1 Motto on the tomb of Hadrian VI in the church of Santa Maria dell'Anima in Rome.Google Scholar

This paper is dedicated to Dr. Richard Cross, who many moons ago, in an act of typical generosity, presented the author with a copy of Adrian's Quaestiones quotlibeticae XII. I am also grateful to Jan Roegiers, Charles Lohr, and Guy Guldentops for their helpful comments.Google Scholar

2 Early examples of a tendency to focus exclusively on Adrian's last years can be found in his modern biographies by Gaum, Johann F., Leo X. und Adrian VI.: Eine Unterredung über das Wiederaufleben der Rechte und Befugnisse der hohen Römischkatholischen Geistlichkeit, und die Schicksaale der Päpstlichen Nuntiaturen in Deutschland (Ulm, 1787); Delvigne, A. Le pape Adrien VI: Sa vie et ses écrits (Brussels, 1862); (Le Chanoine) Claessens, M. Le pape Adrien VI: Notice Biographique (Louvain, 1865); Wensing, J. Het leven van Adriaan VI (Utrecht, 1870); Bauer, Heinrich Hadrian VI.: Ein Lebensbild aus dem Zeitalter der Reformation, Heidelberg, 1876; and von Höfler, Constantin Papst Adrian VI. 1522–1523 (Vienna, 1880); see esp. book 5, 392–558, which provided the basis for Ludwig von Pastor's later account in Geschichte der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, Bd. 4–2 (Adrian VI. und Klemens VII.), 13^th edition (Freiburg and Rome, 1956). Höfler's extensive narrative provides a detailed survey of almost every day of Adrian's short pontificate, his main interest being in Adrian's europolitical role in the period between 1515 and 1522, where the internal violence occasioned by the Reformation, and external uncertainty from the Turkish threat, were the two main factors in his life. This tendency can be said to be consonant with the approach of older chronicles such as that by Moringus, G. Vita Hadriani Sexti pontificis maximi (Louvain, 1536), included in the collection of documents and sources edited by Burmann(us), C. Hadrianus Sextus sive analecta historica de Hadriano Sexto (Utrecht, 1727), and Danz, E. Analecta critica de Hadriano VI, Pontifice Romano (Jena, 1813). For other coverage of the basic facts of Adrian's life and career see Giuseppe Pasolini, Dall'Onda Adriano VI: Saggio storico (Rome, 1913); Forget, J. “Adrien VI,” DThC 1 (1902): 459–61; Richard, P. “Adrien VI,” DHGE 1 (1912): 628–30; Duval, A. “Hadrien VI,” Catholicisme 5 (1957): 477–78; Coppens, J. “Adriaan VI,” Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek, 15 vols. (Brussels, 1964–), 3 (1968): 5–19; and Bijloos, J. Adrianus VI: De Nederlandse Paus (Haarlem, 1980). For limited English-language commentary see Blockx, K. “Adrian of Utrecht (1459–1523),” Louvain Studies 5 (1975): 280–84. When viewed in the round as a whole, these works do not reflect many new trends in biographical research on Adrian since Höfler.Google Scholar

3 In castigating earlier generations of scholars for their omissions, one should make allowances for the fact that previous historians have largely conducted their biographical researches of Adrian under the heading of “the last German Pope,” and so have permitted the events of his brief papacy to govern their concerns. These allowances aside, it is important to stress the unhappy consequences that such a disproportional interest in the last years of his life has had on historical research on Adrian. The failing is displayed most remarkably in Höfler, , Papst, 109–11, where, in a work of more than five hundred and fifty pages, he devotes only two and a half to Adrian's previous life before his mission to Spain. This practice is followed, sixty years later, by Hocks, Else Der letzte deutsche Papst: Adrian VI. 1522–1523 (Freiburg i. Br., 1939), in which an account of Adrian's years in Louvain again takes only nine out of one hundred and seventy two pages; see 27–34. More recent monographs have tried to pay more attention to the influences of the devotio moderna upon his career even though the space devoted to his early years is somewhat small. For example, Berglar, Peter Verhängnis und Verheißung: Papst Hadrian VI.; Der Jesuitenstaat in Paraguay (Bonn, 1963), whose contribution to Adrian's biography consists of one hundred and twenty five pages and assigns nineteen to his formation up to his mission to Spain, while Bijloos, Adrianus, 9–18, gives over a mere nine pages to Adrian's “jeugd en leraarschap.”Google Scholar

