the Lzfe of Groot, which is the first of the series, that
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
the University of Louvain.
It is undated, and contains the Sermons to the Novices and the Life of the Floly Virgin Lidewige.
Now, we know, from many observations in the Chronicle of Windesheim, that the care of the novices was one of the duties of the sub-prior,* and it is but natural to assume that the Sermons to the Novices, and the other works specially intended for them, were written during the periods when Thomas held this office—namely, before the expulsion of the brothers from Agnetenberg in 1429, and again after his re-election in 1448.
Probably also The Duties of the Faithful Steward were written subsequent to the time when he was Procurator.
The lives of Groot, Radewyn, and the other holy brethren of Deventer, may be assumed to have been written after Thomas returned to Mount St. Agnes in 1432.
The reason for this belief is that he states in the Lzfe of Groot, which is the first of the series, that he had himself seen the cell at Monichuisen, near
Arnheim, in which that saintly man made his retreat with-the Carthusians.t Now, the only record we have of Thomas having visited Arnheim is his account of the fourteen months which he spent there previous to John 4 Kempis' death in 1432.
Moreover, as Henry Brune died in 1429, and Arnold van Schoonhoven in 1430, it is obvious that their lives were not written previous to the latter year. also Karl Hirsche, Prolegomena zu einer neuen Ausgabe der Imitatio Christi, vol. i. p. 291.
Berlin.
Carl Habel: 1873.
* Chronicle of Windesheim, book ii., pp. 362, 372, 373, 568.
Life of Gerard Groot, by Thomas 4 Kempis, chap. vi. 2,
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
Again, in The Dialogue of the Novices, chap. v., we find an account of Brother Allard, who, as we learn from the Chronicle of Mount St. Agnes, page 63, died in 1436, from which we may conclude that this work appeared subsequent to that period.
If time permitted, I might easily point out many other indications of the dates of 4 Kempis' writings, but I must return to the history of his life.
In his latter days, from the time of his re-election as sub-prior until his death, he would seem to have been devoted entirely to his favourite occupations— praying, reading, composing, transcribing, teaching the Novices, consoling and directing those who sought his aid, and quietly jotting down the simple records of his monastery.
Meanwhile, the years rolled by in calm and peace, as the Chronzc/e tells, and Thomas was growing old.
Not, indeed, that we can observe in his manuscripts the signs of weakened sight or faltering hand.
It is said that he never required spectacles; and the codex of 1456, written when he was in his seventy-sixth year, is as perfect as that of 1441, and quite a masterpiece of caligraphic art.
Finally, we come to the last entry in his Chronzcle.
I will give it here in its touching simplicity :— "In the year of our Lord 1471, on the feast of "St. Anthony the Confessor [February 12],* in the " morning after High Mass, a devout laic, named John
It should be remembered that this date, as well as the others given in quotations from works of 4 Kempis' time, was actually twelve days earlier, owing to the reformation effected in the Calendar by Pope Gregory XIII., in 1582.
See Catholic Dictionary, by Addis and Arnold, p. 99.
London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1884.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
" Gerlac, died.
He was a native of Dese, near Zwolle, "and nearly seventy-two years old. He had lived with "us for more than fifty-three years, in great humility,
"simplicity, and patience, and had endured much labour "and many privations.
But, amongst other virtues "which he possessed, he was pre-eminent for taci- "turnity, so much so that often he would speak very
"little for a whole day, and even in his labours he gave "to others an example of silence.
Shortly before his "death he was seized with apoplexy, and became in a '"'measure delirious.
He was buried in our cemetery " with the other laics." * So far as we know these were the last words ever written by Thomas & Kempis.
He himself died in the following May, and the continuator of the Chronzcle records the event in these words :— "In the same year [1471], on. the feast of St.
'James the Less [ May 1], after compline, our Brother 'Thomas Haemerken, born at Kempen, a town in the "diocese of Cologne, departed from this earth.
He "was in the ninety-second year of his age, the sixty- "third of his religious clothing, and the fifty-eighth
'of his priesthood.
In his youth he was a disciple, at " Deventer, of Master Florentius, who sent him to his
"TThomas'] own brother, who was then prior of Mount "St. Agnes.
Thomas, who at that period was twenty "years of age, received the habit from his brother at "the end of six years' probation, and from the outset
"of his monastic life he endured great poverty, tempta- * Chronicle of Mount St. Agnes, p. 136.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
"tions, and labours.
He copied out our Bible and "various other books, some of which were used by the "convent, and others were sold.
Moreover, for the "edification of young persons, he wrote various little "treatises in a plain and simple style, but in reality
"great and important works, both in doctrine and "efficacy for good.
He had a special devotion to the " Passion of our Lord, and understood admirably how
"to console those afflicted by interior trials and tempta- "tions.
Finally, having attained a ripe old age, he "was afflicted with dropsy of the limbs, slept in the "Lord in the year 1471, and was buried in the East
"side of the Cloister, by the side of brother Peter Elerbort.'* Such is the brief outline which I venture to offer of the life of the great Thomas a Kempis.
Those who long to understand his glory and true grandeur must study his spiritual works.
Lowly monk as he was, we find in his career and writings the characteristics of a master-mind—of one who, having realized the greatness of God and fathomed the shallow nothingness of this world, was enabled to practise, and to teach as no other man ever taught before or since (the Apostles
Chronicle of Mount St. Agnes, chap. xxix., p. 137.
The continuator makes a mistake, or, more probably, the transcriber or printer an error, in giving sixty-three years as the period of 4 Kempis' religious profession.
It was really sixty-five years, as may be seen by reference to the dates in the Chronicle.
Historians differ as to the exact day of &4 Kempis' death.
I have adopted the statement of the continuator of the Chronicle, who names the feast of St. James the Less—viz. May 1.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
alone excepted) the one great lesson—that in patient suffering we must imitate Christ if we would be with Him in eternity :— "To many this seems a hard saying: Deny thy- "self, take up thy cross, and follow Jesus.
"But much harder will it be to hear that last word:
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.'
"For they who now gladly hear and follow the "word of the cross, will not then feel fear lest they
"hear of eternal damnation.
"This sign, the sign of the cross, will be in heaven, "when the Lord shall come to judgment.
" Then all the servants of the cross, who in their life-, "time have made themselves like to the Crucified, will
"draw near with great confidence to Christ, the Judge.
"Why, then, fearest thou to take up thy cross, "through which is the way to the kingdom ?
"In the cross is salvation; in the cross is life; in "the cross is protection from enemies.
"In the cross is infusion of sweetness from above ; "in the cross is strength of mind; in the cross is joy
"of spirit.
"In the cross is the height of virtue; in the cross "is the perfection of sanctity.
" There is no health of the soul, nor hope of eternal "life, but in the cross.
"Take up then thy cross and follow Jesus, and "thou shalt go into life everlasting.
% # % * % # "The whole life of Christ was a cross and a
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
"martyrdom; and dost thou seek for thyself rest and "joy ?
% % % Eo % * "<Tfh any man will come after Me, let him deny him- "< self, and take up his cross and follow Me,
" Flaving, then, read and searched out all, be this "our last conclusion—that through many tribulations
"we must enter into the kingdom of God." * * Imitation of Christ, book ii., chap. xi.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
De eee PARISIV Havine briefly reviewed the history of the times and surroundings wherein Thomas a Kempis lived, and sketched an outline of his career, I come to the least grateful portion of my task—namely, the story of the controversy which has long raged about the authorship of Zhe Limitation of Christ, and which, after one fashion or another, has ever sought to deprive the saintly Canon of Agnetenberg of the glory of having brought the precious volume into existence.
I would gladly avoid this painful retrospect, were it not absolutely necessary to show the grounds upon which I rest my belief that Thomas was the author, and thereby explain the interest I have felt in studying his life, and in visiting the scenes wherein it was spent.
