ve, see G. Ga@eota,
れち メわ o
わⅠ
冗ん e C んわ Sわほれ方竹 せヶわ 0れ : A H む fo ゅが施 e De
ef ゆ援g打 f
0竹 o/ C んひんん 4% み DC ま化移位 3 ㏄ - Zり 0/ (Chicago and
28) FoTanevaluationof[hisdebateina
す
H 蕊0
viewofBaiusin
Ⅱ
o
cf ぬ 777zi
れ 加乃
(Rome,
o
co 後サ
heologica@andanth
の 3 り io
ァ
Lo ひ じ れ io.
乙
メ
F. X.Jansen,
月田ぬ乙ル丘Ⅰ加乃公 笏 e(Louvain,
al y pecado
oⅡ ginal
Soc わ超 fis ルsw.
Mo
Baio,"
en
2g) For lgnatius,s own
c
屋 sfo イァぴれ
1966), pp. l00-164. ForBaiusingeneral,seeJ.
H む fo ガe メひち の加乃ぬ 用 9 0ァル J,ルれ蕊e c M わんが
Duchesne,
opologicalperspec.
Sf ぴガ io
brand
(Douay,
B クヶぬ
1731
㍉
1927); andJ.Alfaro,"Sobrenatur.
R ㏄六ぬ 9革4 0ぬルけ eo7Q ど ん
ん
ん
㏄e
of positive theology.
後 ぴ卸クれ肋な 後枕加乃 a,
B.
l1/l,
and Mo
pp. 554;
12 (1952): 1-75.
Mo 後 ぴクれ
と
カム fo わ C移
れぬ
後 ぴ 7% ち後肋
ん
% わん ㏄
Mo れぴ 援クれ柘 ま 乃村加乃 a, I1I. Co れ S九 % ガ 0% ㏄， rIl, pp. 117-11g, c. 5:
㎝i Sc 乃 oz㏄fici Socie*は 尽 sfぴ ル化 イ eれむ and pp. l19-128, c. 6: Q ぴ 。
mん 0ガ o i援ひ efぴ / Sレoz ㏄fici ロ イん仏力C㎡妬佗 s ラクれとクみは た ce れけ㏄．
30) Galeota. Bcff477 tiれ o co 鈎沖 0 田㎡ o, p. 363, discusses he contrast
between
counc Ⅱ s and Augushne.
For patrisHc scholarship du ㎡ ng the T ㎡ den Ⅱ ne
Soc わ柘 fis %sw.
De
Ⅰ
ぜ後 a,
せ ocf7
クラ
Ⅰ
ク
Reform,
see
Ⅰ
Cochrane,
W
period. see A. D.
B が ㍻ 庖o
3l) Ga № ota.
7fは か，
pp.
Ⅰ
32, 136-137; for the AugusUanism
㎡ ght, デル Co ぴ免 feた 化が 0多切れ 0れ (New
ょ仲
co 何の B は io, p.
5.
32) For the inst 什 ution, after considerable
Ⅰ初耳
Lo
ぴ庇
opposition, of the "coff 琢ル川
ナガ
侭ぬゆ がⅠ如月
0刀 あガ 0れ化ガとぬ eR む g が 肪 eCof7%
どぴ の グ， seeH.DeVocht,H
デわ
in this
York, 1982), pp. 1-83.
Ⅰ
ひ囲 ねれ㏄
仁 5Ⅰ
ァ
-1550
り
， Humanistica
fi%.
ぬれ
@ovaniensia l0-13 (Louvain,
1951-1955).
33) Galeota, B ヵ加乃れⅠ れ o
co 何の
B 布 o,pp.41-54;
Brod Ⅱ ck, 丘 0柁れ
B 乙切
れれⅠ
れ e,pp
2S-50.
34)
A 尻@ooAn
35)
Ⅰれ付 it ぴ f.ftn
免 ㏄われ gwu は ec Heg う椴 ic は と
玖れ
と
Be
Ⅱ
Ⅰ
はれゆんノ
拓わ 0れと 鹿 Rs り移ぴ笏
armino,s
1504, Conrad
Heb
Ⅰ
， p. 4f68.
fewe
Ⅰ
"A ぱ篠 0打 ifio
び 0ゆガ卸 0
ⅩX ⅩⅢⅠ
はガ
ルし
Ⅰ
Pe Ⅲ kan, a Minorite
Cammar(D
り榔
0ガ 0
ワぴ nヴぴとクぴ Ctorで collecぬ 6.
(LugdunH,
0化れ ". Ea
て
1596);
Ⅱ er
in he
七
. . ぴれ a cぴ笏
the quotation
centu
て
y,
is from
a ound l503;
て
from Alsace, had published a rudimentary
1笘と免み het i後 ね ff箸 りれ ノア He との 9ぴ坦 ),assertingthathe
一 211 一
had@mastered@
that@ language@ alone
36)@ In@contrast@to@the@sophisticated@cultural@operations@performed@by@the@Human
ists, such
Va
as
Ⅱ
Ⅳ eachinghas
a,sEz 琢複移お化 ， md@enta
scholarly attention;
Floorg
笏ce ㎝hacaand
ァ
A ガ:
is P. F. Geh@, A MOo ぬ/
the exceptions
among
G ぬ切佛れ r.,S0 ㎡ 6%, d れ d C 刃切れ肋 T 9.8c6れ to
，
n0t attracted much
ぇ
London,
1993),
82-106, where ぬe author describes the kind of exercises to which pupils
weresubJect byteachersofgrammar.
37) For Latingrammar
asa
model for any other grammars,
㏄e R. A. Padley,
G の笏笏乙は ㏄/ T んoわez.l1脇姥 ㏄ 拷榊E ばの 化，Ⅰ500-7%W
(Cambridge, 1985). This
mode@wasthenacceptedandfollowedbyJewish
㏄holars: Hir ㏄hfield,Uite抑ゆ
pp.
H な to ゆ ，
pp. g9-102.
ぬ繭ルガ 0れ ㏄ ぱん汐仰
38) FortheHebrewtextofthepsalm.see
Hge れneは e,pp.179-
Ⅰ
と
180.
39) C.SommervoBel
，
R 妨お 0施勿がりルぬCo れか 笘麓ぬ
ルノ囚硲(Bruxe@@es,1890),vol.
l, coll. 1115-1153.
