THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
and condemnation, and the others, which should be preserved. The latter were divided into six categories, characterized partly as having no bearing on Christianity (as philosophy and natural science), partly as unobjectionable (liturgies), partly as indispensable for understanding the Bible (commentaries), partly as defending the Christian faith (the cabala), and partly as containing much of value along with superstition (the Talmud). He likewise held that the Jews were not heretics, but could claim legal protection. The opinions of the other scholars were radically different, and Maximilian determined to lay the matter before the diet, but no actual steps were ever taken.
The literary controversy, however, still dragged on, and Pfefferkorn finally offered to be judged by the emperor, the archbishop of Mainz, a university, or the inquisitor. Reuchlin replied to Pfefferkorn in bis Augenspiegel (1511), but the pastor at Frankfort, Peter Meyer, judging the book heterodox, inhibited it and sent a copy to the Dominican Jakob Hochstraten, inquisitor of the province of Mainz, who submitted it to the theological faculty of Cologne. Arnold of Tungern and the Dominican Konrad Kollin, commissioned to examine it, required Reuchlin to withdraw all copies and publicly to beg his readers to consider him a true Catholic and an enemy of the Jews and especially of the Talmud. This was demanding too much, and after a series of further polemics, including Reuchlin's Ain dare Verstentnus (1512) and Defensio contra calumniatores (1513), the emperor was prevailed upon to silence both parties in June, 1513. Reuchlin now endeavored, through Frederick the Wise, to have the mandate extended to all his opponents; and the attempt of a Dominican to malign Reuchlin to the elector led both Luther and Carlstadt to express themselves in his favor. Frederick answered the Dominican with diplomatic reserve; but meanwhile the Cologne faction had secured from the emperor the confiscation of the Defensio, while Hochstraten had gained the condemnation of the Augenspiegel from the universities of Louvain, Cologne, Mainz, Erfurt, and Paris. Reuchlin was accordingly cited before the court of the inquisition at Mainz (Sept. 9, 1513). He failed to appear, but appealed to the pope, and then went to Mainz in the hope of a peaceable understanding. Failing in this, he again appealed to the pope, who entrusted the decision to the Palsgrave George, bishop of Speyer (Nov., 1513). George cited the parties concerned and delegated judgment to the learned canon Thomas Truchsess, a pupil of Reuchlin's. On Mar. 29, 1514, judgment was rendered in favor of Reuchlin, whereupon Hochstraten appealed to the pope, and a committee of twenty-two was finally appointed, which, on July 2, 1516, decided in Reuchlin's favor. At this moment, however, a papal mandatum de supersedendo was issued, and judgment was postponed indefinitely, though Hochstraten remained for a year in Rome, vainly endeavoring to secure the condemnation of the Augenspiegel.
Reuchlin had the sympathy of the Humanists, as was evidenced both by their letters addressed to him, which he published as Clarorum virorum epistolce (Tubingen, 1514, and Zurich, 1558) and Epistolce obscurorum virorum (q.v.). He had a powerful protector in Franz von Sickingen (see Sickingen, Franz von), who warned the Dominicans, and especially Hochstraten, to leave Reuchlin in peace. A final court was now determined upon, which met at Frankfort in May, 1520, and, condemning Hochstraten's attitude, recommended that the provincial should prevail on the pope to end the controversy and enjoin silence on both parties, while the Dominican chapter deposed Hochstraten from bis offices of prior and inquisitor. At Rome, however, Reuchlin was now considered to be in sympathy with Luther, and on June 23, 1520, the papal decision was rendered in favor of Hochstraten. Reuchlin appealed in vain to Rome, and Sickingen with equal futility to the emperor. But interest in the controversy was at an end — the problem of Luther had appeared.
On Feb. 29, 1520, Reuchlin was appointed by Duke William of Bavaria professor of Greek and Hebrew at Ingolstadt, but early in the following year the plague compelled him to go to Tubingen, where he lectured in 1521-22.
The indirect services of Reuchlin to the Reformation were considerable. In 1518 he recommended his great-nephew Melanchthon as professor of Greek at Wittenberg; yet bis own attitude toward Luther was unsympathetic, as was his feeling toward the Reformation in general. (G. Kaweratj.)
Bibliography: A notable source is the Acta judiciorum inter Fr. Jacobum Hochstraten . et Johannem Reuchlin, Hagenau, 1518. Lives have been written by J. H. Mai, Durlach, 1687; H. von der Hardt, Helmstadt, 1715; S. F. Gehres, Carlsruhe, 1815; E. T. Mayerhoff, Berlin, 1830; F. Barham, London, 1843; J. Lamey, Pforzheim, 1855; and L. Geiger, Leipsic, 1871. Consult further: Melanchthon's Oratio continens historiam J. Capnionis, in CR, xi. 999 sqq. ; L. Geiger, Johann Reuchlins Briefwechsel, Tubingen, 1875; idem, in Vierteljahrsschrift fur Kultur und Litteratur der Renaissance, i (1886), 116 sqq.; E. Schneider, in Zeitschrift fiir Geschichte des Oberrheins, xiii. 547-599; F. W. H. Cremans, De J. Hochstrati vita et scriptis, Bonn, 1869; L. Geiger, Das Studium der hebraischen Sprache in Deutschland, Breslau, 1870; idem, Renaissance und Humanismus, pp. 504 sqq., Berlin, 1882; D. F. Strauss, Ulrich von Hutien, Leipsic, 1871; Horawitz, in the Sitzungsberichte of the Vienna royal academy, philosophic-historical class, 1877; K. Hartfelder, Deutsche Uebersetzungen klassischer Schriftsteller aus dem Heidelberger Humanistenkreis, Heidelberg, 1884; G. H. Putnam, Books and their Makers, i. 426 sqq., ii. 172, 202, 226, 237, New York, 1897; idem, Censorship of the Church of Rome, i. 83 sqq., 233, 335 sqq., ii. 44 sqq., 217, ib. 1907; J. Janssen, Hist, of the German People, iii. 44 sqq., St. Louis, 1900; F. A. Gasquet, The Eve of the Reformation, 159-160, 163-165, New York, 1901; Cambridge Modern History, i. 572 sqq., ii. 695- 696, New York, 1902-04; N. Paulus, Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther, pp. 94 sqq., 119 sqq., Freiburg, 1903; T. M. Lindsay, Hist, of the Reformation, i. 67 sqq., New York, 1906; the introduction to the Epistolce obscurorum virorum, ed. F. G. Stokes, London, 1909; Schaff, Christian Church, v. 2, pp. 625-630; O. Pfleiderer, Development of Christianity, 177-179, New York, 1910; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, viii. 774 sqq.; KL, x. 1101-1109. Most of the works which deal with the Reformation and the early Reformers have some discussion of Reuchlin.