1 The best brief summaries of the debate may be found in: A. Clerval, De J. Clichtovei Vita et Operibus (Paris, 1894), pp. 27-30; Margaret Mann, Erasme et les débuts de la Réforme française (1517-1536) (Paris, 1934) ch. 2; V. Carriere, ‘Libre examen et tradition chez les exégetès de la Préréforme (1517-1521)’, Revue d'histoire de l’Eglise de France xxx (1944) 39-53- This useful introduction is marred by the view that Lefèvre's exegesis was primarily mystical, fideist, and allegorical (pp. 40, 53). The most recent summary, with a bibliography of the Magdalen question, may be found in Edward Surtz, The Works and Days of John Fisher (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 5-7,157-160,274-289 and accompanying notes. See also Cameron, Richard, ‘The Attack on the Biblical Works of Lefèvre d'Etaples, 1514-1521’, Church History XXXVIII (1969) 1–16 Google Scholar.

2 The best published work on Lefèvre is still that of K.-H. Graf, ‘Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Reformation in Frankreich’, Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie (1852), 1-86, 165-237. For Lefèvre's career until 1517 see A. Renaudet, Préréforme et humanisme à Paris pendant les premières guerres d'ltalie (1494-1517) (Paris, 1916; 2nd ed., 1953). The best short introduction to Lefèvre is Anthony Levi, ‘Humanist Reform in Sixteenth-Century France’, Heythrop Journal vi (1965), 447-464.

3 Notably in Origen, In Matthaeum, Horn. 35, and Super Canticum, Horns. 1 and 2 (cf. Origène, Homiliés sur le Cantique des Cantiques [Sources Chrétiennes 37, Paris, 1953] 67 ff., 81 ff., and especially 68 n. 1). Lefèvre and Clichtove cited these texts; for their evaluation see below, pp. 51-52.

4 Hansel, H., ‘Magdalenenkult und Magdalenenlegende’, Zweite Vereinschrift der Görres- Gesellschaft (Cologne, 1936), pp. 45–59 Google Scholar.

5 An exhaustive list of these is given by V. Saxer, Le culte de Marie Madeleine en Occident des origines a la fin du moyen age, a vols. (Auxerre, 1959).

6 Szövérffy, Joseph, ‘“Peccatrix Quondam Femina”: a Survey of the Mary Magdalen Hymns’, Traditio XIX (1963), 79–146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wiltrud aus der Fünten, Maria Magdalena in der Lyrik des Mittelalters (Diisseldorf, 1966). For more on these works, see below, n. 87.

7 See the entry ‘Mary Magdalen’ in the index to Karl Young, The Drama of the Medieval Church, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1933). Another vast topic is the iconography of the Magdalen. Besides the standard works of Emile Mâle, there exists a mimeographed thesis by Mile Delpierre, L'iconographie de Sainte Marie Madeleine dans l’art français de l’époque romane à la fin du XVIe siècle (These de l'Ecole du Louvre, Paris, 1948; cf. Musées de France ni [1948] 202-204). Clichtove tried to argue at one point (Defensio, fs. 83v-84r; see below, n. 23) that the existence of the three Marys is justified by three separate iconographies. The sinner appears as a beautiful young woman, the former demoniac of Luke viii.2 as a matron, and the sister of Martha as a saint, veiled by her hair and carried aloft by angels. Fisher (Eversio, f. Mir ; see below n. 28) retorts that these are just three stages in the life of the same person. I was recently struck by the coincidence of the three iconographies in adjoining rooms of the UfEzi gallery in Florence. In the Botticelli room the Magdalen appears in long hair. A triptych of the resurrection of Lazarus by Nicolas Froment shows a middle-aged woman wearing a veil, and in Saint Margaret and Mary Magdalen by Hugo van der Goes she has her hair done up, and is young.

8 Opera, ed. F. S. Schmitt ni (Edinburgh, 1946), 64-67.

9 See, for example, Owst, G. R., Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England (Oxford, 1961), pp. 404 Google Scholar ff.

10 Oeuvres francaises d'Olivier Maillard: Sermons et poésies, ed. Arthur de la Borderie (Nantes, 1877), pp. 129-133. This sermon was probably preached before 1470; one imagines countless others like it between then and 1518.

11 Sermons choisis de Michel Menot (1508-1518), ed. Joseph Nève (Bibliothèque de XVe siecle, Paris, 1924), pp. 148-151. This sermon was first published posthumously in 1519, the same year that Clichtove's Defensio appeared. For Clichtove's use of the sermon, see below, pp. 56 ff.

12 Ibid., p. 149: ‘… et venit se presentareace a face son beau museau ante nostrum Redemptorem, ad attrahendum eum a son plaisir. Erant enim ambo eiusdem voluntatis, sed amor erat diversus, quia eius intentio, scilicet Magdalene, erat attrahere Christum ad amorem carnalem, et intentio Christi erat earn attrahere ad amorem divinum, et lucrari animam eius.’

13 Ibid. Christ is made to say, ‘Ecce, missus sum ad retrahendum peccatores. Si vis mihi dare tuum amorem, tibi dabo gratiam meam, et nunquam de peccatis tuis fiet mentio.’ And again (p. 151), ‘… remisi ei peccata, pro tanto quia ostendit mihi signa magna amoris et dilectionis.’

14 De Marie Magdalena, & triduo Christi disceptatio, ad Clarissimum virum D. Franciscum Molineum, Christianissimi Francorum Regis Francisci Primi Magistrum (Paris: Henri Estienne, 1517). M. Holban (see next note) argues that this date is in the old style, i.e., before Easter, 1518, the 4th of April that year (p. 156, n. 1); in this she follows Graf. The book itself gives no indication of month or day. For the meaning of disceptatio, see below, p. 41.