Many who know Zhe Jmztation well, who study it constantly and love its words of holy wisdom, are unaware that it has been the subject of one of the most extraordinary controversies known in the history of literature—a controversy often heated, occasionally bitter, not always carried on with dignity or straight-
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
forwardness, and unhappily displaying at times evil passions which the writer of the book would have condemned emphatically.
This strange contention touches the authorship of the golden treatise, and has given origin to several hundred essays more or less voluminous.
Let us see how all this came to pass.
Zhe Jimztation of Christ appeared anonymously, as was frequent with books in those days, and very natural for the work of one who dwells on the maxim, " Love to be
"unknown and valued as nothing."
So far as an exhaustive investigation leads, we are drawn to the conviction that it appeared in the first third of the fifteenth century, and from that period spread rapidly and widely, being extensively transcribed and _ circulated throughout the monastic world.
There is not the slightest evidence that it existed before the period named, notwithstanding certain untenable statements advanced to the contrary.
During the lifetime of Thomas 42 Kempis the authorship of Zhe Lmztation of Christ was distinctly attributed to him by members of his own Order, who necessarily had the best possible information on the subject.
Moreover, its parentage, so far from being denied by Thomas, who certainly was not a man to borrow the plumes of others, was tacitly accepted by him when he placed it in his manuscript of 1441, at the head of a series of other treatises, which we have the strongest reason to believe were of his own composition.
The world at large was left in
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
ignorance upon the matter, and formed its opinions according as it was led.
At an early period of its history Ze Jmztatcon was attributed to St. Bernard.
Nothing could be more natural. Some early manuscripts and editions appeared under his name.* In tone of thought it strongly resembles many of his works; but when it was discovered that it quotes St. Francis of Assisi,f who was born nearly thirty years after the death of St. Bernard, it became evident that the Abbot of Clairvaux could not have been the author.
No mistake could be more excusable.
Any one who studies the book closely, side by side with the works of St. Bernard, will easily understand how natural it was, from intrinsic evidence, that it should have been attributed to him.
In turn the authorship has been erroneously assigned to many others, whose claims vanished upon investigation.
I shall mention first St. Bonaventure.
The mistake in this case arose from the error by which the Collationes Tolosanae, which contain quotations from The Imitation, were attributed to St. Bonaventure.
Subsequent examination proved that they were not his, but of very much later date.{ Amongst the many to whom Ze /mztation was in early times ascribed, I may enumerate Thomas Gallus, of Vercelli; Henry
Histoire du livre de l'Imitation de Jésus Chrise et de son véritable auteur, par le Chevalier De Grégory, vol. i, pp. 210-213.
Paris : Crapelet, 1843.
Imitation of Christ, book iii., chap. 1, last verse.
See Rosweyd's Vindiciae Kempenses, chap. xii., p, 46,"ete.'s also Malou, Recherches, etc., pp. 199-203.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
de Kalcar; Landolph of Saxony, a learned Carthusian ; Ubertinus de Cassalis ; Innocent III.; Piedro Rainaluzzi; John Tambaco; John Charlier de Gerson, the mighty Chancellor of the University of Paris; and John a Kempis, the elder brother of Thomas.
Early in the seventeenth century a certain mythical candidate for the authorship of The Jmztation of Christ was introduced upon the stage, and all the influence and learning of the great Order of St. Benedict were put forward to substantiate his pretensions.
This claimant is the so-called John Gersen, who is said to have existed, to have been a Benedictine, and to have flourished in the thirteenth century as Abbot at Vercelli in Piedmont.
By-and-by we shall investigate his position.
Again, in the eighteenth century, it was suggested that the authorship might possibly be attributable to a certain English monk, Walter Hilton, who is generally asserted to have been a Carthusian at Sheen, though in reality he was an Augustinian Canon Regular of the Priory of Thurgarton.
Hickes gives a full account of the grounds upon which his name was put forward.*.
However, Hilton's claims have not been considered sufficiently tangible to merit serious consideration, and have long since been abandoned.
In fine, I believe I may safely state that the only candidates for the authorship of the great book whose pretensions need discussion are—Thomas 4 Kempis,
John Charlier de Gerson, and the so-called John * Life of Thomas 4 Kempis, pp. lvii.—Ixiv.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
Gersen of Vercelli.
I shall not delay over the other claimants already named, referring all interested in the subject to the ample details contained in Hickes'
Life of Thomas a Kempis, and Kettlewell's Authorship of the De Imitatione Christi.
A few critics have adopted a curious theory concerning the authorship of Zhe Imitation, which requires notice.
They, and those who share their opinion, reject all the candidates hitherto named, and argue that the author is unknown, but of date anterior to & Kempis.
Their peculiar contention will be considered in due course.
Any one who intends to investigate this controversy exhaustively, must be prepared to undertake a very extended course of study, and to devote much time and care to unravelling its intricacies, and to weighing the evidence for and against the various opinions advanced.
Ele should, moreover, be tolerably familiar with six languages—namely, Latin, Italian,
French, German, Dutch, and English.
As already stated, some hundreds of essays upon the controversy have appeared since its commencement in the beginning of the seventeenth century.
Wolfsgruber gives a list, in chronological order, amounting to some two hundred and sixty.* I may observe that his catalogue is by no means perfect even up to its date of 1880, and since that time some most important contributions have been added, especially those of * Giovanni Gersen, sein Leben und sein Werk De Imitatione
Christi, von Dom Colestin Wolfsgruber, p. 254.
Augsburg: 1880.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
Spitzen and Becker.
For my own part, I have little to add to the discussion.
It may be that the observations which I shall make on the influence of St.
Bernard upon the author of Zhe Imitation, and the familiarity which I shall prove that the Windesheimers had with his writings, may be looked on as an additional link in the chain of evidence respecting the parentage of the book.
In the main, all I propose to do is to epitomize, as briefly as I can, the arguments advanced by the most learned advocates of each candidate or theory, and then to leave it to my readers to judge for themselves.
The illness and lamented death of my friend, Mr.
Edmund Waterton, a very eminent authority on this topic, has delayed the publication of his exhaustive treatise upon the subject.
We shall commence by considering the claims which Thomas a Kempis possesses to the authorship of The Imitation of Christ.
Already we have seen something of his life, and of the surroundings amidst which it was spent, and can therefore understand how peculiarly capable he was of putting together this masterpiece of ascetical teaching.
Trained in the school of spirituality inaugurated by Groot, Radewyn, Vos van Huesden, Vornken, and their companions, his mind became the mirror of their teaching, and transferred itself to the pages of Zhe Lmztation.
Byand-by we shall see how completely the book reflects their doctrines.
An ascetic in the highest sense of the word, he wrote for those within the cloister, and so truthfully, lovingly, and with such breadth of human
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
sympathy, that his words must live until the end of time.
"A solitary monk within his cell, Whose walls did make an island of his life, Surrounded by the waves of war and strife,
His hours obedient to the convent bell Until the grave had closed upon his corpse.
A life secluded from the haunts of men ; A soul that found an utterance, by the pen,
For hope and sorrow, joy and sad remorse ; A soul that longed for purity, that taught
Man's duty was to beat down pride and sin, To conquer passion, keep all white within,
And shun a world with dark and evil fraught.
Ages have past, yet still, amid the strife, Is heard the music of that far-off life." *
It will be convenient to discuss the arguments which go to prove that Thomas a Kempis was the author of Zhe /mitation under the following heads :— I. Contemporary witnesses.
II. External evidence, as manifested by the manuscripts.
III. Internal evidence.
The works to which I shall most frequently refer in vindication of the rights of Thomas 4 Kempis are those of Amort, Malou, Hirsche, Kettlewell, Spitzen, Santini, Becker, Delvigne, and Waterton.t
* Original Verse, by W. E. A. Axon.
