Thomas More and Spain E-Book

Varios autores

• Herausgeber: Publicacions de la Universitat de València
• Kategorie: Sachliteratur, Reportagen, Biografien
• Serie: English In The World Series
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 350

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025

Beschreibung

This volume traces Th. More's intellectual and political connections with Spain through eight scholarly contributions. Olivares examines Erasmus's role in linking Arias Montano to More's legacy amid Counter-Reformation censorship. Cabrillana decodes More's Lucian translations to reveal his moral-aesthetic priorities, while Phelippeau juxtaposes 'Utopia' with Venetian governance models resisting Habsburg hegemony. Ureña explores digital humanities' challenges in Morean studies, and Lillo reconstructs Spanish accounts of More's trial through several manuscripts. Fuentes analyzes Mary Tudor's Erasmian translations, and Zunino maps Sevillian networks that cultivated More's posthumous reputation via Herrera's 1592 biography. The volume concludes with the editor's exploration of More and Vives' nuanced just-war theories, challenging some naive pacifist interpretations by contextualizing their pragmatic responses to Ottoman expansion. Bridging literary analysis, archival research, and transnational historiography, these essays illuminate Spain's enduring role in shaping More's critique of power and his Renaissance afterlife.

Leseprobe

ENGLISH IN THE WORLD SERIES

GENERAL EDITORS

Antonia Sánchez Macarro

Juan José Martínez Sierra

Universitat de València, Spain

ADVISORY EDITORIAL BOARD

Enrique Bernárdez, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España

Anne Burns, Macquarie University, Sidney, Australia

Angela Downing, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España

Martin Hewings, University of Birmingham, Reino Unido

Ken Hyland, University of East Anglia, Reino Unido

James Lantolf, Penn State University, Pensilvania, EE. UU.

Michael McCarthy, University of Nottingham, Reino Unido

Eija Ventola, Aalto University, Finlandia

M. Mar Rivas, Universidad de Córdoba, España

© The authors © 2024 by the Universitat de València

Design and typeset: Celso Hdez. de la Figuera

Cover image: Reinterpretation and photomontage of Celso Hdez. de la Figuera

from Portrait of Sir Thomas More

of Hans Holbein, the Younger (1527) and historical world map.

Cover design by Pere Fuster (Borràs i Talens Assessors SL)

ISBN (PAPER): 978-84-1118-498-4

ISBN (EPUB): 978-84-1118-499-1

ISBN (PDF): 978-84-1118-500-4 (OA)

Digital edition

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1 Introducing Arias Montano to Thomas More: The Role of Erasmus of Rotterdam

Eugenio M. Olivares Merino

2 Thomas More as Translator: Typology and Functions of some Morean Features in his Version of Lucian’s Cynicus

Concepción Cabrillana Leal

3 Renaissance Venice: a Utopian Republic Resisting the Spanish Empire

Marie-Claire Phélippeau

4 Digital Humanities and Thomas More Studies: State and Challenges

Inmaculada Ureña Asensio

5 The Trial and Execution of Thomas More in two Castilian Accounts of 1535 and in the Crónica del Rey Enrico Otavo de Ingalaterra (c. 1550)

Víctor Lillo Castañ

6 Mary Tudor’s Part in the English Translation of Erasmus’ Paraphrases

Isabel M. Fuentes Martínez

7 Fernando de Herrera, Arias Montano and their Coterie: Some Notes about the Genesis of Tomás Moro (1592)

Cinta Zunino Garrido

8 Peacefulness vs. Pacificism: War and Peace in Thomas More and Juan Luis Vives

Miguel Martínez López

Notes on Contributors

CONCEPCION CABRILLANA LEAL is Professor of Latin Philology at the University of Santiago de Compostela. She has been visiting scholar at the universities of Oxford, Amsterdam and Liege, having participated in several international research projects. A specialist in Latin syntax, she has translated works by authors such as Terentius or Tacitus. In recent years she has published several Spanish translations of works by Thomas More –Epigramas (2012); Cartas de un humanista (I and II; 2018 and 2021)– and actively participated in Moreana.

ISABEL M. FUENTES MARTÍNEZ (BA 2019; MA 2020 in English Studies, Universidad de Jaén) has done research on women’s education in the Early Modern Period and its relationship with Humanism, especially in England. During the third year of her BA, she was an Erasmus student at the University of Leeds (England). She was the holder of a scholarship to collaborate with the English Department at the Universidad de Jaén, and of a fellowship to work on her Master’s dissertation. At present, she is a free-lance researcher and would like to become a librarian.

VÍCTOR LILLO CASTAÑ is a Margarita Salas research fellow at the Max Planck-Institut für Rechtsgeschichte (Frankfurt) and the Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona. He has published extensively on Thomas More and Spain, has co-edited Saberes inestables: estudios sobre expurgación y censura en la España de los siglos XVI y XVII (Iberoamericana Vervuert, 2018) and has recently authored a critical edition of the first Spanish translation of More’s Utopia, El buen estado de la república de Utopía (en traducción de Vasco de Quiroga, Clásicos Políticos del Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2020).