4 The published writings of Adrian are: Quaestiones quotlibeticae XII (Louvain, 1515, 1518; Paris, 1522, 1527, 1531), hereafter QQ; Quaestiones in quartum Sententiarum praesertim circa sacramenta (Paris, 1516, 1530; Rome 1522; Venice, 1522), hereafter In IV. A part of Adrian's theological Nachlass is collected in Reusens, E. H., ed., Syntagma theologiae Adriani Sexti, Pont. Max. (Louvain, 1862); hereafter Syntagma. Other writings are: Computus seu supputatio hominis agonizantis per D. Card. Dertusensem (sive Adrianum Florentium); Ejusdem de pertuso sacculo, sive de superbia, Sermo (Antwerp, 1520; Rome, 1522, Venice, 1522); Regulae, ordinationes et constitutiones Cancellariae Apostolicae (Antwerp, 1522, 1523; Rome 1523); and Epistola Reverendissimi Domini Cardinalis Dertusensis ad facultatem theologie Lovaniensem (Louvain, 1520; Cologne, 1520). A full list of Adrian's writings is provided by Burie, Luc “Proeve tot inventarisatie van de in handschrift of in druk bewaarde werken van de Leuvense theologie professoren uit de XVe eeuw,” in Facultas S. Theologiae Lovaniensis 1432–1797, ed. van Eijl, Edmond J. M., Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 45 (Leuven, 1977): 215–72, esp. 263–72. In addition to the published writings, there is a very valuable manuscript that is housed in the Maurits Sabbe Library of the Theology Faculty, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, bibl. Fac. 17. This manuscript contains another portion of Adrian's Commentary on the Sentences. The manuscript is described by De Clerq, C. Catalogue des manuscripts du Grand Seminaire des Malines, Catalogue général des manuscripts des bibliothèques de Belgique, 1937 (Gembloux and Paris, 1937), 41–56; and more recently by Macken, Raymond “The Hadrian VI Codex: A New Codological Description,” Ephemerides Theologiae Lovaniensis 59 (1983): 99–113.Google Scholar

5 For a representative yet unfair assessment see Vereecke, Louis, “Un Pape moraliste: Adrien VI (1459–1523),” Studia Moralia 6 (1978): 191–208, reprinted in idem, De Guillaume d'Ockham à saint Alphonse de Liguori (Rome, 1986), 291–308, at 302: “La méthode théologique d'Adrien ne se distingue en rien de celle de ses contemporains. On ne trouve chez lui de ce point de vue aucune originalité. Ni ses Quaestiones quodlibetales, ni son Commentaire sur les Sentences ne se distinguent des productions similaires par leur structure ni leur forme. Il suit fidèlement les genres littéraires en usage à l'université. Contrairement à d'autres universités, Louvain est resté assez longtemps traditionnel en ce point…. Bien qu'Adrien ait connu et estimé Erasme, qu'il ait encourage dans ses recherches exégétiques, qu'il ait senti, peut-être, tout ce que l'humanisme pouvait apporter de nouveau à la théologie, cependant on ne trouve dans ses œuvres aucune trace d'humanisme. Il est encore entièrement et totalement un scolastique.” Vereecke's verdict is all the more unfortunate given his status as one of the few reliable modern historians of late medieval and early modern moral theology.Google Scholar

6 See Berglar, Peter, “Die kirchliche und politische Bedeutung des Pontifikats Hadrians VI.,” Archiu für Kulturgeschichte 54 (1972): 97–112, esp. 100 where he labels Adrian a “conventional late scholastic” whose writings fail to sparkle or inspire when contrasted with the ideas of humanist writers. More balanced comment can be found in Ducke, Karl-Heinz “Pope Adrian VI,” in Bietenholz, Peter G. and Deutscher, Thomas B., eds., Contemporaries of Erasmus, 3 vols. (Toronto, 1985), 1:5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 On this topic see my “The Origins of Probabilism in Late Scholastic Moral Thought: A Prolegomenon to Further Study,” Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiéuales 67 (2000): 125–68, with references therein to offending parties.Google Scholar

