No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Mutianus Rufus and Natural Religion: A Test Case
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
Extract
The relationship between classical philosophy and Christian piety in the thought of Renaissance humanists poses certain questions that are answered periodically but which perennially recur. In part, this may be because these questions arise out of issues that go beyond the historian's craft to the most fundamental choices facing the human understanding. In part too, the enormous complexity of humanist expression makes interpretation difficult and allows the currents of historical sensibility to manifest themselves in analysis.
In the text that follows, I will seek to give examples which indicate to me that the currently general understanding of humanist piety may have led to incorrect conclusions about the stature and clarity of thought of one figure in particular, the German humanist Mutianus Rufus. It seems to me unarguable that the greater appreciation of the difficult, ambiguous, and often idiosyncratic character of humanistic writings is a genuine triumph of modern historical scholarship.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Renaissance Society of America 1976
References
1 Trinkaus, Charles, In an Image and Likeness: Humanism and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought, 2 vols. (Chicago, 1970), 1, 107ff.Google Scholar
2 Walker, D. P., ‘Orpheus the Theologian and Renaissance Platonists,’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 16 (1953), 100–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Also his unpublished article ‘Esoteric Symbolism,” February 1961, which he most kindly allowed me to read. See also, Image and Symbol in the Renaissance, Yale French Studies, 47 (1972), for a recent collection of scholarship in this area.
3 Walker, ‘Orpheus the Theologian,’ p. 106.
4 My unpublished doctoral dissertation, ‘The Esotericism of Mutianus Rufus: An Analysis of the Urban Correspondence’ (Harvard, 1973), seeks to provide that proof by repeated examples, a few of which have been selected for this article.
5 Gillert, Karl, Der Briefwechsel des Mutianus Rufus, Geschichtsquellen der Provinz Sachsen, 18 (Halle, 1890), pt. I, pp. 6–7, 23, 61, 67, 73, 86-87, 241-242, 330-333.Google Scholar
6 Ibid., pp. 76-77.
7 Ibid., p. LXIII, and Krause, Car, Helius Eobanus Hesse (Gotha, 1879), p. 26.Google Scholar
8 Krause, , Hesse, p. 46.Google Scholar
9 Brecht, Walter, Die Verfasser der Epistulae Obscurorum Virorum (Strasbourg, 1904), pp. 4 and 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Brod, Max, Johannes Reuchlin und Sein Kampf (Stuttgart, 1965), pp. 249–250.Google Scholar
11 Gillert, , Der Briefwechsel, pt. II, pp. 306–309.Google Scholar
12 Camerarius, Joachim, ed., Libellus Tertius Epistulae E. Hessi et al. (Leipzig, 1561)Google Scholar, and Libellus Novus (Leipzig, 1568).
13 This collection is now in the library of the University of Frankfurt-am-Main. Gillert and Krause, the two modern editors of the correspondence, disagree on whether the manuscript is Urban's copy of the originals or a still later copy. Gillert, who claims that the copy is Urban's own, seems to have the documentary evidence of other writings in Urban's hand and thus the better of the argument.
14 Gillert, , Der Briefwechsel, pt. I, p. 343Google Scholar, sufficiently refutes Kampschulte's notion that Urban was the author of a devotional poem published under the name of ‘M. Marulus’ in 1514 by Hans Knapp.
15 Seznec, Jean, The Survival of the Pagan Gods, tr. Sessions, B. F. (New York, 1953), p. 99.Google Scholar
16 Luther, Martin, Tischreden, 2, ed. Knaake, J. K. F. et al. (Weimar, 1912), p. 627.Google Scholar
17 Kampschulte, Franz W., Die Universität Erfurt in ihrem Verhältnisse zu dem Humanismus und der Reformation (Trier, 1858-1860), p. 89.Google Scholar
18 Spitz, Lewis, The Religious Renaissance of The Christian Humanists (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), p. 272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Ibid., p. 142.
20 Ibid., p. 154.
21 Chabod, Federico, Machiavelli and the Renaissance, tr. Moore, David (Harper, 1965), pp. 146–147Google Scholar, presents a typical example.