MIGUEL MARTÍNEZ LÓPEZ is a Full Professor of English Studies and Department Chair at the University of Valencia. In his work in the foreign service, he has served as Consul of Education in Miami and as Education and Science Commissioner at the Embassies of Spain in Washington, D.C., and Ottawa. A Fulbright Visiting Fellow at Yale, Professor Martínez has published over one hundred works, with a primary focus on utopian and dystopian literature, particularly the writings of Thomas More. Among his recent publications in this field are «Ius ad bellum and ius in bello in Thomas More’s Utopia» (2022), Glossae, and El Ocaso de Koinonia. La Distopía en la Literatura de los EE. UU., co-authored with A. Burgos (PUV, 2024).

EUGENIO M. OLIVARES MERINO (BA Granada 1990; PhD Granada 1994) teaches Medieval and Early Modern English literature as a Senior Lecturer at the Universidad de Jaén (Spain). He has published monographs on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Beowulf and Margaret More Roper and is the author of several articles, both in Spanish and international journals. He was Visiting Scholar at the Universities of Urbana-Champaign (1992) and Yale (2003). Currently, he is the Coordinator of the Online Master in English Studies (English Department, Universidad de Jaén) and IP1 of the Project «Thomas More and Spain».

MARIE-CLAIRE PHÉLIPPEAU is a retired Professor of English language and Literature and former Editor of the journal Moreana (2008-2017). She is the current President of the Society Amici Thomae Mori. She holds a doctorate from the Université de La Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris III (1997). She has published a number of articles and book chapters on More, Renaissance humanists and Utopia. She is the author of the biography Thomas More (Gallimard, 2016); a translation of More’s Last Things as Mise en garde avant l’Enfer (2017).

INMACULADA UREÑA ASENSIO, who holds a BA and an MA in English Studies from the Universidad de Jaén, is a PhD candidate at that institution, where she is currently working on the fields of Thomas More Studies and Digital Humanities. She is a researcher in the international project «Thomas More and Spain». For her thesis dissertation, she is encoding and tagging with TEI the Spanish translation of Thomas More’s Utopia rendered by Gerónimo de Medinilla in 1637.

CINTA ZUNINO GARRIDO is a Senior Lecturer at the Universidad de Jaén, where she teaches English literature. In 2012, Dr. Zunino Garrido authored Mimesis and the Representation of Experience. Dramatic Theory and Practice in pre-Shakespearean Comedy (1560-1590), for which she obtained the award to the best book of literary criticism for 2013 by the Spanish Association of English Studies (AEDEAN), and was shortlisted in 2014 by the European Society for the Study of English (ESSE). Dr. Zunino Garrido has been a researcher in the international project «Thomas More and Spain». She is the current president of the board of tenured faculty at the Universidad de Jaén, and deputy head of the English Department.

Introduction

When Thomas More was born on February 7, 1478, in the Cheapside district of London, the world was on the cusp of dramatic transformations. Pope Sixtus IV had recently authorized the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition; in Florence, the Pazzi Conspiracy (April 1478) sought to assassinate Lorenzo de’ Medici, intensifying tensions between Florence and the Papal States. Meanwhile, in Muscovy, Ivan III the Great continued his expansion, consolidating territories that would form the basis of Russia. Italian city-states were pioneering financial innovations like bills of exchange, stabilizing cross-border trade. England, however, was still heavily dependent on the wool trade and financially weakened by the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487), which drained national resources.

Into this world came Thomas More, the author of Utopia and the creator of a genre that would evolve into modern utopian studies. A pivotal figure of the Renaissance, More’s contributions spanned literature, political and religious thought, education, and philosophy, with his influence continuing well beyond his era, into ours and surely beyond. No work of his, though, has had the intense and lasting impact of the English version of his Utopia: On The Best State Of A Commonwealth and On The New Island of Utopia. A Truly Golden Handbook, No Less Beneficial than Entertaining, by the Most Distinguished and Eloquent Author THOMAS MORE Citizen and Undersheriff of the Famous city of London (1516) in the version translated by Robert M. Adams for the Norton Critical Edition of Utopia and edited by George M. Logan, Robert M. Adams and Clarence H. Miller for Cambridge University Press. Originally translated from Latin into English by Ralph Robinson, in 1551, his translation (far from error-free) was significant as it made More’s Latin work accessible to English readers not long after More’s death, helping to spread Utopia’s influence in England and beyond. Robinson’s translation was the standard English version for many years, but, in modern times, among many others, Paul Turner’s (1965) translation for Penguin, Clarence H. Miller’s (2001) for Yale University Press, accompanied by extensive annotations (a revision of the Yale UP 1965 edition, translated by G. C. Richards) and Robert Adams’ (1975) version for Norton’s Critical Editions, with historical documents and critical essays (reprinted with some improvements in the above-cited CUP edition of the parallel texts) are outstanding because they provide high-quality context and insight into Utopia’s impact and legacy. One of the contributors to this volume, Víctor Lillo Castañ, discovered the earliest Spanish translation of Thomas More’s Utopia (in the early 1530s) by Vasco de Quiroga, which explains the early impact of More’s text in Spain and in the Spanish American provinces.