40) Brodrick.
1,塊壌れ こ肪ク Ⅲ0訪，
デ乃召
41) For the impactofhumanism
pp.
45-46.
bibIica@ studies,
on
㏄eG.
B ㎡ovuelle, "L,acces
s垣 cle auX environs de l530 ， " in 協れり 康め穏 zeS
招 mps. V0l. 5. ちク佗w2pS 召㏄ R 乙oW ㏄がぬ 協"&Je,ed. by G. Bedouel@e and B.
Rou ㏄
蕉 (Paris, 1989),pp.18 Ⅱ2l; L.B.Pa ㏄oe,"TheCounc
Ⅱ 0fTrentandBib@e
Stud@es: Humanism
and Scripture," T 碗 Cb 肪 o庇 H 賄o㎡㎝Ⅰ 椛ひ ieの 52 (1966
18-38; andA.
Vaccari, "Esegesi ed esegeti al Conc Ⅲo di Trento," 脇拓伽 27
a @a Bib@edu
mileu du XVe
ク
Ⅱ
320-337.
(1946%
42)@ Needless@to@say
， the@invention@of@printing
， the@mechanical@reproduction@of@a
text ， and@ the@ possibility@ of@ diffusing@ it@beyond@ the@ circle@ of@ those@ who@ could
afford manuscripts
acu
止
e
止
han
befo
Ⅰ
． made》he｝roblem of‖
normative and
uniform text［ore
e
43)@ Incidentally ， humanistic@philology@also@threatened@canon@law
than
burni
g
the
Corpus
cononici， VGla
iuris
， With@less@eclat
showed that
Donati
the
of
n
Constantine@was@a@forgery@and@Antoine@Augustin@laid@down@the@groundwork@for
a
more
reliable
edition
of
that
Corpus
humanistic training， Bellarmino was not
product@of@the@Tridentine@reform
1580.
involved
the
keeping
in
his
with
preparation
刀 s0 ひ ぬ%0 ク 0何が
ice. ひ %co
肱佛o%n は乏 ゐ西 勿加乃が
拓クわ笏 ほ
% ほ笏0ル榊o
(Bo@0gna, 1982),
of りofeS ぬS 鹿田 ㏄加 ", seeJ.C.
mineandtheIndirectP0wer,"
Yet ，
in
of
this
．
44) Forthistransfomation.P.Prodi,
45) Ontheconcept
in
ァ
Mu 庁ay, "St.
ゆo e サ彫乙荻笏
pp.
な
l5-40 ．
Robert
Be
Ⅱ
ar.
T%eoio 坤㏄7S 肋援㏄ 9(1948): 491-535; and,forthe
一 212historical context
"Compl
xi
which
in
Bellarmino
i s@of@Context:@
elaborated this
doctrine ， F ． Oakley ，
Gerson,@BClarmine,@Sarpi,@Richer,@and@the@Vene
misleadi
the@
369-396.@
g@to@l ok@ at@Bellarmi o@as@if@he@was@mere@@ engaged@@@
"absolute"@
dimension@
of@ the@
thinkers@who@upheld@conciliarism
AgeC0ncilia
Edmund
Ⅱ sm:
modern@
StatC@
he@
． On@this@controversy
Richer,sEnc0untersw
an
Ⅰ
Interdict@ of@ 1606-1607"@ Catholic@ Historical@ Review@ 82@ (1996):@
[t@is
a@debate@Wth
al o@ engaged@
pol
， see@F ， Oakley
cal
Ⅰ
， "Bronze
肚 hCaletanandBellarmine,"
卍な to ゆ o/ Ro ガ九 Cク / Ⅰヵ 0㎎ん f 20 (1999): 65-86.
46) Le Bachelet. BeJ 渤卸れヶ後り
47) See C0 れ Cが ガ T わみ 6%
andpp.
new
ヰ庇
i, AC め朋珂(Freiburg,1911),V/2:
g1-92, f0rtheteXt
teXt,
肋 励み ル ， pp. 4-7. 104-105.
0fthetw0decrees0nSc
of the Bible in thiscase. shouldbe"free
s.im
れオ ， is not an
entirely new
medicine, medieval
claim.
Jurisprudence
and
atten.
del copista," Ri ひお 拓 ずれ屋川
嫁in 竹り ル刀はずわば o
see
co 切れれ
e6
A ゆe.Ahi e.Alnクのははガ aれ g linの㎡口れ
<? i邪ヶ
後ク ecU た ．
ぬ-
援 ロサ
to law
carcer.
azione
ち
regard
F. P. W. Soetermeer. 'La
texts;
は
・
id., 佛ル篠仰ぴ
w 辻h
hedCbate;
and university authorities paid much
the p oduc 廿 on ofreliable
「
た
㎡ rethatthe
(4 れ 4州 6%6%
0ferrors"
Particularly
onto
口
58-57.for
Ⅱ pture. Thede
(1995): 153-1189;
D
召nln まれ ク力れ
れり
Ⅰれ ㏄何o (Milan. 1997), pp. 133-158.
はゅ祝ム 後援
g裾
48) H.Jedin,P
fhe CoMn お 7 が アのん， Ca 肋初刀 Gf
(St. L0uis. 1947), pp.g5-98, 295-296. Seeals0Seripand0
printer of the Vulgate.
ヶぬ
の 屋榔
o Se/ゆク篠 do
， slettert0theeventual
， in A. Ceruti, ルは9)で万オん 6
Pa0l0 Manuzi0
7% 柘ル 7 secofo Sedic ㏄ ァ榔 0 (Milan, 1876),
P.
%
な
0比
75.
49) M. Cano, De zoc ぬ施goJog わぬ， 1I, XII1.
50) For Carafa,s
and Cano,s
p0 ㎡Ⅱ 0n, see
(B0l0gna,
l904).
commenti
de Ⅱ a prima/seconda
30 (1953): 107-130 ，
(Pa ㎡ s, 1889),
P.
H 昧 fo ひ 0ダ
D符
polemica
て
ク
nei
牽と fiCぴ肋
月は
M/ げ
73.