15 Holban, Marie, ‘François du Moulin de Rochefort et la querelle de la Madeleine’, Hutnanisme et Renaissance II (1935), 26–43 Google Scholar,147-171. For the details of Louise's voyage, see E. Baux, V.-L. Bourrilly, Ph. Mabilly, ‘Le voyage des reines et de Francois Ier en Provence et dans la vallee du Rhone (decembre 1515-fevrier 1516)’, Annales du Midi (1904), 31-64.

16 Holban, op. cit., p. 36 n. 6 (Vie, f. 78): ‘Neantmoins ie suy esbay comment leglise et lescolle de Paris tient que la seur de Marthe fut pecheresse, car les Evangelistes nan font point de mention.’ F. 80: ‘Passer oultre ne mest permys car ie ne veuil rien innover sur la determinacion de leglise.’

17 De Maria Magdalena, Triduo Christi, Et ex tribus una Maria, disceptatio: ad Clarissimum virutn D. Franciscutn Molinum, Christianissimi Francorum Regis Francisci Primi Magistrum, Secunda Emissio (Paris: Henri Estienne, 1518). In 1519 this work was printed in Hagenau by Thomas Anshelm.

18 Ibid., fs. IV-2r’.

19 Marci de Grandval theologi, eccksiae catholicae non tres Magdalenas sed unicam colentis: apologia seu defensorium (Paris: Josse Bade, September, 1518).

20 Bonnard, F., Histoire de Vabbaye royale et de Vordre des chanoines réguliers de Saint-Victor de Paris (Paris, 1907) 1 Google Scholar, 466; 11, 4 ff.; Renaudet, Préréforme, pp. 445-449, 567-570.

21 Reverendi Patris Joannis Fisscher [sic] Roffensis in Anglia Episcopi, necnon Cantabrigien. academiae Cancellarii dignissimi, de unica Magdalena, Libri tres (Paris: Josse Bade, March, 1519). Fisher's writings on the Magdalen are carefully described by Surtz; see above, n. 1.

22 Surtz, Works and Days, p. 5. Fisher cites Poncher's letters in Eversio, f. a2r (see below, n. 28).

23 Disceptationis de Magdalena, Defensio: Apologiae Marci Grandivallis illam improbare nitentis, ex adverso respondens (Paris: Henri Estienne, April, 1519). The work is dedicated to Poncher as archbishop of Sens; he had transferred from Paris to the metropolitan see in March. For Clichtove, see A. Clerval, op. cit., and below, n. 36.

24 De Tribvs Et Vnica Magdalena Disceptatio secunda: ad Reverendum in Christo Patretn D. Dionysivm Briconnetum Episcopum Maclouiensem apud Leonem X Pontijicem Max. ChristianissimiFrancorum Regis FrancisciIoratorem (Paris: Henri Estienne, 1519). Denis Briconnet, a brother of Lefèvre's friend, patron, and eventual bishop, Guillaume, was himself Bishop of Saint Malo.

25 For Agrippa and Lefèvre, see Nauert, Charles G., Jr., Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought (Urbana, 1965), pp. 61 Google Scholar fF., and accompanying notes. For Lefèvre's involvement in the Reuchlin affair, see Renaudet, Prereforme, pp. 643-655.

26 ‘Abusum popularem nihil formidabunt dicere esse Ecclesiae usum et sanctionem.’ Agrippa to Lefèvre, 14 Nov. 1519; in Herminjard, A.-L., Correspondance des Rejbrmateurs I (Geneva, 1866 Google Scholar; photographic reprint, Nieuwkoop, 1965), 59 ff. The correspondence was originally published in vol. 2 of Agrippa's Opera (Lyons, 1600).

27 ‘Per se omnia ista cadent, et tandem agnoscetur Veritas.’ Ibid., p. 52. Agrippa wrote two treatises in defense of Lefèvre: H. Corn. Agrippae de beatiss. Annae monogamia ac unico puerperio propositiones abbreviatae et articulatae … (before May, 1519), Opera 11, 588-593; Agrippae Defensio propositionum praenarratarum contra quendam Dominicastrum illarum impugnatorem … (before October, 1519), Opera n, 594-663. Agrippa's Dominican opponent was Claude Salin.

28 Eversio Munitionis quam Iodocus Clichtoveus erigere moliebatur adversus unicam Magdalenatn per Ioannem Rqffensis Ecclesiae in Anglia Episcopum (Louvain: T. Martens [1519]).

29 Reverendi Patris Joannis Fisscher [sic] Rqffensis in Anglia Episcopi, necnon Cantabrigien. academiae Cancellarii dignissimi, Confutatio Secundae Disceptationis per Jacobum Fabrum Stapulensem habitae in qua tribus foeminis partiri molitur quae totius ecclesiae consuetudo unicae tribuit Magdalenae (Paris: Josse Bade, September, 1519).

30 4 October 1519. Erasmus, Opus Epistolarum, ed. P. S. Allen (Oxford, 1922), IV, 73.

31 Apologiae sen dejensorii ecclesiae catholicae non tres sive duas Magdalenas sed unicam celebrantis et colentis: tutamen et Anchora: per ipsius auctorem Apologiae Marcum de Grand val divi Augustini Canonicum tumultuarie admodum excusa. Una cum Apologia ipsa denuo impressa (Paris: Josse Bade, 1519). Citations of the Apologia (see above, n. 19) will be taken from this edition.

32 Scholastica declaratio sententiae et ritus ecclesiae de unica Magdalena per Natalem Bedam studii Parhisien. Artium et Theologiae magistrum: contra magistrorum lacobi Fabri, et ludoci Clichtovei contheologi scripta, per additionis modum ad ea, quae prius per alios contra eosdem fuere deprompta (Paris: Josse Bade, 25 November 1519).