More’s relationship with Spain was particularly significant within the political and intellectual exchanges of the early sixteenth century. His diplomatic role brought him into contact with key Spanish figures, and Utopia was conceptualized amid negotiations with the Spanish Empire over wool trade. His ties to the Spanish Habsburg dynasty and his support for Catherine of Aragon as the legitimate Queen of England led to his ultimate stance on the separation of powers and the rule of law, principles that would carry him to the scaffold.

As Henry VIII’s statesman, More was deeply involved in Anglo-Spanish relations during a period when England sought balance within European power dynamics. Spain had a profound impact on European humanism, with figures such as Juan Luis Vives –a close friend of More– contributing significantly to intellectual discourse on key moral issues such as war and peace and education. The friendship triangle of Erasmus, More, and Vives (amicorum comunia omnia) stood as a testament to Christian humanism amidst the turbulent backdrop of the Reformation, exemplifying the cross-cultural academic dialogue between England and Spain. More’s opposition to Henry VIII’s annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon aligned him with Spain’s defense of Catholic orthodoxy and the unity of the Church.

The socio-political climate of early sixteenth-century Spain played a crucial role in shaping the reception of More’s Utopia. In a period marked by political upheaval and the consolidation of power under the Catholic Monarchs, More’s critique of societal inequities resonated with an audience grappling with the moral implications of imperial expansion. The discovery of new lands presented both opportunities for wealth and a moral quandary over colonial practices. More’s depiction of an ideal society in Utopia, often misunderstood, still questioned governance and ethics, mirroring the concerns of his contemporaries over European colonial endeavors. The Renaissance, in turn, fostered an intellectual climate ripe for debates on morality, governance, and human nature, creating a receptive audience for More’s ideas.

Also, the execution of Thomas More by Henry VIII had profound implications for his legacy, especially in Spain. His death coincided with a period of heightened scrutiny of authority. More’s challenging perspectives on power and governance provided a counter-narrative that was both influential and subversive. His martyrdom for his beliefs and for the unity of Christendom –then also threatened by the Ottoman Empire– imbued his work with a powerful critique of the statu quo, eloquently persuading readers that reforms for a better, more just, world, were not just opportunities but obligations. In Spain, More’s Utopia became not merely a text but a catalyst for critical thought, offering a new lens through which to view societal structures and power dynamics.

Our book explores some of the many complex and multifaceted connections between Thomas More and Spain, examining his enduring influence on political and intellectual thought across borders and centuries.

The opening chapter by Eugenio M. Olivares Merino, «Introducing Arias Montano to Thomas More: The Role of Erasmus of Rotterdam» looks into the connections between Arias Montano and Thomas More throughout the influence of Erasmus of Rotterdam after the inclusion of Thomas More’s engraving in Philip Galle’s and Benito Arias Montano’s Virorum doctorum (1572). The Spaniard, although he inclined for Erasmus since his time in the Complutensis Universitas, became royal censor and oversaw the Faculty of Theology at Louvain’s revision and censorial work of Erasmus’ Opera Omnia under the rule of the Duke of Alba. This work culminated in Expurgatio Operum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, appended to the recently revised Index Expurgatorius Librorum.

Olivares Merino locates the multiple references to Thomas More contained in Erasmian texts. These generally emphasize More’s support for the education of women, Christian upbringing and the study of Greek. More appears referenced in Tomus Primus, in the letters by Beatus Rhenanus to Charles V and Erasmus to Iohannes von Botzheim and the work De copia, De conscribendis epistolis, De pueris instituendis, Ciceronianus, Dialogi Luciani and In nucem Ovidii commentarious. As for the second volume, the very much expurgated Adagia present two important mentions to the humanist. The third volume contains Erasmus’ correspondence and, as highlighted by Germain Marc’hadour, four letters are instrumental in understanding both humanists’ relation: letter to Ulrich von Hutten (July 23, 1519), to Germain de Brie (June 25, 1520), to Guillaume Budé (September 1521) and to Johann Faber (1532).

In the Tomus Quartus, focused on Erasmus’ concerns on moral education, Olivares Merino identified More’s name and figure in Moriae Encomium, dedicated to the Englishman –however, this text was fully censored in the Expurgatio Erasmi. Likewise, the Tomus Quintus suffered a profound revision and there are only a few references to the Englishman. Finally, the last volume, Tomus Nonus, as the previous tomes do not address More’s life or work, compiles Erasmus’ apologetical texts. The Epistola apologetica ad Dorpium theologum (1540), the Apologia adversus rhapsodies Albertii Pii (1540) and Spongia (1540) refers to More at some point.