EdiuonsandC0mmen
%c Bibzc. V0l. 3. てんとⅢ㏄サ
(Cambhdge,
1963),
f0rn0t
appreciaUngthe
wou
e
anac
㎡ 67ic ん c
Q ぬ gsfio れヶ
p otestantico.catt0lica,"A%
228-272; and P. Bauf0l, ムり Ⅱク fi㏄れ 如月Ⅰ
ぴ 7 Ⅱ7
5l) B. Ha Ⅲ "BibhcalScholarship:
まe
G. Bu0naccorsi.
"Il decreto tridentin0 su Ⅱ a V0lgata
l2-13; E. Emmi,
pp.
ァ
pp.
38-93. Blaming
Septuagint
as
Ⅰ
召
ahes," in
R 顔07枠れれ o移
冗ん
cC4%
みわ
d.
fo 施と P れ wc 籠 f
siXteenth-century biblical sch0lars
a too@ t0g0bey0ndtheMassoreHcteXt
onls lc.
52) For the p0siti0n 0f the participants
冗㌃㏄ 物 切れ 榔 (Freiburg, 1930), XII/l.pp.
53) F0r Cervini,s
ボの附けん
pos 吐 i0n,
S 廿 ㎏ t0 ， 5letterst0Cewini
see
Co れ ㎡Ⅰ 材
t0 the C0uncil, see Co 篠 CH ガ
% わルれサ施
i,
509-511.
T ㎡ル何Ⅰ 篠 i, A%o 撹卸 V/2,
0ntheSeptuagint,
p.
27;
E
f0r
see Co れ ci7ガ アわ ルク2fiれ i, ク isf0肋ァ
一 213 一
(Freiburg
urn@
， 1916) ， X/1
， pp ． 934-939
A がo朋笏 V/2.
54) For the final decision, see Co れ田ガ アわ ルん施ち
55) Le Bachelet,
S ゆ地徳ヶれサよ
B めぬグア が れ乙肋 R
Ⅰわ e ぢ o0 ゐ 0//0
ぅ
ケ
ラル． p. l05.
pp. 65-66
Also G. Gerleman,
(Lund, 1946),pp. 31, 75whe
Ⅰ
S 脇机㏄
竹切ぢ
ァ
etheauth0rstates
that@ "the@ Greek@ Book@ of@ Job@ is@a@ genuine@ Hellenistic@work ． created@ by@ and
famili
r@ to@
circles@ comparati
ely@ forei
all@ exclusi e@@ JeWsh@
n@ to@
li
es@
of
see@
F．
．"
thought
56)@ For@ the@ fluctuatng@ meaning@
of@ the@ term@ "vulgata"@
@@ Jerome,@
even@
Stutcliffe ， "The@ Name@ 。 Vulgate ，。 "@ Biblica@29@ (1948):@ 345-352;@ and@A ． Allgeier，
"Haec@vetus@et@vul
ata@e4ti
Pbel@
Tridentinum
zur@
auf@dem@
．
Neue@wort
， und@begrieffgescHchtliche@Beitrage
， "@ ibid ． ， pp ． 353-390
teXt0fthedecree,see
Co 穏 C棚ガエわ 加乃 サ脇 i, A むぬ朋笏 ， pp. g]-92. The
conundrum@stemming@from@the@identification@of@the@vulgata@with@a@precise@text
@@ well@desc
Ⅱ bed@by@
SeFpando@
@@ a@ l tter@to@Amulio
． According@to@Se
Ⅱ pando
，
the@Council@had@deci
ed@that@for@preachi g ， lecturi g ， and@enga8ng@theol
gcal
57) F0rthe
controverSes@
a@ common@
text,@
the@ vulgata,@ should@ be@ used ．
exi ted@ on@"qual@fosse@questa@vulgata,@perche@qualunca@S@
be@ non@
star@
cost@
hora
vulgata
． "@ Furthermore
， come@
era@
Ctato@
． establishng@
Yet@ uncertainty
pigliasse,@S@ trovereb
da@
uⅠ
a@
a@normati
padri@ sotto@ il@ titu@@
e@text@would@
Ⅴ
dCl
0ate@the@pri
ci
pie@of@"freedom"@ attested@by@the@Greek@ and@Latin@church:@ "si@torrebbe@ancora
quella@ liberta， quale@ 6@ sempre@
stata@
latina@ di@ poter@ leggersi@ et@ servirsi@
della@ sacra@ Scrittura
， ancor@
adopton@
Ⅰ
of@ a@ restFc
lodata@ nella@ chiesa@
a@ buoni@ propositi@
che@ fossero@ Gudei@
ve@ poli y@ would@
vogliamo@ ligare@ et@ restringer@ 1， ingegni ，
tanto@
59)@
B．
Ermmi
del@ decreto@sulla@Volgata
60) P. Melanchthon,
0%no
A しね
笏
の@㏄ 0れ i, pp.
Buonaccorsi,
， "@pp ． 107-130
わ
ぢ 必用㏄ 27 (1946 月
7-74;
301-319
， 228-272;@ id ． ， "Senso@e@portata
。 "@ Angelicum@ 30@ (1953):@ 347-374
Cn れ ㎡ ぱ t Tn布ノレれガ箱
肋ガ 0れ肋硲 (s.@.,1546); J.Ca@vin,AcA
in Co ゆ紙花 痒W 放 toW
， the
for@ "quanto@ piu
pill@si@sciolgono@et@allargano ． "
al Conc Ⅲo di Trento,"
， "II@decreto@tridentino
quanto
et@ heretici@ ．．．
"@ Fnal@
be@ counterproductve,@
58) Le Bachelet, BeJ 屋 れれⅠれ れぬムめル． p. 104;
and G. Vos 捷 ． 毛 a Volgata
tanto@ greca@
di@ tutte@ le@interpretationi
XXXV,
co Ⅱ．
ヶは
れれ
o
MD Ⅹん Ⅱ7 Cele う抑わ
は Co れ C棚ガ Ⅰわ売ん脇
iM れロ
371-506; M. Chemnitz,
Cぴ榔
ぴ れり
cぴれ
れん 妃0め ，
協ね笏粥Co れ ci脇
Ⅰわ鹿れサ 庖i (Frankfurt, 1556-1573).