33 Evangelistarum symphonia de Lazaro Martha et Maria a Favergie dno aurato equite composita ad reverendum dnm Robertum Cockburium Rossensem Episcopum (Venice: de Gabiano for Froben and Divineur, 23 November 1519). See Durkan, John, ‘The Cultural Background in Sixteenth-Century Scotland’, in David McRoberts, ed., Essays on the Scottish Reformation 1513-1625 (Glasgow, 1962)Google Scholar, p. 286. A letter from Cockburn to Champier is printed in the latter's Duellum Epistolare (Venice: John Francis de Junta for Froben and Divineur, I519),sigs.12^v-3^r . Champier speaks of Lefèvre in a letter to Erasmus, ibid., sig. g5^r-v ; also printed by Allen in Opus Epistolarum (Oxford, 1926), VI, xvii.

34 Billibaldi Pirckheimeri Dissertatio sive ANAΣKETH Historica et Philologica, de Maria Magdalena, auodfalso a quibusdam habeatur pro ilia peccatrice seu πópvq. In M. Goldast, ed., Billibaldi Pirckheimeri … Opera Politica, Historica, Philologica et Epistolica (Frankfurt, 1610), pp. 220-222. The work is described by L. W. Spitz, The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), pp. 172, 331. Spitz dates it between 1512 and 1517. Although Pirckheimer mentions no names, the fact that he is writing against several controversialists might suggest a later date, since the attacks on Lefèvre were written in 1518-1519. Pirckheimer may, however, be writing against unpublished opinions.

35 Opus Epistolarum, rv, 92 ff.; see also m, 522. In January, 1519, W. Nesenus had written to Zwingli that Fisher had refuted all Lefèvre's arguments. Zwingli, Sämtliche Werke, ed. E. Egli et al. (Leipzig, 1911), vn, 133.

36 For the circumstances leading up to the condemnation, see Lovy, R.-J., Les origines de la Réforme française, Meaux, 1518-1546 (Paris, 1959), p. 76 Google Scholar. The text of the condemnation is printed in C. Du Plessis D'Argentré, Collectio Judiciorum de Novis Erroribus (Paris, 1728; photographic reprint, Brussels, 1963), n, vij. In 1524-1525, at the time when final action was taken against the group of Meaux, the faculty also examined and condemned some teachings of Aime Meygret, a Lyons Dominican suspected of Lutheranism; among them was the proposition that Maria soror Marthae nonfuit peccatrix (D'Argentre n, 13). Meygret was imprisoned for two years and died in 1528 at the age of 28. The account of his life in J. Quétif and Echard, J., Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum (Paris, 1721 Google Scholar; photographic reprint, Turin, 1961), p. 58 should be corrected by Renaudet, Préréforme, p. 656 n. 8, and N. Weiss, ‘Le réformateur Aimé Meigret’, Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français (1890), 245-269. A word about Clichtove should also be added here. In claiming that he and Lefèvre had changed their minds about the three Marys he was, in his own case, telling the truth. Almost immediately after his defense of Lefèvre in 1519 he began to move away from the Fabrist circle, and by 1521 was one of the strongest enemies of Lutheranism and reforming groups, such as Lefèvre's at Meaux, which were suspect of heresy. This is not the place to evaluate Clichtove's positions or his honesty. It should simply be borne in mind that he abandoned his Fabrist positions almost immediately after stating them. See Clerval, op. cit., pp. 30-35, esp. 30: ‘Clichtoveus, formidans ne Sorbonicorum et orthodoxorum favores amitteret, catholicamque fidem offenderet, Fabro opinionibusque Fabri, eo magis quod Lutheranis dogmatibus tunc grassantibus consentire viderentur, nuntium misit, et, relictis prioribus, novas vias ingressus est.’

37 Fratris Balthasaris Sorio sacre theologie professoris Apologeticus: pro unica Maria magdalena: pro vera sanctorum assignatione tridui christi in corde terre: pro duabus quoque sororibus virginis Marie matris dei, christique materteris: adversus maledicta Jacobi fabri in illas (Saragossa: Georgius Locus Teutonicus, 17 September 1521). Sorio is mentioned by Quétif- Echard, n, 159 ff. Bataillon, M., Erasme et I'Espagne (Paris, 1937), p . 200 Google Scholar n. 6, speaks of the interest of the Spanish Erasmians Cazalla and Vergara in the Magdalen controversy.

38 De Maria Magdalena and disceptatio injodoc. Clicht. Jacobi Fabri defensorem, both 1522. The MS is in the Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence (see P. O. Kristeller, Iter Italicum, 1 [London and Leiden, 1963] 164). Tholosani had been a favorite pupil of Savonarola, and had a reputation for historical erudition. See Quétif-Echard, 11, 123 ff.