The second chapter, «Thomas More as Translator: Typology and Functions of some Morean Features in his Version of Lucian’s Cynicus», delves into Thomas More’s rendering style as presented in his translations of Lucian’s Cynicus. Concepción Cabrillana Leal claims that More’s translation was more likely a translation exercise rather than a desired publication. The scholar acknowledges that the English humanist used to commit to the texts. Thus, the scholar aims at observing lexical-semantic variations and their implications. She offers a detailed account of characteristics based on enhancement, irony and moral teaching. Cabrillana Leal first addresses how More rendered Greek terms that did not have a corresponding word in Latin, causing semantic displacements, extensions and intensifications as it occurs with quantifiers or noun phrases. Irony is another aspect Lucian and More also have in common. Likewise, the author identifies that the latter intensifies irony by adding intensifiers, using semantic diversification and metaphorical meanings.

Besides, this use of Latin variation, Cabrillana Leal suggests, conveys a moral weight that is often more pronounced than in the original Greek text. In terms of character names, More interestingly chose Licinius instead of Lucianus for the Cynic’s interlocutor, therefore lending the dialogue an open interpretive angle. Additionally, two other insertions reflect More’s distinctive style. The author identifies four areas where More’s translation displays potential imprecisions or errors: confusing a compound verb, mismatching an adjective with its noun, varying the syntactic function and content simplification, which in some cases reduces the intended emphasis or intensity.

Then, «Renaissance Venice: a Utopian Republic Resisting the Spanish Empire» presents Marie-Claire Phelippeau’s materialization of Utopia as a real republic considering Gasparo Contarini’s proposed design for Venice in the Renaissance. Both Utopia and De magistratibus et republica Venetorum shared some parallels, according to the scholar, that make them significantly related. Foremost, their authors, Thomas More and Gasparo Contarini, devoted their lives to public careers in their respective countries. Also, their geographical design and position are similar: the territories are not easily accessible, placing them in a good position against external attacks. The Utopian and Venetian founding values were concerned with the community and welfare rather than individual ambitions.

Phelippeau extensively acknowledges the influence of ancient institutions in the two places, especially in terms of selection and representation, the fight against tyranny, citizenship and rational government. When it comes to expansionism, the scholar highlights their desire for expansion as a way of expanding their ideal governing proposals. As far as war and diplomacy are concerned, Utopia and Venice hired mercenaries for the sake of their citizens. Ignoring Machiavelli’s suggestion of owning a national army, they use money and diplomacy to secure their complete integrity. Despite some minor discrepancies, Phelippeau identifies that the republic of Venice aligns with Utopia’s ideal description. Nevertheless, the author warns that the reader cannot forget that the Italian state-city was framed in real sixteenth-century Europe and faced previous and later realities –unlike the island of Utopia.

In chapter four, Inmaculada Ureña Asensio discusses the current uses of digital tools in the field of Morean studies. In 2015, the scholar Romuald Lakowski published the academic article «Digital Thomas More», where he informs about four projects developed in the intersection between traditional philology and Digital Humanities (DH): a digital edition of «Sir Thomas More’s English Poetry from the 1557 Folio», «The International Thomas More Bibliography», a collaborative edition of Thomas More’s Utopia, and a database of letters and documents about Thomas More. Only the first two could be carried out and, unfortunately, only one of them –the international bibliography– remains accessible. Along with this scholar, the Center for Thomas More Studies has developed other digital proposals. That is the case of the extensive collection of documents related to Thomas More and European Humanism, providing facsimile digital copies and a concordance tool.

Ureña Asensio points out that the digital medium requires, however, computational knowledge and skills that generally the humanities community inevitably lacks. The article also discusses various challenges faced by the Morean community, such as the perceived objectivity of digital methods versus the traditional subjectivity of the humanities. Other challenges include project preservation, the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, and overcoming the «blackboxing» of complex computational processes that users might not fully understand.

The second half of the volume begins with Victor Lillo Castañ’s publication «The Trial and Execution of Thomas More in two Castilian Accounts of 1535 and in the Crónica del Rey Enrico Otavo de Ingalaterra (c. 1550)», departing from J. Duncan M. Derrett’s (1960) first collation of testimonies of the Englishman’s trial and execution, focuses on several sixteenth-century documents written in the Peninsula narrating Thomas More’s death: two Castilian 1535 Relaciones and the anonymous chronicle Crónica del Rey Enrico Otavo de Ingalaterra, written between 1549 and 1554. The author suggests that the Relaciones could be translations from a French testimony known as the Paris News Letter, in the same manner that the Expositio fidelis de morte D. Thomas Mori (1535) also rendered the facts narrated in the said French document. Indeed, Lillo Castañ recognizes the possible authorship of the Spanish translation to Álvaro de Astudillo, a Spanish merchant residing in London who was well connected to Eustace Chapuys, who was at the same time in contact with Erasmus of Rotterdam. The Spanish retelling, however, deviates from the French account in some fragments, and for that reason the scholar claims that the source text could be a distorted copy of the Paris News Letter, destroyed at some point.

