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@Snce@ hisdeath@ in@ 1621:@ beatification@was@ followed@ by@ canonization， and@ thewhole@ process@was@ concluded@ by@ honoring@ him@ as@ a@ Doctor@

According@Church ，

to@ the@ microhistorian@

consequences@of@ th@@ post ， mortem@

Hs@iconograp

Ⅱ cal@representati

theo

Ⅰ

Pietro@ Redondi ， one@ of@ the

promo

n@as@wellof@ theⅠ，

on@was@a@ radiBellarmi

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@

i 3@ and@reli ious@cases

he@ appeared@ti ra ，

That@was@thein@ his@ pre ， canonization， was@worthy@of@a@great"had@ sailed@through@ all@the@ Roman@Congregations"

and@of@a@"great@politician@of@European@stature"tion ， tRs@ sgnardo@ disappeared;@，

But@after@the@canoniza

its@place@was@taken@by@

of@ meek@ spirituality@ and@ absentminded@ecstasy" ，，

an@"expresSon

His@ eyes@ lost@ theirformer@impressive@ character ， the@ power@

spectator， and@they@now@seem@"to@wander@along@the@walls@of@the@rooms

of@the@ Holy@office"，to@ pierce@ the@ heart@ of@ the．"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@theoate@ defender@ of@ the@ Catholic@ faith ， a@ hammer@

accordance@with@the@usu@@

criter@@of@laudatory@adectiveS@"equ3@@， s@ death

8an ， a@passion ，of@ heretics" ，Then ， inof@humanist@biography， it@adds@a@listpi， and@generous

us ，

prudent

to@the@ poor@ @@ the@ Hghest@ degree Ⅰ，2'@ BCpher ， Gacomo@ⅠⅠ， humblermino ， 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@byreferences@to@ the@considerable@body@of@material@ gathered@on@

the@ occa‑

sion@of@the@preliminary@inquiry@for@an@eventual@process@of@beatification
including@ Bellarminopher ， 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@andchanged@the@humanistic@virtues@into@"spiritual@ gifts"， The@ "worth"@ oftHs@bigraphy@was@noted@by@the@first@

of@the@two@ecclesi

appoi

ted@ to@ re Ⅴ ew@

it "This@garden@ full@of@ fowers@

・

work

， "@ 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@ andit， 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@andrevised@ version@ of@ his@ biography， upgrading@ the@ title@ of@ "blessed"@ to"saint" ， he@ left@the@ image@he@had@

created@ in@the@ first@ edition@basicallyunaltered・5'

Meanwhile
Bellarmino， in@ the@ atemporal@

field@ of@ post‑Tridentine@ theology ，， s@position@remained@immovable@and@unchallenged

i g@to@the@seventeenth， century@schol．

Accordr@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@vonDOllinger@ recognized@ in@ the@ definition@ of@ the@ First@ Vatican@

Council(1869‑1870)@ of@ papal@ infallibility@ little@more@ than@ a@ restatement@
Bellarmio ， s@views.6'@， Bellarmino

everresearch ，CaboraⅠ

longevity． 7'@

ning@of@the@twenti， the@theologian@at@last

The@ hi toon@

At@the@begi

Ⅱan@， became@the@oof@ 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@ demonstrate@

Polman@and@

E． A ．

is

Ryan

，

examined@his@historical@scholarship;@
the@former@considered@it@within@thecontext@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@thebeginning@of@this@century,@elevated@Bellarmino@to@the@rank@of@forerunnerof@ the@ epistemology@

of@ modern@

that@was@well@expressed@in@his@i

science‑an@

epistemology， he@ stated ，Ⅰ unction@to@Galileo@to@treat@the@Copernican@system@as@a@scientific@hypothesis， not@as@a@description@of@the@real

world， s@view． 9'@ Out@ of@ deference@for@Duhem， Brodrick， too ， presented，

一 168 一
him@ as@ a@ scientist@ with@a@ defensible@cosmological@
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

Wthof@ Bellarmino@ expressing

ded@ecstasy"． Such， for@instance， wasthe@way@Giorgio@de@Santillana@described@him@in@his@book@on@Galileo:@
"an
o

Ⅰ

， Pagued@with@ill‑heamanⅠh ， harassed@wih@work， who@found@escapefrom@ it@only@ in@prayer@ and@ in@sighing@ for@ the@ consolation@ of@ the@ otherworl， "@ And@@@ support@

writings, parHcuIaHy
co 励笏みdg,of@ this@ image

hisDg， he@ cited@ BCのcg ん切 0 れぞ 移と色サ恭レ

sわe ルあ 0 移 o 妨Cわ移c 笏移 ， stahng

rmino

Ⅰ

， s@ sPritua

Dg が 笏 and Dg 彫移ヶ励

thatthiswasindeedwhathe

in erested in.'2)

was

Ⅰ

The

malo

schoars@てeffectwas@ not@send@them@to@their@of beatification andcanonization

to@ force@ them@ to@ change@ Bel
own@archives，Ⅰrmino ， s@ image ， but@ to

Their@labor@had@the@merit@

ing@a@considerable@body@of@hitherto@untapped@sources

BachCet@puDished@

Bellarmino

a@ substanti3@ co， s@curial@ activity．

aspects@of@BClarmi，

Xavier@Marie@Le

．

re

Ⅰ

ted@ toSebastian@Tromp@edited@his@sermons@andother@theological@writings@as@well
sever3@of@uncovercti n@ of@ documents@

Ⅰ

Jesuiton． 13'@ This@documentation@has@revealedo ， 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@philolo‑
gist ，
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@(dSociety

Indeed．

， 1626) ， who@was@the@semiofficial@biographer@of@the， @@ the@order@of@its@presentation@it@fonaire@ provided@ by@ Sacchini@ himself ．

It@ conforms@

biographical@ pattern@long@before@worked@nws@the@questi

Ⅰto@ a@ humanistic

out@ and@tested@ in@the@biogra

phies@Sacchini@had@inserted@in@his@history@of@the@Society・， 15'@It@is@written

in@ the@ third@ person@

and ， to@ disguise@ the@ referent ， the@ author@ refers@ tohimself"N.

" Ⅰ屯 ":

asanecdotes

born

was

， such@as@the@Floren

about@ Bellarmino， s@weak@of@his@sermons@that@he@wou

Ⅰin

ne@epinor@ eⅠ. ." 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@werevated ， but@ suitabⅠhephysical@constitution

considerable@emphasis@on@the@author
nCther@ subt

七

to@ any@ task@Ⅰso@much@ that@ hecould@ 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

・

".17)

of the author,s・denial"his@family ， the@Society@of

Ⅴ ng ， prayers， contempl

tion ，， It@introduces@the@Society@of@Jesus@in@the@person， one@of@the@first@nine@companions@of@Ignace@of@Loyola

who@ gave@ the@ Spiritual@ Exercises@ to@ Bellarmino
presents@the@authorⅡ笏クガどク れ目 はIt@stresses@the@piety@of@his@parents,@particularly， who@was@"devoted@to@3msgi

of@Paschal@Broetdesc

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@motherevery， s@particu r@rCation@wiⅠ

bes@@@ one@whose@intel

reflected@ Bellarmino

Ⅰ

ctu3@

accompli， s@ mother

h@the@papacy

uncle ． 18'，

Finally ， it

， The@pope@ihments@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@
apparentⅠof@his@efforts@in@the

the@ task@ of@ reconciling@ two

contradctory@roes@he@had@chosen@for@theologian@and@that@of@the@pastor
The@modC@

derives@ directly@ fromon@whi．

h@he@patterned@h@@Hmself:@ that@ of@the

Of@these@two@he@preferred@the@latter， at@sermons

ast@untl@he@createdⅠhis@ own@ style@ (or@ thought@ he@ had) ， was@ that@ of@ Cornelio@ Musso@(1511‑

1574) ， the@ renowned@

at@ thepreacher@ who@ gave@ the@ ope Ⅰ ng@

sermon@Council@ of@ Trent@ and@ whose@ preaching@ style@ was@ "based@ on@ ideas ， notimages"@and@"clear@ and@ certain ， not@ dubious"

was@preacher@ that@ he@ often@ portrays@

himself ．

it@ is@ as@ a

19'@ And@・

However， he@ was@alwayscareful@to@stress@that@he@preached@only@in@obedience@to@a@command@of@his
superiors or with
正

ery

ぬぱゐ

ofCamaldo
crc

their permission. DuringⅡ， it wastheabrief visit to the monas‑" 名んⅠ 挽クのひひ ぬ 0 iれSS 尭 ， ぴ #local abbotwho

サ八/. してん 0 Ⅰ 脇わ 0%9 御乙 ガク晩ヰ 彫s Jo㎡ i77iれド "; andMondov@healso preachedBe@laTmino

wishedimplemented@"ク g打 c co 乙 cサれS ぽ sM クり Ⅰ i0

to convey

the@ Tridentine@

demands@of@his@superiors

ⅠⅠ わ

wh Ⅱ e he
れド "."0@ The

is that of a re Ⅱ gious who
norms@

on@preaching

．

image

fo Ⅱ owed

Yet ， thanks@

in

was

and

to@ the， he@had@the@opportunity@to@exert@himself@in@thefield of theology
More@important@s
upon@

Bellarmino

love@poetryⅠll， the@autobi， s@ humanistic@

graphy@puts@conSderab

formation，

Ⅰ

In@ his@ youth ， he@ learned@， and ， after@spending@more@than@one@night@reading@Virgil

one

Greek@ by@ HmsCf" ひ e めぴ笏 ㎡笘ヶお援れぴ 笏 " after the other.2'@， when@he@

was@asSgned@in@hisHe mastered

to@ teach@ Demosthenes@

college@of@Mondovi． He@barely@knew@the@alphabet

to
， he

learned@to@ versify@ in@such@ a@ fashion@that@nothing@could@be@found@poemsbutemphasi

at@ the， when@he@began@the一 171 一一course

・

bas@@

ru

He@ therefore@ told@the@ students@that@he@ wanted@ to@start@Wth@ thes@ of@ grammar@Ⅰ"mastered@

and@ work@

day@ by@ day@ that@ wHch@up@

to@ the@ text ．

he@ was@ goi

In@ th@@g@ to@ teach@ next@

pupils";@ and@he@ended@the@course@reading@Isocrates@as@well

later@ in@ Louvain

years@

to@ Hs， 22'@ Similarly， when@ he@ was@ ordered@ to@ teach@ Hebrew

resorted@to@the@same@device

，

， he

But,@ with@increased@confidence@in@h@@

，

he

way@

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@withIndeed ， he@ learned@ the@ language@ byhimself ， for@ he@ discovered@ that@ the@ traditional@ organization@of@ thematerial@ usually@ adopted@ by@ Jewish@ teachers@ and@ other@ compilers@ of
Hebrew@

manuals@

colleges

． 23'

Equ3

did@ not@ meet@ the@ pedagogical@

Wth@ the@ huma

consonant@Ⅰ

Ⅰ stic@ trai

standards@ of@ Jesuit

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@ phiⅠsophy@

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@deign@ to

posed@by@the@studentS.25'@ According@to@the@ auto ，， or@wished@to@appear@as， 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@ histeaching@ from@ the@ rhetorical@ arts@to@ theology ． 26'@ It@was@ there@ that@ hefaced@Hs@first@ch3means@

enge@as@a@theologan

Shorteasy ．

， and@responding@to@it@was@by@nobefore@ Hs@ arriv3 ， the@ challenge@ of@ one@ of@ theⅠleading@ members@of@ that@ faculty ， Michael@1589) ， had@been@so@strong@that@ it@had@been@

B3us@paid@no@attenton@to@the@i

Ⅰ unc

Ⅰ

Baius@ (Michel@ de@ Bay ， dcondemned@by@

on@of@si

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@disputeassigned@to@teach@at@the@local@Jesuit@college

Baius@

questions@on@of@ grace ， i， e ． ， how@whetheてtheconceptofんmio@ maintai

ed@ the@ theoretic3@， on@one@side

of@ the@on@

Ⅰ

Spirit ，とれ勿ねあ 硲 shouldof@ human@possi ility@ of@ dsti

be，admlt‑

nature，Bellarg ℡ shing@ between， and@the@rectitudo@and@the@indwellingthe@ other ，teleologic3@ conception@ of@ human@concept@

the@ relationshiprectitude@ and@the@indwelling@of@thefor@ the@ completeness@

human@nature@in@itself
Ho

He@4sagreed@Wth

to@ conceive@o 移o zれウひ ん S れ ク

ted ， Baius@considered@the@status@of@
Holy@ Spirit@ necessary@，， in@the@terminology@of@that@period

between@natural@and@supernatural@oron． But@he@could@not@avoid@it;s ， s@chief@adversary

and@i deed@he@soon@became@Bai， for@he@was

In@ short ， wHle@

Baibeing@ and@ consequentas@ stressed@
Ⅰ

rejected@ theof@ "pure@ natural" ， Bellarmino@ stressed@ an@ ontological@ understanding@ of@human@ being‑one@ that@required@ the@distinction@between
natural@ and@ supernatural， 28'@ Stripped@ of@ its@ theological@ cloak ， thisdispute@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@ a@ way@

to@ approach@that@controversy．

It@mi ht ， therefore ， appear@as@@@ the@ro
p mary@subject@of@a@theologi

of@grace@was@once@again@theⅠ

al@controversy

Ⅱ， Yet@a@diverse@understand‑

ing@of@the@proper@method@of@theological@
inquiry@was@what@also@
dividedBellar ㎝ 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． 29 、1@ He@ 4sagreed@reliance@ on@ Augustine@

and@thought@ that@ Augustine@
grace@and@the@best@on@

with@ Baius ， s@ amost@

his@ manner@

Ⅰ

ゐⅠ

じ

て

essed thlsconfldence

M は #0 Ⅰれ物

Cじ尼 5ぬ・AM ぎ絡わ免 0

Be@a

て

mlno,

ch Fatheてs,G eek aswe@

ひ Zひピ彫 ． "

Chu

て

on

si e

Baius

could@ provide@ a@ support@ for@ his@ theology@ of

weapon@against@the@"heretics"@

he eXpⅠof@ interpreting@him ，also@ confident@ that@ Augustine@ represented@
Church,andexc

the otheてof@the@ decrees@ of@ the@ councils ，the@ position@ of@ the@ wholeln themotto:

をⅠⅡ は万じひひ壌移Latln. Healso

" ひあ

Ⅰ

A ど庵われ 硲Cぴ笏ク0 後れ ア托タパリ しね

hand, lnslsted uponⅠ

asof@his@time， He@waslncludlng a Ⅱ thestood forthelncluslon

Indeed@ the@ councils ， in@ his@ mind ， tookprecedence@ over@ the@ Fathers@ themselves， including@ Augustine

，

If@ a

definition@of@a@council@ seemed@not@to@be@in@agreement@with@Augustine，

worse@

for@ him ， because@ the@ Holy@ Spirit@ was@ surely@ on@ the@ side@ of@ the

councils ，The@ decrees@ of@ the@ councils ， moreoverfurnishing the theological language
histo ㎡ cals 吐 uaUon 一 alanguage
theheresiesof
to 封 gh

たAugustinus@
Hstoric3@

七

to be employedhatcouldbenon.Au

thattimewerejusttheoppos

agains亡， 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@thecontext@of@his@writings，