22 Sabine, George, A History of Political Theory, 3rd ed. (New York, 1961), pp. 537ff.Google Scholar
23 Strauss, Leo, Persecution and the Art of Writing (Glencoe, Ill., 1952), p. 34.Google Scholar
24 Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago and London, 1953), p. 120.Google Scholar
25 Ibid., p. 143.
26 Gillert, , Der Briefwechsel, pt. I, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
27 Ibid., p. 30.
28 Ibid., p. 35.
29 Ibid., p. 61.
30 Ibid., p. 67.
31 Ibid., p. 23. ‘Est unus deus et una dea… . Sed hec cave enuncies. Sunt enim occultanda silentio tanquam Eleusinarum dearum mysteria. Utendum est fabulis atque enigmatum integumentis in re sacra. Tu, love, hoc est optimo maximo deo, propitio contemne tacitus deos minutos. Quum Iovem nomino, Christum intelligo et verum Deum. Satis de his nimium assurgentibus.’
32 Ibid., p. 73. ‘Ridiculum hoc est, sed habeo magis ridicula, que tamen latine dicuntur sacramenta, grece mysteria. De quibus non dicam.’
33 Geiger, Ludwig, Johannes Reuchlin (Leipzig, 1871), p. 351.Google Scholar ‘War er ein Heuchler? … War es Furcht? Wer mag dies Räthsel lösen dessen Losung schon wichtig wäre, wenn es den einzelnen Mann beträfe, das aber von höchste Bedeutung wird, da es vielleicht eine ganze Zeit charakterisiert?’
34 Gillert, , Der Briefwechsel, pt. I, p. 331.Google Scholar ‘Quid putas, in causa fuit, ut sit damnatus? Fingamus verisimilia, quoniam Veritas nos ipsa latet. Invisa est apud credulum turbam Iudaica demencia. Vulgi opiniones sine periculo nemo mutaverit. Audebat aliquid Socrates, mori coactus est. Dissensit a vulgo Aristoteles, non id palam ausus est profited. Cessit Atheniensibus Plato, ne bis in philosophiam peccarent. Scripsit pro libris Hebreorum non urendis Ioannes noster usus stilo licenti, ostentationi magis, ut dicam, quod sentio, quam communi utilitati accomodato.’
35 Ibid. ‘Tametsi me non offendat scriptoris libertas. Laudo ingenium, doctrinam multiplicem et antiquam admiror, sed novi molam in evangelio asinariam, que nos deterret ab offensione simplicium.’
36 Ibid., p. 332. ‘ “Evangelio non crederem,” inquit Augustinus, “nisi illud ecclesia recepisset.” Quod autem ecclesia probat, que, malum, ratio est, ut ea sinistra interpretacione Fumus noster subvertat. Non datur nobis ea, que philosophis libertas disputandi. Ad regulam loquendum est.’
37 Krause, , Hesse, p. 38.Google Scholar
38 Gillert, , Der Briefwechsel, pt. I, p. 332.Google Scholar ‘Inimici crucis teste Leone papa non factis solum nostris, sed eciam verbis nostris insidiantur.’