The Crónica circulated as a manuscript in Spain and mentioned Thomas More on several occasions. The author claims that the source text on which Crónica del Rey Otavo de Ingalaterra could be based is not clear, since it contains references to different Latin and Spanish testimonies. However, the copies then found in Mss. 6381 and 2149, preserved in the BNE, could have been printed to remedy the deficiencies of the Crónica. Manuscript 6381 is the most valuable account of the trial and execution of Thomas More in Spain because, together with Ms. 2149, it attaches a set of texts that makes these manuscripts the most authoritative versions for readers in sixteenth-century Spain.

In chapter six, Isabel M. Fuentes Martínez analyzes Mary Tudor’s translation of Erasmus’ Paraphrases upon the New Testament (1548). The author contextualizes the work and discusses the Catholic traces the translator left in her pursuit to render the Latin text into English during the Edwardian Reformation. Translations were popular in the Early Modern Period, especially in women due to the social conditions of the time. The religious English context triggered censorship and content variation on both Protestant and Catholic sides throughout the decades, especially in religious literature, as claimed by Meister and Stump (2010). Katherine Parr, Henry VIII’s widow, asked Mary Tudor to participate in the translation of Erasmus that she was planning; the latter’s name on the cover page could signify the royal family’s support to Edward VI. According to Dodds (2009), the original idea of the Paraphrases was to guide readers to emulate Christ’s life, making thus the New Testament more accessible to the Christian community.

The author recognizes Mary Tudor’s participation within a broader historical framework, since Nicholas Udall, who wrote the preface to the translation, wanted to convince the public that she agreed with her brother’s religious ideas. Mary, however, could see Erasmus’ religious conservativism and the value of the translation itself as key to making the Bible more approachable. In her rendering of «John’s Gospel», there are some revealing textual clues in the manner she approaches Charles V, the Virgin Mary and St. Peter. Fuentes Martínez concludes that Mary Tudor did not set her Catholicism away and could have used the translation as a vehicle to transmit her thoughts despite the fact that Mary’s level of engagement is difficult to determine.

In chapter seven, Cinta Zunino Garrido’s «Fernando de Herrera, Arias Montano and their Coterie: Some Notes about the Genesis of Tomás Moro(1592)», examines the context behind Fernando de Herrera’s 1592 publication on Thomas More. Herrera’s work combined historical and hagiographical details of the humanist in the composition of this text similar to what other sixteenth-century Catholic authors such as Erasmus of Rotterdam, William Roper, Nicholas Harpsfield, Nicholas Sanders, Pedro de Ribadeneyra or Stapleton did. Herrera then contributed in his own manner to the surge of biographical works about the English humanist and scholars have attempted to trace the influences of these contemporary authors on Herrera’s text. Zunino Garrido agrees with Royston O. Jones that the 1592 work could find inspiration in Erasmus’ Expositio Fidelis (1535), Sanders’ De origine ac progressu schismatic Anglicani and Stapleton’s Tres Thomae (1588). This fact, however, is difficult to ascertain, since the Spanish author blends historical facts with his viewpoint and, besides, there are no explicit references to other texts.

López Estrada suggested that the presence of the English Jesuits in Seville could have been instrumental in the publication of the work. In line with this scholar, Zunino Garrido adds the potential influence of his local academic circle, which was made up of intellectuals like Francisco Pacheco, Simón de Tovar and Francisco Sánchez de Oropesa. The Sevillian singular cultural elite acquainted itself with Thomas More’s work and life, and this was highly possible thanks to the company of the Hebraist Benito Arias Montano in Southwestern Spain. Arias Montano, in his stay in Flanders from 1568 to 1575, established direct contact with other intellectuals who admired the English humanist –mostly English Catholics who had fled from England. That was the case of Christopher Plantin, John Clement, Joannes Rethius, Jasper Heywood, William Soone, Nicholas Sanders and Levinius Torrentius. Back in Spain, he kept up correspondence with his contacts in the Low Countries. The Sevillian intellectuals benefitted from his connections and initiated an exchange of foreign works, as they ordered books from the Plantin Press too. They obtained a copy of Stapleton’s Tres Thomae (1588, Douay), Maria Stuartae Scotorum Regina (1587, Cologne), Thomas More’s Utopia, and Dictionarium linguae Latinae et Anglicanae (1587, Cambridge). This proves the interest of the Sevillian circle in English history and culture during the Spanish Counter-Reformation period, potentially triggering Herrera’s biography of Thomas More.

Finally, in chapter eight, I offer a preliminary comparative analysis of just war theory as depicted in the works of Thomas More and Juan Luis Vives, examining how both thinkers addressed the morality of war during the early sixteenth century. Although More and Vives are often portrayed as pacifists nowadays, this chapter argues that their views on war are more nuanced, especially concerning the justification for some wars under certain conditions. The context includes a Europe marred by political strife, including the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, which created an urgent need for just war discussions. Vives, in particular, had expressed strong anti-war sentiments in his works, except when facing the Turkish threat, while More’s Utopia explored both the concepts of preemptive and preventive war, centuries before these were defined by political thought and international law, and scenarios where military action could be justified.