And@Wth@the@support@of@the@"consen

一 l74 一S郷戸㏄ヰ物ぴ笏 ", heconvlnced thathls antl.Pelaglan w Ⅱ 珪 lngsdld

becamenot@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@adoponⅠof@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．

a@ part@

of@a@ wider@commentary@on@Aquinas

assembⅠ

In@fact ， no@sooner@had@he@completed@his@refutation@of@Baius@asthe@ mate
So@invo，aside@ the@ comP
opi i n@was@
The@ main@

biography

for@one@of@h@@， s@ Summa@than@
hard

3@

Ⅰ

ed ， i deed ， did@he@become@@@a@ Hebrew

this@proj ct@that@he@put

form3@@

requested@by@the@

Roman@

purpose@of@ this@ grammar， Bellarmino@

authoriti

self.taught studentwho

des 什 ed to masterasatisfacto

iん放0, めだぴ仇御召れ物てy manneⅠ

He meants ， 33'is@extremely

一 " ㎡ ん 0 んクと けち c脇W

structurean@

exercise@ in@ grammaⅠofco どん ifio 笏 6%,

W Ⅱ h this didactical

in@mind,@ he@divided@ i s@content@in@two@partS@ a@framework@

general@ rules@ and@his

辻 p ㎡ ma ㎡ ly f0r thethe elementary

也 e% ゆピ彫力0㏄が．
"35@

s@ until@states@ in@ his@ auto

from@ his@ conviction@ that@ "Hebrew@
Sc ㎡ pture.W4@

purpose@Ⅰti n@ of@ a@ systemat@@ treatise@ against@ Bai

Ⅰ， stemmed@

thatlanguagein

he@ began@tonoti ed@workS@

Ⅱ

useful for understanding

ce/fg， for@the㍽ ly@aware@of@the@importance@of@the@knowledge@of

Hebrewgrammar． 321@ And@those@contacts

ofcal@ analysis@ on@ the@ thi ty‑

一 175 一
tHrd@psam， He@organzed@the@content@of@the@first@secti

structure@he@was@most@familiar@with‑namely

n@fo

wi g@theⅠ， that@of@Latin@grammar， 36'

Similarly ， he@ patterned@ the@ second@ section@ on@ what@ students@ werea eady@ used@ dong@ under@ the@ gui

e@ of@ any@

Ⅰ

ana

Ⅰ

sis@of@ the@ text@ word@by@

more@

word

・

teacher@ of@ gramma

MoreoveranⅡ， to@ render@ the@ exerCse

useful ， he@ filled@ it@with@ references@ to@ the@ grammatical@

indicating@not@only@the@page@but@even@the@exact@location@(topsection ，， middle， orbottom)@on@each@page@where@he@had@explained@the@pertinent@grammati‑
cal@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@miably@successful:@
ments

of@a@modern@edition

takes@that@crept@in@seem@due@more@to@the@p． 38'@ This@work

to@Bellarmino@himself， and@theⅡ

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@ parta@ commentary@Ⅰ

ably@wrote@for@the@sake@of@some@pupi
Hebrew
example@，Aof@ Bellarmino

fondness@ for@ harmoni
published． Moreoverly@ annotated

Ⅰ

gc3@

， "@ which@he@ prob

eager@to@do@further@exerci

・

es@in

Brodrick ， th@@ work@ presents@ a@good， s@ independence@of@judgment@as@ing@ coninterpreta

ons,@

Ⅰ

i tng@， in@the@same@periodⅠwell@ as@ of@ his@@ was@never， he@seems@to@have@conspicuous‑， partly@ in@ Hebrew/a@ Latin@ Bible ， but@unfortunately@

text@has@perished
Bellarmino

Ⅰhough ， 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@ofgy，一 17f 一
the@CounCl@

of@ Trent， and@compC

d@Hm@to@advance@a@new@Ⅰ

i terpreta，tion@of@those@decrees，

of@ whether@his@ humanistic@ training@ was@ compatible@ with@ theor@ not@

theological@ statements@
compatiIn@short ， he@had@to@find@an@answer@to@the@questionof@ the@ Tridentine@ Council ， 41'@ In@ his@ quest@ forility@he@focused@Hs@attention@on@three@topics:@the@positi n@andthe@reli Llity@of@the@Hebrew@text;@
Septuagint;@

the@3leged@unty@of@authorsh@@

of@theand ， 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?@ Thenreader:@ the@ a6lity@， in@ the@ case@ of@ a@ translation

of@the@transⅠ

tor ， an@ extratextu8@

judgement@

of@the@ reader?@ In@ contrast@

theol 8ans

， Bellarmi

case@o ， s@ pH@

study ， for@he@ had@the@ments@of

of@phi@Ⅰ

gi

3@

i tClectu8@

gy@to@Scri ture ， 43'@Yet ， pHloⅠ

ose@confi

since@ the@ popes@

urati n@of@the@ Lands@

body@politic ， indeed@a@principate， or@ the

of

acti

g

i y@ consti

utes@ an@engagi

tools@ to@ understand@the@， the@humanistsⅠ

gy@was@not@al

redefine@ and@ challenge@ authority ， even@ if@it@was@Approximately@

authority

theto@ the@ preceding@generations@， and@assess@the@charges@pressed@byⅠ， what@ assures@ve， applicationne@@@ its@quest@to

only@ that@ of@ a@ text

returned@ to@ Rome@of@St ，

achi

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@States@ progressively@ asserting@ their@ own@

autonomy， tellingly ， Bellarmino@is@present@in@this@field， 44'@ And

absolute， too ， withhis theory of the ク o た SヵS iれ切花Cね of the Pope 一 a ba@ance between
universal@ monarchy@and@the@denial@ of@any@ temporal@ power

In@focusing@his@attention@on@the@Hebrew@text． 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@ manuscrits
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$deng@ the@ recentⅡdevelopments@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@thatsome@of@ the@ fathers@ at@ the@ Council@ had@ i deed@ manifested@ the@ desire@ to

have@an@edition@of@the@Bible@that@was@free@of@errors
rary@theological@debate． 47'@ In@the@contempo， on@the@other@handof the au henhc 什 y of the " ひ % 硲乙た， he@found@that@the@declaration

ひひ㎏切物 " wasoneof 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@ on@ conve ，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@

Seripando@ (d ． 1563) ， the@ erudite
gate@dur* g@the@Ⅰ

a@ reality．

Spani h@Domi

Ⅰ

st@phase@of@the

the@ plan@ for@ a@ too@ hasty@ edition@ of@ thevulgata ， @@ Yet ， what@for@Seripando@was@still@only@a@fear

became@This， for@BellarmioIn@ fact ， no@ less@ prestigious@ a@ theologian@ than@ thei an@MeⅠ

hi r@Cano@thought@he@had@so@well@demonstrated

the@ reli bility@ of@ the@ vulgata@ that ， at@ least@ temporar ㎡ y ， there@ was@ noneed@to@ check@ it@against@the@ Hebrew．

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， as@wCl@as@pH

Hs@thesis@Wth@a@full@array@of@patristic@quotations． 49'@ When@argumentsi q Ⅶ ry ， he@buttressed

8c3@

Ⅰ

ⅠⅠ gc3

the@ first@ prefect@ of@ the@ Congregation@for@ theCouncil ， 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@
precariy@@@ a@sweepiⅠ

g@extensi ncomparison@with@the@ori

text@ and@ Hebrew@

i 3s ， thestudies@ became@even@us ． iio)

In@ focusi
confront@

Hs@ attenti

g@

the@

n@ on@

Septuagnt

BC，

a@ text@generally@surrounded@by@neglectⅠ

rmi， for@ it@was@translation@and@ thus@ one@ step@below@ the@ original@ Hebrew
was@thought@to@have@been@corrupted@by@the@Jews
wCl@as@transⅠ

tors ． 51'@ The@Tri

o@

， at@

Ⅰ

ast@i iti l ， further
ⅠⅡ

it@lacked

ni a Ⅱ an@and@Ch

Ⅱ

stoogialand ， since@it@was@also@the@official@text@of@the@orthodox@Church

i s@ use@ would@
scHsmati

a@ mere， and@ its@text

weakened@its@position@by@adding@their@own@parochial@concerns:@
hing@Tto， who@also@did@not@scoreenti e@Fathers

important@passages@used@in@establi

had@

Renaissance@biblical．

philologists@considered@ it@of@ secondary@ importancedogmas;@more

be@ too@ big@ of@ a@ concesSon@， 521@ Howeverstudies ， Guglieimo@tion@ between@， especia

Ⅰ，

to@ a@ church@ regarded@ asafter@the@erudte@scho

Sirleto@ (d ． 1585) ， pointed@

r@of@patristi

Ⅰout@ to@ Cervini@the@connecthe@ Apostolic@ Church@ and@ the@ Septuagint@ and@ suggested

taking 什 asthemodellfora

uniqueandnormativeedition

the@general@attitude@of@the@Fathers@changedofthe

vぴ ㎏クぬ ，． 53'@ In@the@final@formulation

of@the@decree@on@Scripture,@the@bishops@removed@any@reference@to@it@andlimi ed@ the@@concerns@to@

the@ LaⅠ

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@ endowedin‑ 179 一
Wth@ a@ keen@ percepti

n@ for@ subtle@ stYistic@ vari ti ns ， the@ text@ of@ the

Septuagint@had@something@unconvinCn8@
vary@Ⅰ

the@styⅠ

and@the@phraseogyⅠ

too@ widely@ from@ one@ book@ to@ the@ other@ to@ substantiate@ the@ tradi

on3@

assumpⅠtranslators ，

on@ regardng@the@ uni y@ achi ved@ among@

those@ seventy

For@ instance ， the@ translator@ of@ the@ book@ of@ Job@ had@aremarkable@command@of@Greek， but@not@of@Hebrew‑a@view@also@endor

sed@ by@ modern@， while@ the@ translator@ of@ the@ book@ of

Solomon@scholarship55'‑

excelled@ in@Hebrew@but@

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 ， theauthority@ 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

bethe@ authentic@ version@ for@ the@ Roman@soon@

Church ． 57'@ Yet@

て

ega

丁

ded

as

after@ theCouncil@ its@interpreters@divided@into@two@groups@of@sharply@contrasting
views:@

on@ one@side ， those@ who@ interpreted@it@in@ a@ dogmatic@

sense@

andclaimed@ that@ authenticity@ meant@ verbal@ accuracy;@on@ the@ other@ side,

those@ who@ construed@ it@as@ a@ disciplinary@measure@and@ maintained@ thatauthentiCty@meant@absence@of@errors@@@

For@the@former@group， the@authentiCty@guarantees@to@the@user@@@of@the@ qu8ity@ of@ the@ text;@ for@ the@respect@ of@ the@ usage@

matters@of@f3th@and@mor8s

Ⅰrespecttter,@ it@guarantees@ to@ the@ user@ i

or@ the@ way@ the@ text@ has@ been@ used ，instance ， the@Franciscan@theologian@Andreas@de@Vega@(dof@ the@ first@ attempts@， 58'

to@ i terpret@ that@ defi

When

， for

， 1556)@made@one

iti 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
conSdeng@Ⅱi y@as@a@Sgn@or@expresSon@of@deference

the@ occaSonal@

of@ Roman@

ion ，Phiip@

approbation

Still ， it@ was@ Carafa@，

MCanchthon

，

John@

， 6Q)@ Hence

getic@coⅠrati， the@ whole@

a@ very@

C3vin

attacked@ the@ definition@ for@ what@
narrowness，， and@byagreed ， although@ with@ thedismissed@ 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)@ whobold@ position ， 59'@ In

and@

Mar

Ⅰ

thought@ was@received@an@zChemnin@

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,) Althoughfewestpossibleerr0rs"

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 ， a@ new@ phase@ began
c terion@of@authoⅡdivided@the@labor@of@the@commission@among@two@groups
of@cardinals@and@the@other@of@scholars

modifications

proper@THs@procedurechanged@Ⅱ ty ，

Pius， one@composed， The@task@of@the@latter@group@was

to@ point@ out@ i correct@ readi gs@ and@ suggest@，

These@ findings@ were@ then@ examined@

cardi als ， who@ had@to@decitext ．

，， 62'@ In@ the@ beginning ， Cervini ， s

logy@to@the@extratextu@@

strictly@ pHlolo8cal:@the editori

e@ wHch@readi， first@for@contrasti

and@ then@ for@ the@ deCsi

by@ theg@sho ℡ d@ enter@ i to@ the@new
g@opi

n@ to@ edt@

i ns@on@what@should@bethe@ 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@thet，

一 lSl 一
editori3@ commissi

n@for@the@Vu

the@expert@to@be@profitabⅠate ， BC

consulted

Ⅰ

less@ than@behalf‑no@o@resol ed@that@he@was， 631@ He@wavered

of@ his@ confreres@ also@ wanted@

some@

rmi

Ⅰ

， however， but@since

him@ to@ submit@ a@ request@

a@ confutation@

their

on@

of@ the@ writings@ of@ the@ biblicalscholars@ 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@
anddeparted@from@the@meaning@of@the@oⅡgina 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,尹包ク

cstaunchdefendermucH@@@ any@ case@he@d@@

㌃と

Ⅰ ク笘ノ

七Ⅰ

emelyco77%2S %ぴ ニS 6S
Ⅰワ

ofthe

Ⅰ

て

ぴケ侮務多俺とテ

Septuaglnt
not@

ruPted,soco

形

Ⅰ

ひ 肋6

て Ⅰ

れク毎

S

ぴアヶビ

Ⅰ

uPted,lnfact,that
0

ケア犠

毎

， in@a@section@opportunely@titled@De@

he@ declared@ that@ the@ Hebrew@
form ． 66'@ In@ compliance@
argumentationa て gllment"ded@by@Justine@and@Augustine

God ， s@ providence@ has@falsi icaⅠⅠ

on,@for@Sc

a

て

七

o0

of@ theverbo@ Dei ． Frst@of@all，

text@ had@ survi ed@ @@ an@ unadulterated

with@ the@ Tridentine@ criteria@ of@ theological， he@supported@his@cin thiscase,the

Fo

， 65'

Bellarmino@ presented@ his@ own@ solution@ in@ the@ first@ volume@
Controversiae

ケ色しナ多パp 戸 obablyo ， s@questions

Bellarmi

ナナ色ぴアルア
パ乙 ナナ ． "64)@ke Slrleto thlswas

answer@ピⅠ

im@by@referⅡ

クのひ 訊6% サ肋 ",whichⅠ．

ng@to@a@patristic@thesis

wasaI

て

eady eIaborat.