39 Ibid., pp. 332-333. ‘Porro in hac secta catholica multi sunt, imo plurimi, imo pene omnes pusilli et imbecilles, quibus lacte sit opus, non solido cibo, quos ad se vocat huius orthodoxe secte caput singulari amoris privilegio: “Sinite parvulos venire ad me et nolite eos prohibere, talium enim est regnum celorum.” “Et qui scandalizaverit unum de pusillis illis, expedit ei, ut suspendatur mola azinaria in collum eius et demergatur in profundum maris.” Modestius igitur agere debuit, monastarum auribus parcere, non offendere pias aures simplicium et vulgi opinionem propriis honoribus anteferre. Autoritatem ecclesie refellere, cum sis huius corporis membrum, et contumeliosum est et plenum impietatis, eciamsi errores deprehenderis. Scimus multa esse ficta a viris sapientissimis et non ignoramus expedire vite, ut homines religione fallantur. Aliter simplex lector, aliter eruditus intelligit. Ille contentus est rudi historia, hic autem mysteriis imbutus rimatur anagogen, allegoriam, et tropologias. Nullo tamen modo debemus enunciare mysteria aut infirmare opinionem multitudinis, sine qua neque cesar imperium neque pontifex ecclesiam neque nos diu nostra retineremus. Omnia revolverentur in chaos antiquum. Non leges et boni mores, sed vis et libido dominaretur. Qua re permitte nobis paternam religionem, doctissimi Capnion, neque ita faveas Iudeo, ut Christiano noceas. Noces autem, cum duos Nazarenos nomine Iesus introducas unius suplicii et Iulianum, Celsum, Porphyrium nostris opponas. Quid hoc aliud est quam novum dogma velle creare aut veritatem antiquis offutiis obscurare? Tibi gloriam comparare, nisi comes crucis communem omnium utilitatem, quam custodit ipsa fovetque religio, tuearis et agnoscas, nunquam, crede mihi, poteris.’
40 Ibid., p. 411
41 Ibid., p. 345.
42 Ibid., p. 296.
43 See for example Mutianus’ comment to Urban, , ibid., p. 267Google Scholar, and his complaint to Herebord, p. 238.
44 Ibid., pp. 5, 18, 19, 30, and 145-146. Also see pt. 1, p. 246, for Mutianus’ violent reaction to an attack on a bishop's courier and pt. 1, p. 254, for another complaint about the negligence of couriers.
45 Ibid., pp. 145-146. ‘Hoc oramus, ut impias literas concerpas, adde etiam, parum eruditas. Iocamur enim paulo liberius et veremur, ne aliquando tabellarii literas alio ferant quod esset formidabile.’
46 Ibid., pt. II, p. 262, contains the initial remark while the complaint is found in pt. II, p. 281.
47 della Mirandola, Giovanni Pico, Ausgewählte Schriften, tr. Liebert, Arthur (Jena and Leipzig, 1905), p. 213.Google Scholar
48 Walker, ‘Orpheus the Theologian,’ p. 106.
49 Kaegi, Werner, ‘Hutten und Erasmus,’ Historische Vierteljahrsschrift, 22 (Leipzig, 1924), 221.Google Scholar ‘Doch solche Indiskretionen waren häufig und Erasmus nahm auf diese Möglichkeit bei der Abfassung seiner Briefe von Anfang an Rücksicht.’
50 Juan Luis Vives, Joannis Ludovici Vivis Opera omnia, xxxx, Tomus II, ed. Gregorio Majansio (London, 1964), De Conscribendis Epistolis, pp. 265ff.
51 Erasmus, Desiderius, De Ratione Conscribendis Epistolis (Amsterdam, 1670), pp. 350–351.Google Scholar ‘Id enim proprium amicitiae munus, ut libera fit admonitio ac mutua & similiter quae ad hanc sententiam pertinebunt. Quod si Tyranno, Regi, aut aliqui potenti scribimus, cujus aures nullam omnino sint reprehensionem admissurae, eum falso laudantes reprehendemus. Quum enim multas in eo virtutes praedicamus, a quibus est alienissimus; quum item in aliis quaedam abominanda exsecramur vitia, a quibus ilium immunem esse dicimus, tacite admonemus agnoscentem, quid mutare, quid sequi debeat. Hoc equidem consilio laudationes illas Principum repertas fuisse auguror, ut sub laudis specie suorum vitiorum sine offensa, sine pudore, admonerentur.’
52 Gillert, , Der Briefwechsel, pt. I, pp. 76–77.Google Scholar
53 Kojeve, Alexander, ‘The Emperor Julian and his Art of Writing,’ tr. Nichols, James H. Jr., in Ancients and Moderns, ed. Cropsey, Joseph (New York and London, 1964), p. 96.Google Scholar
54 Gillert, , Der Briefwechsel, pt. 1, p. 323.Google Scholar
55 Ibid., p. 133.
56 Ibid., p. 4. ‘Urbano meo Demosthenis, Plauto, Ciceronis urbanitate memoratissimi predito… .’
57 Ibid., pp. 5-6. ‘Ego constitui per Spalatinum auspicari amiciciam cum cenobio vestro, ut esset ille quasi mediator inter nos sicut Christus inter Deum et hominem, quia coniungi extrema, ut philosophi docent, sine medio non possunt.’