つゐ D 磁化Ⅰ りe e田わ one め庵 れ 鍛C櫛襯用
窩笏，，㏄
レ0 % 移用 劫勿れ 臼ぴれ 7 % 椛佃窩
㎎ (Freiburg, 1914); R. Draguet, "Le
61) F0r the decree, see A. Maichle,
7めの
ma 止 re
louvaniste Dreido. insp 廿 atuer du d
M な ce7za 彫りんむヵ
わ ㏄ 施ん0打 0花篠
奄
cret
de Trent
sur
A めクれヶつ e M ゆぴ (Louvain
@a Vulgate." in
and BruXe
Ⅱ
es.
一 214 一
1946), pp. 836-854.
62) For Bellarmino,sroleintheed
九功
B 妨ル ，
ⅢonoftheVulgate,seeLeBachelet,Be
13-73; Brodrick. R0%
pp.
0% ガ妨ク %0 椛， l, pp. 269-309;
れル楠
Wれ 庖c,
肋
Wれ 庖
id 。 乃 g L ル
pp. l12 Ⅰ20;
C ㏄Ⅰ ん ic乃招ル/ 吻垣はぬ (Mainz,
and F. Kaulen,
1868), pp. 379-496.
6の On
S Ⅲeto, seeG. Denzel,
1966);@ Cochrane
， Italy ，
p．
Ka di 冤 / G 稚れが 加 o Sirzefo: J5J4-i585
Bell rmi
o@and@Rs@cousi
， Rcci
Sirleto@for@the@first@time@four@days@after@their@arrival@in@Rome:@
ばz
G は㏄
(Munich 。
㌃
189.@
rdo@Cervi
，
Scaduto
i， met
L ，epoca
笏0 Ⅰ
，
0z% ㏄， p. 281
64) Le Bachelet,
B 乙肋 7%
B 妨ル ，
肋勿肋
pp. 103-106
65)@ Brodrick@ maintains@that@Sirleto@answered@ indirectly@ by@sending@some@mate
ri
l@ to@ Peter@Ca
Ⅰ
727. 789, where
that Canisius
serve to
D
亡
s．
si
hat
wrote
defend
七
But@see@Hs@
七
hat what
he Mother
and
against
ates
亡
he had received were
0fGod
， 1936) ， pp ．
718, where Brod ㎡ ck s
p.
"ancient eX
た
亡
s
that may
he herehcs."
七
㎎バ % Cん 廊ん後e カリ めほばひ 6俺硲 九ヵ 硲自ク 脱ク 07ぜs ん eア
efic0s (hereafter abbrevia ed as Co れ 廿のひ C行 i化) in BellarTnino, のぼれ 0)後後 わ
(Venice, 1721), 1: 34-35, Ⅱ b. Il, c. l: Os 加乃 は 劫 / 9はヶわ 0れ 笏 H とうりたり れ Mos S 乙
P ゆルぬ物色れれ用移の化 れ穏 ㏄．
67) Co の彫裕彦 e, p. 36, lib. II, c. 2: び サ物 仰 R あ用ica edifio s珪 c0/7 れ p 肋 ．
66)
暖
⑧クぴ肋わ
0んぴ櫛援 e
Saint@ Peter@ Canisius@ (New@York
㎡ al is deschbed;
mate
co
後サ
ル
Ⅰ二
Ⅰ
止
ち
Ⅰ
『
砿
ク
れナ
68) Le Bachelet, B 乙屋 Wi れめ 肋召巧ル
， p. 116.
69) Co れ伊 0
6% ぬ e, p.
Testament,
see Co
ひ
for B 目 larmino,s pos@0n
34;
れサ
の 彫ね肋 g, pp. 6-8,
70) For the definition of [he canonical books
Dunker,
"The
of the Old
canon
of the Old Testament,
of the Old Testament
Canon
the
0n
10-23.
the Counc@
at
Ca 比 of た Bi が ica7 Q れクれ e か 15 (1953): 277-299; and G. Bedoue@e,
"Lecanon
『
㍗
Ⅰ
Ancient
Testament
dans la perspechve
且れ cic れ Ⅰ㏄ 脇 れと 免 f. 助力れれ
りお
Werme@nger
(Geneve, 1984@
7l) T.M.Centi,"L,attivit
荻
Ⅰ
om
conc
Ⅱ
0れ勿 s0 れん ね toi托 ，
pp.
edu
Trent." in
ed. by J. .D.
ムと
刀乃
e
de
㏄れ 0免ノク
Kaestli and O.
253-282;
letteraⅡ adiSantiPagnini(1470-1536)nelcampode@e
レわぴれ /のナ拘卸ク 移り 仇㏄to 糊卸 15(1945): 6-5l. His 廿 ansla-
scienzebibliche,"Ar
tionf
du
P. G.
see
of Trent. 。
Ⅱとルァ六 % れ 0
e刃物， a尹ゆ のう クぬほ
theoriginals,
月壊鯛後庖ぴ 卸れぴ笏ク 8r
ノ
1527 (Florentine style). Antonio
ア佗 sfほれ 8% ガれ
0 乙州挽後 Sfリ ガ 0 ク召 Ⅰ
Bruci0li used this
translation (Venice, 1532) and claimed
ノ
C ル用 とれ 拷 ⅡW, was
tha
亡
published
teXt
hi5 rendering
Sd れ C地色
at
Lyon
in
for his vernacular
was
based
on
the
originals.
72) Co
篤ナのひ
クアド玖
%e,
p.
37:
"qui
pa
Ⅰ
tim ir
Ⅰ
epse て unt
negligentia. vel igno antia
Ⅰ
一 215 一
hbra ㎡ orum
73) Co
れサ
ignoran 廿 a rabbinorum
‥．partim
の e%
qui addiderunt
74) Le Bachelet, 万が功用
れ Ⅰれ切 肋
B 乃ル ，
75) F0r a classical deschption
of such a popular
Eク
ぬサ
ぴ肋 e,Ep.
LXXl;
p.
113.
upheava@. ㏄e Augustine.
forJerome,sfearsatthemomentofpresentinghi5revised
seeh@sprefaceto
teXt,
theteXt
of the Gospels
in
B朽
Ⅰ
sは C抑ゲれてヵ
ぬ
化wio 色 6%, ed. R. Weber (Stuttgart, 1983), 2: 15l5H516.
76) C0 んの㎎俺ぬ乙 p. 35-36.