8 This persists even in the present day when historians are slightly more circumspect in their assessment of the relative merits of humanists against scholastics in the Renaissance. Still, old habits die hard, as can be witnessed in a recent book by Levi, Anthony, Renaissance and Reformation: The Intellectual Genesis (New Haven, CT, 2002), esp. 40–70, a work that is committed to demonstrating the decline and decadence of late scholasticism, the author's aim being to explain how movements such as the Renaissance and the Reformation had their genesis in a period of intellectual crisis. For a more judicious appraisal see Rummel, Erika The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge, MA, 1995).Google Scholar

9 Despite the general lack of interest in Adrian's theological and moral writings, we are fortunate to possess two detailed studies of his ethics. These are the doctoral theses by Ducke, Karl-Heinz, Handeln zum Heil: Eine Untersuchung zur Morallehre Hadrians VI., Erfurter Theologischen Studien 34 (Leipzig, 1976), and Hein, Rudolf Branko “Gewissen” bei Adrian von Utrecht (Hadrian VI.), Erasmus von Rotterdam und Thomas More: Ein Beitrag zur systematischen Analyse des Gewissensbegriffs in der katholischen nordeuropäischen Renaissance, Studien der Moraltheologie 10 (Münster, 1999). For a different intepretation of Adrian's moral thought, see my “Adrian of Utrecht on Natural Law and Morality,” Recherches de Théologie et Philosophic médiévales, forthcoming.Google Scholar

10 I make no apology for reiterating a narrative that is partially known to readers of Dutch and German – the principal languages in which Adrian's life has been studied – for the reason that there is very little detailed commentary on his education in the English language. More often than not mention of Adrian is restricted to a few pages of superficial comment; for a recent example see Duffy, Eamon, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven, CT, 1997), 203–4. Duffy makes no mention of Adrian's considerable theological corpus or how his formal education might have influenced his later actions, which Duffy judges to have been unsuccessful.Google Scholar

11 For further references see Ducke, , Handeln, 6, and the catalogue of the Adrian Memorial Exhibition held at Utrecht and Louvain in 1959: Coppens, Maria Elisabeth Houtzager J., and Steppe, J. K., eds., Herdenkingstentoostelling Pans Adrianus VI: Gedenkboek-Catalogus (Utrecht, 1959). See also Klaveren, G. “Utrechtsche Familieleden van Paus Adrianus VI,” Jaarboekje van Oud Utrecht (1958): 73–85; Post, R. R. “Studiën over Paus Adriaan VI,” Archief voor de geschiedenis van de Katholieke Kerk in Nederland 3 (1961): 121–61 and 343–51; and Bosscher, P. M. “Adriaan van Utrecht,” Mededelingenblad van het Koninklijk Instituut MAR 50 (1978): 52–56.Google Scholar

12 Rodocanachi, E., “La jeunesse d'Adrien VI,” Revue historique 168 (1931): 300–306, at 300. The above-mentioned Catalogus refers to a bill of 1450–51, which mentions Floris Boeyens as carrying out certain joinery repairs in the buurtkerk in Utrecht.Google Scholar

13 Rodocanachi, , “Jeunesse,” 301, goes so far as to claim that Adrian must have come from one of the first families in the land and cites as evidence his coat of arms and the financial resources for his later studies (at his matriculation at Louvain he was not listed in the class of pauperes). In my view, there is insufficient evidence to regard Adrian as originating from a social milieu of genuine prosperity, for ultimately he was dependent during his period as a student in Louvain on the contributions of his patron Margaret of York as well as on church benefices; see Post, R. R. “Paus Adriaan VI: Biografische schets,” in Houtzager, et al. Catalogus, 35–41.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., 35.Google Scholar

15 On this movement see Hyma, Albert, The Christian Renaissance: A History of the Devotio Moderna (New York, 1924); Post, R. R. The Modern Devotion: Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Thought 3 (Leiden, 1968); and Rhem, Gerhard Die Schwestern vom gemeinsamen Leben im nordwestlichen Deutschland: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Devotio moderna und des weiblichen Religiosentums (Berlin, 1985). A useful anthology of its main writings is The Devotio Moderna: Basic Writings, ed. Van Engen, John and Oberman, Heiko (New York, 1988). See also Serta devota in memoriam Guillemi Lourdaux, Prior, Pars: Devotio Windeshemensis, ed. Verbeek, Werner et al. (Leuven, 1992); and Schmidt, Hans-Joachim “Brüder vom Gemeinsamen Leben,” in Orden und Klöster im Zeitalter von Reformation und katholischer Reform 1500–1700, ed. Jürgensmeier, Friedhelm and Schwerdtfeger, Regina Elisabeth (Münster, 2005), 199–215.Google Scholar