The Academy (London, September 4, 1886).
For complete references to these writings I shall ask the reader to consult the " Bibliography " following the Preface.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
I.— Contemporary Witnesses.
It is obvious that if one or more trustworthy witnesses can be cited who knew Thomas 4 Kempis in his lifetime, and state unequivocally that he was the author of The [mztatcon of Christ, no reasonable person can resist such testimony.
Now, this is exactly what can bedone.
Three witnesses who knew Thomas personally aver that he was the author, and this long before the great controversy arose upon the subject.
Let us see who these contemporary witnesses were :— Joun Buscu.
The first is John Busch, the Chronicler of Windesheim.
It will be needful to say a few words here respecting this remarkable and devoted man.
Born in 1400, he entered the monastery of Windesheim, and became a Canon Regular of St. Augustine in 1420.
He died in 1479, eight years later than Thomas a Kempis, having completed, in 1464 (that is seven years before & Kempis' death), the Chronicle of Windesheim, one of his-most remarkable works, with . which we are already familiar.
That he was a man of rare ability and integrity is proved by the fact that when the Papal Legate, Cardinal de Cusa, undertook the reform of the monasteries of Lower Germany, he selected Busch as his companion and _ co-visitor.
Leibnitz speaks of him in terms of warm commendation in his Collection of the Historians of Brunswick, adding this grand encomium:
"It is manifest that
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
"Busch did not conceal abuses, and did not flatter "his own Order."* Again, Trithemius, the learned Benedictine Abbot of Spanheim, speaks of him in terms of high praise.t At the commencement of his Chronzcle Busch himself avows his good faith, explains his familiarity with the brethren of Windesheim, and tells us that what he writes he had either seen with his own eyes, or frequently heard from his seniors, or ascertained to have been regulated by the Chapter General of his Order.{ Let us now see what this unimpeachable witness tells us concerning Thomas a Kempis and 7he Lmitation of Christ.
Turning to his Chronzcle, where he speaks of the death of Vos van Huesden, we read as follows :— " Contigit ante paucos dies sui obitus, ut duo fratres
"notabiles de Monte Sanctae Agnetis prope Zwollis "ordinis nostri, dictum» Priorem nostrum super certis
"rebus consulturi in Windesem advenirent; quorum "unus frater Thomas de Kempis vir probatae vitae,
"qui plures devotos libros composuit, videlicet ; Qu "sequitur me, de Imttatione Christz, cum aliis, nocte
'"insecuta somnium vidit praesagium futurorum," etc.
In English the passage runs thus :— "It happened a few days before his death that two
"well-known brothers of our own Order from Mount * The reader will do well to consult Dr. Karl Grube's Life of Busch, already quoted.
Also Malou, Recherches, etc., p. 80.
See note following the Dedication of Rosweyd's edition of the Chronicle of Windesheim.
¢ See Preface to Chronicle of Windesheim, p. 3.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
"St. Agnes, near Zwolle, came to Windesheim to "consult with our said Prior upon certain affairs; of "whom one, brother Thomas & Kempis, a man of "exemplary life, who composed many devout books—
"viz., He who followeth Me, Of the Imitation of Christ, "with others, had the following night a dream fore- " shadowing future events," etc.* Such evidence coming from such a source is conclusive ; but we have much more to bring forward in corroboration.
HERMANN Ryp.
The second contemporary witness who knew Thomas a Kempis personally is Hermann Ryd.
He, like Busch, was a distinguished member of the congregation of Windesheim.
Born in 1408, he entered the monastery of Wittenberg in 1427, and was later sent to the Tyrol by Cardinal de Cusa to assist in the work of monastic reformation there.
In 1447 he was sent to - the monastery of the " New Work," near Halle, where he distinguished himself by his piety and learning.
In his description of the Convent of the Canons Regular of Windesheim, contained in a codex, dated
1473, in the monastery of St. Nicolas, in Passau, he writes as follows :— "Item, Frater iste, qui compilavit librum De * Chronicle of Windesheim, book ii., chap. xxi.
Amort, Deductio Critica, p. 94; Malou, p. 76; Santini, 2™** parte, p. 49; Kettlewell's
Authorship, etc., p. 226; also Becker, pp. 15-32, whose masterly vindication of the evidence of Busch I earnestly commend to the reader's attention,
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
" Tmitatione, dicitur, sive nominatur Thomas, supprior 'in dicto monasterio Montis S. Agnetis prope Swollis
"dicececis Trajectensis Provincae Coloniensis et distat " dictum monasterium uno milliari 4 Windesheim, quod "est monasterium superius, in quo singulis annis "Canonici Regulares de Provincia Coloniensi, Mogun- "tinensi, Trevirensi celebrant Capitulum Generale.
"Vixit autem hic compilator adhuc anno 1454.
Et "ego Frater Hermannus de monasterio ' Novi Operis'
Hallas Magdeburgensis Dicecesis eodem anno "missus ad Capitulum dictum Generale fui eidem "locutus."
In English the passage is as follows :— "The Brother who compiled the book of The " Tmitation is called or named Thomas, sub-prior in the "said monastery of Mount St. Agnes, near Zwolle, in "the diocese of Utrecht and the province of Cologne,
"and this said monastery is distant a league from "Windesheim, which is the head monastery, in which "the Canons Regular of the Province of Cologne,
"' Mayence, and Treves hold yearly a General Chapter.
"The said compiler was still alive in 1454.
(And I, "Brother Hermann, of the monastery of the 'New ""Work' near Halle, in the diocese of Magdeburg,
'being sent to the said General Chapter, spoke with Phim." * |) Under ordinary circumstances it would seem almost
See Amort, Deductio Critica, pp. 98-100, who gives a notary's authentication of the extract; also Malou, p. 82; Kettlewell's Authorship, etc., pp. 237-240; Becker, p. 33.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
needless to add to the testimony of Busch and Ryd, whose evidence is given so clearly and pointedly ; but, in the present case, such extraordinary and pertinacious ingenuity has been expended in endeavouring, by discrediting Thomas a Kempis, to support a phantom claim in favour of an imaginary individual, it becomes prudent to corroborate their authority.
Joun Mavpurn.
The third witness is John Mauburn. A native of Brussels, he entered the monastery of Mount
St.
Agnes shortly after the death of Thomas a Kempis.
In 1491 he published at Basle a book entitled Rosetum Spiritualium E'xercitcorum, in which he quotes
The Imitation as the work of 4 Kempis.
Again, in his Scala Communzionis he does the same.
Finally, in his Venatortum, he adds the words, "Qui Frater " Thomas a Kempis inter caetera opuscula, quae fecit,
"composuit libellum, Quz seguztur me, quem falso "quidam Domino Gerson attribuunt." * A companion of Mauburn, who accompanied him into France, likewise quotes Thomas as the author of Zhe [mztaton.f
WESSEL GANSFORD.
The fourth witness is Wessel Gansford.
According to Albert Hardenberg, the disciple and biographer of Wessel, the latter acquired his first taste for true
Amort, Deductio Critica, p. 115; Malou, p. 92; Santini, Seconda parte, p. 76; Kettlewell's Authorship, etc., pp. 252-255
; Becker, p. 44.
; + Amort, Deductio Critica, p. 116 ; Kettlewell's Authorship, etc., p. 256; Becker, p. 45.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
theology by reading Zhe Imitation of Christ, and actually went to Mount St. Agnes specially to make the acquaintance of its author, Thomas a Kempis.*
Thus far four contemporary witnesses have been quoted, of whom three knew Thomas personally (two of them being members of his own Order), and aver that he was the author of Zhe Limitation of Christ.