Granted@the@importance@of@the@Scripturesurely@ preserved@ it@ from@on ， 671@ Divine@ providence,@

however,@ requi

Ⅱ pture@was@entrusted@to@the@Church@as@i

，

any@

，

substantial

es@ human@

coopera‑s@foremost@treasure一 182 一@@ pmecipuum@

thesaurum

thought@ some@

Th@@

．

of@ his@ contemporary@

ative ， lacked@due@care

preci Cy@ the@ pont@

was@fellow@ theologians@， and@mishandled@a@where@

were@

precious@treasureheuncooper．

In@fact ， hedid@not@understand@how@they@could@state@that@the@sources@did@not@deserveany@ trust;@ how@they@

originals;@

and ，

could@argue@

codices@ in@ total@ agreement

explanation@

disregard@ the， how@ they@ could@ maintain@ that@ only@

moreoverversion@ survived@ uncorrupted@

unadulterated@

that@it@was@possible@to@

when@ there@ were@ not@one

two@ Latineven@， 681@ If@ the@ thesis@ that@ the@ text@ survived

is@accepted,@argued@ Be

Ⅰarmino,@ 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@Ⅰn@ of@the@ HOy@r@ than@capti Ⅴ ty ， but@ then@ Esdras
SPrit;@an"un Ⅱ kely

Ⅵ ty ， no@Ⅱtheo y" (0 ウ 後 0
て

Ⅰ

Ⅰ

ヶ冤タ托ゐ

He@ then@ 4smissed@

・

はあ

正ア

祇

S)because,tHs

i EsdrasⅠ

under@ inspiration,@he@ should@ have@ rewritten@ the@ whole@

wrote@

Testament@in@Aramaic， for@that@ was@his@mother@tongue@andOld， indeedlanguage@in@which@he@wrote@the@book@that@bears@his@name

，

， the

Bellarmino

a o@regarded@as@highly@improbab@@the@oPnion@that@duthe@copies@of@the@Scripture@perished， even@those@in@the@hands@of@privateⅠⅡ

citizens ， But@to@dismiss@the@opinion@of@a@Church@Father
more@powerful@argument．

so@bibli al@hi tory ． 70'@Consequene Ⅰ 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 hdata@ drawn@ from@ the@ fourth@ book@ of@ Esdras
theory as

for ， @@ antiⅠy ， he@regarded@

to@ reconstruct@@ more@re3i

Ⅰ tor ， the@same@as@any@of@the@si

to@ bet@@ 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， Bellarmino@was

g@a@cauti us@ attitude@ toward@ those， the@ Dominican@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@

to@ the@ i norance@Ⅰof@errors@ imputaLe@

schoars@

theofof@punctua

of@ punctuation@

occaSon， @@ was@not@unlikely@that@was@

belonged@ more@Ⅰ

in@ wHch@added@ to@ the@ text ，

to@ Christians@ could@ have@ been@ introduced ，

theOn@ thata@reading@less@favorable
On@ grounds@

that@ these

to@ the@ history@ of@ the@ Jewish@ people ， hesuggested@ignoring@altogether@the@Massoretic@system@of@punctuation
this@what@was@bothering@scholars

was@

，

to@ the@copYsts

to@ the@ moment@

Massoretic@ system@

circumstances@becausetters@of@Smilar@shape,@ and@those@imputab

of@ JeWsh@， he@granted

partlyadded@ the@ Massoretic@ system@ti n ， "@ Yet@ 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
tradtiwas

n@or@whose@deletion@was@i， for@instance， the@case@of@the@thirteenth@psalm

has@Cght@verses@less@than@@@codcesIn@ antiquty，

ad Ⅴ sa5e@for@pastoral@reasons， which@in@the@Hebrew

the@Septuagint@and@in@the@mao， Ori en@ and@ Jerome@on@a@ striⅠn8ca， 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@

tly@ philoⅠ

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@beof@ phiⅠ

logy ．

In

一 184
addition, these verseshad
they fellunder七

the Church."@
亡

here

heT

て

て

e fo て a longidentinecriter@on

Indeed,forau

definit@on "70 れ 90

reason@that@ they@reasons

he

was

サ

Ⅰ

七

hey

Ⅰ じ

Ⅰ

@@ thCr@tra

・

ti

Pace

n3@

had

theSs

， quo

Ⅰ

been

S Ⅰ ". In thisアtheThe@ pastor3， s@practice@both@of@correcting@some@of@the

that@ crept@ into@ the@ text@ and@ of@ tolerating@ others ．

rCnforced@th@@

useby

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@hus， even@for@， after@ all， part@ of@ the@ Scri ture ．

o expand七8% ク 0 托ヶみヶノ匂 76 Ⅰ ヶ後ナ j echoesthe

0i S6c ぴ 0 Ⅰ ぴ 脇路 ぴヶんゆ
S位 8ccrema@@

Ⅰ

wereた

henticity: thelongてⅠ， these@ verses@cou

た

per@od oftime,and

Bella mino,s eXpression "sincefor a @ong time" (c ぴ瑠 i0免妊 0 メ携挽

Tridentinewaybeen)theng@JeromeHe@ then， who@expressed@concern@about@not

hurting@ people ， s@ feelings@ with@ his@ textual@ revision ， and@ also@ reportingthe@ case@ of@ the@ ancient@ Roman@translation@of@ the@ ps3ms@
had@made@availab

Church ， which@ persisted@ in@ using@ the

based@ on@ the@ Septuagi

h@@ new@one

Ⅰ， more@fai

t@ even@ after@ Jerome

hful@to@the@origin@@

and@moreelegant ． 74'@ And@ this@ was@ done ， he@ argued ， not@ out@ of@ disregard@ for， s@ a Ⅰ liti s@ as@ a@ translator

Jeromepopular@upheaval

The
who

of reliability also ruled out the objechon

regarded the teXt
posihonhy

intentions

一 but

was

not

knowledge
みぴ後

ofthe

matterar ど
umentsdemonstrate@

hatthese

produced

that@the@ text@cou

after@Christ ． They@ 3so@Ⅰ

土石

弩 ranted,whether

一 " 免 gscio
七

falsi ed by

they

i g@

a

dictated by

cked@some@

know

Ⅰ

wo

arguing with

to ignore

Jerome,not@have@been@own

Sc ぬれ サ肋挽

scholarsseemedof thosehe malice of themightbe

were

は れ㏄し
びんはぴ挽

by Origen,Ⅰ亡q ぴアぷピ燭み 0 れ ぴ挽 " in his

一 "z をⅠ ぴ撹equally suref." Worststillwas

weighty

or

た

た

he

adulterated

asof hese scholars,hep aiseworてof@ avoi

purpose@． 75'

declarahon

Jews. The， but@ for@ the@

and

て

ds

full

．．．
co ん屋 n‑たotally theAugushnetof3sifi 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， even@by@accident． 76'@ But@in@this@case

a@ better@ weapon．

， Bellarmino@thought

with@

any@

， philology@could@be

If@the@ Jewish@ scribes@ had@ tried@ to@ falsify@ Scripture ，

they@ had@ done@ a@ rather@ poor@job ．
tamper@， they@dropped@their@scrolls

As@ a@ matter@of@ fact ， they@ did@ notspecific@ messianic@ prophecy;@ and ， Hebrew@

text@ athand ， 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@ hewent@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 Wof@the@a era
ⅠⅠof@corrupti

n@of@the@text"。

ons@perfor ，

Yet@he@considered@these@interventions@as@a@

of@the@editorial@activity@of@Esdras@and@other@"prophets"@after@the@exile
not@ as@ an@instance@

So ゆ乃 ryW

considered@ as@ a@ patent

proof,@ and@one@gven@by@the@Jews@themsCves,@
med@by@their@doctors

objection@ drawn

an@

part
，

．

Even@when@he@was@entrusted@with@the@task@of@checking@the@writings

一 186 一of@ the@ Jews ， 80'@BCrmi

Ⅰo@ acted@ as@ a@ "censor"@ g Ⅱ ded@by@ a@humaDsti

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@ thatnot@sin@ in@committing@adultery， and@ the@belief@ that@ thecreation@of@the@Law@took@place@thousands@of@years@before@the@beginning
of@the@wor

Ⅰ

， Smi

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@
teachimor3@

g@par@excCⅠnce， had@ to@ go@ because@ neither@ Philo@ nor

it， 82'@ For@ him@ history@ was@，Thus@unedfYng@epi
semi

of@the@women@brought@to@Samson@to@be@i

a@ source@ofodes ， 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

reasonMartial@was@expurgated@before@being@used@to@teach@pupils@Latin@in@theJesuit@ colleges ．
Bellarmino， s@ position@ regarding@ those@ parts@ of@ the@ Old@ Testament

that@survived@ only@in@Aramaic@was@exactly@the@same@as@that@regardingthe@ 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@thetables@of@the@decalogue@
ComPutensian@parⅠ

culaTy@POygot， he@ vafor@ 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

and@fidelity@to@the@ Hebrew

In@ Ps@ 50:13@ he@ noted@ the@ presence@

Hebrew

with@the@following@verse， also@ presented@a@was@， besies

reading@not@ reconcilable． 85'

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

departing@from@the@

Concerni

ea@of@an@independent， he@pointed@out@their@departure@from

the@case@of@Ps@54:10@and@Ps@87:4‑5

post‑eg ，ⅡⅠⅠ， but@he@criticized@it@mostly@from@thepoint@of@view@of@its@internal@coherence@

all@the@ other@ texts ，Ⅱ s@judgment@on@pⅠrmi

o@stated， since@none@of@its

originally@ written@ in@ that@ language ， 861@ Nevertheless， hevalued@it@for@its@antiquity@and@the@support@it@lent@to@no@less@controversial
a@topic@than@the@soundness@of@certain@Cathochapter@ headi gs@he@ found@va
of@fasting

ab

Ⅰ

Ⅰ

Ⅰ

， the@veneration@of@the@cross

c@pracces ． In@i s@ⅠⅠ es@andⅠreferences@to@support@

the@practi e， prayers@for@the@dead， and@othersimilar@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@ presented． He@apparently@put@aside@what@his@erher

considerations@had@thought@him@on@the@compos

of@ th@@ tranSa

opinions@of@the@Church@Ⅰand@ 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@aview@to@number@rather@than@to@value

Ptolemy@Philadelphus

Ⅰ

． 87'

， 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

Vere［iraculum

temporepotue

origin ，nt

conveni

Ubi@enim@est@multitude

But@ most@probably@vC@

in@ th@@

Ⅱ

and

kept

クア nゅん e e),nott

Ⅰ

was@not@

against@にた佛always@more@

complex@motto:

"back

as

that

of the editing of the Latin

against Jeromeby@ h@@れと姥ア各

For@his@

七

he %9
ぬ
ゐ挽 icは). However,Je

て

He

Wi

．

did, after

a Ⅱ，

one;@

its

itself， onlyⅠ

text@ that@was@less@than@a@very@good@rendering

having@than@

a@ thousand@ years@wo℡ d@not． 89'@ But， it@assembled@such@a@large

of@errors@that@a@ revision@ became@indispensable,@believe@ that@ more@

that@ cor ，gnal@translaLon@was

for@the@learned@li rari ns@of@Alexandr@@

if ， in@its@first@three@hundred@years@of@existence

errors@emend

inspired@ text@is@subjected， is@a@ byproduct@ of

h@ PHlo@ and@Jerome@he@held@that@the@ohave@accepted@a@new@prophets

crept@ in ， 88*

a@very@fathf@@

number@aninferred@ from@ his， and@he@also@did@not@blame@the@translation@

ruption ， to@ which@even@an@
me

什

ve

noted ， wasIn@assessi g@ its@textual@ rCi 5lity ， Bellarmino@ recogHzed@Ⅰ

Ⅰ

oome,sauthority

attitude ， Bellarmino@㎎わ肋S".

nega

he considered

caIIing those seventy bilingual Jews

him ．

ones

Ⅰ

mo

Ⅰ

vated@

， vel

also@

and@ subtle@ than@ the@ one@ commonly@

Latin@translation
the@errors@that@

and

cepta

．

was@

anslato Ⅰ。S(i 乃 ね め

totransferendi

sentent@

ni i@post@longas@di

non@

such

W 什 h Augustine

nspired text

Sngul@

inehe@

expeTlence w 辻 h teamwork,
Vulgate.

omines《imul…onferendo， tarn｜revi， diversitas@judiciorum@evitari@non@potest

conveniunt,@

numquam@

He@ asserted:

uit〈uod》ot

Ⅱ， he@had@noit@was@hard@to

could@ have@ elapsed@ without

crept@ in ．

Stil@ in@the@same@sec

Ⅰ

on@of@the@ Controversiae,@BeⅠ

armino@presented

一 189‑Hs@ parti l@answer@

to@ the@ thrd@ question ，Although@the@ nature@of@ thework@ led@ him@ to@ consider@ the@ objections@raised@by@ the@ Protestants ， hecast@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， withtors ， 90'@ He@ thenⅠexamined@ its@position@from@ the@time@of@Jerome@ and@ Augustine@ to@ the
council@of@Trent
taLve， and@il

strated@the@reasons@why@it@became@so@authoriⅠ

In@accordance@wih@．

a@commonpce@Ⅰof@humanis

Ⅰc@ histo Ⅱ ogra

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@theoⅠⅠ

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@ presumptia， long@prac
H@

Ⅰ

the@Church， what@the@council@of@Trent

ce,@but@a@prac

Ⅰ

ce@that@entaidⅠ， 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．

errorsAgainst@Chemnitz@and@Calvin， he@refuted@their@allegations@that

the@ Council@ had@ absolutized@ one@ version@ to@ the@ disadvantage@of@ theori 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， hedenied@ 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@onⅠ

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. 93)
り一 190 一
Cognizant@ of@ the@ presence@pⅠof@ errors ， Bellarmino@ listed@ and@

，

exem

fied@ the@ cases@ in@ which@ he@ thought@ it@was@ correct@ to@ resort@ to@ theoriginals． An@evident@ error@ of@the@ copyist@ required@ such@
the

was

㎡ひ ひ勿，of Ps 41:3, wherecase" instead of "ad0bserved,becauseMo

since theて' クみ De ぴ招 力竹tg招De ぴ勿乃庇移ひずひ ひ移 " The err0rto0kof the sim Ⅱ aHty

between"乃 rfg 例 " andeXp

the reading 。 70 打 ル勿" wasnaturallyinv 什 ed.94@

ve て sethe presence214)

eleganttIt@was ， however

ク篠， n0t
て

ん

oW

Ⅰ

免

Ⅰ

あ

硲

・

Ⅰ

W

傍

0f

also requ 廿 ed consultaU0n

0f

Ⅰ移しあ

A

硲あ 0 後ク りひ 0 れ免肋ナ岱 "Ⅰてmodlfles・ession 。 。 sifiひねク免てc0uld be solved by consultlng the G eek, whe

ひ oJ ぴ免ぬ サバ "slon and

ofambiguities。 。 加乃姥卸 "va ㎡ etyamblgulty 0f" 抄笏んoW

the 0rlglnals. Thusthe

place,he・

wi ぬ thereadings and

(Lk

had

began

eover,

勿忽 "the old textThis

a@ step ，Ca

anslatlon, too, senthlm

て

e

fo

back

て

p 0pe
て

て

て

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 ， thepresence@of@errors@can@be@inferred@from@its@long@use,@and@this@point@waseⅤ dent@

from@ the@ writi gs@ of@ the@ Church@ Fathers ， who@ attested@ to@ thepractice@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@translationⅠ， adduci

logy ．

Ⅰ， not

g@what@he@thought

The@ too@andnumerous@

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@ bypoin ng@out@the@absence@in@the@CounCl's@deciⅠpositions@ of@ the@ originals‑a@insider‑Cervini

ion@of@any@reference@to@theposition ， he@ said ， that@ had@ already@ beenstressed@ and@ formulated@ in@ canon@
objections ， he@quoted@no@thelaw ． 99'@ Then ， to@ forestall@ further

less@ a@reliable@ interpretation@than@that@of@ an， who@in@a@note@to@Vega， had@partly@anticipated@his@own

At@the@time@of@his@letter@to@Sirleto， Bellarmino@did@not@seem@to@have

thesis ， loo)

一 192 一
been@ concerned@
ment

Wth@ the@ critico textu3@
・

As@devCoped@by@the@humani，

authorship@ and@ canonici

pro5ems@of@ the@ New@

Testa ，

ts ， these@problems@centered@aroundy．

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 ， BCsuffi iently@representati

to@ the@ Epistle@ to@ the@ Hebrew
Ⅰrmi， for@ it@iso@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@generalof@ the@ Dominicans，

