Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:04:50.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Milton's Debt to Wolleb's Compendium Theologiæ Christianæ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Maurice Kelley
Maurice Kelley*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In seeking for sources of Milton's theology, scholars have gone far afield. While they have argued for Milton's dependence on Ochino, Boehme, Servetus, and even the occult Cabbalists—with little or no external evidence and only vague and general parallelism to corroborate Milton's knowledge and use of these writers—they have disregarded certain systematic theologies, which Milton knew, and which have the same general plan and purpose as the De doctrina Christiana. With one of these treatises, the present investigation is concerned: it will seek to determine the relationship of the De doctrina to Wolleb's Compendium Theologiœ Christianæ with the view of contributing something to an evaluation of Milton's originality as a theologian, and to a knowledge of his habits of borrowing and of the manner in which he worked.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 1935 , pp. 156 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This study grows out of a suggestion of Professor Hanford in A Milton Handbook (New York, 1933), p. 211, and is the first of a series of papers dealing with Milton's indebtedness to the sixteenth and seventeenth century systematic theologies.

2 A Treatise on Christian Doctrine (Cambridge University Press, 1825), p. 602 n.

3 Bibliotheca Sacra, xvi (1859), 596–599. Lacking Sumner's Latin edition of the De doctrina, Barber was unable to pursue his comparison to any great extent.

4 In this study, I have used the earliest edition available: Compendium Theologiæ Christiana … autore Johanne Wollebio (Cantabrigiæ, 1642). For biographical and critical data, see H. J. Leu, Allgemeines Helvetisches Eydgenössisches, oder Schweitzerisches Lexicon (Zurich, 1764), xix, 572–574; W. Gass, Geschichte der Protestantischen Dogmatik (Berlin, 1854), i, 397; K. R. Hagenbach, Die Theologische Schule Basels und ihre Lehrer (Basel, 1860), pp. 23–24; J. H. A. Ebrard, Christliche Dogmatik (Königsberg, 1862), i, 67–68. Leu contains some inaccuracies; and Ebrard, it would seem, overstates Wolleb's importance.

5 William Godwin, Lives of Edward and John Phillips (London, 1815), p. 363–364.

6 See Dd. iv, Comp. iv: “De Prædestinatione”; Dd. vii, Comp. v: “De Creatione”; Dd. xii, Comp, xii: “De Pœna Peccati”; Dd. xx, Comp. xxix: “De Fide Salvifica”; Dd. xxii, Comp. xxx: “De Justificatione.”

7 Dd. 14; Comp. 9.

8 Dd. 22; Comp. 21.

9 Dd. 212; Comp. 76.

10 Dd. 216; Comp. 87.

11 Dd. 224; Comp. 104.

12 Dd. 180–181; Comp. 47.

13 Dd. 213; Comp. 82.

14 Dd. 18; Comp. 10.

15 Dd. 158; Comp. 41.

16 Thus Ames and Polanus, both quoted by Milton in the De doctrina. See Gass, op. cit., i, 397.

17 See, for instance, William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London, 1642), pp. 74, 92; James Usher, A Body of Divinity (London, 1702), pp. 119–120; Franciscus Gomarus, Locorum Communium Theologicorum Epitome (Amsterdam, 1643), pp. 29, 53; Zacharias Ursinus, Corpus Doctrina Christiana (Geneva, 1623), pp. 41–42; John Calvin, Institutes, ii, i, xv, xvi.

18 See, for instance, Dd. 387–388, Comp. 203; Dd. 398, Comp. 208; Dd. 401–403, Comp. 210; Dd. 404, Comp. 210–211; Dd. 407–410, Comp. 213–215; Dd. 413, Comp. 216; Dd. 423–425, Comp. 222; Dd. 432–433, Comp. 236–238; Dd. 440, Comp. 232; Dd. 443–444, Comp. 239.