There is besides a host of others, either contemporary or nearly so, whose testimony is amply sufficient to establish the claims of the holy monk of Agnetenberg, even if we had not the irresistible evidence of Busch, Ryd, Mauburn, and Wessel Gansford.
We shall proceed to quote a few more :—
THe ANONYMOUS CONTEMPORARY BIOGRAPHER OF
Tuomas A KEmpPIs.
This author, the fifth witness, wrote his biography shortly after a Kempis' death, and states that his informants were the brethren of Mount St. Agnes, who had lived with Thomas 4 Kempis and had known him intimately.
In the course of the life this writer distinctly quotes Zhe [mztation of Christ as the work of a Kempis, and adds a catalogue of his various spiritual treatises, including therein the four books of The Imitation.t * Malou, p. 88; Santini, 2°" parte, p. 72; Kettlewell's Authorship, etc, De 257 ; Becker, p. 133.
Mooren, Nachrichten, etc., p. 195 ; Malou, p. 84; Santini, 2™* parte, p. 66; Kettlewell's Authorship, etc., p. 246; Kettlewell's Thomas
4 Kempis and the Brothers of Common Life, vol. i. p. 13; Becker,
PP. 35-37-
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
Marutas FARINATOR.
The sixth witness is Mathias Farinator, a Carmelite monk of Augsburg, and contemporary of Thomas A Kempis, who transcribed Zhe Jmitation between 1472 and 1475, and states that A Kempis was its author.*
ADRIAN DE But.
The seventh witness is Adrian de But, and his evidence comes with singular force in defence of the rights of Thomas 4 Kempis.
The Royal Commission of History of Belgium brought out in 1870, under the supervision of Baron
Kervyn de Lettenhove, the Chronicles of Adrian de But, a monk of the famous Cistercian abbey of Dunes.
These Chronicles date from 1431, and are continued up to the death of De But in 1488.
Late in the Chronicles, and referring to the year 1459, the following note occurs:—'" Hoc anno Frater Thomas & Kempis, de
"Monte Sanctae Agnetis professor ordinis regularium "Canonicorum multos scriptis suis divulgatis aedificat :
"Hic vitam sanctae Lidwigis descripsit et quoddam "volumen metrice super illud Quz seguctur me." T
Here we find Adrian de But, the contemporary of Thomas 4 Kempis, attributing to him Zhe Lmztateon nda * Amort, Deductio Critica, p. 107; Malou, p. 89; Santini, 2 parte, p. 73; Becker, p. 49.
Careful examination of the manuscript itself, which I have lately made at the Burgundian Library at Brussels, with MM. Ruelens and Hosdey, has satisfied us that this note refers to 1459 (that is, twelve years before 3 Kempis' death), and not, as generally believed, to 1480,
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
of Christ, designating it, as usual, by its first sentence, " Out sequitur me," and adding the word metrice.
This latter term might have remained an inexplicable puzzle were it not for the discovery made about 1872 by Dr. Carl Hirsche, that Zhe Jmztation of Christ, as well as most of the other writings of Thomas 4 Kempis, is written and punctuated so as to be rhythmical!
Herein, too, is found the explanation of the fact that certain old manuscripts of the book bear the title
"Musica Ecclesiastica."* This point will be considered later on.
PRrER "SCHOTT:
The eighth witness is Peter Schott.
He was a Canon of Strasburg, a noted divine, poet, and literary critic.
He wrote a laudatory preface to the works of Gerson, published in 1488, and distinctly states that the book, Ox Contempt of this World, a well-known synonym of Zhe Limitation, was not the work of the great Chancellor, but of a certain Thomas, a Canon
Regular.
* Santini, 2" parte, p. 80; Becker, p. 50.
The reader will do well to look over a masterly article on this controversy, entitled "A " New Light on an Old Subject," from the pen of Miss Agnes Lambert, in the Dublin Review of April, 1880.
London: Burns and Oates.
Also Hirsche's Prolegomena, vol. i.; and M. Ruelens' "Preface to "the facsimile of 4 Kempis' manuscript of the Imitation of Christ," published by Elliot Stock, London, 1877. t Amort, Deductio Critica, p. 108; Malou, p. 91; Kettlewell's
Authorship, etc., p. 242; Santini, 2" parte, p. 75; Becker, p. 50.
See copy of Gerson's Works, in Library of Trinity College, Dublin, E. d. 28,20.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
Martin Simus.
The ninth witness is Martin Simus, of Strasburg, who, in his edition of the works of Gerson (1494), again distinctly states that the book, Ox the Contempt of the World, was not the work of that author, but of a certain Thomas, Canon Regular.* Jenan LAMBERT.
The tenth witness is Jehan Lambert.
He translated Zhe Limitation into French in 1493, and asserts that it is the work neither of St. Bernard, nor of John
Gerson, but of Thomas 4 Kempis.T
'T RITHEMIUS.
The eleventh witness is Trithemius, better known as John Trittenheim, Benedictine Abbot of Spanheim, one of the most learned ecclesiastical historians of his time.
He wrote in 1494 and 1495, and attributes The Imitation of Christ to a Kempis, the author of the Sermons to Novices.
He seems confused between John and Thomas a Kempis, as he was in the case of Busch, whom he calls Arnold instead of John.
Nevertheless, his evidence is most zmportant, as showing that in his time Z7%e Jmztation was not attributed to a Benedictine author, but to a member of the Congregation of Windesheim.{
* Amort, Deductio Critica, p. 108.
Ibid., p. 109; Malou, p. 95; Kettlewell's Authorship, etc., p:-244 ; Becker, p. 51. t Amort, Deductio Critica, p. 113-115; Becker, pp. 52-55:
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
PETER DANHAUSSER.
The twelfth witness is Peter Danhausser.
I have in my possession a copy of the works of Thomas a Kempis, edited by the above, and printed in Nuremberg by Hochfeder, in 1494.
At the head of the first chapter of Zhe Imitation we find a distinct declaration that its author was Thomas 4 Kempis, and zo? the Chancellor Gerson. A preface to this edition by the Carthusian, George Pirckamer, adds the weight of his authority to the text.
Immediately following Ze Imitation we find the Medttatio Cordis, with Gerson's "name, given in this edition, as it were to observe the old custom of putting these two works side by side.
Jopocus Baprius AScENSIUS.
The thirteenth witness is Jodocus Badius Ascensius, a man of great learning, who edited and published the works of Thomas a Kempis in the year 1521, including therein Zhe [mztation of Christ ; adding in his preface that he undertook the work at the request of the Benedictines of St. Germain-des-Prés, the Carthusians of Paris, and the Celestinians of Soissons.
Evidently all these held that Thomas was the author.* If space permitted, I might go on adding witnesses to the number of twenty or more,t but this seems utterly needless) Any one who could resist the * Amort, Deductio Critica, p. 110; Malou, p. 97; Becker, P55 + See the works of Amort, Malou, Kettlewell, Santini, and Becker, on this subject.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
evidence of those already quoted is not likely to be influenced if they were multiplied by thousands.
It seems impossible to me that any one can read the foregoing testimony—coming from witnesses either contemporary or nearly so, who, acting independently and above all suspicion, unite in attributing the authorship of The Imitation of Christ to Thomas & Kempis— without arriving at the conclusion that he, and he alone, must have been the writer.
All other information appears superfluous ; although, on account of the extraordinary tactics adopted by his adversaries, it may be well to strengthen his defence. I shall, there« fore, make a few remarks upon the external evidence deducible from an examination of the various manuscripts of Zhe Lmztation of Christ which have been discovered from time to time.
I].—Fxternal Evidence of Manuscripts.
This branch of the controversy covers so wide a field that it would be impossible to treat it fully in the present essay, and_I must confine myself to little more than a statement of the conclusions to which it inevitably leads.