Cardinal@ Tommaso@

de@ Vio@

Cajetan ， 103'@ He@ also@ knew@ of@ the@ argument@

advanced@(d ．

1534) ，

calledby@ 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@Gal@ 1:11‑19@ (revelation@by@ God) ．

that@ iTo@ be@ sure ， he@ was@ convinced@ thattruth@preceded@error,@orthodoxy@heresy,@and@good@evi;@
for@this@was@thepattern@established@from@the@creation@of@the@world@and@described@in@theearⅠchapters@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 xandⅠⅡa@ and@recognized@the@some@

Di nySus ， allege4y@ a@ di Cp
epistle@ as@ Pauline ．

Ⅰof@ 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@question@already@settled"@(qnaestio@

olim@ sopita)， 10@

It@was@ a@ sense@ of@ duty@ that@ led@ Bellarmino@ to@ consider@ these@ argu‑
To@ solve@ the@ stylistic@ oUections@ of@ Erasmus@

．

ments

supposed@

and@ Cajetan@ he

that@ the@ epistle@ could@have@ been@ written@ with@ the@ help@ of@ asecretary@or@that@it@was@first@written@@@Hebrew@and@then@trans
Greek

．

ted@into

Ⅰ

And@ of@these@two@equally@probable@solutions@he@chose@the@firstfor@ @@ was@ simpler@ and@ quicker
ancies@this@was@the@greatest@，

For@ solving@ the@ phiological@ discrep

・

concession@that@ a@ post ， Tridentine@ biblicalscholar@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

Paul@ in@ Heb@ 2:3‑4 ， hetalking of "con ガア W は fioんり かⅠ 瑠 粍cぴ劫 ", not of "co ん刀 たwas

笏尻i0 んとタ gr， he@resorted@to@a@harmonistic@interpretation

of@ Paul ， s@ conversion ，of@ the@ two@ accounts@
observed,， for@SeripandoⅠみocf ㎡免は移 ", as wasthe

he could reckon

himself

among

case

those who

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

Schpture,

Ⅰ stic@bi

Be@armino

lic3@ philogy@iⅠ， 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， theonly@important@ point@ is@that@it@should@ not@be@ stripped@of@its@apostolicauthority ．

He@ singled@ out@ Barnabas@probable@candidates@for@the@authorsh@@

and@ Clement， two@ of@ the@ mostof@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， Markparts@ 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@solvedwhen@ the@ Fathers@ accepted@ Greek@ as@ the@ language@ of@ the@ New@

Testa

ment

，

Thus@ even@ an@ eventual@ discovery@ of@ the@ original@ Syrian@ text

would@not@alter@that@decision， Similarly， he@confined@to@the@realm@of@"sothey@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@

Mark@ himself 、 for@he
a@CaimTestament@． 109'

he@ was@ certain:@ the"9 仇ね0 の osfo ん ca" had the highest autho ㎡ ty. He recog ㎡ zed the integ.
rity of the codices, butwarned

tha they wereⅠ

not Ⅴひ % ぬ S クひたむ蕊笏俸 ".

HeilIustratedhisthesisbygivingafew eXamplesofthebetterreadings
ofthe Laun codices: heshortending

ofthe Lord,sprayer;

七"Do 笏Ⅰ移の㏄㈹われRomansI2:

lIwherethe

LaunhadSovXevovrev;， and@ 1@ Cor@ 15: 7.@ In@ tHs@ last@ case@ he@ ventured@ even@ to

quote@the@opinion@of@his@archrivalサ㏄"instead

ガ折 p あ， Calvin ， as@an@example@of@a@scholar

who@ supported@the@reading@of@the@Latin@codices

Bellarmino

oftheGreek． 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@ thecommission@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@ more@patient@ pH ⅠⅠ gcal@"zeium"@acumenthan@"scientia"， ruthlessness@ thanHis@ e4ti．

of@ Ambrosen@rehearsal@for@the@upcoming@edition@of@the@Vulgate
as@ one@of@ the@ worst@

i sertin@of@spuri

ever@

made

us@works，

also chashsed什

A@Hstori， 11@@ Yet@ Si tus@ wanted@

whole@

Churchof， is@generally@regarded

n@ of@the@popes， LudWg@Pastor

editor@ of@ Ambrose， for 辻 s ed 吐 or worked

suum"

Knd@

a@

Bellarmino@ himself@ criticized@ it@for@ its

・

regarded@ it@ as@ "disastrous ， "@ The@ modern@
Schekel,，，， Karlmostly " はガ乙グ 6% んね笏

it@to@ be@ the@ normati

e@ edtin@ for@ the

Sixtus ， frustrated@by@the@slowness112'@of@the@work@on@the@Vulgata@but

flattered@by@the@success@and@speedy@edition@of@the@Septuagint@(publishedin@1587) ， and@confident@of@the@divine@assistance@on@which@he@believed@hecould@rely@even@in@matters@of@textual@criticism
of@the@Vulgate@in@his@own@hands， took@the@editorial@work， dedicating@to@ it@the@ last@two@ years@of

his@ pontificate ， Yet ， as@ soon@ as@ the@ first@ copies@ were@ distributed， hebegan@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@ was@ authoritarian ，
Gregory
lt was

XIV to clearup

thatmessby

for thisnewly

his short treaUse De
treahse reveals

Ⅰ

hathe

appoinunga newappointed commission
移ガ0 打

じ

commissi0n.l@

tha BellarminoⅠ㏄㈹ほ れぬ 庖 B 巧ガぬregarded methodology

It@ was@ the@ task@ ofco/ んぎ gれ d ゐ ． u4@

as a matter

瞬

wro

亡

e

This

ofeXtreme

importance;@for@a@general@agreement@on@methodology@would@solve@mostof@ the@ previous@ editorial@ difficulties@ and@ also@ would@ have@ forestalled
future@oUections，

To@that@end@it@sought@the@broadest@consensus@on@themethodological@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@shouⅠ

criticism， athe@ authority@ of@ the@ papacy

be@submitted@to@the@pope@for@hs@approbati， the@ set@ ofn．

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@bothof@ them

・115'

The@ treatise@ goes@ on@ presenting@ the@ advantages@

of@ this@ plan ，Itpoints@out@that@the@commission@would@be@able@to@show@the@rationale@for
editing@ the@ text@ in@ a@ particu
unaccountable@

suLectivity

form@ emendation@could@Ⅰrather@ than@ rCyi

r@ manner,@

g@

on@

an

It@stresses@ that@ a@ truly@ coherent@ and@ uni，

be@ produced

It@indicates， 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， those@who@wanted@to@change@all

and@those@who@chose@， 1161

a@ middle@position

Bellarmino@ based@ his@ methodology@
four@main@texts@of@Scripture

on@ the@ agreement@， i． e ，， Hebrew， Aramaic， Greek，

between@the， and@Latin

Already@from@the@beginning@he@ruled@out@some@of@the@combinations;@forexample， there@was@ no@ question@ about@changing@with@the@Hebrew@agai
based@

st@Greek@and@Aram3c

on@ a@ translation@ from@

Hebrewcombinations@

by@ considering@presents@a@u

Ⅰ vocal@reading,@and@when@@@first@ questi

n@ waswithout@vari

・

the@ Latin@ if@it@agreed， because@the@Vu

Ⅰ

He@ further@ narrowed@

two@ main@ instances:@presents@va

Ⅱ

ate@wasthese

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@vanor@

questions@ but@considering@now@the@presence@of

Ⅱ ants@that@would@have@neiher@a

it@more@The@ nature@

obscure・

of@ Bellarmino

to@ the@ rest ，aiming@was@questions ． Ryan@speculated@

He@ recognized， however"more@

a@at@ was@rmi

Ⅰo ， s@ De@

Greek.

Here

Greek

Ⅰ

have

Ⅰ

Latin
"6

ナ

on@

Gn@ 8:21 ， he@ exemplified@any@

Vulgate， he@concluded

れれヶれど 0z は Ⅰ

Sぴ 0 ． " Since， that@is@corrupted

exemplified@an@instance@

the 戸 etheweretextu3

the@ case@ in
andHebrewnoandreasons， In@his@remarks@on@Gn@38:12

old@manuscripts@

varlantてeadlngs,',0 御後 8S

respectfor the Hebrew,heⅠ 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@ thein@which@the@Latin@is@opposed@

but@ after@ a@ long@ search@ some@noof

to@ the@ Hebrew@" 尻ク打切はとね 行
り， "whereashas

kind@ of@ alteration@in@the@ sources

suppose@gist

examples@no@manner@a@specimen@of@h@@

ate ， Wth@ no@ vari nts ， is@ opposed@theⅠ

み仇0 れを L クガれク V ぴ ㎏ほ屋 hasindicati0nsthat

In@ his@ observations@the@ Vu・

critical@ edition@ of@ theratione@ servanda@ presents@

permit@us@to@reconstruct@in@a@plausib

wHch@

what@ Bellar

be@counterchecked@by@any@philoⅠ

teXtualemendahons,hisDeg

criticism．

than@， that@， s@object@was@clear:@ a@revision@of@the@text

based@upon@the@sources@that@cou
Bel

that@ Bellar ，

negatively@ to@ the@ first@ two@ questions@ andVulgate" ． 118'@Yet@ Bellarmino

Athough@

ered@the@meaning@of@the@text， s@ edition@ of@ the@ Vulgate@ depends@ on@ themino@ would@ have@ answered@affirmatively@Ⅰ"7'

answer@to@his@methodological@

theHe@ 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 zeven whenz免

ピア アり形 ． り

faced wlth

In hls

Jer0me's一 198 一
rendltlon.

In Gn

24:32, Jerometranslated: " イと み れクqz ク 移 りガ肋ひクんノう 5c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

Ⅰ

suggesting speculat@onson

thepuzzllng

the feet of the camels.

Yet

c

Ⅰ

ar

the@ water@

Ⅰ

was@

customBellarmlno

for@ the@ came

cぴ移と0,, 一 aナⅠer ， s@ feet ， not@passagewash

the Hebrew,

andfor@ the@ camCs， 119'

text ， from@ 1@ Chr@ 4:22@ hedeleted ， without@losing@any@of@his@admiration@for@the@miracle
anti,Copernicananslatlon

ofglvlng waterto@ooked up

Still@ because@ of@ Hs@ esteem@ for@ the@ Hebrew@

七て， a@potential

一 " リヴ㎡トル花ルじわ
S0 旭川" 一certainly

unawarethat@ 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@ importance@could@be@neglected;@

variations@of@importanceset ed@by@recourse@to@anci

nt@manuscFpts@@@

Ⅰ， howeveraccordance@wi

laid@down@by@Augustine@and@other@Church@Fathers， should@beh@the@ru， 121'@ The@only@suggestion@ 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@
Sixtuss

Ⅰ℡

ti g@the@text， @@ comPi
g，

BC

Ⅰ

rmi

nce@Wth@Ren3ssanceo@ i sisted@ on@the@i serti

d@cal@a@sort@of@"critic@@apparatus"

n@of@what． 122)@A@selecti n@of@vari nts

taken@ from@ ancients@manuscripts， he@observed， would@be@like@having@ahandy@library@in@one@single@volume， and@readers@would@be@more@prone@tobuy@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@thevariants@for@the@understanding@they@provided@of@the@diverse@meanings@of
the@text
an@Finally．

apologetic@ reasoH@"herehcs"no， he@noted@that@the@apparatus@was@convenient@even@for

attackedavail:

た

it@ would@ furnish@ a@ second@ line@ of@ defense@ ifⅠhe teXtof

he d て ecUve

encodedⅡ" ぴサこク Cガ 0 れを S

サリスニ

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 heto draftthe preface, where

wasof@ Sixtus@ as@ he@ maintai

Controversiae,@despi

wasof

in the "P 彫ルガ
0 ほぱ正と cAo 解移" 一 namely,Ⅰ

to do for thisediHon

name@

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

he kept theed@ it@@@ the@ dedicati n@ of@Hs@ text@ of@ the

e@their@bCng@shelved@tempora

ⅡⅠby@the@Congrega‑tion@ of@ the@ Index ， 124'
Ithasnotbeenh 什 herto noted,butthe

SiXUnean@illustrious@precedent:@Justi ian ， the@promu"that@no@one

ねん 励r"hasator@of@the@Corpus@， of@those@who@are@skilled@in@the@law@

to@append@any@commentary@to@these@
into@ Greek@

iuris

Ⅰ

and@ the@ composition@

移 ),， ．． may@dare

ws" ， save@for@liter3@trans ti nⅠof@ explanatory@

notes@

on@difficult(paratitia)， 12@@ That@ stern@ Sixtine@ "dictate"@ not@ only@brushed

passages@

aSde@

ばん 0

in the opening constitutlon of the D はesf (const. OWne

civil ぬ ， who,
ordered@Ⅰ" れ 8%

a@ pat Ⅱ

but@ a o@disregarded@

stic@ counsC@

the@creative@

Ⅰ

prac

of

ce@

Ⅰ

the@Middle@Ages@by@which@countless@scholars@with@their@interlinear@andmarginal
name@gl0ssescreated七

ha七

remarkablesystem

known

under

known@

for@ h@@ spiritu3

heof@ "ins@ commune"}2@

In@ h@@

Ⅰ

te@ years@

BCⅠrmino@

writings ， for@his@daily@involvement@

was@

wCl@

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,sDeof

for@ Hs@ attempt@ to@ edt@ the托ひ 07M お 0 打 妨ぴ s,Ga Ⅲeo,s一 200 一
celestial@discoveries， and@Antonio@Foscarini

Bible@ was@ not@ the@ best@ manual@
Yethe

concerns.

working@was@wasequally， s@ attempt@to@show@that@thefor@ astronomy@「

emovedof@ 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@ theCouncil@ 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@leisureannotaof@his@old@acquaintances@from@Louvain
just@ sent@him

Ⅰ

ons@on@the@Vulgate@that@one， 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
determiati n@Hs@task@

as@a@philoogst．

Then@@@

1606 ， when@Lukas@sent

another@ proof@ of@his@ philological@abilities ， a@ set@ of@ annotations@ on@thereadings oftheva ㎡ ant

ofa

fourGospels,

edition and remarked

newinvolved:" ㎡㎡ ル /0

BelIarmino reconsidered

for theぬズ 励が 挽ゆ Sぴ珂 ce れo

pope

had

he ideathat 辻 wasperhapsHmetogetthepope

仮 S暖れ 確c携み 0 Sぴ笏珂0 ク 0 れサ旅 ci." But

temporari@y,

七庖珂 e ば o 乙わ cが抗クo㏄e 例ぴカ バ，

he hadto sepressinga moreaside that

七

and

idea

problem,urgentnamely@Venice@and@its@interdict， which@required@all@the@abilities@of@such

a@ consummate@． 127'@ It@ was@free@ from@
Dominicontroversialistcare

七."@Ni co@@ LoFni,@ denounced@Galileo@
Cacciniwent

te "クれり eⅩ o れ eK はガ 0 後 eS%eⅠof the commission

Greek

Testament.l28@ To cho0se

variant@

readi

Rega@(the@pol

gs@ was@Bellarmi

got@of@Antwerp)