19 See Dd. 457–458, Comp. 244–245, 251.

20 See Dd. 462, 465, 467–468, Comp. 261–262, 274–275.

21 See Dd. 476, Comp. 215.

22 See Dd. 477–479, 481, Comp. 245–249.

23 Here, there seems only a slight similarity of plan.

24 Dd. 493–494, 501, Comp. 277–280. Here Milton's treatment of the Compendium is midway between the two extremes. He adds two virtues (simplicitas and admonitio), attaches to fidelitas the meaning given by Wolleb to taciturnitas, gives another a new name (libertas loquendi for parrhesia), adds, omits, and shifts opposites from one virtue to another. Only the connection of these virtues to the treatise as a whole, their order, their general similarity, and some verbal parallelism remains to show the debt.

25 Dd. 507–508; Comp. 272–274.

26 Compendium, pp. 252, 258, 274.

27 See, for instance, jejunium ecclesiasticum (Dd. 423, Comp. 222); charitas hominis erga seipsum (Dd. 457, Comp. 244); verecundia and honestas (Dd. 465, Comp. 261–262); and castitas (Dd. 464, Comp. 261).

28 See, for instance, the opening sentences of Book II; prudentia (Dd. 398, Comp. 208); jejunium publicum (Dd. 424, Comp. 222); opposites of charitas erga semetipsum (Dd. 458, Comp. 245); vigilantia (Dd. 463–464, Comp. 261). Occasionally Milton expands for clarity or explicitness. See votum (Dd. 425, Comp. 222); opposites of promptitudo (Dd. 401, Comp. 210).

29 See the exclusion of references to the decalogue in the reorganization of Book II; patientia (Dd. 475, Comp. 215); benevolenza (Dd. 481, Comp. 247); promptitudo (Dd. 401, Comp. 209); constantia (Dd. 402; Comp. 210).

30 Dd. 507–508; Comp. 272–273.

31 Dd. 391–392; Comp. 204–205.

32 Dd. 436, Comp. 226–228.

33 Dd. 399; Comp. 208.

34 Dd. 430; Comp. 236.

35 Dd. 493–495; Comp. 277. Wolleb, however, points out that his definition has those exceptions that Milton notes.

36 Compendium, pp. 216–217.

37 Ibid., pp. 219–220.

38 Ibid., pp. 221–222.

39 Ibid., p. 235.

40 Ibid., p. 238.

41 Ibid., pp. 237, 248, 250. Milton, however, of his own accord quotes Homer for an example of verecundia (Dd. 465).

42 Compendium, pp. 237, 248, 266, 283.

43 See, for instance, Compendium, pp. 213, 226–229, 234, 237, 261.

44 Ibid., pp. 207, 209, 214, 245.

45 Dd. 458–461; Comp. 285–287.

46 Dd. p. 455.

47 Ibid., pp. 390–391.

48 Ibid., pp. 417–420.

49 Ibid., pp. 427–428.

50 Ibid., pp. 393–394.

51 Ibid., p. 3.

52 Dd., p. 4.

53 The omissions indicated in the quotation from the Compendium are my own. The passages are too long to quote in full, and they add nothing to the discussion.

54 See also the paragraphs in Dd. 478 beginning nec inimici charitate …, and in Comp. 245–246 beginning neque haec in parte …; invidia (Dd. 481–482, Comp. 247–248), and asseveratio (Dd. 432–433, Comp. 236).

55 For expansion of citation to quotation, see Dd. 482, Comp. 248: Mark ix, 38; James iii, 16; Luke xiv, 1; Dd. 481, Comp. 247: Luke xv, 10; Prov. vi, 1, xi, 15. For complete quotation of a passage quoted only in part by Wolleb, see Dd. 468, Comp. 275: Luke xii, 15; Jude 16.

56 See, for instance, Dd. 402, Comp. 210: Luke ix, 62; Dd. 407, Comp. 213: I Sam. xxvii, 1; Dd. 409, Comp. 214: Matt. x, 28.

57 Dd. p. 2.

58 Compare Prose Works (Bohn Edition), iii, 253–254 and Dd. p. 303.

59 E. M. L. Tillyard, Milton (London, 1930), p. 280.—The fact that Ursinus (op. cit., p. 761) included urbanitas in his discussion of Christian ethics, indicates that at least one other theologian considered it a Protestant virtue.

60 Dd. 501; Comp. 280–281.

61 H. F. Fletcher, Milton's Rabbinical Readings (Urbana, Ill, 1930), pp. 61–62, and the parallels printed above, p. 158.