16 See Iserloh, Erwin, Thomas von Kempen und die devotio moderna, Nachbarn 21 (Bad-Honnef, 1976), 7–8; Geert Grote en de Moderne Devotie, ed. De Bruin, C. C. Persoons, E., and Weiler, A. G. (Zutphen, 1985); and Van Geest, P. Thomas a Keis (1379/80–1471): Een studie van zijn mens – en godsbeeld (Kampen, 1996).Google Scholar

17 Amongst the Brethren the study of several philosophical and theological authorities was actually scorned, since they were believed to be in conflict with their ideal of simplicitas. On this see Post, , Devotion, 365–67.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., 375.Google Scholar

19 On the educational ideals of humanism, see Black, Robert, Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy: Tradition and Innovation in Latin Schools from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge, 2001).Google Scholar

20 See Northern Humanism in European Context, 1469–1625: From the Adwert Academy to Ubbo Emmius, ed. Akkerman, F. and Vanderjagt, Arie Johan (Leiden, 1999).Google Scholar

21 Groote rejected the disciplines of astrology, medicine, and secular and canon law, and amongst the authors of antiquity allowed none except Seneca. For him, all study had to lead to the true understanding of sacred scripture; see Brachin, Pierre, “Adrien VI et la devotio moderna,” Études Germaniques 14 (1959): 97–105, at 103. This interpretation is disputed by Post, Devotion, 367, who agrees that the house of the Brethren in Zwolle at the turn of the sixteenth century had a conservative theological attitude, which remained generally unaffected by humanism, but argues that the Brethren were not entirely opposed to all forms of humanistic learning.Google Scholar

22 See Brachin, “Admen,” 98; and Iserloh, , Thomas, 8. This attitude could also express itself in practical conflicts that the Brethren pursued with those members of the Church hierarchy whom they thought supported policies at variance with the requirements of orthodoxy. One such case concerned a disagreement about the nomination of the bishop of Utrecht in 1424–26. The Brethren were forced to move out of Deventer for a short time, since they supported the papal candidate against the resistance of the towns of Deventer, Zwolle, and Kampen (Overijssel province); on this see Post, Devotion, 351–53. That the attitude of the Brethren of the Common Life was removed from common opinion in humanist circles is also emphasized by Geert Groote, Thomas von Kempen und die devotio moderna (Gotteserfahrung und Weg in die Welt), ed. Janowski, Hans Norbert (Olten, 1978), 22.Google Scholar

23 Post, , Devotion, 246–47.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., 257.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., 254–55: “For these reasons it is clear that the main aim of the Brethren in founding their hostels was not the material well-being of certain schoolboys but to provide churches and monasteries with good candidates for the priesthood and the monastery.”Google Scholar

26 The daily horarium in such a house during the early period of the Brethren in Deventer is given in Iserloh, , Thomas (n. 16 above), 10. The whole of the office was recited, and everyone went to daily mass in the parish church. There were no more than two meals a day, at ten o'clock in the morning and in the evening. By contrast with the regime followed in a monastic house, it is noteworthy that a relatively large amount of time was reserved for the Brethren's labors (the principal work was the copying of books, then manual work in convents and schools). This was done before and after mass, between nones and vespers and also after meditation until compline. The intention was to differ from the contemplative orders and to realize the practical consequences of a life according to the Gospel, though without losing sight of its spiritual basis.Google Scholar

27 This view is advanced by Berglar, , Bedeutung (n. 3 above), 100–101, who is particularly interested in the way in which Adrian's devotional ideals were passed on to the emperor Charles V and the historical consequences of this spiritual influence.Google Scholar

28 See Brachin, “Adrien,” 99–100. See also McNally, Robert, “Pope Adrian VI and Church Reform,” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 7 (1969): 253–84, at 254.Google Scholar

29 See Brachin, , “Adrien,” 101. He refers here to Adrian's Brief to the Imperial Diet at Nuremberg, in which he had his legate Chieregati read out the failings of the papacy and the curia. On this see McNally, “Pope Adrian,” 279–82.Google Scholar