39 Opus Epistolarum, TV, 323: 'In Laudem Divae Mariae Magdalenae Impotenti amoris oestrO / Haec beata percitA Nardicum profudit vnguen, / Eluit lacrymis pedeS, Mox capillis tersit. eccE, / Rex Olympi, qui semeL Illecebras spreuit ac suB- / Egit, istis ampliteR Capitur oblectaculis. procH, / Daemonis technis mall Eua capta est: ista lachrymiS / Tincta culpas diluit. Ineptii in tuam gratiam, malens in hanc peccare partem quam parum humanus videri. Mitto simul et tres Magdalenas ab Iacobo Fabro depictas.’ The anagram reads ‘Iohannes Merliberch Diest’. The date given, 1520, is only a conjecture. I suspect that Erasmus is referring not to a picture, as Allen here suggests, but to Lefèvre's treatise. For Lefèvre and Clichtove on hymns, see below, p. 49. 40 Disceptatio: dispute or discussion; the primary sense is juridical (Thesaurus Linguae Latinae v [Leipzig, 1910], cols. 1290-1292). Melanchthon, in the first edition of his Loci Communes, 1521 (Werke n, Pt. 1 [Giitersloh, 1952], 6), uses the word to characterize the vain reasonings of'Sorbonic’ theology. Fisher, ironically, reproached Lefèvre for rejecting the scholastics just because they were disceptatores (see Surtz, Works and Days, pp. 277 ff.). Clichtove, in the preface to his commentary on Lefèvre's edition of St. Damascene, John (In Hoc Opere Contenta. Theologia Damasceni, quatuor libris explkata: et adiecto ad literam commentario elucidata [Paris: H. Estienne, 1512/13]Google Scholar f. aiir_v), uses the word first negatively and then positively. The students of Greek philosophers learned, they did not argue or discuss, what their masters taught them: ‘nefasque putarent: quae ab ipso acceperant, in disceptationem aut controversiam deducere.’ He goes on to say, though, that revelation so accepted may yet be elaborated by rational discourse or theology. Thus, in this edition, Clichtove promises to explain the obscure points by clearer statements: 'adieci facilem ad litteram commentarium, quae obscura se offerunt planiore declaratione dilucidantem, et si qua occurrunt discussionem exposcentia: doctrinali disceptatione agitantem.’

41 See Chenu, M.-D., La théologie comme science au XHIe siècle (3rd ed., Paris, 1957), p. 23 Google Scholar, on the quaestio: ‘… une élaboration que l'énoncé scripturaire n'amorçait qu'implicitement, et, en tous cas, ne résolvait pas.’

42 Disceptatio secunda, fs. 3^v-4^r : ‘et sic quidem disceptare: ut non ex alio fonte quam ex Evangelico rationes nostrae deriventur. Quod si quippiam aliud interseretur: ex illo nolo praecipuum duci argumentum. Atque id dialecticorum more efficiam: propositionibus aliquot positis, quas sola Evangeliorum luce, adiuvante ratiocinandi lege, notificare conabor …. ‘

43 Decern iibrorum Moraiium Aristotelis, Tres conversiones . . . (Paris: J. Higman and W. Hopyl, 1497; 2nd ed., Paris: H. Estienne, 1505). Preface to Jean de Rely, 2nd ed., f. ai^v: ‘mores non longa verborum disceptatione, sed sana intelligentia et recta educatione (ut vult Plato: pariter et Aristoteles) parentur.’

44 Libri Logicorum … (Paris: H. Estienne, 1503). 3rd ed.: Logica Aristotelis Ex Tertia Recognitione (Paris: H. Estienne and S. de Colines, 1520/21), f. I^v : ‘Dialecticis tamen et quaque alia seu arte sive disciplina recte is utetur: qui summopere sese intra discipline limites arcebit, continebitque.’

45 C. Vasoli, ‘J- Lefèvre D'Etaples e l'origine del “fabrismo“’, Rinascimento x (1959), 244, describes how Lefèvre hoped to turn dialectic to the aid of theology, as a critical tool for studying scripture: ‘Poichè se la crisi della dialettica ha contaminato anche gli studi sacri, aprendo anche il commento della Bibbia alle sottiglieze dei “sofisti”, la restituzione dell'arte logica alia sua funzione originaria di arte del discorso e del pensiero fornisce il migliore strumento per la purificazione della teologia corrotta.’ Vasoli's article gives an excellent analysis of Lefèvre's philosophic work.

46 Disceptatio secunda, f. 38^v: ‘Nam tam in Disceptatione quam in Defensione eius: quaedam astipulantur Ambrosio quod duae sint ex Evangelio Mariae Magdalenae. haec autem sunt disputata solum: et non pro veritate collecta. Quaedam etiam, et ea quidem non pauca, astipulantur praedictis propositionibus: quae cum vera assumant, et probe concludant, rationabiliter collecta sunt. Sunt item et nonnulla: quae non minus vere quam scite inserta enarrataque sunt.’ In this important but difficult passage, Lefèvre distinguishes three classes of statement. Some are based on an opinion of Ambrose concerning the number of Magdalens. They are argued as opinion, but not stated as conclusion or fact. Others are so stated, both because of the truth of the premises and cogency of reasoning. A third class is that ofobiter dicta. On the next page of his text, Lefèvre prints a synopsis of the statements in the first Disceptatio, classifying them as disceptata or rationabiliter collecta. I take the expressions pro veritate collecta and rationabiliter collecta to be synonymous, but only a systematic investigation of similar terms in the philosophic works could prove this .

47 Ibid., f. 40^r : ‘Fortes sunt (fateor) auctores, et auctorum turba, plurima est: sed infinitis auctoribus fortius est Evangelium. Fortis est itidem longa consuetudo etiam si erronea sit, et sibi plerunque, quanquam falso, auctoritatem Ecclesiae vendicat: fortior tamen est Veritas.’ Champier reproduces this passage in Symphonia, f. f2^r. Lefèvre had his own auctores, of course, in addition to the gospels; he claimed that the auctoritas of the older Greek tradition was stronger than that of the latin Middle Ages. See below, pp. 48 ff., 50-53.