I also try to provide enough historical and cultural context, detailing the conflicts across Europe and the Ottoman expansion, as well as Spain’s imperial actions in the Americas that triggers a very interesting debate on the morality of war, the ius ad bellum, the ius in bello and the ius post bello. Humanist scholars like Francisco de Vitoria and Domingo de Soto –members of the Spanish School of Salamanca–were contemporaries who contributed to the development of just war doctrine. They argued that wars must have legitimate causes, and the means of war must be proportional and humane. These thinkers condemned wars for conquest or forced conversions, focusing on ethical governance, justice, and the protection of innocent lives.

In his De Europae Dissidiis et Republica, Vives delves into Europe’s discord and the Turkish menace, combining historical recollections and philosophical reflections. One key text of the above collection, De Bello Turcico, written shortly after the catastrophic Battle of Mohács in 1526, addresses European disunity and the growing Ottoman threat. Vives urges European monarchs to unify against the Turks rather than engage in internal conflicts. The influence of More’s Utopia is suggested as Vives portrays European wars as selfdestructive while implying that a unified front against the Ottomans is probably justified.

The chapter further explores the nuanced distinction between peacefulness and pacifism. For both More and Vives, peace is an ideal worth striving for, but pacifism, with its uncompromising opposition to any war, at any time, under any circumstances, is complex in practical governance and would lead to worse evils than those it intends to prevent. Vives, like More, considered war acceptable under specific conditions, especially in defense against an existential threat like the Muslim one embodied by the Turkish empire, at the time when Vives was writing his De Europae Dissidiis et Republica. Both authors recognize that the state has a duty to protect its citizens, even if it means resorting to violence in unavoidable circumstances.

Lastly, as a case in point, the chapter briefly discusses Vives’ fictional dialogue set in Hades in De Bello Turcico, which mirrors More’s satirical approach in Utopia. In this dialogue, characters debate the futility of European internal conflicts and advocate for a unified response to the Turkish threat. The views presented echo More’s fictional portrayal of Utopians who only go to war for just causes. Through this preliminary analysis, I conclude that the traditionally pacifist readings of More and Vives may be overly simplistic. Instead, both thinkers navigate a careful line between a principled preference for peace and a pragmatic recognition of the need for defensive war under specific circumstances.

Introducing Arias Montano to Thomas More: The Role of Erasmus of Rotterdam

EUGENIO M . OLIVARES MERINO

Universidad de Jaén

1Introduction

The genesis of this paper begins in the portrait of Thomas More in Philip Galle’s and Benito Arias Montano’s Virorum doctorum (Galle 1572: A8),1 a work that belongs to a well-known Renaissance genre, the so-called viri illustres, and contains the engravings of forty-four men of renown published in Antwerp in 1572. More’s portrait comes right before Montano’s, as if the Spaniard was trying to place himself precisely between the English humanist and Juan Luis Vives, who followed. Erasmus of Rotterdam, of course, completed the sequence (Galle 1572: B1, B2, B3). The fact that Galle and Montano were bringing together this long list of names was an attempt to provide an illustrated catalogue of those auctoritates who were the pillars of contemporary European culture. But not only this. As much as the selection included names of Reformists side by side with those of Roman Catholics, the Virorum doctorum was also a manifesto about tolerance and conciliation in a European scenario that was already torn apart by religious war.

It may be safely taken for granted that, like any other European of the sixteenth century, Arias Montano knew about the brilliant English humanist, who was decapitated in London (July 6, 1535) after being convicted of high treason against his King –and former friend– Henry VIII. Going beyond this uncompromising statement to claim that the Spaniard might be familiar with More and his written output requires a serious analysis. In any case, why should this be a relevant issue? The interest in Erasmus’ relation with Spain and Spanish humanists is still a topic of debate, ever since Marcel Bataillon published his seminal work Erasme et l’Espagne in 1937.2 In 2012, a Spanish translation of the Encomium Moriae was discovered and published shortly after.3 Unfortunately, the relation between Thomas More and Spain has traditionally received very little attention from scholars (in Spain or outside).4 However, the recent attribution of a 1530s Spanish unpublished translation of Utopia to Vasco de Quiroga is promoting the interest of Anglo-Hispanists in this topic: Quiroga’s rendering would thus be the earliest translation of Utopia into the vernacular.5 Of course, any approach to Thomas More’s friendship with the Valencian Juan Luis Vives necessarily explores this topic. Similarly, deepening into Montano’s concern for the English humanist provides a new perspective on the connections between Philip II’s Spain and Thomas More. This is, I believe, a promising line of research, insofar as Arias Montano spent a very prolific period of his life in the Spanish Netherlands, where many English Catholics had settled to avoid religious persecution. Some of them had actually met Thomas More.