77) Co んァ 0 %iae.pp. 36-37. Fortheinterpretationsofthepa
Gaon, Salmon
ben Yeruham,
お 0加乃 53, ed. by Joseph
78) Co んの彫庵肋み
79)@
Confroversiae
80)@
K． R．
CatholicAttitudes
81) Forthepos
in@ Rome@
82)@ For@
conce
pp.
83)@
(1972):
toward
ud@@@
Me5Si0%
1553 ， in@ the@ Lght@of@Si
鹿
， 1995-97)
s@ Josephus
ns.seeL.
teenth
BW4W0 坊を ヮ 彫 ぶH ぴ用り mis 用 e 乙
the Talmud,'
435-59
れ iionofthe]ewishRomancommun
(Leiden
Favi
て
see T レ
36; Cano, Dc foれ出 1/1I, c. 13.
p.
， "The@ Bur Ⅰ ng@ of@the@ Tal
㏄れ ㏄ 34
Re ればば
and Yefet ben E Ⅱ，
(Bern, 1998).
， pp ． 36-37.
Stowe
Century
Alobiadi
Ⅱぴ山 はぬ沖
ぉ age,inparticular
ひ ク
0f Saadia
puncta."
ぬ e, p. 37.
ノ
1，
， vol ．
pp
れ ly,seeK.R.Stowe,
， s@ hstoriograpHc3
， politi
ぴみわ s 乙 70s ゆん硲 ，
H. Feldman,Sf
アカ
e/69 緩 S
． xxx-lvii
3
， rCi i us ， and@
R りの 7ぜftゼ後
c℡
tur3
Bi ぅ /c(Leiden. 1998),
539-70
Le@Bachelet
， Auctarium
、 pp ． 658-660
insertae@expli aLoni@sacrarum@
insti uLon!@juventuLs@non@
84) Co れ Ⅰの蛇行 わ e,
86) Co
れサ
襯押．
のひ 8ぼぬ e,
87) Around
caused
parum@
38,
Its
用 ， pp.660-661,n.
Ⅱ
Jesus spoke.
undermined
Wh
b. lI, c. 4: Dg
was
Ⅱ
g援わ o色 e Sヴわね
also enhanced
e Reformersused
hat the @anguage
デ%e
was
by
not
Ⅰ ク
仁
ca.
Testament
and Hebrew
he b皿 ef 由at it
was
た
辻 todethronetheVu@gate,the
[hat it
underst0od.
勘 Ⅰ加ルだ io色 S が 防り
T 他郷附ぬ㎡ 0れし れ メエni ぬ れ 0終
g, pp.
Ce れ S% の庖ひeは i0 れり 用 C んり iぱ ai ㏄
什 s credib Ⅲ ty by 由owing
version, see B. M. Metzger,
88) Co んの叱俗ぬ
103:
ば．
hopes that the o㎡ ginals of Matthew
status
0pponents
0 れ吾レ ，
atem@Scripturarum,@et
，"
effCunt
of the century, the Sy ㎡ ac teXt of the New
@anguage
七
"Impudicae@narrationes@passi
Ⅰ
a stir and nurtured
and
101:@
b. II, c. 練 Dc g仇ガ 0れ e C ん ノリた
pp. 38-39,
the middle
could be found.
claimed
Ⅱ
A 穏加われ
85) LeBachelet,
Ps 乙 7%0
p.
n．
，
lierarum,@quae@et@sancti
was
not as
he
迂
"old"
as
On the history of this
Ⅳりの
Tgsf は移 eん:
冗拷
ei/
(OXford, 1977), pp. 48-63.
40-42, Ⅱ b. Il, c. 5: De 吻わぬ G 砲㏄ぬ gdifioれ巧ゐ ;
c. 6:
De
一
-216
庖 加ゆれ ぬガ
oれ c
Ⅹ 鰯wio 襯援．
LX
れサれ ㏄俗肋乙 p.
89) Co
42.
90) Cowf り彫俗肋
c, pp. 4㌻44, lib. II, c. 8: De edifion仙郷 L 乙は れ杖 44-46, Ⅱ b. ll, c
g:
9I)
awcfo 托ひれ ㎏Ⅰ 肋 e 切付 ion ぬ ．
De
んの㎎庶ヶ化
Co
， pp.46-48,
92) F0r the debate
Fraenkel
dent
pp.
93)
色 Ⅰ
Co
ノぴ
れナ
一
II,c. l0:
Dc
はれ 己
@aplaCedUS@
「
0んぬ拷 L 乙わ久 ee あれ onis
the canonica@ books
on
"Le@ debat@ entre@ Martin@ Chemniz@
・
OCanonlaUeSet
2g3
Ⅱ b.
with Chemnitz
ひ wzg ひ肋
of Scripture, see I"
et@ Robert@ Bellarmin@ sur@ les@ livres
aClde," ln Z,e
C4%0 鋒ノと /Ⅵ免 C形れ Ⅰ㏄ 肋笏 りれ f,
312
の
ノりは後 c,pp.48-
㎏し ね卸
ⅠⅠ
49, Ⅱ b. lT,c. ll:
a わ 死り 移 eみ汚 0免 6%,
Sn/ ひひ ん ぴ Ⅰ
Ⅰ
see also pp. 47-48
ow¥fg.cれW.o れ fcs
う
fo Ⅰ Be@la
Ⅰ
ん g.r
クマ Lzftco
ア町移
Co
m@no,sllstofe
Ⅰ
れナ紐
rors
that@ Calvin@ and@ Chemnitz@ made@ in@ interpreting@the@ Tridentine@ decree@ on@ the
Vul
ate ．
For
S は庖 サルの 笏 ク
the
%
3l
vi wing@Jerome's@ro@@
of
n
Jerome
as
， the@dove
trans@
a
tor ， see
E，
The
change
1985), pp. 173- 19g.
@@ made@evident@by@paintngs:@
iconographical@standards
Jerome
i sPrati
ged
妨ク ㎏ wd 蕊4% ㏄ (Ba Ⅲmore.
Rce
，
in
in@contrast@to@Renai sance
。 symbol@of@the@Holy@Spirit
， is@depicted@beside
．
94) The
teXt ㌧ぬて肋
viventem,"
but
ひ
see
95) Co 免ナの彫は肋乙
oれ e例 " Teads"s
ひ ㎏ 携ル用化はダ
als0 thec ㎡ tical
apparatus
Ⅲvitanima
Deum
mea
f0rtem
for theva ㎡ ants.