48 De unica Magdalena, Libri tres, f. I9V; Confutatio, f. I5^r . Also see below, n. 63.

49 De unica Magdakna, Libri tres, f. A3V: ‘Cogitavi subinde quot ex hac opinione Fabri, si reciperetur, incommoda toti ecclesiae provenirent, quot auctores essent damnandi, quot emendandi codices, quot ad populum olim factae conciones iam revocandae sint. Quantos praeterea scrupos inde multi conciperent, quot ansas arriperent malae fidei, parum deinceps aut libris aut historiis credituri: sed et de communi matre ecclesia, quae iam per tot saecula id ipsum et cecinit et docuit, sinistre admodum suspicaturi.’ See Eversio, f. D2V, on the scandal given to the faithful when the Church seems to change its mind (a problem not unknown at the present time). The authority of the pope will be diminished, warns Fisher, with the result that ‘those who formerly were the weaker Christians will now not be Christians at all’. It will soon be clear that such a result would be the direct opposite of that intended by Lefèvre.

50 Eversio, f. Y4^r : ‘Generali totius ecclesiae consensu, unicam creditam esse Magdalenam.’

51 Ibid., f. B2^r; De unica Magdalena, Libri tres, f. A4r _ v . See below, n. 63.

52 Eversio, f. Y4^r -Z3^r .

53 Ibid., f. a2^r (the passage comes near the end of the book; the folio should be marked aa).

54 Preface, Disceptatio prima, Secunda etnissio, f. 3^V: ‘At ecclesia recipit unam esse et non tres. Sed nonne erat ecclesia temporibus Irenei, Origenis, Eusebij, Chrysostomi, Hieronymi, Ambrosij? Verumtamen tunc plures recipiebat. An nunc alia? At quomodo alia? cum scripta sit. Una est columba mea ….’ Fisher (Eversio, f. a4^v) finds no difficulties in the question of development. The Church, he says, can and does change its teaching, but only for the better, since it is guided by the Holy Spirit. He gladly admits that no one before Augustine taught the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Now they do, he concludes, and we are the better for it.

55 Disceptatio prima, Secunda emissio, f. 88r: ‘Nee ordinationem Ecclesiae impugnamus. nam cum Ecclesia sancta sit, sine macula, et sine ruga: sanctam habet veramque institutionem. et quae instituit: vere sancteque instituit. Quare si qua in templis canuntur, ficta, falsa, ridicula: nihil veriti inficiabimur sanctam ecclesiam ilia instituisse, sanxisse, approbasse. sed potius aliquem nimia simplicitate deceptum.’ See Defensio, fs. 67^v-68^r.

56 Disceptatio prima, Secunda emissio, f. 88^v.

57 Disceptatio secunda, f. 40r: ‘Quapropter si veritati astipulor: longa et inveterata consuetudo aliter sentiendi nihil obesse debet veritati. alioqui: Ecclesiae repugnaret. Nam Ecclesia ibi est, ubi est Veritas.’ Lefèvre is here paraphrasing Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.24.1 (Patrologia Graeca, vn, 966).

58 Eversio, fs. Z3r-§ir . It is interesting to note that Beda, while opposed to Lefèvre, held a view of the Church which is in one sense closer to Lefèvre's than to Fisher's. He spoke of submitting all his opinions to the judgment of the Church (Scholastica Declaratio, f. 5I^v), but added that what he meant by this was the judgment of the wise. The mind of the Church was to be found among competent bodies such as the Sorbonne, not among the faithful at large. Beda's elite was, of course, very different from that of the humanists.

59 Melchior Cano (d. 1560) in De Locis Theologicis (first published in 1563) classified and analyzed the various loci or historical sources for theological argument.

60 Defensio, fs. 45^v-46^r : ‘Liberum sane est cuique, a sanctorum qui post tempora apostolorum scripserunt placitis, verum investigando, disceptandoque declinare: ubi maiorem habet auctoritatem, potioremve rationem ad alteram partem impellentem.’ Auctoritas is a 'dictum verum ab aliquo insigni auctore’ (ibid., f. 67^r), and thus the highest authority is that of the gospels themselves (ibid., fs. 45^v, 65^r, 67^r). It is not, however, suggested that the auctoritas of the gospel and its ratio are the same.

61 Ibid., f. 66^v: ‘Nam auctoritatibus aliorum (bona eorum venia dixerim) etiam sanctorum patrum, et gravium alioqui auctorum, tantum deferendum non est ac tribuendum: ut iliis postponatur ratio, et cum ratione Evangelica Veritas, quae longe superiore ac priore habenda est loco.’ See above, n. 47.

62 Ibid.:’ quoniam rationi, Evangelicaeque lectioni ac veritati minus cohaerere atque quadrare videntur, cui omnis humana cedere debet auctoritas et sententia.’

63 De unica Magdalena, Libri tres, f. A4^r-V: ‘Verum ego hie ilium percontarer, num eloquia sacra sunt cuivis ingenio ubique adeo clara et aperta ut non sit opus interim enarratore aliquo et interprete ad ea intelligenda … Ego nimirum id genus arbitror summos in primis pontifices: deinde patres et auctores orthodoxos: postremo concionatores ad populum: qui fideli studio, et diligentia verbum dei administrant: in quibus si mendacium unum quod communi omnium illorum assensu asseveratur compertum fuerit, non video cur in caeteris fides illis a populo adhibeatur … .’ See above, nn. 48 and 51.

64 Defensio, fs. 66^v-69^v. Clichtove here is writing against Grandval.

65 Ibid., f. 68^r : ‘respondemus: multum interesse inter consuetudinem diuturnam inveteratumque usum, et inter certam Ecclesiae catholicae definitionem atque determinationem. quando quidem permulta sunt diutina consuetudine paulatim introducta, et diutius observata: quae nequaquam sunt per publicam Ecclesiae sanctionem neque roborata neque approbata, sed tolerantur duntaxat et permittuntur ab ea.’

66 Elucidatorium ecclesiasticum ad qfficium Ecdesiae pertinentia planius exponens: & quatuor libros complectens … (Paris: H. Estienne, 1516; Basel: Froben, 1517, 1519). This work does not raise the question of the three Marys although it contains other critical passages, such as an investigation into the paschal liturgy, which proved controversial.