七

to@the@Roman@o Rome七

apparently

entrus七

ed with
a teXtupono ， s@ first@ step ．

of@ Stinqui i iono 七 estify on

thesameputBe

Ⅱ a Ⅰ m@n0

じ 0 後 Sじヶ eれ fこ刮 9,"thatPaulVat the headNewa@ year@， when@ the@ self ， styled@ "white@ and@ black@ dog@

and hisconfrereDomenicoma

in@ 1615 ，

the taskwhich

of editing the[o c0llate

He@ sCected@， Then ， duri g@the@ear

Ⅰ

七the@ BLi

summer@of@thehe一 201 一
samefor the collatjona@ workyear,

bring outofthe

Vaticanfour

the Va Ⅱ celiana Library.'29@ On July 25, "no れ os 肋nt8

others fromhbraryhe requested papal permission to

six very

ワぴ携なァぬ アクア り妨た in 免召 o ce れ Sぴれ Ⅰ " thepe てnmission

・

1617,knowing

ancientcodicesand

thatin one library ofAugsburg

e nan KKed.

was

Ⅰ

Ⅰ

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

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,In亡therewasa

Gospels " 庖クと窩免稗篠れ抄 6% ほ笏 6箱 携ル se ガめ物 ， " he asked
confreresto

borrowed

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ⅠⅠ

屋 s肋約6打 h・G 托eci."130)

Althoughcompleted,

Be Ⅱ Earmlno'sedltlon wasneverpublished,forlt

dld not recelve the flnal approbatlon

of Paul V. "。 E

田打わ妃タ 9/助ひg/e

傍Eudaem0n,

a member

inqui

て

y

rema

丘

Jean@Mof Bellarmino,sfo thebeatification,spて

ひ o な e 打切お㏄ 乙

account

打タ肋㏄ヰ勿は佛ん0ⅠⅠ

7ぬ Sヵ別ク a,"household,Ⅰ「

乙れば M.n

epo

「

ノうみ
a sn俊

ted And「eas

at the preliminary

ocess," タを Ⅰ ん 0 箱 So cんじ 砲ナaco7 府．．．
れ 0移

肋 S肋勿力 &." 、 3l) TheJesu

辻 histo ㎡ an Trompaccep

亡edthat， and@on@the@reason@for@the@sudden@suspension@of@this@project@heked laconlca Ⅱ y, " 箸れ 0 用笏郷

クサ

箸れ 0 托施移郷．
"TheblbllcalscholaⅡ， Voste@argued@plausibly@that@the@reason@for@not@publishing@it@was

the@fear@of@repeating@the@bitter@experience@of@the@Sixtine@Vulgate．

The

popularity@ and@ the@immediate@ pastoral@utility@
of@the@Vulgate@ wereperhaps@ complementary@
the@ Greek@

Voste@

reasons@

New@Testament@aⅠo@ questoned@

and@its@ultimate@suspension，

the@ cri ical@ quali y@ of@ BClarmino's@

An@edition@of@the@New@Testament
could@ be@ done@ in@ such@for@ the@ pope ， s@ diminished@ interest@ in， he@remarked

edi ion ．

， was@not@something@that

a@ short@ period@ of@ time ，and@ therefore@ Paul@ V

prudently@refrained@from@giving@his@approbation@to@a@critica
y@impairedⅠ一 202 一
text@that@could@have@dishonored@the@papacy

Yet@Hs@views@reflect@more，

the@knowledge@of@a@modern@biblical@scholar@than@Renaissance@philologi‑
standards ， The@amount@c3@

of@ time@ BCⅠrmi

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@lessthan@ 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， Moreover

was@and@ informed@

secure@ancient@manuscripts
B@(Cod

， Bel

Ⅰ

rmino

， s@choce@of@codicesby@ the@ huma

， though@not@broad

Ⅰ stic@ refra@@

Nicolaus@of@Cusa， vat ． gr ． 354) ， written@in@the@year@949;@， 133'@ Unfortunately

Vallicelliana@Library@cannot@be@so@The@eBellarmino

boratiⅠn@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@

He@ was， would@have@been@is@ point@ out@Ⅰto

to@ Ryan ， these， for@"the@text． ，，，had

Ⅰ ured@by@a@criterion@entirely@extrinsic@tothe@edition@of@a@Greek@text":@the@authority@of@the@VulgateⅠ．

in@ the@ former@ case,@ but@ he@ hoped@ he@ would@ be@ abrules@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@(CodVucriticalthat@ one@ of@ h@@ constant@． Indeed ， thesepoints@ of@ reference@ was@ the

Vulgate ， and@ one@ of@ his@ objects@ was@ to@ give@ the@ broadest@ philologicalsupport@

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

In@ writing@ to@ one@ of@ his@ confreres@ in．

， he@ reported@the@discovery@of@an@agreement@"q ぴ 0 ガ んり うんひ援 A花ク功ピ㍑ 完 ""5@ Yetfo
・

that@a@ ful@ex9anati

n@shou@@てany

be@8ven@@@とand@ commented

eX 亡 ualchange

the@apparatus

heて

equiredMoreover．

， iis@only@in@the@third@rule@that@he@introduces@a@noticeable@limitation@in@his
edtoril@criteri ． It@permits@a@change@to@be@i

w 辻 h little andmostlynegaUve

Ⅱ㍑㎏ ほ ぬれ 0 れ解力也 臼は f%r,"
co ん加 リバク㏄
f R 笘ね:" 乙 附目or珂ひた脇
Ⅰ R 笘妬 " F0r
・

税し ん osc パ Pfo ル用P 援 ysthe rest, the Latin isusedof@the@ Regia@permit@， s@methodology

his@ sixth@ rule ， which@considers@． Most@of@these@examples@refer@tothe@ case@ "When@words@． "@ In@ Mt@ 4:10 ， he@ observed

introduced@because@of@

have@ crept@ into
be@ pa@@ toⅠ， the@expression@"oxicrui@ IJ． OV"@ had@ been

the@similarity@with@Mt@

16:23.@ He@then@noted@its

lack@ of@ manuscript@ support
some@contemporary@edi

toa@better@under ，

the@ text@ from@ another@ sacred@ author@ no@ attenti n@ shouthem

" 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@@@， its@omission@ by@ the@ Church@

Fathers@ andors,@and@a o@is@absence@in@the@Vulgate
Ⅰcase@of@Mt@6:18@he@argued@in@a@similar@manner， 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 ，， s@Biparallel@pericope@of@Luke， and@ruled@out@the@verbal@form

examp

Ⅰ

s@ serve@， whi

He@ then@ referred@ to@ thecritic3@ mark@of@Louvai

Ⅰ㏄ ダ oftheRegia,

h@i di ated@a@borrowi

to@ reveal@ his@ respect@ for@ the@ manusc

g@from@the． 1361@ These@few

Ⅱ

pt@ tradi ion‑a一 204 一Ⅴ dent@in@the@practi

respect@more@e

cal@ formulation@

e@of@text@edti g@than@@@ the@theoreti‑

of@editorial@principles

More@ importantly,@ these@ rules@ manifest@ BClarmino's@ⅠanaccompanylngcrltlcaIappa

commands@the@fifth@rueて， "ad@finem@

satus:

uniuscuinsqueⅡ・theneedfo

emphaSs@on

携 免れ 0 六% わ 0 ん ク S 万傍れ f,リ

capitis ， "@ In@Hs@midthey@served@to@give@the@rationale@beyond@the@text@as@well@as@to@illustratethe@soundness@of@the@Vulgate
from@ the@ negati， They@also@mark@a@remarkable@departuree@ 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@， bishopⅠ

victim@Tridentine@decree@on@bishops

the@ variants@ of@ the@ Codex@

usefu， and@

ess@of@puUishi

Francesco@Torres

of@ Carafa， s@ zeal@

in@ im ，， residence‑was@working

Vaticanus@ B ， a@ discussion@ arose@

g@such@a@work． On@that@occasion， one@of@the@collaborators@of@Sirleto

thought@ such@divulgation@perilous

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@@poSⅠon,@ and@indeed@， 138'@He@was
so@

，s

Masio

， however，consistent@ that@ he@ avoded

publishing@his@own@critical@annotations@on@the@New@Testament． 139'@ It@islikely ， therefore ， that@when@Bellarmino@insisted@on@the@necessity@of@thecritical@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 205‑
In@ sPte@ of@ the@ theoⅠ

8c3@ pri ci"ecclesia@ semper@

Ⅰ

those@ecclesiastical@personalities@whose@primary@reformanda

task@ is@to@ check@ thatthe@principle@operates@in@reality@easily@grow@tired@of@reform
to@ what@ happened@

in@ the@ field@ of@ the@ humanities， Contrary， where@ the@ ideals@ ofclassical@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@，，

biblicalscholars ， in@ their@ efforts@ to@ restore@ the@ text@ of@ the@ Scripture@ to@ its
pristine@integrity ， endeavored@to@bridge@the@gap@between@themselves@andthe@Apostolic@Church
pHloogc3@
5Li@@， At@the@beginning@of@the@seventeenth@century@theirefforts@seemed@to@have@acHeved@that@particu
schoⅠ

rsHp@came@to@a@standsLll

his@ approbation@
Marcanton@@Coof@ Bellarmino
Ⅰr@end ， ThusⅠ

， not@o Ⅰ y@when@Paul@V@Wi， s@ Greek@

nna ， s@ attempt@ to@ e4t@

New@

Testament@

the@ Hebrew@

O

ワぴ 0

ん初棚

claimedTestament， but@also@when@thein@ 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

to Pau@ly@over

All@these@ i stances@may@V

in l609, thenobodyelse butof the perfectly Tridentine workof "auesto

cristianello" (BellCarmino,s Co んサ櫛 vgrs 肋e), the age
reform@was@certai

when

e@monastery

of@St ． Giovanni@in@Verdara1401@(if@not@with@his@death)

Testamentor@Ⅰ

ended@Wth@Hs@request@to@borrow@the@co4ces@of@the@Patavi

Elzevir@ Press@ of@ Leyden@

hhCdof 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@ specializedgi ts ， where@ it@had@ started@ 3most@Ⅱ

and@ Erasmus

The
more@

a@ century@ eaⅡier@ with@ V3la，

" 勿は わ肋ね移ク
0 物移 " andthat wasa papacyⅠ

寮 owing

andm0re

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@ Protestanttheologians ， from@
Dominicans@the@ controversy@

to@ the@ Venetian@controversy@on@the@on@

this@ juncture ， where@

autho

Ⅰ

gy@seems@backward@looKng， In

philology@ shattered@ a@ long@ cherished@ view@ of

attempted@

Ⅱ ty@and@philolof@theh@he@was@engaged,@his@acceptance@of@most@of

tative@texts,@such@as@Scripture@and@the@Corpus@

versatile@ mind@

Jesuits@ andinterdict， from@ Galileo ， s@ affair@ to@ thethe@achievements@of@Ren3ssance@philoⅡbetween@"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@andended@ 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@thecontingent,@ yet@ perfectible,@results@ of@ philological@research ，

Naivemedieval@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%', (ton@ofour@ 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@thetext ． The@locus@of@authority， too ， changed:@from@the@multijurisdictional

world@of@the@Middle@Ages@to@the@unijurisdictional@world@of@the@"absolutestate" ， With@this@specter@looming@large@on@the@horizon

surprise@ that@ BC， it@comes@as@normino@put@ a@ "guardian"@beside@the@text

Ⅰ

Notes
1@)@ P ． Redondi
wo
ノ

て

k by

， Galileo@ eretico@ (Torino ， 1983) ， pp ． 5‑7;@ also@ see@ a@ review@ of@ thisV.

Fe Ⅱ rone0 羽口 f o/ Mo

2%

れク

みじ Ⅰ

れ

and

M.

Fi Ⅱ po, "From

刀ぬ R0 8れiB8%

QuotedfromG.Fu@giatti,

う

L Ⅰわれ じ 低み ガ尭 ほめ は れ C# 携は S ガひ e打 アリム乙ア乙鰯"vi

c@a issimus, theologus

Ⅱてelemosinarius

etico て umma

Ⅱ

と

ぅ

Ⅰれ

Ⅱ

h. I, cap.

o Bella 卸7% n屯 o (Rome.

・

ク77 ㏄Ⅰ れⅠohis orian 鏑 "士

i . . . 7ヵ fic りタ Ⅱ 2れ ぴ化れac

SC ガクぬ ．

1626), Ⅱ b. VII,cap.

fidei Catholicae

eus." and"aequepius.

七Ⅱ1687);

Ⅰ

mi no@ (Romeo Micp udens.hum

propugnato
Ⅱ

て

I1l:
Ⅰ

is,acsumme"・3) Ibid., P 托/し CRn

士れ C劫 (Leodh,eminentissimusⅡ

ace てて imus,hae

Inquisitors

H む fo7T 58 @1986): 485‑524.

b. II,cap. lV; andD.

Barto Ⅱ． DpJ 伍ノ れク

㎡， Ⅰ
;アぬ裾
o Ro ルん o

P. Tacchi.Ventu

ノア

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 o (Rome,

て

ク

Bが

竹がれ り (London,

ぬグ1928); to

て

う

OnD

㎝Ⅱ nger,seeWa@te

7) J.Turme@,H
Trente@8)(Gembloux,(Louvain

9・Ⅰん

c.olo9ぎわク 0s.ifn
ひりイゆぴぬOtt Ⅱ ien, 1977).
㍗ nnigi庵とノ硲ワひ ち び Co W
れ ci7ie は e
クづ(Paris ， 1904)

P. Po@man,

positionB て andm 廿 @@er, なれ 篠ノo箱 D 刃 ziれ 白 eⅠ は笏ノ
0低う e免イみ eSⅠ

お tnわ e ルぬれ Be 沖り /7れ 肪 9,1961), pp. iX‑X.

H 後攻 硲乃 切り物れ 9 れれ 7 カ れ ナ切 0ん (St.

f. Ⅱ ク わん 卯Ⅰ 笏條．

Ⅰthe se@f.criticism. see his R0%

S 携ヶんク れば SC ん o肋 / (Westminster,6うL 切e用 とれナカ む fo バイ ぴク み田れ 5 ぬ Co れ 廿のひⅠパク

1932);

E. A. Ryan,， 1936) ． pp ． 133‑147

アル， gives@ an@

彫 7管 わ硲 とみ ぴ ⅩⅡ
7り Sigc e「

H ん tta㎡ 倣I Sc oぬ俺肋 P o H が 肋 けれんevaluation@

of@ TurmelⅠ， s@ and@Polmanヶれク，s．

P ． Duhem， The

TheoryofPhysical Reality(1st d ．

Paris ． 1909;

New

York ，

‑‑?.nS‑‑

1952) ．
Brodrick， Robert

Bellarmine， pp ． 332‑378

del@ cardinale@ Bellarmino

じ はか 8%(F@orence.

pp.

・、 "L astronomia@
1984),

11)@ G ． Morpurgo@pp

13

Tagliabue， note・U
eめ㏄ ガ P. c.ガ Ⅰ ル7

， par㎡ cularly｝p． 365‑366

Baldini， "@ in Noo ㎡ 妬

2㏄‑㏄5， / ウル Ⅰ㏄㎡㎡

G 援 lhim0 e. グクウぬ柁 れ
m ni0 ま ァは (Rome,

1981),

7112) G. De Sant Ⅲ ana, Ⅰ乃 c C ㎡ 卸 8 が G わ /eo (Chicag0 ， 1955), pp. l01‑102. F0rthe
は

cu@tural conteXt

pr0perBachelet,

ぢが肋卸んゲれ

0附め れれク 0sf れ移 0 ， ed. S. Tromp㎡み れ gれ fi 後 9

めぴ 79

9 は 0し び用 9れ付
才

Dル S

七

れ綾 は /於ゆんパ乙ぴル 御後身 8打 (B0nn,
士

わん ル 8 (1926); Ryan,

T eH
乃hisautobiographywasalso

1: 460(Paris, 1911).