30 See Houtzager, et al., Catalogus (n. 11 above), 112 n. 123 (fig. 30), where there is a reference to the matriculation record. For a more general survey of Adrian's years in the University, see Coppens, J. Paus Adriaan VI. en zijn stichting te Leuven, Folia Lovaniensia 10 (Louvain, 1959); and Gielis, M. A. M. E. “Adriaan van Utrecht (1459–1523) als professor aan de Universteit van Leuven en als kerkelijk leider in de Nederlanden,” Jaarboek 2001–2002: Provinciate Commissie voor Geschiedenis en Volkskunde (Antwerpen) (Antwerp, 2003), 40–56.Google Scholar

31 See Rashdall, Hastings, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 2^nd ed., ed. Powicke, Fredrick Maurice and Emden, Alfred Brotherston 2 vols. (Oxford, 1951), 2:264; van Eijl, Edmond J. M. “The Foundation of the University of Louvain,” in The Universities in the Late Middle Ages, Mediaevalia Lovaniensia 6, ed. Jsewijn, J. I. and Paquet, J. (Louvain, 1978), 29–41; and Van Mingroot, Erik, Nelissen, Marc, and Fritsen, Angela Sapientie immarcessibilis: A Diplomatic and Comparative Study of the Bull of Foundation of the University of Louvain (December 9, 1425) (Leuven, 1994).Google Scholar

32 See De Universiteit te Leuven 1425–1985, Academici, Fasti 1, ed. Roegiers, Emiel Lamberts Jan, et al. (Leuven, 1986), 28; Van Mingroot, Marc Nelissen Erik, and Roegiers, Jan De stichtingsbul van de Leuvense universiteit 1425–1914 (Leuven, 2000); and Nelissen, Marc “La foundation de l'Ancienne Université,” in Leuven/Louvain: Aller Retour, ed. Roegiers, Jan and Vandevivere, Ignace (Leuven, 2001), 9–17.Google Scholar

33 On the creation of the faculty see Lefèvre, P., “Une lettre de Philippe le Bon en faveur de la création d'une faculté de théologie a l'Université de Louvain (10 novembre 1431),” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 40 (1964): 491–94, and Brandt, H. J. “Aktenstücke zur Errichtung der theologischen Fakultät Löwen (1432) aus dem Vatikanischen Archiv in Rom,” in Facultas S. Theologiae Lovaniensis 1432–1797, 39–51. On the statutes of the Louvain Theology Faculty, which were based on the statutes of the University of Cologne, which in turn were based on the statutes of the University of Vienna, see Rotsaert, Mark “De Oudste Statuten van de Theologische Faculteit te Leuven en hun Litteraire Afhankelijkheid,” ibid., 53–68. See also Weiler, Anton C. “Les relations entre l'université de Louvain et l'université de Cologne au XV siècle,” in IJsewijn and Paquet, Universities, 49–81; and Gabriel, Astrik “Intellectual Relations between the University of Louvain and the University of Paris in the Fifteeenth Century,” ibid., 82–132.Google Scholar

34 de Jongh, H., L'Ancienne Faculté de Théologie de Louvain au premier siècle de son existence 1432–1540 (Leuven, 1911, repr. Utrecht, 1980), 55. For more general commentary on the faculty, see van Eijl, Edmond J. M.; “Louvain's Faculty of Theology during the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” Louvain Studies 5 (1975): 219–33.Google Scholar

35 The curriculum included the classical logical works of Aristotle, the Liber universalium of Porphyry and and the Summulae logicales of Petrus Hispanus; see Lamberts, and Roegiers, , Universiteit, 71, and De Jongh, Faculté, 56. For further developments in the teaching of logic at Louvain in the years after Adrian see Papy, Jan “The Reception of Agricola's De inventione dialectica in the Teaching of Logic at the Louvain Arts Faculty in the Early Sixteenth Century,” in Akkerman, and Vanderjagt, Northern Humanism (n. 20 above), 167–85.Google Scholar

36 Here the students were largely taught from Aristotle's Physics, as well as the Sphaera of Johannes de Sacro Bosco and, amongst other works, Boethius's, Arithmetica. On the teaching of natural philosophy at Louvain in the period after Adrian, see Broecke, Steven Vanden, The Limits of Influence: Pico, Louvain, and the Crisis of Renaissance Astrology, Medieval and Early Modern Science 4 (Leiden, 2003).Google Scholar