I shall commence with a few observations touching the age of the manuscripts.
This is a matter of necessity, in order to demolish certain baseless fabrics erected by a Kempis' adversaries with the design of invalidating his claims.
In the first place, I may state, with what I am satisfied is incontrovertible certainty, that xo manu-
THOMAS A KEMPIS:
script of The Imitation of Christ has ever been produced of an age antecedent to the mature manhood of Thomas a Kempis—that is to say, the first third of the fifteenth
| century.
We may find many efforts made to discredit this statement, but not one is in the slightest degree worthy of credence.
The various manuscripts, numbering over two hundred, may be classified into those which are dated and those without date. The earliest dated manuscript of even a portion (Book I.) of The Lmitation is that from the Benedictine monastery of Moelck, which is supposed to be signed 1421.* The complete copies of Zhe Imitation vary in date from 1427 downwards.
Let it be remembered that at this period Thomas ~4 Kempis was nearly fifty years of age.
There exists one manuscript bearing the dates 1384 and 1385, to which I must allude at some length, for the purpose of showing that it is not worthy of the smallest confidence.
The codex in question is named the " Paulanus ;" it comes originally from the Benedictine monastery of * It is very doubtful whether this date is trustworthy.
It is not appended to the portion of The Imitation contained in the manuscript, but to another out of several treatises in the same volume.
Obviously the time at which these various works were bound together is uncertain, and so is the date of the portion of The Imitation contained therein.
See Gence's edition of The Imitation, Preface, pp. xliL, xiv.; De Grégory's Histoire, etc., vol. i. p. 180;
Santini, 2™* parte, pp. 257, 258.
I may mention that an interesting account of a visit to the monastery of Moelck, by Dr. St.
George Mivart, will be found in the Nineteenth Century, September, 18386,
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
Wiblingen, and now belongs to that of St. Paul, in Carinthia.
Oddly enough, it has only recently been brought to light.
Dom Wolfsgruber, in his work on John Gersen, gives a description of the manuscript and a facsimile of the two last pages.* He writes with praiseworthy caution, and candidly avows that there are many difficulties connected with it.
He also puts forward a theoretical defence, which seems to me wholly unsustained.
Before making further comment on the Paulanus manuscript, I shall give a translation of Wolfsgruber's account of it :—
" BENEDICTINE MONASTERY OF ST. PAUL, IN CARINTHIA.
"Cod. Chart. xiv., fol. 257, 12°, contains only the "four books of Zhe Lmztation of Christ.
Fol.
1°:
Incipiunt capitula sequentis libri Primum De ymita- "*cione christi et contemptu omnium vanitatum mundi.'
" Then follow the headings of the twenty-five chapters "of the first book, which fill fol. 1* and 1°, and on the "first page have a red line drawn underneath.
Fol. 2°:
ammoniciones ad spiritualem uitam ualde " 'utiles et notabiles.
Et primo de ymitacione christi et ""contemptu omnium vanitatum mundi.
Cap. pr. Qui "sequitur me.'
Expl. fol. 58°: 'Uim intuleris.
Tu "autem domine mei miserere.
Amen.
In die "«Anostoli Andree, 1384.
Fol.
58°:
'Incipiunt "'ammoniciones ad interna trahentes.'
After the * Page 235, and plate v.
The codex can be seen at St.
Paul's Benedictine Monastery, which is situated in Styria, not more than a day's journey from Marburg.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
'specification of the chapter headings there follows " immediately, without any separation, 'Regnum det intra
"uos est.' Expl. fol. 86°: 'Regnum celorum.
Incipit "¢tercia pars huius libri, que est de interna consolacione.
'*Capitula.
1384.'
Fol.
87* gives "these chapter "headings.
Fol. 90%, without any separation : 'Audiam "quid loquatur.
Expl. fol. 211°: perpetue clari- "tatis.
Amen.
1384.
Ibid: Sequitur nunc quarta "pars huius libri de sacramento eucharistie.
Again "there are chapter headings. to fol. 212% avheres mere "is a red line drawn underneath, and book iv. begins,
"which concludes on fol. 257*: 'Inscrutabila dicenda.* "«Amen, 1385.
Die festo Pasche per N[icolaum] '<V[ogt|.
Urbano 'papa Fol 257° repeats ssaaag:
"Urbano papa; then, Scriptor mente pia petit unum "Ave Maria.
Si nomen quaeris Nicolaum recte "tenebis, si Vogt addatur, qui scripsit ipse uocatur.
"PE, Uolrich M°cccc®xiii', is indicated to be the author "and writer of this page.
This Brother Uolrich is "probably the Habluzel, who, on two inserted pages "at the beginning of the manuscript, gives a kind of "diary and the form of profession (Professformel) of "Uolrich Habluzel, who was till 1432 the Director "of the monastery.
The Nicholas Vogt mentioned "is, according to the opinion of Martin Mack of "Wiblingen (Dubia..., page 26), that Prior Nicholas
"of Wiblingen, who, according to the old necrologies "of this monastery, died between.
1380 and 1404.
"The Pope Urban introduced at the end of the * J read this as " inscrutabilia " in the facsimile.—[F. Rx}
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
"fourth book can only be Urban VI., who reigned "1378-1389, and only two hundred years afterwards
"had a successor of the same name.
Also the feasts "of Easter and of St. Urban coincided in 1385.
Thus "all things concur to show the codex was written in "1384 and 1385, four and five years respectively after "the birth of Thomas 4 Kempis.
Although all this "agrees, and even Martin Mack of Wiblingen, in his "above-mentioned work in manuscript, communicates
"the deed of a sworn imperial notary which certifies "the chronological memoranda of this manuscript "to be genuine, yet the affair offers many difficulties.
"The writing is in style and in its abbreviations "belonging to the fifteenth century, and the date of "the manuscript, pages 58 and 211, suffers from "erasures and after-touches, whilst indeed that on "pages 86* and 257° appears to be genuine.
The "first manuscript experts of the present day have "given the explanation :—The writer of this codex
"has at the same time transcribed the dates and the "notes of his original, thus the contrast between date
"and writing is accounted for.
It is also interesting "to know how the manuscript came from Wiblingen "to St. Paul, in Carinthia.
This is communicated to "us by George Zeigler on the inside of the back "binding cover and on the obverse of the fly-leaf.
"Driven from home, he and his companions offered "«Gratitudinis etpietatis ergo hocce bibliothecae suae
palladium ueluti e Trojae ignibus ereptum' to "St, Paul.
Subscribed are, besides George Zeigler,
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
"Roman Zangerle, Bernard Gantser, on the Kalends 'of lunes b1 7; « Having considered the foregoing statement attentively, let us see whether we should accept the Paulanus manuscript as genuine, or reject it as spurious.
We shall study it under the following heads :— First.
The historical data furnished to us.
Secondly.
The theory suggested in its defence.
Thirdly.
The dates, altered and unaltered.
Fourthly.
The note at page 257%.
First.
The historical data appear quite worthless.
(az) We are told that F. Uolrich is probably the Habluzel, etc.
(6) We are told that the N[{icholas] V[ogt] mentioned is, according to the opinion of Martin Mack of Wiblingen, that Prior Nicholas of Wiblingen who, according to the old necrologies of that monastery, died between 1380 and 1404.
Surely a probadbzlity and an ofznzon are not sufficient in a matter of such importance.
The words of Martin Mack are not given, nor those of the old necrology of Wiblingen, neither are we told where these data can be verified.
(c) Moreover, if this codex was esteemed as a "palladium" snatched from the fire, and brought in triumph to St. Paul's in 1817, how comes it that we have not heard of it until within the last few years.
Is it conceivable that such a document, if trustworthy, should have been allowed to lie neglected
— so long ?
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
Secondly.