The present paper explores the Erasmian connection between Arias Montano and Thomas More. Erasmus of Rotterdam’s works were –and still are– an unrivalled source of information about Thomas More. Through them, Montano –or anyone reading the Dutch humanist– would have access to a very detailed portrait of More. In syllogistic terms, my argumentation may be phrased as follows: Arias Montano knew about Thomas More because he had read Erasmus’ works, where More is an outstanding presence –to say the least. The friendship between Erasmus of Rotterdam and Thomas More is well known,6 as it left abundant evidence not only in the memory of their contemporaries but also in the form of letters and printed works. Let me now provide a brief survey of the Erasmian side of the Spaniard.

2Erasmus and Arias Montano

Montano’s involvement with Erasmus goes back to his University years in Seville,7 a city where the writings of the Dutch humanist were soon favourably received.8

In 1547, Arias moved to Alcalá de Henares and by 1548, he was a resident at the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso of the Complutensis Universitas. Alcalá was the center of Erasmianism in Spain.9 Montano would finish his degree in Arts and Philosophy, and start Theology. He remained in Alcalá de Henares –says González Carvajal (1832: 28)– until 1558/1559. In an inventory of the books he had when he entered Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso («Lista de los Libros, que tengo, hizela año 1548, a 8 de febrero, estando en el Colegio de San Ildephonso de la insigne Vniversidad de Alcalá»), reference is made to «Obras de Erasmo en 9 Cuerpos impresion de frobenio». Again, in his inventory of 1553, he annotated «Opera Erasmi in novem tomis» (Rodríguez Moñino 1928: 565). This was a reference to the Basel edition of Erasmus’ works, first published between 1538 and 1540, under the editorship of Beatus Rhenanus by Johannes Froben and Nikolaus Episcopius.10 Arias Montano’s Erasmian inclinations are too evident –as argued by Bataillon (1950, II: 357). Maybe the reason why he spent one year (1553-1554) in Salamanca, a University traditionally considered as anti-Erasmian, was precisely to avoid possible doubts about his orthodoxy.

Later on in his life, Philip II sent Arias Montano, already his Royal Chaplain, to the Netherlands (from 1568 to 1575) for the conclusion of the Polyglot Bible (Biblia Regia or Antwerp Bible).11 Then Montano met the Opera Omnia once again; this time, however, as a censor. Erasmus’ works had endured the severity of Paulus IV’s 1559 censorship. This rigour was mitigated in Pius IV’s 1564 Tridentine Index librorum prohibitorum (ILP) which only forbade six of his works, and quarantined until further revision those others in which religion came up.12 Rome had understood that, even though some of Erasmus’ views were misleading, it was definitely better to have him with them rather than against them.

In its Regula Octava,13 the ILP called for suppressing everything that was unorthodox or inappropriate. No doubt, it would be a massive enterprise; the faculties of Theology of Paris or Louvain were mentioned to carry out this delicate job. Eventually, Arias Montano was involved in this project. Shortly after the publication of the new Index in 1571, the already mentioned Virorum doctorum came out (1572). Erasmus’ portrait was also included, with the Spaniard’s laudatory lines. Montano’s words of praise are restrained –if not disappointing:

Quis tibi, Erasme, bonos Studiorum mille labores

Detrahat? atque tuos quis neget esse sales?

Aetas at nosotros tua contigere annos,

Scripsisses multa et rectius et brevius (Galle 1572: B3).14

3Arias Montano, Royal Censor

The Duke of Alba accepted Rome’s invitation and put the new Index under Montano’s supervision. For one thing, the latter had already served Alba in the elaboration of two Indices (1569 and 1570);15 but furthermore, the Spanish humanist was certainly eager to face the challenge.16 The result was the Index expurgatorius librorum (IEL), printed by Plantin in Antwerp (1571). Following the indications of ILP, the Duke of Alba asked the Faculty of Theology at Louvain to revise Erasmus’ works and issue a full report, which included the theologians’ recommendations, as well as the lists of passages to be revised –either because they contained small errors or seemed suspicious.17 Both Louvain theologians and the Antwerp commission necessarily used BAS –the only available opera omnia of Erasmus. Fernando de Sevilla, a merchant from Cordoba who lived in Antwerp and was a friend to Montano, offered his copy of BAS for the expurgation (Dávila Pérez 1998: 305-306). As already stated, Arias Montano also owned this work, but he did not bring it along to the Low Countries. Even if he had planned to, it was a long and wearisome journey from Spain to Antwerp, and Erasmus’ Opera was a voluminous load to carry; or maybe he did not own it anymore, especially after Inquisidor General Fernando Valdés published in Valladolid (1559) his Cathalogus librorum qui prohibentur (Cathalogus).18

Louvain submitted its conclusions almost nine months after the reception of BAS («Praefatio», Index expurgatorius 1571: 7v, lines 14-19). The commission that had already worked for the 1570 Index would complete Alba’s assignment in Antwerp; the Duke informed Cardinal Francisco Pacheco, Bishop of Burgos (September 17, 1571) that the board of censors was presided over by Arias Montano and Franciscus Van de Velde (Sonnius), Bishop of Bois-le-Duc and Antwerp. The censors studied and discussed the lists and comments that the universities had sent. Then they went on with the expurgation, «collating the books with all the notes sent from the different places»; the whole process took them three months (Macías Rosendo 2008: 101).