37 Hence the judgment of Lamberts, and Roegiers, , Universiteit, 71: “Bij het onderwijs in de filosofie, de natuurwetenschappen en de moraal is Aristoteles de onbetwiste meester.” (For the teaching of philosophy, natural sciences, and morality Aristotle was the unchallenged authority.) For more detailed commentary see Van Belle, André “La Faculté des Arts de Louvain: quelques aspects de son organisation au XV siècle,” in Ijsewijn, and Paquet, Universities, 42–49.Google Scholar

38 See De Jongh, , Faculté, 56, and Greiteman, N. “Via antiqua en via moderna op de universiteiten van Engeland, Frankrijk en Duitschland,” Studia Catholica (Roermond) 6 (1929/30): 149–63, and 7 (1930/31): 25–40, esp. 27. Further decrees in 1480, 1486, and 1497 in practice made the teaching of nominalist views in the faculties of Arts and Theology more and more difficult.Google Scholar

39 After the first vain attempts to centralize the study of the arts, every part of the program of study was carried out in a single department. Only a few supplementary lectures took place in the vicus, the common teaching building of the faculty; see De Jongh, , Faculté, 57.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., 62.Google Scholar

41 Ibid., 73. Adrian must first have taken the examination for the baccalaureate and the licenciate, at which he would have been questioned in public by the tutors. The final examination, which led to the licentiate and so to the licentia docendi, included the subjects of physica, ethica, metaphysica, and mathematica.Google Scholar

42 Post, , “Adriaan” (n. 13 above), 35.Google Scholar

43 Rodocanachi, , Jeunesse (n. 12 above), 302. At the end of the examination the results were made public (though those who failed were not named), and a distinction was made between (1) rigorosi, (2) transibiles, (3) gratiosi, capaces tamen gratiae, and (4) gratiosi seu refutabiles. The title of primus was awarded to the best of all the candidates from each faculty (not from each house of studies, where the examinations took place), who were then led in triumph through the city. On this see Lamberts, and Roegiers, Universiteit (n. 32 above), 73; and Rashdall, Universities (n. 31 above), 2:267.Google Scholar

44 Lamberts, and Roegiers, , Universiteit, 61–62.Google Scholar

45 Ibid., 93. It is not always possible in later years to determine the exact number of professors, since, beside the ordinarii, members of religious orders and professors were in office (the latter lectured outside the fixed lecture times). For example, in 1546 the number of professors was increased by two. These were appointed to the two chairs endowed by the emperor Charles V in support of the Counter-Reformation, for commentary on the Sententiae and for biblical exegesis. See De Jongh, , Faculté (n. 34 above), 70–71; Wils, J. “Les professeurs de l'ancienne Faculté de théologie de l'Université de Louvain,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 4 (1927): 338–58; and van Eijl, “De theologische faculteit te Leuven,” in Facultas S. Theologiae Lovaniensis 1432–1797 (n. 4 above), 110–54.Google Scholar

46 Members of the faculty were often called upon to advise in particular disputes about the orthodoxy of particular people or opinions, especially in the case of books that were judged to be candidates for censorship; see Lamberts, and Roegiers, , Universiteit, 107.Google Scholar

47 The professors were forbidden to comment on the same book at the same time. The rule was necessary because there were only two texts on which they had to give commentaries. De Jongh, , Faculté, 72, says: “Ainsi, par exemple, il leur est défendu de se rencontrer avec un collègue in lectura ejusdem libri: défense qui avait sans doute ses raisons d'être quand on n'avait commes livres classiques que la Bible et Pierre Lombard.”Google Scholar