The theoretical defence of the manuscript is certainly very far-fetched—viz., that the writer of this fifteenth-century codex, as its style, abbreviations, etc., prove, has at the same time transcribed the dates and notes of his original.
We have no recorded evidence, either in the manuscript or elsewhere, that it is a copy from a fourteenth-century original.
This theory is pure hypothesis, ingenious enough, but utterly inadmissible.
We are not even given the names of the experts to whom it is attributed.
Thirdly.
Respecting the dates, both those which are admittedly subjected to erasures and retouching, and those which appear to be genuine.
The erasures and alterations of two dates open up grave doubts and misgivings.
If the dates subjected to this treatment corresponded with those which appear to be genuine, why were they altered?
If they did not correspond, the question arises, which were the genuine dates?
It is impossible to resist the suspicion that some one manipulated this fifteenth-century manuscript, wrote in the dates which appear to be genuine, and altered the others to correspond.
Fourthly.
Respecting the note which mentions Pope Urban.
Let us examine the facsimile which Wolfsgruber gives of the two last pages of the codex
(plate v.), and see what it teaches.
(2) The length of the two pages does not correspond.
The last, containing the note, being about an inch
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
longer than its fellow.
This is unusual and remarkable.
In all the genuine old manuscripts which I have examined the copyists appear to have observed uniformity very carefully.
(6) Still more important are the facts which a careful examination of the note reveals.
It seems evident that its handwriting is different from that of the page above it.
The original page, in size and writing, appears to end with the word "Amen."
The date (1385) heading the note is crowded up, so that the " Amen" divides the figures ; and the formation of the letters, although an imitation, is not so perfect, and the slope is markedly different.
To save the reader's time, let me point out as specimens of striking dissimilarity the formation and slope of the letters ¢, 7 and ¢in the words de festo of the note when contrasted with the same letters in the pages of the manuscript.
All this, I need not say, leads up to the question, Is the note part of the original manuscript?
I am clearly of opinion that it is not.
The lower portion of both pages is blotted and soiled, but even so, assuming that Wolfsgruber's facsimile is faithful, the discrepancies noted are easily recognized.
So much for the Paulanus Codex.
Iam not aware that any one relies upon it, and it is clear from Wolfsgruber's text that he does not put it forward with any confidence.
The foregoing investigation leads me to the conviction that it is a fifteenth-century manuscript, which some one has manipulated, altering some dates, inserting others, and adding the note alluding to Pope
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
Urban (evidently Urban VI., who reigned between 1378 and 1389) in order to corroborate the dates.
Ln fine, it seems quite tmpossible to accept the document as evidence.* Respecting the undated manuscripts it will be necessary to consider their value in the controversy with some care.
A Kempis' adversaries make vigorous efforts to turn their uncertain ages into weapons against him, with what result we shall soon see.
I need not, in these days of more perfect information and knowledge, allude to the wild statements of enthusiasts like Dom Cajetan and De Grégory, who were foolhardy enough to attribute the Arona and Avogadro manuscripts to the thirteenth century.
No one hears of such eccentricity now without a smile; but there are still to be found theorists—like Wolfsgruber, Puyol, Loth, and others—who would argue that some of the undated manuscripts of Zhe /imztation may belong to the end of the fourteenth or first years of the fifteenth centuries; in other words, to a period when Thomas 4 Kempis was too young to have been the author.
This theory must be first discounted and then weighed against the positive facts which point to him as the author.
The consideration of the undated manuscripts of The Imitation brings us at once to the subject of paleography, the science of determining, so far as may be possible, the age of an undated manuscript, from its style, abbreviations, etc.
Obviously if one single * See Becker, pp. 198-200.
THOMAS: A KEMPIS.
manuscript of Zhe Jmitation could be definitely proved to have been written at the end of the fourteenth, or the very commencement of the fifteenth century, the claims of Thomas 4 Kempis should be abandoned at once and for ever; but this ts exactly what has never been done, despite all efforts.
For centuries his adversaries have searched the libraries of Europe, but their long-wished-for manuscript has not been found.
I make this assertion with absolute confidence.
--+-.4
We must here pause and consider what paleography can do and within what limits.
If we push the capabilities of this science to the uttermost extremity, we find that the most skilled experts cannot fix the age of an undated manuscript closer than within fifty years; that is to say, a margin of that extent must be conceded to cover the uncertainty.
Suppose the date named is 1400, the actual date may be twentyfive years earlier or later.
Nay, more, a margin of fifty years is in reality a very narrow one and far too rigid for ordinary purposes.
The most skilled paleographists often err much more, as many 'instances prove.
Becker quotes one in which a very experienced judge made a mistake of no less than one hundred and fos years!* One source of error in paleography which seems to have escaped notice, lies in the age of the individual writer.
If he happens to be an old man, say seventy years of age, he naturally writes as he learned fifty years before, and thus. his manuscript appears far older than it really is.
In his * Becker, p. 198.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
case, a not uncommon one, the margin of fifty years should be expanded to fully sixty years or more.
Applying all this to the codices asserted by antiKempists to date back to the end of the fourteenth or beginning of the fifteenth century, it is quite obvious that they may in reality have been written in 1430 or later.
Thus, the conclusion to which we are driven by the strictest interpretation of the value of paleographic science is, that there is not the slightest proof that any one of the manuscripts of Zhe [imztation, attributed to a date when A Kempis was too young to have been the author, was actually written earlier than the time when he was from forty to fifty years of age.
Accordingly, their evidence against 4 Kempis zs utterly valueless.
It is a very significant fact that the Pére Denifle, who, as subarchivist of the Vatican Library, must have exceptional knowledge of dated Italian manuscripts of all ages, and therefore be an excellent judge of those which are not dated, asserts positively that every single one of the manuscripts of Zhe Lmztatzon put forward by the Gersenists belongs to the fifteenth century, and not the earliest portion of it.*
Let this be clearly understood and remembered, anent the arguments of those who contend # an imaginary author of the thirteenth century, that, while the libraries of Europe are filled with manuscripts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, not a solitary codex of Zhe
Imitation of Christ has been examined by this highly skilled expert, the Pére Denifle, which he does not * Spitzen, Nouvelle Défense, p. 3.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
declare to belong to the fifteenth century, and not the commencement of it !
In conclusion, zt may be confidently repeated that not a single manuscript of " The Imitation,' dated or undated, can be shown to be antecedent to Thomas a Kemps middle age.
To continue, we have already seen that Zhe [mztation appeared anonymously.
This was the custom with the School of Windesheim.* Were it not for Busch we should never have heard that the fzstle on the Life and Passion of our Lord (which he translated into Latin, and which we find at the end of the first book of the Chronzcle of Windeshetm), with its numerous foreshadowings of 7e Jmztation, was actually the handbook of the Congregation of Windesheim, and earnestly recommended to its members by the Prior,
Vos van Huesden.t Were it not for Thomas 4 Kempis, what should we know of the saintly maxims of Groot, Radewyn, Lubert Berner, and John Ketel ?
In like manner it would have defied all precedent if The Imitation, at the time of its first appearance, had been put forward as the composition of 4 Kempis.
It is true, Busch, Ryd, and others, declared its paternity in their writings,f and, probably, much earlier in their conversation, but not, so far as we can ascertain, until the book had been circulated far and near, and its origin, doubtless, very generally surmised.
From * Spitzen, Nouvelle Défense, p. 97 and following.
+ Chronicle of Windesheim, book ii, chap. xi., p. 300.
{ See Contemporary Witnesses already quoted.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
I7I thenceforth we find that a preponderance of the manuscripts which give a name attribute it to a Kempis, either by original or very early inscriptions, not unfrequently guarding his incognito by designating him as "a certain Canon Regular," etc.