67 Defensio, f. 68^r.

68 Ibid., fs. 83^r-88^r. For Grandval (Apologia, f. f6^r) the whole structure of the Victorine office was menaced by questioning the Victorine authorship of this hymn. The O Maria mater pia: Stella maris appellaris is not, in fact, by Adam. See Chevalier, U., Repertorium Hymnohgicum (Louvain, 1897)Google Scholar n, no. 13205.

69 This is a hymn De Maria Salome et Cleophae, printed in Dreves, G. M., Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi (Leipzig, 1890 Google Scholar; photographic reprint, Frankfurt-a-M., I96l),ix, 218.

70 While Grandval laments the passing glory of the Victorine office (Apologia, fs. f5r - 6r), it is not clear to what extent he links this up with the general decline of monastic life at Saint Victor. He seems to be complaining that some of the monks were presuming to alter the office according to their own tastes. Clichtove disapproved of such measures and denied any responsibility for them (Defensio, f. 85^r-v). A careful liturgical study of this period would, I think, reveal that the conservative element, including the religious orders, feared the humanists’ suggestions for the reform of worship as anti-monastic, and then 'Lutheran’. Lefèvre and Clichtove had no thought of making any changes without proper warrant; they hoped that the Fifth Lateran Council would provide this (Defensio, f. 82^v). Yet others took matters into their own hands. In the next decade, at Meaux, Lefèvre's program would be more seriously compromised by the rash actions of some of the townspeople. See Lovy, Les Origines, pp. 106-108, 120 ff.

71 Defensio, f. 69^r: ‘[Officium] non esse secundum substantiam annexum Ecclesiae Catholicae, neque ad eius integritatem pertinere, sed accidentarium illi esse, et appendicis more cohaerens.’ If the office were essential to the Church, he adds, we would have to speak of a different Church in the time of Ambrose and Jerome.

72 Ibid., f. 89^v: ‘videat ne novos efhngat fidei articulos.’ Erasmus regretted that Fisher's Confutatio showed the same tendency to make the one Magdalen a point of faith. See Opus Epistolarum iv, 192, and Surtz, Works and Days, p. 7.

73 Defensio, f. 67^v: ‘quoniam Ecclesia: innititur firmissimo Evangelicae veritatis fundamento, et super earn petram est fundata, quae longe amplius nostrae quam oppositae astipulari videtur sententiae.’ The rock on which the Church is founded is here said to be gospel truth. Thus, while the doctrine of the Assumption has been established by the Church's statutum and definitio (ibid., f. 70^r), the distinction of the three Marys ‘auctoritati Ecclesiae et universali decreto eiusdem non repugnat, immo admodum Evangelio, cui Ecclesia innititur, adsonat’.

74 Ibid., fs. 95?^v-96^r. For these principles (or more accurately, ‘hypotheses’) and Fisher's counter-principles, see Surtz, Works and Days, pp. 282-286.

75 Ibid., fs. 99r-ioor. Compare Jerome's commentary on Matthew xxvi.7 (Patrologia Latina xxvi, 199; see Ep. ad Hedibiam, Patrologia Latina XXII, 988 ff.) with in Hos. Proh, commenting on Matthew xxvi.10 ff. (Patrologia Latina xxv, 857 ff.).

76 Defensio, fs. 96^v-97^r. Two other tables, not shown here, list patristic citations found in scholastic authors and the names of those who held opposite views at different times. The attempt at qualification by method may be contrasted with Fisher's less discriminate grouping of ‘classes of men’ in Book m of De unica Magdalena, Libri Tres. See Surtz, Works and Days, pp. 277 ff.

77 This is an error; Theophilus of Antioch did not write on the Magdalen. Clichtove appears to be confusing him with Theophilus of Alexandria, a later writer. See Bardy's, G. introduction to Théophile d'Antioche, Trois livres à Autolycus (Sources Chrétiennes xx, Paris, 1948), pp 17–19 Google Scholar. Fisher noticed this mistake and traced it to the Catena Aurea. See the next note and Surtz, Works and Days, p. 288.

78 Clichtove is referring to a citation in Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea, on Luke vii, no. 6. The Parma edition (1861, p. 85) attributes the citation to Severus of Antioch.

79 Elizabeth of Schonau, a medieval mystic. Her writings were among those collected by Lefèvre during a trip to the Rhineland in 1509-1510 and published by him in Liber trium virorum et trium spiritualium virginum … (Paris: H. Estienne, 30 May 1513).

80 The Franciscan Amadeus Meñez de Silva, also known as Amadeus Hispanus (1420- 1482). See Wadding, L., Annates Minorum (3rd edition, ed. J. M. Fonseca, Florence, 1932) xrn, 414-417; (Florence, 1933), XIV Google Scholar, 361 n. 1, 363-372.

81 Gilbert Crispin (d. 1119), abbot of Westminster. For a description of his writing on the Magdalen, see Jean Leclercq, ‘La lettre de Gilbert Crispin sur la vie monastique’, Analecta Monastica, 2nd ser. (Studia Anselmiana XXXI, Rome, 1953), 118-123.

82 See O'Malley, John W., ‘Historical Thought and the Reform Crisis of the Early Sixteenth Century’, Theological Studies XXVIII (1967), 531–548 Google Scholar, who finds this pattern in the writings of Giles of Viterbo and also in an early preface by Lefèvre to the works of the pseudo-Denis (1499). The apostolic period is there conceived by Lefèvre as a golden age from which successive periods emanate, as light from the sun, and with increasing distance lose their vigor. While this view may still linger in Lefèvre's high esteem for the apostolic age, it is no longer dominant in the writings on the Magdalen. R. M. Grant has an interesting remark in Castelli, E., Ermeneutica e Tradizione (Padua, 1963), p. 178 Google Scholar, to the effect that this preference for the very earliest Christian writers is a note which distinguishes Lefèvre from Erasmus, whose view of the patristic period was more comprehensive. Compare this with Rice, E. F., Jr., ‘The Humanist Idea of Christian Antiquity: Lefèvre d'Étaples and his Circle’, Studies in the Renaissance IX (1962), 126–160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 130-135.