48 Lamberts, and Roegiers, , Universiteit, 107.Google Scholar

49 Greiteman, , “Via” (n. 38 above), 28.Google Scholar

50 For general commentary on changes in theological orientation among late medieval writers that precipitated a move away from the Seven Deadly Sins to the Decalogue, see Bossy, John, “Moral Arithmetic: Seven Sins into Ten Commandments,” in Conscience and Casuistry in Early Modern Europe, ed. Leites, Edmund (Cambridge, 1988), 214–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Beets, whose work De Jongh, (Faculté, 97), calls “une veritable somme de théologie morale,” had entered the theological faculty on March 23, 1454, and began his lectures on Scripture as a biblicus. He continued on to the doctorate, after which he was master at Brussels. Subsequently he became professor at Louvain and regent of the Carmelite college; see Frankfurt SA, Reportorium B 79 (Karmeliterbücher), 47a (Scripta et monumenta Jacobi Milendunck, †1682), fols. 323v–342r. An initial study of Beets's moral theology is provided by Mollink, R., Joannes Beetz, O. Carm. en zijn commentum super decern praeceptis decalogi (Oldenzaal, 1949). See also Xiberta, Bartholomaeus Maria De scriptoribus scholasticis saeculi XIV ex ordine Carmelitarum (Louvain, 1931), 65 and 69; and especially Lickteig, Franz-Bernard The German Carmelites at Medieval Universities, Textus et Studia Historia Carmelitana 13 (Rome, 1981): 284–95, for a discussion of the Carmelite presence at Louvain.Google Scholar

52 On Briard see Neve, F., “Briard, Jean,” DThC 2 (1905): 1130–31; De Jongh, Faculté (n. 34 above), 149–51; Roersch, A. “Briard, Jean,” DHGE 10 (1938): 664–65; and Bietenholz, P. G. “Jean Briart,” Contemporaries of Erasmus (n. 6 above), 1:195–96.Google Scholar

53 Greiteman, , “Via” (n. 38 above), 63–64.Google Scholar

54 Lamberts, and Roegiers, , Universiteit (n. 32 above), 91.Google Scholar

55 The first book of the Sentences had to be dealt with by the end of December, the second by February, the third by April, and the fourth by the end of the academic year. A young tutor was not to proceed too quickly or too slowly, i.e. within one hour at least one and at most two distinctiones had to be covered. Further details from the statutes of the Faculty are contained in De Jongh, , Faculté (n. 34 above), 64.Google Scholar

56 Ibid., 65, and Rodocanachi, , “Jeunesse” (n. 12 above), 302.Google Scholar

57 This appointment was followed by a dispensation from the obligation of residence, so that one can regard it as simply a sinecure to provide an income.Google Scholar

58 Thus shortly before receiving his licentiate on January 30, 1490, Adrian was appointed to one of the canonries at St. Peter's in Louvain, which had been set up by the city to provide salaries for the professors; Post, , “Adriaan” (n. 13 above), 35–36. Other posts soon followed, e.g., as assistant curate at the Groot Begijnhof in Louvain (1490); Rodocanachi, “Jeunesse,” 303.Google Scholar

59 A detailed description of these ceremonies, which included on the third day a great banquet with two different dishes, is given by De Jongh, , Faculté (n. 34 above), 65–66.Google Scholar

60 For the process of election see Lamberts, and Roegiers, , Universiteit (n. 32 above), 35.Google Scholar

61 Post, , “Adriaan,” 36.Google Scholar

62 For the dating of each set of Quaestiones see Ducke, , Handeln (n. 9 above), 52–53 n. 336.Google Scholar

63 Ibid., 54.Google Scholar

64 Ibid., 57 and Post, , “Adriaan,” 36.Google Scholar

65 These include Paris, Venice, Lyon, and Rome. See the list in Ducke, , Handeln, 52–53 n. 336.Google Scholar

66 This date is given in Post, , “Adriaan,” 36. Rodocanachi, “Jeunesse,” 36, says that Adrian did not leave Louvain until 1515, to go to the court of Margaret of Austria at Mechelen.Google Scholar

67 Pastor, , Geschichte (n. 2 above), 4–2:28, and Hocks, Papst (n. 3 above), 29.Google Scholar

68 Here one can make mention of the principal developments in late medieval moral thought after the impact of Ockham and the neo-Augustinian anthropology of persons such as Gregory of Rimini. More immediate influences on Northern European thinkers would have been the ethical ideas abroad in Paris initiated and developed by thinkers such as Pierre d'Ailly and Jean Gerson, and the so-called Thomist and Albertist revivals in universities such as Cologne. Moreover, one cannot discount the influence of movements such as the devotio moderna and its emphasis on the place of morally informed conscience.Google Scholar

69 For further discussion of this theme see Werbeck, W., “Voraussetzungen und Wesen der scrupulositas im Spätmittelalter,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 68 (1971): 327–50; and my “Scrupulosity, