^1. “… non placuit ei pro nunc scribere … prius vult videre conclusionem per eam acceptam in predicta materia, et audire responsiones magiatri Jacobi Fabri amicabiliter interrogandi super contentis de eo in libello seu processu per fautores dicti Reuchlini composito contra Facultatem.” Clerval, A (ed.), Registre des procés-verbaux de la Faculté Théologie de Paris, I, 1505–1523Google Scholar (Paris: Lecoffre, 1917. “Archives de l'histoire religieuse de la France,” vol. VI), p. 178. Hereafter this volume will be referred to as Registre.

^2. Quineuplex Psalterium (Colophon): In elarissimo Parisiorum Gymnasio ex chalcotypa Henrici Stephani officina, 1509. The author's name does not appear in this edition: but there is enough attestation to leave no doubt that it was Lefèvre's work.

^3. Lefèvre's name does not appear in the first edition of his commentary on St. Paul. Nor is it (on the title page) called a commentary, simply “Epistolae Divi Pauli,” Parisiis, 1512. At the end of the commentary: “H. Stephanus.” In the same volume are bound several short works purporting to come from the primitive church: “Lini Ep. de Passione Petri; eiusdem de Passione Pauli.” The references hereafter are to this edition, unless otherwise designated; it will be referred to as Comm. Epp. Pauli.

^4. Graf, Karl Heinrich, “Jacobus Faber Stapulensia. Ein Beitrag stir Geschichte der Reformation in Frankreich,” in Zeitschrift für die Historische Théologie, XXII (1852), 3–86 and 165–237, p. 22, n. 53.Google Scholar This treatment will be referred to hereafter simply as “Graf.” See also de Savignac, Jean, “Un Nouveau Progrès dans la Redécouverte de Luther,” in Scriptorium, International Review of Manuscript Studies, IX (1955), 2, p. 274ff.Google Scholar The notes are published in Luther's, Werke (Weimar ed.), IV, 466–526.Google Scholar The extent to which Luther used Lefèvre's work appears in Ficker's, edition of the “Lectures on Romana,” W. A., vol. 56. See especially the editor's preface, p. XVII.Google Scholar

^5. No good purpose would be served by drawing up, in connection with this paper on a small segment of Lefèvre's life and work, a list of the numerous treatments which I have read dealing with various aspects of his life. I do wish to make mention, how every, of my indebtedness to the following in addition to those mentioned in the footnotes: Barnaud, M. J., “Lefèvre d'Etaples et Bédier: Les premiers assauts donnés à la Réforme française,” Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire du Protestantisme français, 85 (1936), pp. 251–279.Google ScholarBense, Walter F., “Noël Beda and the Humanist Reformation at Paris, 1504–1534.” Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1967 (III vols).Google ScholarBrush, John Woolman, “Lefèvre d'Etaples: Three Phases of his Life and Work,” in Littell, Franklin H., ed., Reformation Studies, Essays in Honor of Roland H. Bainton (Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1962) pp. 117–128.Google ScholarMoore, W. G., La Réforms allemande et la littérature française. Recherches sur la noteriété de Luther en France (Thešis, Strasbourg: Faculté des Lettres à I'Université, 1930).Google ScholarRice, Eugene F., “The Humanist Idea of Christian Antiquity: Lefèvre d'Etaples and his Circle,” Studies in the Renaissance, 9 (1962): 126–130.Google ScholarWiriath, R., “Les Rapports de Josse Bade Ascensius avec Erasme et Lefèvre d'Etaples,” Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, XI (1949): 66–71.Google Scholar

^6. From Hummelberg at Rome, to Beatus Rhenanus, “apologiam Cardinalis Senogallensis pro Fabro nostro Stapulensi non indignam putavi tune lectioni.” Horawitz, Adalbert and Hartfelder, Karl (eds.) Briefweclisel des Beatue Rhenanus (Leipzig: Tuebner, 1886), p. 78.Google Scholar

^7. Allen, P. S., ed. Opus Epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Boterodami. Denuo recognitum et auetum, 11 vols. (Oxonii in Typographeo Clarendoniano, MCMVI-MCMXLVII; vol 12, indexes, MCMLVIII), II, 14f.Google Scholar This edition will be referred to as “Allen.”

^8. Renaudet, A., Préréforme et Humanisme à Paris pendant les premiéres guerres d'Italie, 1494–1517, 2me éd. (Paris: Librairie d'Argences, 1953), p. 651Google Scholar, n. 3. Referred to hereafter as “Renaudet, Préréforme.”

^9. Ibid., pp. 653, 654, and Bibl. Mazarine ms. 1068 folii, 229 ro.-233 ro. It was written February 26, 1515.

^10. Renaudet, , Préréforme, p. 654Google Scholar, n. 1; also, Clerval, Alexandre, De Judoci Clichtovei Neoportuensis vita et operibus 1472–1543 (Parislis: apud Alphonswn Picard et Filium, 1894), p. 22:Google Scholar “Vulgatae correctionem probaret esse licitam … Haec quidem permansere.” Hereafter this work will be referred to as “Clerval, Clichtove.” Also Bibliothèque Mazarine, ms. 1068, fo. 229 ro.: [After quoting from a Letter of St. Augustine to St. Jerome, Cliehtove concludes] “ … quod in libris etiam canonicis interdum occurrere potest manca aut extorta sententia atque menti impervia aut vix intellegibilis: aut mendosum condicem aut quia rectam plenamque intellegentiam non est assecutus interpres … Cum igitur elaboravit commentator [i.e., Faber] mendas illas castigare et ubi lapsus est interpres humano more, manum … porrigere qua erigatur intelligentia ad capiendum rectum ipsius Pauli scriptoris sensum: quis hanc laborem in vinea Domini non probaverit? aut consimili ratione Hieronymum non damnaverit quod tentavit interpretation … novam superducere tralationem?”

^11. Bibl. Mazarine ms. 1068, fo. 230Google Scholar vo. ff.; he supported it by reference to the usages of the Greek Church, a reference which caused as much scandal as the original contention itself.

^12. Jacobi Lapidis Stunicae Annotationes contra Jacobum Fabrum Stapulensem (Impressum in acad. Complutensi per Arnoldum Guil. de Brocariis, 1519).

^13. Comm. Epp. Pauli, fo. a ii vo. ff.

^14. They had made no translation from the Hebrew of the Old Testament (though they had from the LXX and from the Chaldee [or Aramaic]); nor from the Greek of the New Testament. They had been careful to disclaim any intention of infringing on the Vulgate text: “Mediam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi translationem velut inter Synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus: tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones medium autem Iesum hoc est Romanam sive latinam Ecclesiam collocantes.” I, + iii vo., col. 1.

^15. Annotationes contra Fabrum, fo. A 2 vo. Stunica refers to the correspondence of Jerome with Pope Damasus, and to the Preface to the translation of the Gospels. Jerome in his own time had to defend the changes he made: “Cur non ad grecam originem revertentis ea quae vel a vitiosis interpretibus male edita vel a praesumptoribus im peritis emendata perversius, vel a librariis dormitantibus aut addita sunt aut mutata corrigamus?” It does not seem to have occurred to Stunica that this last argument might be used (as it was) to support subsequent translations, including Lefèvre's, also.

^16. Ibid., fo. A 2 ro.

^17. “Sacros novi testamenti codices latine translationes si libitum est cum grecis exemplaribus studiossissime conferre. In his se ille studiis exercere libere potuisset atque hinc laudem cum utilitate non exiguam reportare. … Ea vero aggredi quae alieni iuris erat … inconsiderati hominis fuit ac plane arrogantis ignorantiaque vulgi apertissime abutentis.” Ibid., A 1, vo.

^18. The story is told perceptively and at length by Margaret Mann in Erasme et les débuts de la Réforme française, 1517–1536 (Paris, 1933), chs. II, III.Google Scholar

^19. (Parisiis: H. Stephanus, 1517). The first of these treatises will be referred to hereafter as “De Magdalena.”

^20. De Maria Magdalena, triduo Christi, et ex tribus una Maria disceptatio cum epistola J. Clichtovei ad F. Molinum (Parisiis: ex officina H. Stephani, 1518)Google Scholar.

^21. De Tribus et Unica Magdalena disceptatio secunda (Parisiis: H. Stephanus, 1519)Google Scholar. Referred to as the “Disceptatio Secunda.”

^22. Iudochus Cliehtoveus, Disceptationis de Magdalena defensio, apologiae Marci Grandivallis illam improbantis ex opposito respondens (Parisiis: Henricus Stephanus, 1519), fo. 77Google Scholar, ro. Referred to hereafter as “Clichtove, Defensio.”

^23. De Magdalena, fo. 13 vo.

^24. For example, see Ibid., fo. 16 ro.

^25. Disceptatio Secunda, a iii, vo.: “Nam in prima [disceptatione] cum Ambrosio hanc ingressus symmachian, duas esse Magdalenas Evangelicas disputavi. Hic autem non duas sed unicam esse disseram.”

^26. Renaudet, , Préréforme, pp. 694, 695.Google Scholar

^27. The full title is Ecclesiae Catholicae non tres Magdalenas sed unicam colentis apologia seu defensorium (Paris: J. Badius, 1518).Google Scholar

^28. Apologia seu defensorium, last page (the folii were not numbered by the printer).

^29. Clichtove, Defensio, fo. ** i ro.: “Potius librum suum criminationem quam apologiam nuncupare Debuisse.”

^30. The full title reads Apologiae seu defensorii Ecclesiae Catholicae non tres sive duas Magdalenas sed unicom celebrantis et colentis tutamentum et anchora, per ipsius auctorum apologiae Marcum de Grandval (Parisiis: J. Badius, 1519).Google Scholar Hereafter called “Tutamentum et Anchora.”

^31. “Qui nam ergo ecclesiae censentur adversarii¶ Qul fundentur super istas bases et eorum sequuntur opinionem¶ Nempe qul suam ipsorum sententiam atque ludicium ecclesiae catholicae eiusque observantiae praeferant.” Tutainentum et Anchora, fo. a v, ro.

^32. “Stephanus Poncherius Episcopus Parisiensis qui tuum calamum ad hoc opus extimulavit, jam archiepiscopus est Senonensis.” Erasmus to Bishop Fisher, April 2, 1519, Allen, III, 523.

^33. Fo. a v vo.

^34. See above, n. 22.

^35. “Quo titulo insinuare vult (ut coniectare licet) sententientes esse plures Magdalenas … Ecelesiae catholicae adversari, illiusque esse impugnatores et hostes.” Defensio, fo. 2 ro., vo.

^36. Ibid., fo. 77 ro. “Unde satis liquere arbitror do hac materia nullam esse Ecclesiae dofinitionem.”

^37. Ibid., (Epist. ded.) fo. *iiii ro.: “Liberum eat cuique ant unam aut aiteram illius controversiam agitare partem … sine fidei doctrinaeque catholicae detrimento.”

^38. Ibid., fo. 68 ro.

^39. Ibid., ** v vo. “Ex orationibus quibus utitur Ecclesia, qnae anteponendae sunt rythmis illis, potius tres mulieres videri quam unica ponuntur.”

^40. Ibid., fo. 77 ro.

^41. “Cuing [Simonis infantuli Tridentini] corpusculum omnibus quotquot illud contuentur reverendum esse decet, tanquam Christi passi symbolum. … Non tamen in hoc qnamvis certissimo corpusculo et reliquorum martrrum etiam indubitatis depositlonibus siatenda mens est etsi religiosa veneratione affici debeant, sed CHRISTUS in illis summe colendus, adorandus, glorificandus est, et animus ad beatarum animarum … opem implorandam evehendus.” De Magdalena, to. 37 vo. et seq.

^42. “Quod ex his cognitis non tollitur ritus ecelesiae, sed abusus qui vero ritui contrarius est. Quod non impugnatur ordinatio ecclesiae, quodque ordinata non sint ab ecclesia quae ficta sunt, falsa et ridicula. Quod accurata diligentia pontificum invigilare deberet super iis quae in ecclesia canuntur, superflua, falsaque resecando, et vera, necessariaque edificationi relinquendo.” Ibid., index, fo. 10 ro. and vo.

^43. “Cum tamen alioquin in onmibus iis stare velim quae sunt sanctae matris Ecclesiae nec latum quidem unquam ab eis discedere.” Disceptatio Secunda, fo. 39 vo.

^44. Fo. 2 vo. 3 ro.: “Ipse me profiteor palam Ecclesiae catholicae filium et illius auctoritati iudicio meipsum prorsus submitto.” Clichtove had already (in February, 1519) been reprimanded by the Sorbonne for having expressed his (or rather Lefèvre's) opinion on the marriage of St. Anne, and for having in an earlier work, the Elucidatorium, suppressed several verses of the hymn Exultet, Clerval, , Clichtove, pp. 32, 33).Google ScholarThe full title is Elucidatorium ecclesiasticum ad officium ecclesiae pertinentia planius exponens et quatuor libros complectens. (Parisiis, H. Stephanus, 1516).Google Scholar

^45. “Materia de Maria sorore Marthae, an fuit publica illa Peccatrix, aut ea a qua dominus septem expulit daemones et an illae tres mulieres fuerunt, ad historiam pertinere non ad fidem. In iis quae spectant ad historiam, maxime iis accedendum esse qui eo tempore scripserunt quo res ipsae gestae fuere. Post hos, magis eorum scriptis standum esse qui rerum gestarum temponbus viciniores fierunt. Ex iis qui postremo loco scripsere, potius fidem iis adhibenda esse qui cum ratione scripserint quam qui nude atque simpliciter, easque rationes potiores esse quae rite ex Evangelio desummuntur, aut eius concordiae magis conspirant. … Apocrypha et quae sunt incerti auctoris contra rationem et mairorem scripta nullum habere momentum; itidem nec consuetudinem his viis introductam.” Defensio, 95 vo., 96 ro.

^46. “Reperi tam novum et pene paradoxum ante tempora Gregorii fuisse si unica asseretur quam nune cum tres asseruntur.” Clichtove's commendatory letter to Molinus, F., prefacing Lefèvre's De Magdalena, ed. of 1518, fo. 2, ro.Google Scholar

^47. “Quod si Gregorii et Bernardi sectatoris eius testimonia (quod pace eorum dixerim, quos ut sanctos veneror et aperta veritatis luce gaudere puto) tanquam minus evangeliis consona, minusque ratione fulta, hac in materia non recipimus, quanto magisaliorum neoticorum, utpote illis et doctrine et auctoritate longe inferiorum, qui et populum quoque male imbuerunt?” De Magdalena, fo. 31 vo.

^48. “Fortes sunt (fateor) anctores, 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.” Disceptatio Secunda, fo. 40 ro.

^49. Commendatory letter to Molinus prefacing De Magdalena (ed. of 1518), fo. 4 ro.

^50. “Sed quis huius dicti auctor: num propheta, num apostolus, num synodus Nicena?… Non, certe sed Marcus Grandvallis. Et proinde, negamus et dictum et auctorem.” Clichtove, , Defensio, fo. 67 ro.Google Scholar

^51. Erasmus was high in his praise of Fisher's piety and his linguistic and theological attainments. See Bulaeus, , Historia (Universitatis Parisiensis), VI, 157Google Scholar, and Allen, IV, 73.

^52. Fisher, John, De Unica Magadalena Libri Tres (Paris: Iodochus Badius, 1519), IIIGoogle Scholar, ro. and vo. This was Fisher's basic contribution to the controversy, and the first of three. The second was written in refutation of Clichtove's, work, and was entitled Eversio Munitionis quam Iodochus Clitoveus erigere moliebatur, adversus Unicam Magdalenam (Louvain: Theodoricus Alostensis, 1519).Google Scholar The other was written against Lefèvre and was called Confutatio disceptationis secundae, etc. Ibid., 1519.

^53. “Vereor ne fluctuare nonullorum animos effecerint ea quae Jacobus Faber et Jodoeus Clichtoveus … adversus unicam Magdalenam disseruerunt.” Eversio Munitionis, fo. a 1.

^54. “Cogitavi subinde quot ex hac opinione Fabri si reciperetur, incommoda toti ecclesiae provenirent, quot auctores essent damnandi, quot emendari codices, quot ad populum olim factae conciones iam revocandae sint … et de communi matre ecclesia quae iam per tot secula id ipsum et cecinit et docuit sinistre admodum suspicaturi.” De Unica Magdalena, fo. III vo.

^55. Ibid., fo. X ro.

^56. “[Faber] maximam auctorum partem et eas praesertim qui nune aut scribunt aut concionantur ad plebem non minima respergit infamia, quum suadeat non ab istis petenda esse huius rei veritatem sed ab eloqulis sacris.” Ibid., fo. IIII ro.

^57. Ibid., fo. IIII, ro. and vo.

^58. Ibid., fo. XIX, vo.

^59. Ibid., fo. XL, ro.

^60. Ibid., fo. L, vo.: “Audiat ecclesiam non Donatistarum … non Fabricorum sed ecarcto Faber suam ecclesiam coangustavit loco cum vix unum aut alterum admitat secum. Neque enim Origines quantumcumque idipsum moliatur ad eius ecclesiam pertinebit.”

^61. Ibid., fo. XXXVII vo.

^62. Ibid., fo. XL ro. and vo.

^63. “Nihil est in terris summo pontifice maius, ad quem in onmis controversiis recursus habere Christianos decet atque illius decretis obedire, maxime in his quae ad fidem euangeliorum spectant alioqui nostra conditio multo esset deterior quam Iudaeorum.” Ibid., fo. XLVII vo., XLVIII ro.

^64. Ibid., vo.

^65. In Aedibus Ioannis Parvi Bibliopolae Parisiensis, 1523.