たせと S K クハはァれ援E Ⅰ 6 Ⅰ eⅠ ungenzur

cheundmeth0dologische
わり ん cw を eSc んゲとⅠ わし Ⅰ ゎァりどァは

ルぴぬ Ⅰ ん mれ れど ㏄ Cん わん f//c 乃 と %E

Ⅲ0%.

1942 円945 円Ⅹ．
M.

し14) D6l Ⅱ nger‑Reusch,

teXtof(R0me,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 ㏄ カリ C は X成れれ(Paris, 1913);
id., B 凌肋 /W わ 後クひ携れ f So れ Cは /はレほ肋 f, J542‑J598.
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

Co クアマ 並0後ん携後しKYork, 1988).

192‑193.

13) Be@larmino, 0 り 8%Leof piety pr0@iferated, see E.

/脇ゆ : 7530‑ J6 コ 0 ． ed. by J. Kir 由ner (L0nd0nandNeW

Cochrane,pp.

in which these manuals

Ⅰ

Bg/ 肋 用ヶれ ，灼ぬi乃公 Cんぴれ ガⅠ1887); S. Merk@e,"Grunds

Be Ⅱ a Ⅰ minf0 Ⅰ schung,"
ぬたりアサ

C携 J S ん 0
Ⅰ

pub は shedby

哲七

Zg ァお Cん 7%

zⅡ ‑
カガ /.

ク ， pp. 194‑198. Theム ケアドん毛

Brodrick, in 7 梶 L 之はれは廿ん 9
こバ目

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."
canbeinterpretedasa "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 thepseudonym
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,s15) Fo

Ⅰ

アサ

Ⅰ

ァブ

は

七

と

A 戸 o/0 ま仮

the second

pub Ⅱ 5shed, ln

1608.

dme,

hls

under the pseud0nym

D クク 。 fesとほⅠe"Matthaeus

Tortus"sぴ 移用 @ ク 0れ サ仮 し バ @乃花 方ぴ S

heル移ク 0挺Ⅰ 妨硲"一agalns
Barclay,sDg ク 0め s %f6 クの クれ c.
70 z0% ァはク勿 y. p. 461: "Ingenium habuit l]0n subti@e et e@eva um, sed ac,
comoa um ad 0mnla, ut equa Ⅱ er se habere ad omnesdiscip Ⅱ niscapiendis..,
七

れⅠ

六

力

士

士

七

七

Also see p. 478.
18) Ibld., p. 460:

corporiscas

Ⅱ

addlc

七

a erat e@emosinis, o ati0ni et c0ntemplati0n@jejuniiset
7%e. Z,グレ ほれは
9 Ⅲ0所， pp.l‑ll. For
Ⅰ

gauonis."Seea@soBrodrick.

Cervini,s humanistic

background,W.

才力

V. Hudon,M 携 rcello 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 (DeKalb, 1992).
A れ ぬ ㎡ 0ど抑ゆ伽 ， p.465: "Accid 肚 au emi@

1g)

， utfor elegeretconci0nesC0rne

七B 吐 ununi
verbum,etⅡecitarenonpreaching, see his Dc

sine magno

クはわ

Forpreachingin hecon119‑120 ， 197.

On Mussos,s

七

七

inciperet c0nciones

labo て e." Fo

Bella で mino,s

て

て

ad

views

on

own

0箱 ク乃推篠竹 は乙 e c0 箱 ㎡ 0れゐ， in A ひし肋わぴ緩 ， pp. 655‑657.
efforts tob ㎡ ng humanistてⅠ

sc ㎡ bere

eXt0ftheThdentineReform.seeCochrane,ⅠⅠⅠ

肋ゆ ， pp.

㎡c

styleandrheto

p eaching whilep eservingthe Franciscan
adition,seeCo
H れれ ク 乃ね t 笘㏄めク篠は F 刑後 cis ㏄)? Ⅱ07M ㏄ : Co 挽めi0 M 穏S0 ぱ篠は篠ま庖 S% 超 9れ旭 Ce 免サぴゆ Ⅰ ぬゆ (Bern, 1998).

on

Ⅲ

七

Episcopi, et ad eJus im 吐 ationem

亡o bear

下 E. Norman,

でで

C0f ん of わ P 化 は Cん

・A ぴ f0670 どれ ゆ伽， pp. 464‑466.

20)

pathsticinsp
as@

In preaching, besides biblical f0undation

Bellarmino@

himself@duly@

noted

U ん ㏄ iれ刀め肋 % 笏㎎21) lbid.,p.461; forthecloselyrd,atedtopicofmusic,seeA.Bernier,s

んぴ笏 れれぬ 柁 ，

クヶれ

t Ro

liturgique@ (Montreal
into@

the@

わり

Ⅰ

novitiate@ and 、 thereafter(1556‑1565)@

governo@ァはt B が 肋身れ 篠，ぱとぬC 乙櫛ク 4どれ ゐルノゐu,， 1939) ． For@Bellarmino(Rome

A 刀oが 0ま 附かり， p. 464:

Ⅰ

れと

ク

， s@early@training@up@to@his@entrance

M ． Scaduto，

屋 fia, Ⅱ7. L,ゆ0㎝ イ i G 肋 Co 篠 o L ク i)?c乙7J， 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,

Collegio@ Romano， see@， 1964) ， pp ． 272‑282.

"quotidiediscebatquod23)@ Ibid ． ， pp ． 468‑469:@ "applicavit@animum@

aliosdoceret."

ad@ earn@ linguam@ discendam， et@ cumdidi i set@ alphabetum@ ab@ aliquo@ peFto@ il@us@ linguae ， et@ aliqua@ rudimenta
grammaticae
quam@， confecit@ ipse@ sibi@ grammaticam@

Rabbini@ sol

ant,@

et@

brevi@

tempore@hebraicam， faciliori@ methodo

linguam@ hebraiam@，quantums ofthisperiod.seeW.
Bacher,D 姥 H め拓ぬし ん e%6% 用Cんルぬ sc れ S勿ク斤ひ oれ jo. &ね zぴ竹J6.7 ロ 力椛ぴれば eれ (l甜 ed.1892),now
ep ㎡ ntedinA
移付 9ん功用 S 脇刀㏄ 乙肪8 % 0ゅ
theologum

satisesse videtu 巧 et instituit Accademiam."

For theg

て

amma

て

んと

an ガはね fo りが L 庖 どれ 偲わ cSlV(1974),pp.133‑235;

H.Hirschfeld,Li

が R めの刀 C 抑抑ればバは篠 S クれメ L 窃わ 0% ク ゆん じぼ (London,
Kukenheim,
ん 乙う 刑竹び り

24)

Co れ パうぴ九Ⅰぅ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 ちめ足形Ⅰ ワれ e,㍗ ゆ04 れちぱ e 屋 Re れれ む ㏄れ ce (Leiden, 1g5U.

A れ to が 0は のゆ勧 ． p.463;

method0れ 5 あⅡintheconteXtofthe

foraconcisepresentaUon
T ㎡ denhne

ofBellarmino,stheologica@

Reform,seeCochrane,

fia ゆ ， pp. l91‑

193.
25)

A れ f08i0 ど篠ゅ伽 ， p.466.

ph Ⅱ oSophy,
important

role

in

the

㏄h0lasUc

Incidenta Ⅱ y, 旺 mustbepointedoutthatthis

particulaHy logic, unpalatable to humanists,
intellectual

formationofGalileo;

came
on

to

this ， see

play

an

M ． A．

一 210 一
Finocchia

て

o.

C

Ⅰ用

佗 0 4れば

施 g A ㎡が Re 使0免 4% ど :R ん村 oガ C移 / ⅠⅠ ぴ れ刀ほお 0れ S がL りまわ ほ れば Sし わん れc M 功ん 0ガ (Dordrecht, 1980); W.A.Wa@ace,

SoM 托 es:

冗ん

G 移 7ifeo 4% ば H た

c He ガぬ臼e がナルCo7f 笘io R0 用の後 0 7% Ga んル 0 な Sc ね乃㏄ (Princeton,

1984).

A ぴめ ㎡ 0ど 附か ゆ ， pp. 467‑469; Ryan, アル H 蕊0 祝 Sc oぬぽ乃ゅ ， pp. 37‑72.
A ぴぬ施 0どのかゆ， p.468. Foranovera
viewofBaiusin
heageofconfessional
dogmatics,J.
Pe@kan,e C んわ Sわほれ方竹
0れ : A H む fo ゅが施 e De ef ゆ援g打 f

26)

わⅠ

27)

ん

Ⅱ

土

冗ん

せヶわ

0/ Do はれ後 e. 丘 0 篠移九 0竹 o/ C んひんん
ちがL0nd0n,ⅠⅠand1984), 4: 374‑385.

28) FoTanevaluationof[hisdebateina

七

heologica@andanth

Bgf 肋 /
物すれ o co 後サ の

日 ve, see G. Ga@eota,
すひDC ま化移位 3 ㏄ ‑ Zり 0/ (Chicago

4% み

れち メわ o う cf ぬ 777zi
れ 加乃 o (Rome,

3 り ioァ

Lo ひ じ れ io.

乙opologicalperspec.

Sf ぴガ io

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 B

Duchesne,

メ

F. X.Jansen,c 屋 sfo イァぴれ

1966), pp. l00‑164. ForBaiusingeneral,seeJ.

月田ぬ乙ル丘Ⅰ加乃公 笏 e(Louvain,

クヶぬ

B.

(Douay,1731 ㍉1927); andJ.Alfaro,"Sobrenatur.

oⅡ ginal en Baio," R ㏄六ぬ 9革4ん 0ぬルけん eo7Q ど ん 12 (1952): 1‑75.
brand of positive theology. ㏄e Mo 後
れ ぬ カム fo わ C移Soc わ超 fis ルsw. Mo 後 ぴ卸クれ肋な 後枕加乃 a, l1/l, pp. 554; and Mo 後 ぴ 7% ち後肋 ん % わん ㏄
Soc わ柘 fis %sw. 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:
De せ ocf7ぜ後 a, ㎝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 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㏄．
ん30) Galeota. Bcff477 tiれ o co 鈎沖 0 田㎡ o, p. 363, discusses he contrast
betweencounc Ⅱ s and Augushne.
For patrisHc scholarship du ㎡ ng the T ㎡ den Ⅱ ne
al y pecado2g) For lgnatius,s own

ぴクれ

と

Ⅰ

クラ

Ⅰ

ク

Reform,see

Ⅰ

Cochrane,

7fは か， pp.

Ⅰ32, 136‑137; for the AugusUanism

period. see A. D. W ㎡ ght, デル Co ぴ免 feた 化が 0多切れ 0れ (Newin thisYork, 1982), pp. 1‑83.

B が ㍻ 庖o co 何の B は io, p. 5.

3l) Ga № ota.

ょ仲32) For the inst 什 ution, after considerable

opposition, of the "coff 琢ル川侭ぬゆ 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,HⅠ

デわ Ⅰ初耳 ぴ庇 Lo ひ囲 ねれ㏄

仁 5 Ⅰ ァ ‑1550

り， Humanistica

ナガ

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,pp2S‑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 び 0ゆガ卸 0 ワぴ nヴぴとクぴ Ctorで collecぬ 6.

はれゆんノ， p. 4f68.
ⅩX ⅩⅢⅠ玖 れ 拓わ 0れと

鹿 Rs り移ぴ笏

Be Ⅱ armino,s"A ぱ篠 0打 ifio は ガ

1504, Conrad

Pe Ⅲ kan, a Minorite

と

Heb

Ⅰ

Ⅰ

fewe

Ⅰ

Cammar(Dルし Ⅰ(LugdunH,

0化れ ". EaてⅡ1596);
erin he centu
七. . ぴれ a cぴ笏

the quotationてy,is froma ound l503;てfrom Alsace, had published a rudimentaryり榔 0ガ 0 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@ alone36)@ In@contrast@to@the@sophisticated@cultural@operations@performed@by@the@Human

Ⅳ eachinghas

ists, such as Va Ⅱ a,sEz 琢複移お化 ， md@enta
scholarly attention;is P. F. Geh@, A MOo ぬ/ A ガ :the exceptions

among

，

n0t attracted muchぇG ぬ切佛れ r.,S0 ㎡ 6%, d れ d C 刃切れ肋 T 9.8c6れ to Floorg笏ce ㎝hacaand

London,ァ1993),

82‑106, where ぬe author describes the kind of exercises to which pupils
weresubJect byteachersofgrammar.
37) For Latingrammarasa
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 Ⅰ Hge と れneは e,pp.179‑

38) FortheHebrewtextofthepsalm.see
180.

， R 妨お 0施勿がりルぬCo れか 笘麓ぬ ルノ囚硲(Bruxe@@es,1890),vol.

39) C.SommervoBell, coll. 1115‑1153.

40) Brodrick. デ乃召 1,塊壌れ こ肪ク Ⅲ0訪， pp. 45‑46.
41) For the impactofhumanism

bibIica@ studies, ㏄eG.

on

B ㎡ovuelle, "L,access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: Humanismand Scripture," T 碗 Cb 肪 o庇 H 賄o㎡㎝Ⅰ 椛ひ ieの 52 (196618‑38; 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 han
止

befo

Ⅰ

． made》he｝roblem of‖normative anduniform text［oree43)@ Incidentally ， humanistic@philology@also@threatened@canon@law
than

burni

g

the

Corpuscononici， VGla

iuris

， With@less@eclat

showed that

the

DonatiofnConstantine@was@a@forgery@and@Antoine@Augustin@laid@down@the@groundwork@foramorereliable

editionofthat

Corpushumanistic training， Bellarmino was notproduct@of@the@Tridentine@reform

in

1580.

involved

Yet ，
in

the

keepinginwith

preparation

of

his
this

．

刀 s0 ひ ぬ%0 ク 0何がice. ひ %co44) Forthistransfomation.P.Prodi,

ゆo e サ彫乙荻笏 な肱佛o%n は乏 ゐ西 勿加乃が拓クわ笏 ほ % ほ笏0ル榊o (Bo@0gna, 1982), pp. l5‑40 ．

45) Ontheconceptof りofeS ぬS 鹿田 ㏄加 ", seeJ.C.

mineandtheIndirectP0wer,"ァ

Mu 庁ay, "St.

RobertBe Ⅱ ar.

T%eoio 坤㏄7S 肋援㏄ 9(1948): 491‑535; and,forthe

一 212‑historical context

which

in

Bellarmino

xi i s@of@Context:@"Complelaborated this

doctrine ， F ． Oakley ，Gerson,@BClarmine,@Sarpi,@Richer,@and@the@Vene

an

ⅠInterdict@ of@ 1606‑1607"@ Catholic@ Historical@ Review@ 82@ (1996):@369‑396.@

misleadi

a@debate@Wth

the@g@to@l ok@ at@Bellarmi o@as@if@he@was@mere@@ engaged@@@"absolute"@dimension@of@ the@thinkers@who@upheld@conciliarism

AgeC0ncilia

EdmundⅡ sm:modern@StatC@he@． On@this@controversy

Richer,sEnc0untersw[t@is

al o@ engaged@pol， see@F ， Oakley， "BronzecalⅠ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

肋 励み ル ， pp. 4‑7. 104‑105.