All this harmonizes perfectly with the circumstances under which the book appeared; and the absence of very early manuscripts directly naming & Kempis as the author, becomes not only intelligible, but the conviction grows that anything else would have been against all probability.
An exhaustive investigation of all the manuscripts extant would fill a volume, and is therefore impossible at present; but the works of Gence, De Grégory,
Malou, Santini, Spitzen, and Becker, enter into minute details, and satisfy me that the existing evidence of these manuscripts points to Holland and the Chapter of Windesheim as the birthplace of Ze Jmztatzon, and to Thomas 4 Kempis as its generally accredited compiler.
Before concluding these brief observations on the relations of the manuscripts to a Kempis, I must allude to his autograph manuscript of 1441, which affords indirect evidence of vital importance.
This codex, which I have examined carefully, may be seen in the Burgundian Library at Brussels, Nos. 5855-5861.
It contains thirteen spiritual treatises bound together in a single volume.
At the commencement we find the four books of Zhe Limitation of Christ, and, following them, nine other treatises.
I give the list of contents, which is in 4 Kempis' handwriting :
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
"In hoc volumine hi libelli continentur.
Qui sequitur me non ambulat in tenebris.
Regnum Dei intra vos est dicit Dominus.
De Sacramento.
Venite ad me omnes qui laboratis.
Audiam quid loquatur in me Dominus Deus.
De disciplina claustralium.
Apprehendite disciplinam.
Epistola devota ad quemdam regularem.
Renovamini autem spiritu mentis vestre.
Cognovi Domine quia equitas judicia tua.
Recommendatio humilitatis.
Discite a me.
De mortificata vita.
Gloriosus apostolus Paulus.
De bona pacifica vita.
Si vis Deo dignus.
De elevatione mentis.
Vacate et videte cum ceteris.
Brevis ammonicio.
Ab exterioribus."
At the end of the volume we find the following signature :—" Finitus et completus anno Domini "MCCCCXLI, per manus fratris Thome Kempis in "Monte Sancte Agnetis prope Zwollis."
Let us now see how this manuscript bears witness in favour of 4 Kempis.
The four first treatises in the above list are the four books of Te Jmztation (the fourth book, as we name it, being placed third, and the third last).
Following them we find nine other spiritual essays.
We have not the smallest reason' to doubt that these latter were composed by Thomas 4 Kempis.
They have come down to us as his works, undisputed until the partisans of the mythical Gersen found it expedient to cast a baseless doubt upon their authenticity, and each and every one of them (as well as the four books of Zhe Jmitation) is specifically named in the catalogue of his writings given by his contemporary biographer.
From hence it follows that any one who denies that Zhe Jmztation was
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
written by our author must be prepared to assume that he, a man of extraordinary sanctity, humility, and truth, placed at the head of a collection of his own works a treatise to which he had no claim!
Such an hypothesis is not alone incredible, but actually defiant of common sense.
Viewed in this light, a Kempis' autograph of 1441 appears an undeniable proof in his favour.
A Kempis' adversaries endeavour to raise a contention against him, founded on the signature of this autograph of 1441—viz., " Finitus et completus," etc.
They say that if Thomas was the author, he would have stated so, and not signed as copyists generally did.
In arguing thus they forget, first, that the transcription of a document does not exclude authorship, especially in the case of a noted copyist like
Thomas; and, secondly, that it was not the habit of the members of the Congregation of Windesheim to claim the paternity of their works.
In confirmation of all this, we find an analogous signature to 4 Kempis' autograph of 1456, which contains his Conctones et Meditationes—works which we likewise have no reason to doubt as authentic, and which we also find enumerated in the catalogue of the contemporary biographer."
There are many striking internal evidences in the manuscript of 1441, which point to 4 Kempis as the author.
The corrections and alterations, not alone of * This manuscript is to be seen in the Burgundian Library,
Brussels, Nos. 4585-4587.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
words, but even of expression; the vacant spaces left in some places, as though to be filled up later—all lead to the belief that the copyist was also the author.*
The Pastoor Spitzen devotes a chapter to the consideration of this subject, and puts forward very solid reasons for his opinion that this manuscript of Zhe
Imitation is the original.t The date 1441 is placed at the end of the nine treatises which complete the volume, and, doubtless, refers only to the period at which the last of them was finished, or the whole collection bound together.
I strongly recommend the reader to study carefully this remarkable portion of Spitzen's ouvelle Défense.
In conclusion, I would remark that the evidence of the manuscripts, despite 4 Kempis' incognito, bears strongly in his favour; and this is most significant, when we remember all the circumstances of the case— his obscurity, the anonymous appearance of the book, the ignorance of the world at large as to its origin, and the spirit of indifference of the Windesheimers as to any claim for its paternity.
Let it be borne in mind, too, that as a Kempis is the only candidate for whom a single contemporary witness can be cited, so also he is the so/e one in whose favour any manuscript can be produced which was written either during that candidate's lifetime or shortly after his death.
Becker, pp. 232, 233.
Spitzen, Nouvelle Défense, pp. 135 and following.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
I11.—J/nuternal Evidence.
When we come to examine 7%e /imitation closely, we find so many internal evidences which point to Thomas a Kempis as the author, that the main difficulty lies in knowing where to commence their description.
In the first place, as regards the style in which the book is written.
It is needless to observe, to those who are familiar with Thomas' works, that The Imitation constitutes about one-tenth of the whole.
Between it and the rest there is so remarkable a similarity of thought, language, and idiom, that it seems impossible to doubt that all are the product of one mind and the work of one hand.
This point has been developed by many early writers upon the subject, such as Rosweyd, Carr, Heser, and Amort; and later authorities, especially Malou, Hirsche, Spitzen, and Becker, have taken great pains to clear it up, and with remarkable success.
The works of the four lastnamed authors are easily accessible to all.
To instance the similarity of thought and choice of subjects, Malou gives a list of the parallelisms existing between Zhe limitation of Christ and the other works of &4 Kempis, such as the Sermons to the Novices, The Soliloguy of the Soul, The Garden of Roses, and Valley of Lilies.* These are but selections from the many which might be offered. The opponents of &4 Kempis will argue that this merely proves his familiarity with Zhe Jmtation ; but such a plea cannot
* Malou, Recherches, etc., pp. 141-144.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
stand.
If he quoted Zhe Jmztation verbatim, it might be said that he copied from it, but was not its author.
This he never does.
He only develops in his other works the ideas contained 'in Zhe Jmztation, but in no instance refers to it. The inference is obvious.
Some of & Kempis' adversaries lay stress upon the sapfosed inferiority of his other writings as compared with 7%e
Imitation.
This argument is partly baseless and wholly inapplicable.
It would appear that many who rely on it have not studied his compositions attentively.
To those who have done so, the conclusion is totally different.
Rosweyd, one of the most erudite scholars of his time, profoundly versed in this subject, gives us his opinion in what I hold to be an aphorism.
He says, "As a rose has the perfume of a rose, so also " The Imitation of Christ is like to the other writings
"of Thomas 4 Kempis." * Alban Butler, the author of Zhe Lives of the Saints, unquestionably a very competent judge, denies the asserted inequality of many of the acknowledged works of 4 Kempis as contrasted with Zhe [mztation, and specially instances The Three
Tabernacles and the treatise Ox True Compunction.t To these I might add very many other productions of the holy Canon of Agnetenberg.{ Coustou, a skilled expert on this point, whom I shall quote later on, is of the same opinion.
So also is Milman.§ Last, but * Vindiciae Kempenses, chap. xi. ios cig ond Sone 8p a t See Note at end of Appendix.
§ Latin Christianity, vol. ix., p. 161, note.
THOMAS A KEMPIS
certainly not least, I shall mention Dr. Carl Hirsche, one of the most learned critics of modern days.