58 This translation of mores follows Allan Bloom's translation of mouers in his edition of Rousseau's Letter to M. D'Alembert (Ithaca, 1968), p. 149. The Latin, like the French word, can mean both manners and morals. The difference of emphasis can be at times significant so this admittedly clumsy construction seems useful. Here, for instance, both meanings are present.
59 Gillert, , Der Briefwechsel, pt. 1, p. 6.Google Scholar ‘At dices: Tuam, Mutiane, benevolentiam magnifacimus. Nam et utilitati nobis eris, nedum ornamento, si duos fratres olim tuos, coquinarium et cancellarium, imitari volueris. Urbane carissime, hanc de me opinionem deposas obsecro. Aliud est meum propositum, aliud erat germanorum institutum. Hi regibus et curie et glorie et opibus servierunt et assecuti sunt apud indoctos magnum nomen. Neque ideo culpandi, quia laudandi potius, quia alter suis liberis honestum patrimonium parare, alter sibi et nobis prodesse, uterque familiam Mutiorum illustrare voluit. Mihi vero non ea mens est. Ceciderunt omnes Mutii solo Mutiano superstate. Itaque popularem gloriam et divitias non quero contentus parvo. Si tibi ac tuis bonarum artium ornamentis Usui possum esse, nihil frustra rogabis. Sin autem ea flagitas, que vulgus in gloriosis doctoribus admiratur, profecto aberras a meis moribus. Mea siquidem vita in pietatis et doctrinarum ocio conquiescit. De Deo sanctisque viris et de cognicione tocius antiquitatis nostrum est studium. Eo ipso si delectare delector et gaudeo. Si aliter sends de me prorsus falleris.’
60 Ibid., pp. 6-7. ‘Sed cur nuper, dum una essemus, irreligiose loquebar? Mi Urbane, amicis libenter sic ludo. Penitet nihilominus istius garrulationis, presertim cum assederit nobis ignotus mihi scriba tuus. Scimus enim mysteria non esse vulganda sed esse vel supprimenda silentio vel per quedam fabularum atque enigmatum involucra tradenda, ne suibus demus margaritas. Ob id magister vite Christus nihil scripto reliquit, et qui scripserunt historiam evangelicam, usi sunt multis parabolarum integumentis. Verum, ut puto, nihil turn dictum, quod peccati magni labeculam habeat. Nam semper respicio ad verbum illud psalmographi: “In toto corde meo abscondi eloquia tua, ut non peccem tibi.” Theodotus, scriptor tragediarum, cum nonnulla ex mysteriis Iudaicis ad fabulam quandam transferre vellet, captus est oculis. Absit ergo, ut prophanis auribus enunciemus ea, que non licet auctore Paulo homini loqui. Hac fortasse maiorem habet culpam, quod tanquam immemor accepti muneris non egi gratias Urbano meo. Peccasse confiteor. Absolvi me postulo et pro actione graciarum offero me tibi et trado me totum et hanc subitariam epistolam mee erga te observantie pignus. Valeas feliciter et ama tuam urbanitatem, que virtus media est inter duo vitia, austeritatem et bomolochian, que latine scurrilitas dicitur et bomolochus scurra.’