47) See C0 れ Cが ガ T わみ 6% ヰ庇 i, AC め朋珂(Freiburg,1911),V/2:
andpp.
newg1‑92, f0rtheteXt

teXt,

0fthetw0decrees0nSc

of the Bible in thiscase. shouldbe"frees.im
れオ ， is not anentirely new

medicine, medieval

claim.

Jurisprudence

58‑57.forⅡ pture. Thede0ferrors"

Particularly

た

hedCbate;㎡ rethatthe(4 れ 4州 6%6%w 辻 h regard

and university authorities paid much

ぬ‑

援 ロサ

to lawandatten.

口 ontothe p oduc 廿 on ofreliable texts;

azionedel copista," Ri ひお 拓 ずれ屋川 嫁in 竹り ル刀はずわば o co 切れれ e 6 (1995): 153‑1189;

ちA ゆe.Ahi e.Alnクのははガ aれ g linの㎡口れ 召nln まれ ク力れ Dは・id., 佛ル篠仰ぴ <? i邪ヶ後ク ecU た ．

F. P. W. Soetermeer. 'La carcer.

see

「

れり

Ⅰれ ㏄何o (Milan. 1997), pp. 133‑158.

48) H.Jedin,P

はゅ祝ム 後援g 裾 fhe CoMn お 7 が アのん， Ca 肋初刀 Gf の 屋榔 o Se/ゆク篠 do(St. L0uis. 1947), pp.g5‑98, 295‑296. Seeals0Seripand0
printer of the Vulgate.
ヶぬ， slettert0theeventual， in A. Ceruti, ルは9)で万オん 6 %Pa0l0 Manuzi0

な0比

7% 柘ル 7 secofo Sedic ㏄ ァ榔 0 (Milan, 1876), P. 75.

49) M. Cano, De zoc ぬ施goJog わぬ， 1I, XII1.
50) For Carafa,s(B0l0gna,

and Cano,sp0 ㎡Ⅱ 0n, seel904). pp. l2‑13; E. Emmi,

Q ぬ gsfio れヶ㎡ 67ic ん cnei

p otestantico.catt0lica,"A% 牽と fiCぴ肋
30 (1953): 107‑130 ， 228‑272; and P. Bauf0l, ムり Ⅱク fi㏄れ 如月Ⅰ
ぴ 7 Ⅱ7
月は M/ げcommenti

de Ⅱ a prima/seconda

G. Bu0naccorsi.

"Il decreto tridentin0 su Ⅱ a V0lgata

polemicaてク(Pa ㎡ s, 1889), P. 73.
5l) B. Ha Ⅲ "BibhcalScholarship:
まeEdiuonsandC0mmen

H 昧 fo ひ 0ダ %c Bibzc. V0l. 3. てんとⅢ㏄サ

D 符 (Cambhdge,1963), pp. 38‑93. Blaming

f0rn0tappreciaUngthewou

e anacァⅠahes," in 冗ん cC4%

みわ

d.

ボの附けん 召 R 顔07枠れれ o移 fo 施と P れ wc 籠 f

siXteenth‑century biblical sch0lars

Septuagint as 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 pos 吐 i0n,
S 廿 ㎏ t0 ， 5letterst0Cewinisee

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, p. 27; f0r
see Co れ ci7ガ アわ ルク2fiれ i, E ク isf0肋ァ

0ntheSeptuagint,

一 213 一(Freiburgurn@， 1916) ， X/1， pp ． 934‑939

A がo朋笏 V/2. pp. 65‑66

54) For the final decision, see Co れ田ガ アわ ルん施ち55) Le Bachelet, B めぬグア が れ乙肋 R ラル． p. l05.

Also G. Gerleman,ケ

S ゆ地徳ヶれサよⅠわ e ぢ o0 ゐ 0//0ぅ(Lund, 1946),pp. 31, 75whe

Ⅰ

S 脇机㏄

ァ

竹切ぢ

etheauth0rstates

that@ "the@ Greek@ Book@ of@ Job@ is@a@ genuine@ Hellenistic@work ． created@ by@ andfamili r@ to@ circles@ comparati

ely@ forei

n@ to@ all@ exclusi e@@

JeWsh@

li es@ of．"thought56)@ For@ the@ fluctuatng@ meaning@of@ the@ term@ "vulgata"@ even@ @@ Jerome,@ see@ F ．

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
gcal57) 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@da@

Yet@ uncertainty

pigliasse,@S@ trovereba@a@normatiuⅠpadri@ sotto@ il@ titu@@

e@text@would@dCl

Ⅴ 0ate@the@pri

ci

pie@of@"freedom"@ attested@by@the@Greek@ and@Latin@church:@ "si@torrebbe@ancora
quella@ liberta， quale@ 6@ sempre@

stata@ lodata@

latina@ di@ poter@ leggersi@ et@ servirsi@
della@ sacra@ Scrittura， ancor@adopton@Ⅰof@ a@ restFc

nella@ chiesa@ tanto@ greca@quantoa@ buoni@ propositi@ di@ tutte@ le@interpretationi

che@ fossero@ Gudei@

ve@ poli y@ would@

et@ heretici@ ．．．
"@ Fnal@be@ counterproductve,@， thefor@ "quanto@ piu

vogliamo@ ligare@ et@ restringer@ 1， ingegni ， tanto@ pill@si@sciolgono@et@allargano ． "58) Le Bachelet, BeJ 屋 れれⅠれ れぬムめル． p. 104;
and G. Vos 捷 ． 毛 a Volgata
59)@

B ． Ermmi， "II@decreto@tridentino

del@ decreto@sulla@Volgata
60) P. Melanchthon,0%noの@㏄ 0れ i, pp. 7‑74;

Buonaccorsi,

al Conc Ⅲo di Trento,"， "@pp ． 107‑130

わぢ 必用㏄ 27 (1946 月

301‑319， 228‑272;@ id ． ， "Senso@e@portata。 "@ Angelicum@ 30@ (1953):@ 347‑374

A しね 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 笏 XXXV,ヶは

れれ o MDco Ⅱ． 371‑506;

ぴ れり cぴれ
Cぴ榔 れん 妃0め ，

Ⅹん Ⅱ7 Cele う抑わ

は Co れ C棚ガ Ⅰわ売ん脇
iM れロ

M. Chemnitz,

協ね笏粥Co れ ci脇りe e田わ one

め庵 れ 鍛C櫛襯用Ⅰわ鹿れサ 庖i (Frankfurt, 1556‑1573).
61) F0r the decree, see A. Maichle,

つゐ

D 磁化Ⅰ

7めの 窩笏，，㏄
レ0 % 移用 劫勿れ 臼ぴれ 7 % 椛佃窩㎎ (Freiburg, 1914); R. Draguet,
ma 止 relouvaniste Dreido. insp 廿 atuer du d cret de Trent
奄sur

M な ce7za 彫りんむヵ わ㏄ 施ん0打 0花篠 A めクれヶつ e M ゆぴ (Louvain"Le@a Vulgate." inand BruXe

Ⅱ es.

一 214 一1946), pp. 836‑854.
62) For Bellarmino,sroleintheed

肋 Wれ 庖
Wれ 庖c, pp. l12 Ⅰ20; id 。 乃 g L ル

ⅢonoftheVulgate,seeLeBachelet,Be

九功 B 妨ル ， pp. 13‑73; Brodrick. R0%
0% ガ妨ク %0 椛， l, pp. 269‑309;

れル楠

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,

Ka di 冤 / G 稚れが 加 o Sirzefo: J5J4‑i585(Munich 。

㌃， Italy ， p ． 189.@

1966);@ Cochrane

Bell rmi

o@and@Rs@cousi， RcciSirleto@for@the@first@time@four@days@after@their@arrival@in@Rome:@

i， metrdo@Cervi， L ，epoca

Scadutoば z G は㏄ 笏 0 Ⅰ，
0z% ㏄， p. 281

64) Le Bachelet, B 乙肋 7% 肋勿肋B 妨ル ， pp. 103‑10665)@ Brodrick@ maintains@that@Sirleto@answered@ indirectly@ by@sending@some@materi

l@ to@ Peter@Cathat Canisius

s．

Ⅰ si

727. 789, where

亡

wrote

serve to defend

But@see@Hs@

Saint@ Peter@ Canisius@ (New@York

hat mate ㎡ al is deschbed;

七

七

hat what

he Mother

D ⑧クぴ肋わ 0んぴ櫛援 e co亡he had received were

0fGodagainst七， 1936) ， pp ．

718, where Brod ㎡ ck s atesp.

"ancient eXた亡s that may

he herehcs."% 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

ル ㎎バ

and

後サ

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,
ひTestament,p.

for B 目 larmino,s pos@0n

34;

see Co れサ の 彫ね肋 g, pp. 6‑8,70) For the definition of [he canonical books
Dunker,

"The

the

at

the Counc@『

Ancient

Ⅰ

且れ cic れ Ⅰ㏄ 脇 れと 免 f. 助力れれ
りお 0れ勿 s0 れん ね toi托 ， ed. by J. .D.

om

edu

"LecanondeKaestli and O.

荻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,"ArⅠ

Ⅱ

e(Geneve, 1984@ pp. 253‑282;7l) T.M.Centi,"L,attivit
tionf

du conc

刀乃Trent." in ムと ㏄れ 0免ノク㍗

Werme@nger

dans la perspechve

P. G.

see

of Trent. 。

Ca 比 of た Bi が ica7 Q れクれ e か 15 (1953): 277‑299; and G. Bedoue@e,Testamentof the Old

canonof the Old Testament,of the Old Testament

Canon

0n

10‑23.

% れ 0 ア佗 sfほれ 8% ガれ 0 乙州挽後 Sfリ ガ0 ク召 Ⅰ Sd れ C地色
a尹ゆ のう クぬほ C ル用 とれ 拷 ⅡW, was published at Lyon in

Ⅱとルァ六

theoriginals,

月壊鯛後庖ぴ 卸れぴ笏ク 8r e刃物，

ノ1527 (Florentine style). Antonioノ

Bruci0li used thistranslation (Venice, 1532) and claimed

tha

亡

teXt

for his vernacular

hi5 rendering was

based

on

the

originals.
72) Co 篤ナのひ

クアド玖

%e,

p.

37:

"qui

pa Ⅰ tim

ir epseⅠてunt

negligentia. vel igno antiaⅠ一 215 一
hbra ㎡ orum

ignoran 廿 a rabbinorum‥．partim

qui addiderunt

puncta."73) Co れサ の e% ぬ e, p. 37.
ノ74) Le Bachelet, 万が功用
れ Ⅰれ切 肋 B 乃ル ， p. 113.
75) F0r a classical deschption

Eクぬサ

ぴ肋 e,Ep.

LXXl;

seeh@sprefaceto

teXt,

of such a popularupheava@. ㏄e Augustine.

forJerome,sfearsatthemomentofpresentinghi5revised
theteXt

in B 朽 ぬ sは C抑ゲれてヵof the Gospels

ぉ age,inparticular

ひ ク

0f Saadia

Gaon, Salmon

ben Yeruham,

お 0加乃 53, ed. by Joseph78) Co んの彫庵肋み

p. 36;

Alobiadi

and Yefet ben E Ⅱ， see T レ Me5Si0%

Cano, Dc foれ出 1/1I, c. 13.

Confroversiae， pp ． 36‑37.

80)@

K ． R ． Stowe， "The@ Bur Ⅰ ng@ of@the@ Tal

CatholicAttitudes

Re ればば ㏄れ ㏄ 34 (1972):

81) Forthepos
in@ Rome@82)@ For@
conce
pp.

83)@

Favi
て

towardud@@@1553 ， in@ the@ Lght@of@Si， 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鹿(Bern, 1998).

79)@

Century

Ⅱぴ山 はぬ沖Ⅰ

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

れ ly,seeK.R.Stowe,アカe/69 緩 S

1， pp ． xxx‑lvii， vol ．

， s@ hstoriograpHc3， politi 3 ， rCi i us ， and@c℡ tur3

ぴみわ s 乙 70s ゆん硲 ， R りの 7
ぜ ft ゼ後 Bi ぅ /c(Leiden. 1998),

H. Feldman,Sf

539‑70
Le@Bachelet， Auctarium、 pp ． 658‑660

insertae@expli aLoni@sacrarum@
insti uLon!@juventuLs@non@， n ． 101:@"Impudicae@narrationes@passilierarum,@quae@et@sancti

parum@

effCunt

atem@Scripturarum,@et，"84) Co れ Ⅰの蛇行 わ e, p. 38, Ⅱ b. II, c. 練 Dc g仇ガ 0れ e C ん ノリた ば．
Ⅰ

A 穏加われ 用 ， pp.660‑661,n. 103: Ce れ S% の庖ひeは i0 れり 用 C んり iぱ ai ㏄
襯押．のひ 8ぼぬ e, pp. 38‑39, Ⅱ b. lI, c. 4: Dg g援わ o色 e Sヴわね ca.

85) LeBachelet,
Ps 乙 7%086) Co れサ87) Aroundthe middle

causeda stir and nurtured

could be found.

of the century, the Sy ㎡ ac teXt of the New
hopes that the o㎡ ginals of Matthew

Its status

was

also enhanced

e Reformersusedby@anguage

Jesus spoke.

Wh

0pponents

undermined什 s credib Ⅲ ty by 由owing

claimedand七

hat the @anguage

version, see B. M. Metzger,
0 れ吾レ ，

Ⅱ

was

not

仁

Testament
and Hebrew

he b皿 ef 由at it was

辻 todethronetheVu@gate,the[hat it wasunderst0od.

not as

た

he
迂

"old"

as

On the history of thisデ%e 勘 Ⅰ加ルだ io色 S が 防り Ⅳりの

Tgsf は移 eん: 冗拷 ei/

T 他郷附ぬ㎡ 0れし れ メエni ぬ れ 0終 (OXford, 1977), pp. 48‑63.
Ⅰ ク88) Co んの叱俗ぬ g, pp. 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 LX

Ⅹ 鰯wio 襯援．

89) Co れサれ ㏄俗肋乙 p. 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, cg:awcfo 托ひれ ㎏Ⅰ 肋 e 切付 ion ぬ ．

De

Co んの㎎庶ヶ化 ， pp.46‑48,

9I)92) F0r the debate
Fraenkel

dent
pp.

93)

色 Ⅰ

2g3

II,c. l0:

Dc

はれ 己

@aplaCedUS@「

0んぬ拷 L 乙わ久 ee あれ onis ひ wzg ひ肋

the canonica@ bookson"Le@ debat@ entre@ Martin@ Chemniz@・OCanonlaUeSet
一

Ⅱ b.

with Chemnitz

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

Co れナ の ノりは後 c,pp.48‑

ノぴ ㎏し ね卸ⅠⅠ49, Ⅱ b. lT,c. ll:

a わ 死り 移 eみ汚 0免 6%,

Sn/ ひひ ん ぴ ⅠⅠsee also pp. 47‑48

ow¥fg.cれW.o れ fcs ん g.rクマ Lzftcoア町移う

Co れナ紐fo Ⅰ Be@la Ⅰ m@no,sllstofe

Ⅰ

rors

that@ Calvin@ and@ Chemnitz@ made@ in@ interpreting@the@ Tridentine@ decree@ on@ the
Vul

ate ．

For

the

3l

i sPrati

ged

of

n

JeromeS は庖 サルの 笏 ク % 妨ク ㎏ wd 蕊4% ㏄ (Ba Ⅲmore.
vi wing@Jerome's@ro@@@@ made@evident@by@paintngs:@

iconographical@standards
Jeromeas， the@dovetrans@

a

E ， Rcetor ， see1985), pp. 173‑ 19g.