83 Horn. 25 (Patrologia Latina LXXVI, 1189); Horn. 33 (Patrologia Latina LXXVI, 1239).

84 Disceptatio prima, Secunda emissio, f. 28r-v; Defensio, fs. 41^v-42^v. On this point Beda (Scholastica Declaratio, fs. 11-14) has an interesting analysis. He subdivides the grammatical or literal sense into historical and mystical categories. A literal-mystical statement can be one of fact: ‘God breathed into man the breath of life’; ‘the word of the Lord came to me’. The literal-historical sense, by contrast, may lead on to another mystical meaning. Beda seems to be distinguishing between narrative and metaphorical accounts of events.

85 Confutatio, f. u r ; see Eversio, f. C3^r.

86 Disceptatio prima, Secunda emissio, f. 19^r . Lefèvre's principle of careful reading is closer to the ‘philological view’ of Erasmus than to the ‘inspirational view’ of Luther. See W. Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation (Cambridge, 1955). Luther, while making use of the humanists’ critical tools, insisted on the reader's inspiration, coming from faith, as an element in the search for meaning. In this view, meaning and interpretation cannot finally be distinguished; whereas in the ‘philological view’ the objectivity of meaning is the basis for all interpretation. In this sense, Lefèvre's writings on the Magdalen are certainly Erasmian. The place of his commentaries, especially in relation to Luther's hermeneutic, remains to be defined. See Pauck's, W. introduction to Luther, Lectures on Romans (London and Westminster, Pa., 1961)Google Scholar, pp. xXIV-xxXIV.

87 Confutatio, f. I2^r : ‘Rationi consentaneum est: ut iis qui vitiis carnis immersi sunt: non solum resipiscendi: verum etiam ad virtutis apicem conscendendi: quoddam in evangeliis exemplar sit propositum.’ An echo of this view may be found in the faculty's condemnation (see above, p. 39). The attitudes against which Lefèvre was reacting also appear in the medieval hymn literature. W. aus der Fiinten, op. cit., shows that in the earliest texts (until the eleventh century) the Magdalen is a witness to the resurrection (testis), then one who announces the event to the disciples (nuntia), then in the late Middle Ages an example (exemplum) both of true compassion for the sufferings of Christ and of the possibility of salvation for all sinners. What Lefèvre objected to was the fusion of this latter exemplum with that of sanctity, the sudden transformation from vice to virtue. Szövérffy, op. cit., also lists the exemplum theme as one of the chief characteristics of the hymns, and goes on to emphasize the presence of contrasting images and paradox, evident in such pairs as vasfoetoris-vas odoris; foemina infamis-apostola (pp. 141-142). The same theme being a frequent one among Lefèvre's opponents, it may be helpful to note some examples. Thus Grandval (Apologia, f. d8r): ‘Cuius statim ut profecto sanata est et admissa in gratiam: Lucas nomen aperuit capite octavo: edisserens quoque eodem contextu quonam pacto sese exerceat in vita activa: Christo videlicet atque discipulis ministrando de suis facultatibus: ut eandem consummatam: tandem capite decimo contemplantem introducat et sequentem partem meliorem: quae ab ea nunquam auferetur.’ (See also Apologia, f. ei ^{r - v} ; Anchora, f. d3r). Fisher (De unica Magdalena, Libri tres, f. 26^v): ‘Nempe ut miseri peccatores non desperent, sed illius exemplo commoniti resipiscant, et multis lachrymis amaraque poenitudine diluentes admissa, sperent amissam gratiam se posse recuperare.’ Sorio (Pro unica Maria Magdalena, f. C3^r) draws together the sinner and the contemplative by defending the idea that the contemplative life is essentially penitential, a question of weeping for one's past sins and present sinfulness.

88 Dejensio, fs. 71^v-72^r : ‘Interroga passim gregarios et vulgares homines, quid de sorore Marthae sentiant. Dicent tibi profecto, quod et mihi dixere (huius enim rei periculum, apud Parisios ipse quoque feci) earn fuisse immodice lascivam, obsoniorum cupidam, mimorum et ludorum et chorearum amatricem, nimia pompa et cultu corporis superfluo abutentem, et in omni re, ut sic dicam, vanissimam. et cum earn Martha frequenter hortaretur, ut hasce vanitates saeculi fugeret, famae, et claribus natalibus consuleret: pia sororis monita derisisse. cumque etiam Martha multum earn solicitaret, ut secum iret auditura dominum, auditura inquam tarn sanctum virum, tantum prophetam, et admirandorum operum patratorem, quippe qui caecos illuminaret, claudos erigeret, mutos loqui et surdos audire faceret, pelleret daemonas, et mortuos suscitaret: haec omnia contempsisse. tandem tamen cum Martha adiecisset, eum omnium longe pulcherrimum esse: audita tantavirilis formae elegantia, motam fuisse videndi studio, non audiendi devotione, atque ivisse cum Martha, cumque vidisset dominum: protinus coepisse ipsum amare, Dominum vero: verbis suis coepisse cor eius emollire,et ad desyderiumpoenitentiae flectere. postea autem, ipsam venisse cum alabastro, et unxisse pedes domini.’ See above, nn. 12 ff.