48-49; Cano, Dc iociS, II. c. 14.
pp.
B 乃尼 ，
96) Le Bachelet, ムオ肋 れれ加功肋
pp.
107-112.
97) Ibid., pp. l12-113.
98) Ibid., p. 114.
99)
mented》he‖bsence｛f‖ny〉eference》o》he｝ositi n
In…ontrast ， Seri ando〕
of@the@ originals;@ see@ his@letter@to@ Amulio
l㎝ j
B 巧尼 ．
LC Bachelet, B オルグリガ後 乙肋
， cited@ above
， note@
n．
56
p. l15
In〉Caton》o》he…anon｛f》he｛ldゝestament,‖《ummary‖nd‖n‖nalySs｛f
this@debate@
pp
P． G ．
is@provided@by@
Duncker
， "The@Canon@
． 282-292.@ The@various@proposals@to@consider
forum,
the 0blecti0ns
t0
b0oks
whose
，"
of@the@old@ Testament
， inside@ or@outside@ the@conciliar
Ⅱ y was
patern
questioned,
came
t0
nothing.
@02)
Co
see
れサ
の㎎俗ル，
pp.
1- 6,
8
10 ．
J. H. Bentley, はれク脚れぬ おク
For
れば
humanisHc
biblical
scholarship
姥 e Ro ゆ Ⅲん t (P ㎡ nceton,
in general,
1983).
l0D On his brand of biblical scholarship, see U. Horst, "Der Stre Ⅱ
Sch ㎡ fts zwi ㏄hen Kardina@
u れば
Caletan
Ⅵり椛 なれば ぽぴ ㎎．A 俺尽 cんれ刀
A. F. von
Gunten,
und Ambrosius
M わん乙なん
援は硲
'La contribution
Cathahnus,"
um
die hl.
in Ⅲ乙ん橘勿廿
(Paderborn, 1967),pp.551-577;
des l,H 奄 tbreaux 奇ソ ㏄ uvre
ex
色
pgetique de
一 217 一
CaJetan," in Hisfoi招ル l,玖6ぎ ゑ ㏄ 0M
T. A. Co Ⅲns, "Cardinal
X Ⅴわ
Si を Cル (Geneve, 1978), pp. 46-83; and
Biblica@ Pr@ncipleS," z ん g
CaJetan,s Fundamental
Caf ん o/ic Bi67icは / 吻乙れ
er か 17 (1955): 363-378.
l04) Ryan, Ⅰん e
H 幻oガ㏄7 Sc o肋庵んゆ ，
ん
l05) Co 何の化待肋 g.
pp. 2什27.
Tridentine debate
Ⅱ
b.
l.
the canon,
on
pp. 63-80 ， 103-126.
17:
c.
Dg
H め移0s.
ゆぬ fo ぬ複イ
D げイはれ ow
see A. Maichle,
For [he
ルr bi& 仏襯8れ
B ガ Cカクグ れ村 イイ
㏄ Kn 色名 tr veiれエガ とれ t (Freibu ng,
て
1929).
See
other theologians
l07) Co
eれ At れ l,
， T 屋 C拓地 れ笏
Co れ ct7 わアわみ
・
l06J
the
on
edti
Syri
the
New
c
Albrecht@ Widmanstadt@
in@ 1555.@
mann@
Tremellinus
・
Testament was
Instead@ of@ this@ text@
or@
the
by
「
Johann
humaDst
the@ edition@ prepared@ by@ Immanuel
professor@of@Hebrew@at@Heidelberg
s@ an@ append@@
・
and@printed@at@Geneve@in@1569
a@later@edition@of@Widmanstadt
of@Syri
c@
texts@comprisi
， the@
forthedead.
prayer
，s
Lord
For
F. C. Burkitt. P%0c ㏄ 廉れ鱗 0グ肪e C Ⅰ 卸ぅ わ %e
see
Socie ゆ XI (1906),
，
， s@text@(1556?)
g@the@ Sanctus
creed. the Magnificat, and a
a description of this edition,
A れ fiq彫れクれ
prepared
fl st printed
(1508-1559)@and@ printed@ in@ Venice@ by@ Michael@ Cyber
the Athanasian
prayer,
of
73-76.
pp.
Bellarmino@ might@have@consulted@
that@ contai
fo ァ theposition
38-39, lib. II, c. 4: De edtfiong Sノパ a㏄． The
Ue 俺 iae, pp.
of
n
473-508,
25.
免 Ⅰの 此バ肋 e, p.
l08) Ha Ⅱ， "Bib@ical Scholarship,"
l0g) Co れ 廿の
， pp. 483-496,
toplc.
same
Pp.
265-268.
㎝) Co れサ の 化は肋 e, pp. 42-43, Ⅱ b. lI, c. 7: De gd 協oれ e C の㏄
ほ T ㏄ 肋 援タゎ Ⅳ 0㎡．
Ⅲ) Bellarmino, De ㏄わ り fo わヵぬち㏄ fesiぬficis. in の eの VIl 9㌻95;
Ambrose,s
work
Bel@armino
seems
to
with regard t0
prefer the Parisian edition of 1549.
ee
K．
3so@ L ． Pastor ， The@ History@ of@ the@ P0pes ， XXI 、 210;@ Ambrosii@ opera ， ed ． by@
Schenkel
， in@CSEL@XXXII@(
where@the@ed@
Ⅴ en ， 1897) ， pp ．
ilia@a@ Felice@ cardinal!@ de@ Monte@
112)@The@ slow@
1569):@
sono
Hopfl
・
i-l
Ⅹ
x，
in
a@
in@parRc
libF@
Ⅰ ar@p
．
l xⅤ
i latum@est@edi
Alto ， "
i@progress!@ nostri@ nella@ correttione@della@ Bibbia@ pochissimi
tutto
un
mese
non”abbiamo
"Beitrage@zur@Geschichte@der@Sixto
fatto
una
congregazione
， Klementinischen@Vulgate
letter@
to@
correctone@va@
grand
， opera
Ⅲ) Brodrick.