This author, the discoverer of the peculiar punctuation adopted by Thomas both in The Jmztation and in his other works, after an exhaustive investigation of them all, has arrived at the definite conclusion that he, and he alone, could have been the author of the great book.*
Taking this argument at its fullest value, and admitting that some of 4 Kempis' works do not equal
The Imitation, | would ask the question—Are all authors even in their various compositions?
Beyond question we must admit they are not.
Few would compare St. Augustine's Czty of God, St. Thomas of Aquin's Summa Theologica, or St. Francis de Sales'
Introduction toa Devout Life, with their other works; or, to come to an example in our own language, no one familiar with the works of John Bunyan would attempt to contrast Zhe Pilgrim's Progress with the rest of his productions.
In like manner we admit the obvious fact that 4 Kempis' Zwztation of Christ is his masterpiece, embodying not alone his own ascetical knowledge but also the accumulated wisdom of the "Circle of Windesheim," from which it will be seen he borrowed largely.
While Zhe [mztation comprises all the spirituality of the school which Thomas represented, his other works were written, doubtless often comparatively hastily, for different audiences, and more as dissertations on the principles inculcated in his great chef da oeuvre.
* Prolegomena, etc., Zweiter Band, pp. 538-544.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
Even so, many of them, I assert confidently, are quite worthy of the author of Zhe Limitation of Christ.
About twenty-five years ago an ingenious and learned critic, M. Philippe Tamizey de Larroque, wrote some articles with the intention of showing that the internal evidence of style, etc., in Zhe Limitation and in the admitted works of Thomas 4 Kempis, tends to disprove the claims of the pious Canon Regular of Mount St. Agnes.* I have not found in these clever essays anything to satisfy me that their author is justified in his conclusions, and, on the other hand, I have observed some errors which appear unaccountable.
I shall say nothing of his style, except that, despite its attractions, it is strikingly deficient in judicial calm.
M. de Larroque argues against a Kempis on the ground that his acknowledged works contain certain words and expressions not found in Zhe mutation, and vice versa.
Furthermore, that he treats some subjects rather (but not substantially) differently from the author of Zhe
Imitation.
The discrepancies insisted upon by M. de Larroque appear to me trifling, and altogether insufficient to support his contention, unless, indeed, we were to grant what is not alone against probability and experience, but even impossible—namely, that a given voluminous author like 4 Kempis, who beyond
Preuves que Thomas & Kempis n'a pas composé I'Imitation de N.S. Jésus-Christ, par Philippe Tamizey de Larroque.
Extrait des Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne, tom. iii. et iv., 1861.
Paris:
A. Durand, 1862.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
doubt was in addition a diligent compiler, must of necessity repeat himself in thought, word, and expression in all his works, and maintain the same level of merit, irrespective of the subject in hand and the audience to which he addresses himself.
M. de Larroque falls into some strange errors, of which I shall single out one for illustration.
At page 27 he reminds us that 4 Kempis loved rhyming, and that the author of Zhe J/mztation did not, and therefore that Thomas could not have been the author.
This is a fundamental mistake, very curious for a diligent reader, but excusable to some extent, because
M. de Larroque wrote in 1861, and Dr. Hirsche did not publish his researches on the rhythm and rhyme of Zhe [mitation until 1873.
Asa matter of fact, the rhythm and rhyme of Zhe /mztatzon, so identical with what we find in a Kempis' other works, constitutes a most important proof that Thomas was the author.
I shall not anticipate here what I have to say upon this point further on.
M. de Larroque concludes his clever brochure by some curious speculations as to the personality of the real author.
He rejects 4 Kempis,—likewise Gersen, with emphasis, and is altogether doubtful about Gerson.
But he hazards as far-fetched a solution of the problem as I have yet encountered.
He tells us that the love of the French for the book points to France as the country of its origin: "la prédilection d'une
"mére pour son enfant"!
Had our author investigated the internal evidence derived from the study of the
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
linguistic peculiarities of Zhe Jmztation—a point which he declines to enter upon (page 77)—I believe he would never have arrived at this conclusion. A little later I touch this philological aspect of the question.
I would hope that when M. de Larroque masters the whole evidence now before us, to a vast deal of which he does not even allude, and some of which has come to light since he wrote, he may arrive at a very different opinion respecting the claims of the saintly
Canon of Mount St. Agnes.
Next, we shall allude to the peculiarities of diction which we find, both in Zhe [iztatzon of Christ and in 4 Kempis' other works.
Wonderfully touching and epigrammatic as its language undoubtedly is, no one would venture to hold up 7%e /mztatzon as a model of classical Latinity.
On the contrary, it is so manifestly uncouth that attempts have been made, very unsuccessfully, to amend the text.
Sebastian Castellio's paraphrase is the most widely known of these efforts.* The peculiarities of the original depend greatly on certain unusual elements, including a number of barbarisms, Italianized words, words used in a peculiar sense, and abundant Dutch idioms.
My object in dwelling upon these topics is to impress upon my reader the facts: First, that we find certain very marked singularities in the language of The Imitation; secondly, that these same traits appear in all the other works of 4 Kempis; and finally, that from thence we are led to infer that he was the author.
My copy dates from Cambridge: J. Hayes, 1685.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
One characteristic of the language of The Jmitation is the presence of barbarisms.
For example, the word alta is used to signify sublime, tenere in place of aesttmare, redient for redibunt, totum for omne, and so on interminably.
Now, we find the same rare terms, used in the same sense, throughout & Kempis' other works.* To argue that this parallelism is the result of accident is to adopt an utterly untenable position.
Again, the author of Zhe /mztation frequently uses Italianized words, such as vegratiart, pensare, guerulando, sentimenta, bassare, etc.
An attempt has been made to utilize this fact as an argument that the author was an Italian; but if this be true, Thomas a Kempis must have been an Italian, because we find his writings filled with these words !
I have already alluded to the frequent occurrence of the word "devotus" in Zhe /mitation and in a Kempis' other works.
Despite all cavil, the peculiar sense in which this word is constantly used 'in designating the members of "The Modern Devotion" is very characteristic, and significant of the common authorship of all the works in question.
I have stated that the language of Ze mutation partakes largely of a Dutch character, both in conception and idiom.
It is needless to observe how important a corroboration this offers in favour of * See Malou, Recherches, etc., pp. 146, 1473; also Amort, Deductio
Critica, pp. 161-251, where we find about four hundred parallelisms of idiom tabulated.
+ Malou, Recherches, etc., pp. 120-128.
THOMAS A KEMPIS.
Thomas.
A German by birth, while still a boy he came to Holland, where he remained for the rest of his life.
Naturally he came to speak, think, and write as a Dutchman.
This peculiarity of the Latinity of The Imitation, while it bears witness in favour of 4 Kempis, especially when coupled with other evidence, is sufficient to annihilate the claims of Gerson, or of the supposed Italian Benedictine author.
An erudite Frenchman like Gerson could not have written Latin full of Dutch idioms, not one of which is to be found throughout his voluminous writings, and such a feat would have been equally impossible for an Italian.
This philological aspect of the subject is one which could not be satisfactorily treated in the present sketch, but I shall give a few illustrations, and abundant references to accessible works, in which any one willing to undertake a very elaborate study will find all he can desire.
; The only language into which 7he Jmztation can be translated literally is the Dutch.
Let us take a few examples of the Flemish idioms which pervade the book from cover to cover.
If a Dutchman wishes to say that he knows a book dy heart, he says, " van "buiten," that is, ou¢stde.
Now, we find the author of Lhe [mutation turns this phrase into Latin—barbarous no doubt, but a literal translation—as follows:
"Si "scires totam Bibliam erterius."
This expression is untranslatable into French or Italian ;—it must be rendered by a paraphrase.
Again, to express zndifference in good Dutch one says, to see a thing