§ 35. THE I3IITATI0N OF CHRIST. 291
work to Gerson were printed in France, the remaining editions being printed in Italy or Spain. The editions of the sixteenth century show a change, 37 Latin editions ascribing the authorship to a Kempis, and 25 to Gerson. As for the MSS. dated before 1450, and whose dates may be said to be reasonably above suspicion, all were written in Germany and the Lowlands. The oldest, included in a codex preserved since 1826 in the royal library of Brussels, probably belongs before 1420. The codex contains 9 other writings of ^ Kempis besides the Imitation, and contains the note, Finitus et completus MCCCCXLI pel' manus fratria Th. Kempensis in Monte S. Agnetis props ZwolUs (finished and completed, 1441, by the hands of brother Thomas \ Kempis of Mount St. Agnes, near ZwoUe). See Pohl, II. 461 sqq. So this is an autographic copy. The text of the Imitation, however, is written on older paper than the other documents, and has corrections which are found in a Dutch translation of the first book, dating from 1420. For these reasons, Funk, p. 424, and others, puts the MS. back to 1416-1420.
The literary controversy over the authorship began in 1604, when Dom Pedro Manriquez, in a work on the Lord's Supper issued at Milan, and on the alleged basis of a quotation by Bonaventura, declared the Imitation to be older than that Schoolman, In 1606, Bellarmin, in his Descript. eccles., was more precise, and stated it was already in existence in 1260. About the same time, the Jesuit, Rossignoli, found in a convent at Arona, near Milan, a MS. without date, but bearing the name of an abbot, John Gersen, as its author ; the house had belonged to the Benedictines once. In 1614 the Benedictine, Constantius Cajetan, secretary of Paul V., issued his Gersen restitutus at Rome, and later his Apjmratiis ad Gersenem restittitnm, in which he defended the Italian's claim. This individual was said to have been a Benedictine abbot of Vercelli, in Piedmont, in the first half of the thirteenth century. On the other hand, the Augustinian, Rosweyde, in his vindicice Kempenses, Antwerp, 1617, so cogently defended the claims of h Kempis that Bellarmin withdrew his statement. In the nineteenth century the claims of Gersen were again urged by a Piedmontese nobleman, Gregory, in his Istoria delta Vercellese letteratnra, Turin, 1819, and subsequent publications, and by Wolfsgruber of Vienna in a scholarly work, 1880. But Hirsche and Funk are, no doubt, right in pronouncing the name Gersen a mistake for Gerson, and Funk, after careful criticism, declares the Italian abbot a fictitious personage. The most recent Engl, writer on the subject, Montmorenciy, p. xiii, says, " there is no evidence that there was ever an abbot of Vercelli by the name of Gersen."
The claims of John Gerson are of a substantial character, and France was not slow in coming to the chancellor's defence. An examination of old MSS., made in Paris, had an uncertain issue, so that, in 1640, Richelieu's splendid edition of the Imitation was sent forth without an author's name. The French parliament, however, in 1652, ordered the book printed under the name of k Kempis. The matter was not settled and, at three gatherings, 1671, 1674, 1687, instituted by Mabillon, a fresh examination of MSS. was made, with the result that the case went against k Kempis. Later, Du Pin, after a comparison of Gerson's writings with the Imitation, concluded that it was impossible to decide with certainty between these two writers and Gersen. (See his 2d ed. of Gerson's Works, 1728, I. lix-lxxxiv) ; but in a
292 THE MIDDLE AGES. A.D. 1294-1517
special work, Amsterdam, 1706, he had decided in favor of the Dutchman. French editions of the Imitation continued to be issued under the name of Gerson, as, for example, those of Erhard-Mezler, 1724, and VoUardt, 1758. On the other hand, tlie Augustinian, Amort, defended the k Kempis authorship in his Infonnaiio de statu contruversice, Augsburg, 1728, and especially in his Scutum Kempense, Cologne, 1728. After the unfavorable statement of Schwab, Life of Gerson, 1858, pp. 782-786, declaring that the Imitation is in an altogether different style from Gerson's works, the theory of the Gerson authorship seemed to be finally abandoned. The first collected edition of Gerson's Works, 1483, knows nothing about the Imitation. Nor did Gerson's brother, prior of Lyons, mention it in the list he gave of the chancellor's works, 1423. The author of the Imitation was, by his own statements, a monk, IV. 5, 11 ; III., 56. Gerson would have been obliged to change his usual habit of presentation to have written in the monastic tone.
After the question of authorship seemed to be pretty well settled in favor of h Kempis, another stage in the controversy was opened by the publications of Puyol in 1898, 1899. Puyol gives a description of 348 manuscripts, and makes a sharp distinction between those of Italian origin and other manuscripts. He also annotates the variations in 57, with the conclusion that the Italian text is the more simple, and consequently the older and original text. He himself based his edition on the text of Arona. Puyol is followed by Kentenich, and has been answered by Pohl and others.
Walter Hylton's reputed authorship of the Imitation is based upon three books of that woi'k, having gone under the name De musica ecclesiastica in MSS. in England and the persistent English tradition that Ilylton was the author. Montmorency, pp. xiv, 138-170, while he pronounces the Hylton theory of authorship untenable, confesses his inability to explain it.
The arguments in favor of the h Kempis authorship, briefly stated, are as follows : —
1. External testimony. John Busch, in his Chronicon Windesemense^ written 1464, seven years before a Kempis' death, expressly states that a Kempis wrote the Imitation. To this testimony are to be added the testimonies of Caspar of Pforzheim, who made a German translation of the work, 1448 ; Hermann Rheyd, who met Thomas, 1454, and John AVessel, who was attracted to Windesheim by the book's fame. For other testimonies, see Hirsche and Funk, pp. 432-436.
2. Manuscripts and editions. The number of extant MSS. is about 500. See Kentenich, p. 294. Funk, p. 420, gives 13 MSS. dated before 1500, ascribing the Imitation to k Kempis. The autograph copy, contained in the Brussels codex of 1441, has already been mentioned. It nmst be said, however, the conclusion reached by Hirsche, Pohl, Funk, Schulze and others that this text is autographic has been denied by Puyol and Kentenich, on the basis of its divergences from other copies, which they claim the author could not have made. A second autograph, in Louvaine (see Schulze, p. 730), seems to be nearly as old, 1420, and has the note scriptus manibus et characteribus Thomce qui est alitor horxim dcvotorum libellurum, "written by the hand of Thomas," etc. (Pohl, VI. 456 sq.). A third MS., stating that Thomas is the author, and preserved in Brussels, is dated 1425. — As for the