Seripando@ (10@ settembre@ 1561) ， aired@
mol
o@ lunga@et@ uno@ o@due@huomi
， bisognando@
T ルり尼
vedere@moiti@
a.nwみ サル
Ⅰ
a@
similar@ complaint:@
possono@
testi ．．．
"， ibid ． ，
p．
H．
．．．
"，
、 "@ Biblische
Studien@ 18/1@(1913):@ 1-339 ， citation@at@pp， 308-309.@ Two@years@later@Amulio
a@
ii，
ione
noted@ by@Carafa@ in@ a@ letter@to@ Salmeron@ (17@ giugno
progress@was@
"quanto@
perche
l xⅤ
or@stateS@ "maximum@damnum@AmbroSi@
． in
"la
fare@poca@ cosa@ a@
S
305
姥0舵， pp. 269-309; Pastor, n ル打幻 0ひが 施ク
一 218 一
月リク 9s, 24:
222-226. F0r archival documents
Bible (l590).
Ⅲ) F0r compa
で
㎡ son, see the note
de Ⅱ a Qua
七
<@c砲肋れワぴ切切
S 後 ガれ lavcl れ
the
subm 什 ted in l576 by Giovanni
汁 e in Roma,
faci №． et sicuro, di essequ
e0
Ⅰ
ァ
㏄nza
T
del C0nci Ⅱ o di
ta Sessione
p.m
れ 6れ @at は ㎡ 解 p,t 甜ク ガ %4%r"
590.pp.
that
errors
lnto the
crept
to "わはぴ We
"佗れ e" had
i S 加行ゆ afo わの
d0esnotgo
6) Ibid., pp. 127-128.
UnanlmoUS
A．
， see@
Vaccari
ょ
セ
00
ガわん 肋 ． " Theph
うリ
a
比 uction 0f
hemodel
は
0logicalwork
structurec0mp
ofthestate
of
㎡㎡ ng
apparatuS.
「
eadlng
197-264. especia
Ⅱ
y
understand@ Jerome ， s@peculiar@construction
Ⅱ
insistence｛n
a
クじガ
by this reading,
%
ク
H 移れ
e@Vul
".ク eみ e?.spi 硲"
E. K. Rand. "Dom
2
クァは
万
st@the
Quentin,s
eozo睦㏄f Ee ie緩 17 (1924 月
ひ
260-261.
施乙ね
B わル ，
pp. l19-125.
B 凌 物肋乙ぬ B 帝ル ，
ルク
variety
ate ， agai
㏄切れ「
in 窩笏" tn
see
Ⅱa れ鹿 7㏄わ 0後 ㏄Ⅱぴぬ u鹿 Ⅰ，afi れ 0e (Rome
0ne,
囲) Le Bachelet,
e@and@Clementi
of the Vulgate,"
pp.
0) I,e Bachelet. ぢ目 肋
Ⅲ) C. Verce
to@
OftheCodlCeS,emended"
廿 on the TeXt
rum@ (Gen ． 24 ， 32) ， "
， "Ad@lavandos@pedes@camel
， the@editors@of@the@Sixti
For 0ther scholars puzzled
of
pp.
l860).
Ⅱ
X 円 XXvi.
137-141, 142-145, f0r Be
Ⅱ
armin0 ， s
Latin》ranslations ofヾcripture．
l23) This prohibition engendered
a
cav Ⅲne
ought@to@be@permitted@at@the@bottom@of@the@page
BiblicalP0ntificalCommissiononNovemberIg21.seeA
debate
on
㌦ガれ nぬ hone ダ，
whether
． The@matter@was@settled@by@the
む肋
A ク o㏄0九 ㏄gSe
メ尽 19
11.
124) Brodrick. Ro
bnt ㎝en
same
りぱゐ to ガ ㏄1 S レ
ho ぬねんめ ， pp. 163-169
デあ
of@tHs@sentence
(1922):
than six thousand
and fearlng that the
Bib7e. pp. 128-129.
Biblica@7@ (1926):@ 439-443.@ Unable@
は
ten,D 招 Ⅴ ぴ ㎏ ほぬ
pp ． 127-127.
119)@ On@ tHs@verse
Memo
Ⅱ
霞 al,andScripture,hefocused
e&i
ぢ
B ㍑ ぬ 押箱 庖乙ぬ
Ⅱ
「
援
援@fii" 0n
「
5) Le Bache 止 t,
Ryan,
the
dina, ぴ z Sほ %八口
て
「
lntroduced more
beyondthecons
㎡ ", "Co ル留 ", and "[
Ⅱ
117)@ I5d
o
ento, che
0n
la Camera,
of the Blb@e (and a@so lllustrat@nghls polnt
text
止
ed 億 ingtheteXt
ム俺
肪托
れれ
Cagra
gravar
㎏ d 珪 edbyBaumga
couldhappentotheeditonofthebrevlary,theml
"C
ァ
ln the edltlons of he conc@liar documents)
0nhow
Sistine
590
141-150). Faultlngmoretheprintersthanthescribesfor
with the c@alm that thls new
errors
Ⅰ
・
Dec
0fthe
Ⅱぴ ㎏ ほぬ S 肋 fi箱 クひ 0箱
Sうぴ i7e (Munster, l911).
正Ⅴ 7tカガん ンれま
ア
。 。 mod0
the publicau0n
0n
Dル
P. M. Baumgartner,
see
B はtc
85), 1: 503.
B オ ぬ行
れ施 e, pp. 105-1lI; H. Reusch, D6%
E 施 B 勿ぬ笘そ ur Ki /c.hEg.nzぴれ ガムル附加役㏄
c iC
うりん
乃 eer.
「
ん
ル
Ⅰれみ㏄
ん
ば
eⅠⅤ
ちⅠ
te (Bonn, 1883-
一 219 一
l乃
Dig. prooem.
Ⅰ
O の れ り れ s 21.
const.
l26) On howmedieva@Juristsskirted
theJushnianicprohibiUon
Ⅰ れナ
のばぴ zio 篠 0%7Jo
Bが
肋ァ脚ァ篠
see R.Orestano,
st ぴみ i0 メリ
ノ ずん
o9lossthe
Ⅰ
ば 0 の 緩は箆
o
セ
eXt,
(Bologna, 1987),pp.
51-173.
H7) Le Bachelet,
Ro
緩乙後携
M 笏．
庖
ク
e
co/ 托が i0 乃公
%
iれ Ⅰ刀お篠ぬ
70c は施s笘れ i0
托 c0名れわぬ，
eひほれ 9e7i0 襯用 (Antwerp,
肋 or
Ⅰ
"De
omp,
commissione
で
168-175.