61 Ibid., pp. 84-87. ‘Hainreico Ourbano, Bragmane Cistercensi a rationibus, suo patrono in Vallensi latebra.
S. Miramur in divo Bernardo, monastice vite celebri auctore duo precipua, quod et 
fuerit et illatam iniuriam patienter tulerit. Quamquam enim Hieronymus Stridonensis in prologo veteris mysterii testetur neminem sine docente perfectum esse, Plinius tamen probat Mamilium senatorem maximis nobilem disciplinis doctore nullo fuisse, Syllanion quoque statuarius et Epicurus philosophus se ipso magistros habuere. Aurelius item Augustinus Die polygraphotatos libro confessionum quarto: “Aristotelica” inquit “predicamenta solus legi et intellexi.” Sic Bernardus noster, vir haud dubie primi nominis inter sanctissimos, cuius familia hodie late patet celestium contemplatrix, tantum assidue legendo et ingenii acumine didicit, ut a suis mellifluus dicatur. Imitatus est veram sapientiam, que in celo est, divinum animum suum Christum regem, qui ut ferendam esse iniuriam precepit, ita illatam adeo moderate tulit, ut veniam sit percussoribus precatus. Age vero, quid Bernardus? Venit ad eum nescio quis subiturus iugum Cistercensie. Monitus ab eo posse aliubi quoque proficere, si vellet confestim impatiens repulse pugno abbatem pulsavit. Fuissent statim, qui aderant, ulti tam impium facinus, nisi Bernardi auctoritas vim vi repellere vetuisset. “Oportet,” inquit sanctissimus pater, “me aliis ignoscere, cosmi, qui in celo sive pectoris sive verticis habitat. Unde dicimur celo familiares, si spiritualiter, vel philosophice vel christiane vixerimus animo magis quam appetitui obtemperantes. Sed ne sanctitatem tuam ab academia porticuque Christiana ad impiam viam, que nos philosophos fatigat, seducam, cano receptui teque rogo ut ames me amore illo tuo singulari. Ego nunc propter Deum ad primarium supplicia vado tui memor tuas ad Christum preces reposcendo. Vale, pater venerabilis. Idibus Aprilis.’
62 Ibid., p. 53.
63 Spitz, , Religious Renaissance, p. 142.Google Scholar
64 Gillert, , Der Briefwechsel, pt. I, pp. 39–41.Google Scholar
65 Ibid., p. 41. ‘ “Regnum Dei non est cibus et potus iusticia secundum fidem et secura tranquillitas cum humilitate.” Ilium calicem salutis accipiam et nomen Domini invocabo. Istum panem angelorum utinam digne comederemus. “Meus cibus est,” ut inquit eterna Veritas, lex viva caput ecclesie, “ut faciam voluntatem eius, qui me misit et impleam opus eius.” Si ergo Dei cibus est obedire mandatis divinis, si maximum mandatorum est, ut Deum et proximum diligamus, cogita, mi Urbane, an illi mori recte vescantur cibo Dei, qui vorant hostias et contra Christiane grade sacramentum pacem turbant et odia seminant. Nos, ut corpus Domini decenter capiamus, non solum mystice, ut supra dixi, sed etiam visibiliter vel, ut theologi loquuntur, sacramentaliter, parabo nobis vestem nuptialem Sanctis et piis affectibus veluti gemmis ornatam, ut luceant opera nostra coram hominibus et beata tranquillitas inaugeantur.’
66 Ibid., pp. 53ff.
67 Augustine, , The City of God, tr. Marcus Dods, D.D. (New York, 1950), Bk. xiv, 2, pp. 443–444.Google Scholar See also the running polemic against the Platonic rejection of bodies in Book xiii.
68 Kierkegaard, Sören, Gesammelte Werke, tr. and ed. Gottschen, H. and Chr. Scheurl (Jena, 1923), x, 82–91. Note especially p. 90.Google Scholar
69 Eckhart, Meister, A Modern Translation, tr. Blakney, Raymond Bernard (New York, 1957), pp. 228–229.Google Scholar
70 Gillert, , Der Briefwechsel pt. i, p. 73Google Scholar, for one example.
71 Ibid., p. 412.
72 Strauss, Leo, What is Political Philosophy? (Glencoe, Ill., 1969), p. 224.Google Scholar
73 Augustine, , The City of God, Bk. XIII, 1-5, pp. 412–416.Google Scholar
74 Gillert, , Der Briefwechsel, pt. 1, p. 134.Google Scholar ‘Illud hie subiiciam: Longe melius esse ab ignorantia ad scientiam consurgere quam sperare futura.’