The presence of Thomas More in the Erasmian corpus is paramount. It seems rather improbable that Arias Montano’s image of the English humanist was not significantly shaped by Erasmus’ affection for him as reflected in his writings. Thus, the portrait that the Spaniard might have of More would not solely be the result of having once owned (and probably read) a copy of BAS, but more significantly of his commitment to the revision of that work for the IEL. Arias Montano did not spare time or effort in the task he had assumed, which meant carefully revising the texts themselves; he is very explicit about this in his preface to IEL. After comparing the lists and comments provided by Louvain with the books and the passages under assessment –as Alba had stated–, the board of censors would discern «what should finally be entirely suppressed, what to correct, and what to be admitted and tolerated». The final decision, Montano added, was only made after «many days, with the utmost attention and diligence, and with very careful judgement, reading all the lists, knowing the assessments and thoroughly examining each one of the passages in its context» (Index expurgatorius1571: 7r, lines 20-27–7v, lines 1-7). Montano’s insistence on the careful revision of the works under scrutiny clearly indicates that the board was not simply following the conclusions of the Louvain experts.

No need to insist further on Arias Montano’s Erasmian sympathies. In this sense, scholars have often emphasized his attempts to save as much as he could by the Dutch humanist.19 This meant going through Erasmus in detail. By July 1, 1571 (the date of Arias Montano’s Praefatio) the IEL was already finished. Needless to say that he was not spared from his main task in the Low Countries, the printing of the Antwerp Bible. In a letter sent from Antwerp (February 5, 1571) to Gabriel de Zayas, Philip II’s secretary, he writes: «Every day I have spent eleven hours studying, reading and writing everything that was required by my mission [the Polyglot Bible]». He had no spare time: «if I had any time left, I dedicated it (and still do) to those other things [the indexes] that the Duke [of Alba] has commanded me, for the service of God and His Majesty» (CODOIN 1862: 201).

It had been a hard task, working from dawn to well after dusk. Erasmus, among theologians, had posed the greatest challenge, as stated in a letter to Juan Ovando (August 2, 1571; Jiménez de la Espada 1891: 489). Three months later (November 16, 1571) he related to Juan de Albornoz, the Duke of Alba’s secretary, how the assessment of Erasmus’ works had been the most important and the longest of all their tasks (González Carvajal 1832: 154). The final result was the «Expurgatio Operum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami» («Expurgatio Erasmi»), a sort of appendix included at the end of IEL in which Montano surely played a major role.20 The Spaniard felt satisfied with the cleansing of the opera Erasmiana, as shown in this same letter to Albornoz: «[IEL] will give them [censors in Rome] light to see all the offensive places in those books by Erasmus and Munster. And it may happen that, seeing them so well purged, they will leave these authors with the others» (González Carvajal 1832: 155).

Further proof of this task of revision and collation has come to us in Arias Montano’s handwritten comments at the beginning of each of the nine tomes of the BAS used for the expurgatio (Dávila Pérez 1998: 307-309).

4Thomas More in Erasmus’ Opera Omnia (1540)

As anticipated, the name Thomas More is recurrent in Erasmus’ BAS. Of course, his relevance in the Roterodamus’ epistolary (Tomus Tertius of BAS) does not come as a surprise. But the number of references to More scattered along the other eight volumes of this work –though comparatively less impressive– is still relevant. Late Prof. Germain Marc’hadour made a passing reference to «those allusions to or mentions of [Thomas More]» in both De copia and the Colloquia (1987: 2).21 All in all, anyone reading BAS (say Arias Montano, for my present purpose) would not fail to notice the prominence that Thomas More had in Erasmiana, thus contemplating More through Erasmus’ eyeglasses.

Tomus Primus: The preface of the first volume is a letter by Beatus Rhenanus to Charles V (June 1, 1540; Erasmus 1540, I: A2v-B2v; Allen 1906: ep. IV), a text which has been defined as an enlargement of «his [Rhenanus’] previous sketch of Erasmus’ life» (Allen 1906: 56). As such, it contains four references to Thomas More: with Lord Mountjoy,22 and with a long list of English scholars and humanists (Erasmus 1540, I: A3r, lines 17-24; Allen 1906: 59, lines 84-93), among which More is soon singled out as a friend of Erasmus («praecipue Thomae Mori»; Erasmus 1540, I: A4r, line 43; Allen 1906: 62, line 224). One last mention to the future Chancellor of England in Rhenanus’ preface makes indirect reference to the former’s size; the author writes: «Your Majesty knew that in stature he [Erasmus] was, as he himself describes More in one of his letters, neither tall nor noticeably short» (Olin 1975: 52).23

This preface is followed by Erasmus’ letter to Iohannes von Botzheim, a catalogue of his works (Erasmus 1540, I: B2r-D2v; Allen 1906: ep. I), where the English humanist is again a relevant name.24