89 Defensio, f. 7^V: ‘Dicat age, nonne sublimior est status innocentiae atque impeccantiae: quam post contracta peccati contagia, poenitentiae salutaris atque resipiscentiae? Nonne maiori honoratur eulogio atque virtutis praeconio, quae praedicatur nullatenus in lutum cecidisse: quam ea quae post prolapsionem dicitur miseratrice dei gratia fuisse erecta, et a sorde luti purgata? Nimirum quanto aliqua vitae humanae conditio, divinae perfectioni magis assimilatur: tanto ea et praestibilior est et commendatior, cum summa Veritas in Evangelio proloquatur. Perfectus autem exit omnis: si sit shut magister eius. Atqui vita humana sine gravis peccati labe transacta, evadit similior divinae perfectioni atque puritati quae omnimodam habet impeccantiam: quam ea quae post ruinam in peccatum, detergitur et abluitur divinae miserationis ope.’ The theme of the Magdalen's virtue is strongly stated by Pirckheimer, as in the following: ‘Absit enim, quin potius Deus avertat, ut tarn omciosissimam ac religiosissimam illam foeminam, quae mundi Salvatorem hospitio suscepit… suspicionibus tantummodo incertis, coniecturisque fragilibus, scortu triobulare, olidi fornacis lupam profanam ac vulgare submerianum existimemus.’ (Dissertatio, f. 222^r.) A letter from Pirckheimer to Erasmus, written in 1520, is in the same vein (Opus Epistolarum IV, 247 and n.).

90 Confutatio, fs. I2V, 34^r.

91 Defensio, f. I2^V: ‘At dominus ostendit se earn nosse: cuius nomen iam erat scriptum in libro vitae, et cuius cor iam visitaverat dominus. Quinimmo tunc quoque cum procubuit ad pedes domini: iustificata fuit, et sanctificata per CHRISTI miserationem, quae praevenit et consecuta est illam salutarem cordis compunctionem, et larga lachrymarum eius fluenta.’ There is no question, in other words, of a pelagian tendency to substitute ethical effort for freely given grace (but see above, n. 13). It is rather the continuity between the two which interests the humanists.

92 Confutatio, f. 34v.

93 See Levi, Anthony, Religion in Practice (London, 1966), p. 204 Google Scholar, where Levi summarizes the argument of his ‘Renaissance and Reformation: a new assessment in the light of recent theology’, Dublin Review 505 (Autumn, 1965), 255-267.

94 Disceptatio secunda, f. I7^V: ‘Arbitrarium itaque est, et nulla ratione fultum: dicere Peccatricem Lucae 7 prae se ferre formam poenitentium et incipientium, 8 activorum et proficientium, et 10 contemplantium et perfectorum. Nam revera, ut hae vitae variae sunt, ita tria diversa in Evangelio exemplaria sibi vendicant. Poenitentes et incipientes, unum: Peccatricem. Agentes et proficientes, alteram: Mariam Magdalenam. Contemplantes et consummati, tertium: Mariam Marthae sororem.’ Clichtove makes the same point in Defensio, f. 25^{r - v}.

95 P. O. Kristeller, ‘The Moral Thought of Renaissance Humanism’, in his Renaissance Thought 11 (New York, 1965), p. 34.

96 Artificialis introductio per modum Epitomatis in decern libros Ethicorum Aristotelis adiectis elucidata [Iudoci Clichtovei] commentariis (Paris: W. Hopyl and H. Estienne, 7 May 1502). Between 1502 and 1519 this work was reprinted four times in Paris, once in Venice, and once in Strasbourg. The references below are taken from the 1528 Paris edition of Simon de Colines, Moralis Iacobi Fabri Stapulensis in Ethicen Introductio … .

97 Introductio. f. 52^v: ‘Felicitas autem contemplativa diffinitur esse ea quae purgata iam mente per sapientiae studium optimis naturae entibus coniuncta: nos eorum amore rapit. Ad quam quidem consequendam debet (ut ostendit data diffinitio) mens esse purgata per virtutis moralis officia … . Debet praeterea mens humana esse coniuncta optimis naturae entibus per studium sapientiae, id est, per sapientiae contemplationem (nam haec est quam dimnimus felicitas) esse coniuncta supramundanis et divinis entibus honorabilissimis in natura: quibus quidem mens coniungitur non per loci praesentiam viciniamque, sed per intimam speculationem mentisque ad coelestia meditanda erectionem.’ See f. 5iv, on the natural desire for the highest perfection.

98 Ibid., f. 53^r : ‘Hinc [felicitas contemplativa] a turbationibus, curis et solicitudine, aliena est: quibus activa felicitas est obnoxia. Exprimiturque typo sanctae Mariae Magdalenae sedentis secus pedes domini et audientis verbum illius.’

99 Disceptatio prima, Secunda emissio, f. 36^v: ‘fidem meam in hisce quae ostenduntur minime colloco, neque plurimum ilia curans, neque despiciens (nam in his fidem meam Christus non requirit) sed earn in iis quae per narrata mihi repraesentantur teneo, maxime quae ecclesiam celebrare cognosco. et mente in coelum elevata, ad ipsa rerum visibilium exemplaria oculis mentis non corporis patentia: hoc, aut quippiam simile mente voluto.’ The companion might well be speaking for Lefèvre himself.

100 In Defensio, fs. 55^r-56^v, Clichtove analyzes the sentimental style in which Grandval praises the Magdalen's tears. As a replacement for Grandval's exaggerated and illogical metaphors of flinty rocks and flowing rivers, Clichtove offers a concise image of the heart melted to tears (liquefacta) by the heat of the Holy Spirit breathing love. Here the metaphor is consistent and matches the theological reality. This brief passage is an admirable illustration of the way in which the study of letters can influence the history of spirituality, for good or for bad.