^66. “Porro nullus commune sententiae probatorum doctorum dissentire debet, praesertim quando una consentiunt, passimque recepti sunt nisi meridiana lucae clarius constet eos delusos esse. Qui enim aliter facit singularis ferus est, dominicam vineam depascens.” De Triplici Connubio, fo. xxiii ro.

^67. Parisiis: J. Badius Ascensius, 1519.

^68. Parisiis: J. Badius Ascensius, 1520.

^69. Scholastica Declaratio, fo. 2 vo.: “Ego, Natalis Beda magis explicanda nec silentio transigenda existimavi.”

^70. Scholastica Declaratio, fo. XIII ro.: “Ex his itaque clara luce patet quod fundamentum huius argumenti scilicet quod ubi Evangelista historiam scribens et sua verba ponit sensus literalis non potest primo loco esse mysticus, humanum est inventum et ideo infirmum: et per hoc quicquid innititur fundamento tali.”

^71. Ibid., XXIIII, ro.

^72. Ibid., fo. xxvi ro.

^73. “Numquid adiutorio illorum trium Alberti, Thomae et Nicolae ipse dei spiritus seu evangelica auctoritas opus habet? Cui dicit eos astipulari ad homines loquendo.” Ibid., VII ro.

^74. “Marias Cleophas et Salome sic ab eorum patribus appellatas, filias Beatae Annae fuisse, et uterinas virginis deiparae sorores omnesfere tradunt Christiani scriptores; tamquam sacris evangeliodus textibus omni ex parte consonum existate.” Apologia pro filiabus Annae consideratio secunda, prop. 6.

^75. Ibid., prop. 7.

^76. “Sive Annam Chrisi aviam plures viros et filios verum sit sive non, praeter rationem tamen et inconsulto, Jacobus Faber materiam istam hoc tempore tractasse videtur et inconsultissime suum emississe tractatum.” Ibid., part I, prop. 7.

^77. Registre, p. 294: “under populus fuerat edificatus. Super quo…conclusit …quod fieret inquisitio, … quod fieret inquisiti, … et si per informationem inveniatur quod ita predicasset, vocaretur prefatus magister noster Marcialis responsurus.”

^78. See Registre, p. 304, Clerval's note 13, and reference to Beda's Restitutio. But that discussion was not noted in the Procès verbaux for the date (August 19, 1519).

^79. “Quia autem prima Octobris in ipsa Facultate comparuit sollicitus magister noster Judochus Clictoveus qui scriptis defendens magistrum Jacobum Fabrum Magdalenarum indiscretum multiplicatorem eandam sententiam pro viribus coloribus plurimis nisus fuerat apparentem reddere, obnixe supplicans futuris scandalis et periculis providere. Facultas de scriptis autem quia ut dicebat sine pertinentia fuisset composita sed disceptationis et veritatis vegigande causam, et quia non persisterent in opinione ipse et prefatus Faber, non esse opus Facultatem disquerere et simul medium quo id fieri posset suo ingenio aperuit.” Registre, p. 296.

^80. “Quod autem eidem injunctum est scripto presentaret XV mensis formam conclusionis qua Facultas illis futuris posset obsistere periculis, quod impigere fuit executus, ejus vero forma per Facultatem sepius discussa, tandem die nona Novembris majore Sorbone reducta est et conclusa in modum qui autentice in archivis Facultatis habetur et libro ad alia deputato.” Ibid.

^81. Ibid., pp. 319–335, n.

^82. “Sententiam sancti Gregorii … quo … unica tamen sit Maria Magdalena quae Marthae soror extitit et peccatrix illa … amplectendam esse ac tenendam ut Evangelio Christi et Sanctis Doctoribus conformem ut ecclesiae catholicae ritui consentaneam. Scripta vero adversus hanc sententiam nullatenus esse toleranda. Nos … censemus omnibusque … inhibemus ne deinceps … quispiam praesumat, in concionibus ad populum aut disputationibus publicis librisve aut alias, asserere plures esse Magdalenas aut in dubium revocare quodsit unica.” Registre, p. 300 f.; also Chares Duplessis d'Argentré Collectio judiciorum de novis erroribus qui … in Ecclesia proscripti sunt, 3 vols. (Lutetiae Parisiorum apud A. Calilleau, 1728–1736), II, ii.Google Scholar This work will be referred to hereafter as “d'Argentré, Collectio.”

^83. D'Argentré, , Collectio, II, viGoogle Scholar: “Ubiquitariorum et Lutheri erroribus aperte favens.”

^84. See Graf, p. 58, n. 184.