りぱ
Francisco
Luca
Burgensi,
ifio箱 ぬノぴ ㎏ ぽ劫とノ硲 Sぴ S 仮ガ y 正われ f.
id.,Ⅳ0肋 Ⅲれ援イ
(Antwerp,1603);
クは
ル Cん o免 れれ切れ裾継
(Antwerp,
l28) S. T
B め 屋，
B 訪ねぬ
切畑
ひは れ ㏄ 佗 じば 0れ㏄
id., L 妨 977め祝ル/ co 篠ナ施り篠
l605);
s 0乃公
1618).
evisione teXtus G aeci N0vi
て
Testamenti
pont 田cia circa l617 praeside S. R. Bellarmino,"
a
facta Romae
B 肪 た 0 22(1941):
Ⅰ
303-306.
129)@L ．
M．
Trident
Voste ， "De@ revisione@textus@Graeci@Novi@testamenti@ ad@votum@ Concilii
． in;@ facta 。 "@ Biblka@
24@ (1943):@
collection@of@canonical@texts
Vat ． Gr ． 1159 ， which@
130)@ Tromp
．
Voste
304-307.@ The@ Cod
， s@indication@should@
corresponds@to@
text@
a@
． Vat ． Gr ．
be@read
of@the@Gospels
1150@
， perhaps
is@
a
， Cod
．
， "@ p ． 303
， "De@ revisione@textus@Graeci
Ibid., p. 303
℡) For
a bhef
New
Testament,
account
see
of Erasmus,s
L. Bouyer,
㏄h0larship and his editions of the Greek
"Erasmus
in Relation totheMedievalBiblical
g H お fo ゆ 0ア施6 % 肪ル ， Vo@ ． 2. エ刀 Ⅵ㏄Ⅰ 身0れ地 e
協 /か Raf ル庵ぬ妬 eR イoW 協わ 0れ (Camb Ⅱ dge,1969),pp.492-505;
Hall."Biblical
Scholarship,"
pp. 59-6l; and E. Rummel,
E% 侭勿穏 ㏄
T ぬれ S肋 to/ が fhg
CJ侭③㏄ (Toronto, 1985), pP. 85-102. The first hastened ( ツ托Cゆ iぬ地 用化 れぬ
Tradition," in
T勿
C Ⅰ 卸ぅバはど
り
ク
quam@
editus")@edition
， published@by@Froben
133) Forthedescription
T ㏄加乃
ofthecodices,
り何 (Berlin. 1902) 1/1 5g;
R ㎝ 赤切れ刀 ㎝
， appeared@in@1516;@
seeH.vonSoden,
the@fifth ， in@1535
DieSc んれ刀 en
メ es
Neg 姥篠
KuM はまイ侭 sル ZAねルル とパ ec乃ぬ 切りれ
K. Aland,
Ⅰ
ル．s Ⅳマ姥 箆ル s肋笏 後ぬ (Berlin, 1963);
P. Canart
and V. Pe ㎡ ，
B 乃ね 0% ㏄ⅡⅠわ cc 移り (Vatican
ぬ乃 れ仏ま
附加功 B 妨 lhiotheque vaati ㏄n, ルS
㎡ り Ho 客用癖わ クリア ヶ櫛は舘 0s ㏄協ガ 名花㎡ガイ 肋
S 硲蕊仇
City, 1970
0れき in?㏄
携
㍉
and K. Devreesae,
Paul
V
(Vatican
City, 1965).
134) Le Bache に t, B がぬ 榊れ 初めた
R 妨ル ，
p.
177;
Ryan, Ⅰル
H わ ぬ nゼc㎡ Sc o肋バんゆ ，
ん
p. 170.
Ⅲ
5) Tromp,
"De revis@one textusGraeci,"
136) Le Bachelet, ぢめ切 御初 が妬
旧
7) P. Paschini. "Guglielmo
storia
delta
chiesa］el
B 妨ル ，
p.
pP.
Sirleto phma
cinquecento
(Rome
305.
169-170.
del cardinalato," in ア移ん
cg だル sul 肋
， 1945) ， pp ． 198 、 210-212.
一 220 一
138)@
P．
Paschini
，
"Un@
ellenista@
del@
cinquecento:@
cattolica
(Rome
139)@These@ adnotaLons@have@been@studi
Wil
elm@ Srlets@
Annotati
nen@
zum@
M
．
Voste
Tridentini," A
Ⅲ) Brodrick.
reported.
l4D
"De@
・
れどぽガ
P08a れ
cれ 2れ
and
H．
d@ and@ publi hed@by@
Neuen@
． "@ in@ Cin
Testament
．
Ene@
Hop
， "Kardinal
Ⅰ
i ung@
Vertei
Bibliae@ Hebraicae@ iuxta@ votum@
18 (1941@
387-394.
B 刀肋 )
笏 れ g, p. l10 ， where
also R. J. Blackwe@
Ⅲ e0 ， scase,seeC0chrane,
，
G は fi790
Concilii
Pe う a,s @etter to SiXtus
Ⅰ
， Bgff 乙 Ⅰ 笏 れ と は れ ば
ず
der
， 2@Heft@(1908):@ 1-126
revisione@
F0ranevaluati0nof[heimpactofGa
283;
Majorano
． "@in@Biblische@Studien@13
Vulgata@gegen@Valla@und@Erasmus
140)@L ．
Niccolo@
。 1958) ． pp ． 221-236
Ⅰ
カリ
Ⅰ
V
椴ゆ ． pp.282-
Bi うル (N0treDame,
1991@
Ⅲ) A. J. Minnis,
Mg 仇れ援 ℡ 90 ひ 0/ Awf
Press, 1984), pp. 9-72.
ん 0%
んゆ (University 0f Pennsylvania
is

Model UD Syllabus - University of Dubuque Theological Seminary

2014-15 CBI Religious School Registration Form

Download Classical Hebrew Syllabus

Monthly Calendar of Events - Congregation Shaaray Tefila

THE QUESTION OF JOB

Chapter 4 – “Affirming Identity, Language and

Efi Tziva is an Assistant Professor of the Department of Economic

Leading Change John Kotter MIndmap Creashock.be

“I AM” statements in the Bible

CLASS 2604 001-LEC syllabus