Thechange，inin@contrast@to@Renai sance。 symbol@of@the@Holy@Spirit， is@depicted@beside．

94) TheteXt ㌧ぬて肋

viventem,"ひひ ㎏ 携ル用化はダ

oれ e例 " Teads"sbut see als0 thec ㎡ tical95) Co 免ナの彫は肋乙

pp. 48‑49;

apparatus

Ⅲvitanima

Deum

mea

f0rtemfor theva ㎡ ants.

Cano, Dc iociS, II. c. 14.

96) Le Bachelet, ムオ肋 れれ加功肋 B 乃尼 ， 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， cited@ above， note@n． 56

乙肋 B 巧尼 ． p. l15

l㎝ j LC Bachelet, B オルグリガ後In〉Caton》o》he…anon｛f》he｛ldゝestament,‖《ummary‖nd‖n‖nalySs｛fthis@debate@pp

P ． G ． Duncker

is@provided@by@， "The@Canon@． 282‑292.@ The@various@proposals@to@consider

forum,

the 0blecti0ns t0 b0oks

whose

，"

of@the@old@ Testament， inside@ or@outside@ the@conciliar
paternⅡ y wasquestioned, camet0

nothing.
@02)

Co れサ の㎎俗ル， pp.

see

1‑ 6,

8

10 ．

For

humanisHc

biblicalscholarship

J. H. Bentley, はれク脚れぬ おク れば 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 um
Sch ㎡ fts zwi ㏄hen Kardina@u れば

Caletanund Ambrosius

Cathahnus,"

die hl.

in Ⅲ乙ん橘勿廿

Ⅵり椛 なれば ぽぴ ㎎．A 俺尽 cんれ刀 M わん乙なん
援は硲 (Paderborn, 1967),pp.551‑577;

A. F. vonGunten,'La contribution

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 Cル (Geneve, 1978), pp. 46‑83; andを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 ん o肋庵んゆ ， pp. 63‑80 ， 103‑126.

l05) Co 何の化待肋 g. pp. 2什27.
Tridentine debateⅡb.

l. c. 17:the canon,on

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 てng, 1929).
Co れ ct7 わアわみ eれ At れ l,
，

See

・

l06J

T 屋 C拓地 れ笏 ， pp. 483‑496,

other theologians on the same473‑508,

fo ァ thepositionof

toplc.

l07) Co 免 Ⅰの 此バ肋 e, p. 25.
l08) Ha Ⅱ， "Bib@ical Scholarship,"

73‑76.

pp.

l0g) Co れ 廿の Ue 俺 iae, pp. 38‑39, lib. II, c. 4: De edtfiong Sノパ a㏄． The
edti

Syri

the

of

n

New

c

Albrecht@ Widmanstadt@
in@ 1555.@

mann@

Tremellinus

・

Testament was

the

by

「

JohannhumaDst(1508‑1559)@and@ printed@ in@ Venice@ by@ Michael@ Cyber

Instead@ of@ this@ text@

or@the@ edition@ prepared@ by@ Immanuelprofessor@of@Hebrew@at@Heidelberg

Bellarmino@ might@have@consulted@
that@ contai

prepared

fl st printed

s@ an@ append@@

・

and@printed@at@Geneve@in@1569

a@later@edition@of@Widmanstadt

of@Syric@ texts@comprisi，， s@text@(1556?)

g@the@ Sanctus， the@，sLord

the Athanasian
creed. the Magnificat, and a prayer forthedead.
For
a description of this edition, see F. C. Burkitt. P%0c ㏄ 廉れ鱗 0グ肪e C Ⅰ 卸ぅ わ %eprayer,A れ fiq彫れクれ Socie ゆ XI (1906), 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

to preferseemswith regard t0

the Parisian edition of 1549.

ee

3so@ L ． Pastor ， The@ History@ of@ the@ P0pes ， XXI 、 210;@ Ambrosii@ opera ， ed ． by@ K ．
SchenkelⅤ en ， 1897) ， pp ． l x Ⅴ i‑l， in@CSEL@XXXII@(

where@the@ed@

ilia@a@ Felice@ cardinal!@ de@ Monte@112)@The@ slow@
1569):@
sono
Hopfl

Ⅹ

or@stateS@ "maximum@damnum@AmbroSi@

x ， in@parRc Ⅰ ar@p ． l x Ⅴ ii，
libF@ i latum@est@edi
ione

Alto ， "noted@ by@Carafa@ in@ a@ letter@to@ Salmeron@ (17@ giugno

progress@was@"quanto@ a@ i@progress!@ nostri@ nella@ correttione@della@ Bibbia@ pochissimi
perche
・

in

tutto

un

mese

non abbiamo fatto"Beitrage@zur@Geschichte@der@Sixto

una

congregazione， Klementinischen@Vulgate

．．．
"，

H．

、 "@ BiblischeStudien@ 18/1@(1913):@ 1‑339 ， citation@at@pp， 308‑309.@ Two@years@later@Amulio． ina@ letter@ to@ Seripando@"lacorrectone@va@
grand， operaⅢ) Brodrick.

mol(10@ settembre@ 1561) ， aired@ a@ similar@ complaint:@

o@ lunga@et@ uno@ o@due@huomi， bisognando@vedere@moiti@

T ルり尼 a.nw

みⅠ

possono@testi ．．．
"， ibid ． ，fare@poca@ cosa@ a@ S

p ． 305

サル 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

the publicau0n0n

D ル Ⅱぴ ㎏ ほぬ S 肋 fi箱 クひ 0箱

Bible (l590). see P. M. Baumgartner,

0fthe

Sistine

590

れれ

肪托

Cagra

0n

the

Ⅰ

正Ⅴ 7tカガん アンれま Sうぴ i7e (Munster, l911).
Ⅲ) F0r compa。 。 mod0㎡ son, see the note

subm 什 ted in l576 by Giovanni

faci №． et sicuro, di essequ

Dec で e 0 de Ⅱ a Qua
七ァ

汁 e in Roma,the errors

Ⅰ

590.pp.

ァ㎏ d 珪 edbyBaumga"佗れ e" hadto "わはぴ We

ed 億 ingtheteXt

i S 加行ゆ afo わのd0esnotgo援same

霞 al,andScripture,hefocused

援
ぢ

は

ょ

セ

0logicalwork

比 uction 0f a structurec0mp

beyondthecons"C ム俺 ㎡ ", "Co ル留 ", and "[ @fii" 0n「than six thousande&i 0 0うリ ガわん 肋 ． " Theph

hemodelofthestate5) Le Bache 止 t, B ㍑ ぬ 押箱 庖乙ぬ Bib7e. pp. 128‑129.

Ⅱ6) Ibid., pp. 127‑128.
「

ten,D 招 Ⅴ ぴ ㎏ ほぬand fearlng that the

Ⅱ

Ryan,

「

lntroduced more止

couldhappentotheeditonofthebrevlary,theml

117)@ I5dⅡ
八口that crept lnto the text of the Blb@e (and a@so lllustrat@nghls polnt

ln the edltlons of he conc@liar documents)

0nhow

て

141‑150). Faultlngmoretheprintersthanthescribesfor

with the c@alm that thls newerrorsla Camera,gravarT ento, che o dina, ぴ z Sほ %del C0nci Ⅱ o dita Sessione<@c砲肋れワぴ切切 p.mれ 6れ @at は ㎡ 解 p,t 甜ク ガ %4%r"
S 後 ガれ lavcl れ

㏄nza

of
㎡㎡ ng

apparatuS.

pp ． 127‑127.

りぱゐ to ガ ㏄1 S レ
ho ぬねんめ ， pp. 163‑169

デあ119)@ On@ tHs@verse

A ． Vaccari， see@

rum@ (Gen ． 24 ， 32) ， "， "Ad@lavandos@pedes@camel

Biblica@7@ (1926):@ 439‑443.@ Unable@ to@ understand@ Jerome ， s@peculiar@construction
of@tHs@sentence
UnanlmoUS， the@editors@of@the@Sixti「

eadlngate ， agai

by this reading, see E. K. Rand. "Domof the Vulgate," H 移れ クァは廿 on the TeXt

e@Vul

st@theクじガ ㏄切れ「in 窩笏" tn ".ク eみ e?.spi 硲"

OftheCodlCeS,emended"

For 0ther scholars puzzled
Memo

e@and@Clementi

Quentin,s2 eozo睦㏄f Ee ie緩 17 (1924
万ひ月

197‑264. especia Ⅱ y pp. 260‑261.
0) I,e Bachelet. ぢ目 肋

% 施乙ね B わル ， pp. l19‑125.
ク囲) Le Bachelet, B 凌 ルク物肋乙ぬinsistence｛navarietyofB 帝ル ， pp. 137‑141, 142‑145, f0r Be
a cav Ⅲneought@to@be@permitted@at@the@bottom@of@the@page
BiblicalP0ntificalCommissiononNovemberIg21.seeA

debatearmin0 ， s

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.

B オ ぬ行れ施 e, pp. 105‑1lI; H. Reusch, D6% Ⅰれみ㏄
eⅠⅤ
B はtc eer. E 施 B 勿ぬ笘そ ur Ki /c.hEg.nz‑
ぴれ ガムル附加役㏄
c iC te (Bonn, 1883‑

124) Brodrick. Ro うりん
bnt ㎝enⅡ

Latin》ranslations ofヾcripture．

l23) This prohibition engendered(1922):l860). Ⅱ X 円 XXvi.

・はⅢ) C. Verce Ⅱ 0ne, Ⅱa れ鹿 7㏄わ 0後 ㏄Ⅱぴぬ u鹿 Ⅰ，afi れ 0e (Rome85), 1: 503.

乃

ば

「

ん

ル

ん

ちⅠ

一 219 一l乃ⅠDig. prooem.

O の れ り れ s 21.

const.

l26) On howmedieva@Juristsskirted
see R.Orestano,

Ⅰ れナ

theJushnianicprohibiUonのばぴ zio 篠 0%7Jo

st ぴみ i0 メリ

ノ ずん ばⅠ

o9losstheセeXt,

0 の 緩は箆 o (Bologna, 1987),pp.

51‑173.

H7) Le Bachelet, B が 肋ァ脚ァ篠

B め 屋， 168‑175. Francisco Luca Burgensi,
B 訪ねぬ
ifio箱 ぬノぴ ㎏ ぽ劫とノ硲 Sぴ S 仮ガ y 正われ f.

切畑

Ro 緩乙後携 e co/ 托が i0 乃公 iれ Ⅰ刀お篠ぬりぱ

M 笏． 托 c0名れわぬ， 70c は施s笘れ i0 (Antwerp,1603); id.,Ⅳ0肋 Ⅲれ援イ ひは れ ㏄ 佗 0れ㏄
庖 % 肋 or eひほれ 9e7i0 襯用 (Antwerp,l605); id., L 妨 977め祝ル/ co
s 0乃公
じば

クは

篠ナ施り篠

ク

ル Cん o免 れれ切れ裾継(Antwerp,l28) S. T omp,

"DeⅠ

commissione

で1618).

evisione teXtus G aeci N0viてTestamentiafacta Romae

B 肪 た 0 22(1941):

pont 田cia circa l617 praeside S. R. Bellarmino,"Ⅰ

303‑306.
129)@L ． M ． Voste ， "De@ revisione@textus@Graeci@Novi@testamenti@ ad@votum@ Concilii
Trident． in;@ facta 。 "@ Biblka@

collection@of@canonical@texts
Vat ． Gr ． 1159 ， which@130)@ Tromp

24@ (1943):@
．

Voste

304‑307.@ The@ Cod， s@indication@should@

corresponds@to@

text@

a@

． Vat ． Gr ．
be@readof@the@Gospels

1150@， perhaps

is@ a

， Cod

．

， "@ p ． 303， "De@ revisione@textus@Graeci

Ibid., p. 303

a bhef account℡) ForNew

Testament,

seeof Erasmus,s
L. Bouyer,㏄h0larship and his editions of the Greek"Erasmusin Relation totheMedievalBiblical

Tradition," in T 勿 C Ⅰ 卸ぅバはど g H お fo ゆ 0ア施6 % 肪ル ， Vo@ ． 2. エ刀

協 /か Raf ル庵ぬ妬 eR イoW 協わ 0れ (Camb
Scholarship,"pp. 59‑6l;

Ⅱ dge,1969),pp.492‑505;
E% 侭勿穏 ㏄ ク

and E. Rummel,

CJ侭③㏄ (Toronto, 1985), pP. 85‑102. The
quam@

editus")@edition133) Forthedescription

first hastened， published@by@Froben

ofthecodices,

T ㏄加乃 り何 (Berlin. 1902) 1/1 5g;

りHall."Biblical

T ぬれ S肋 to/が fhg( ツ托Cゆ iぬ地 用化 れぬ， appeared@in@1516;@

seeH.vonSoden,

Ⅵ㏄Ⅰ 身0れ地 e

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

R ㎝ 赤切れ刀 ㎝ ル．s Ⅳマ姥 箆ル s肋笏 後ぬ (Berlin, 1963);

P. Canartand V. Pe ㎡ ，㎡ り Ho 客用癖わ クリア ヶ櫛は舘 0s ㏄協ガ 名花㎡ガイ 肋 B 乃ね 0% ㏄ⅡⅠ
わ cc 移り (VaticanS 硲蕊仇City, 1970㍉

and K. Devreesae, ぬ乃 れ仏ま
附加功

B 妨 lhiotheque vaati ㏄n, ルS

0れき in?㏄ 携 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 ん o肋バんゆ ，

p. 170.
Ⅲ5) Tromp,"De revis@one textusGraeci,"

p.

305.

136) Le Bachelet, ぢめ切 御初 が妬 B 妨ル ， pP. 169‑170.
旧7) P. Paschini. "Guglielmo
storiadelta

chiesa］elSirleto phmacinquecento(Romedel 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:@

cattolica139)@These@ adnotaLons@have@been@studiWilelm@ Srlets@

Annotati

nen@

zum@

M．

Voste

・

"De@

revisione@

れ 18 (1941@
Tridentini," A れどぽガ cれ 2

Ⅲ) Brodrick.
reported.
l4D

P08a れandalso R. J. Blackwe@

Majorano

d@ and@ publi hed@by@ H ． Hop
Neuen@

Testament．

Ene@， "KardinalⅠi ung@ der

Vertei， 2@Heft@(1908):@ 1‑126

Concilii

387‑394.
Pe う a,s @etter to SiXtus

Ⅰ

Ⅲ e0 ， scase,seeC0chrane,，． "@ in@ Cin

Bibliae@ Hebraicae@ iuxta@ votum@

B 刀肋 )
笏 れ g, p. l10 ， where

F0ranevaluati0nof[heimpactofGa

283;

Niccolo@。 1958) ． pp ． 221‑236． "@in@Biblische@Studien@13

Vulgata@gegen@Valla@und@Erasmus

140)@L ．

(Rome

G は fi790 ， Bgff 乙 Ⅰ 笏 れ と は れ ば
ず

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 ん 0% んゆ (University 0f Pennsylvania

Press, 1984), pp. 9‑72.

is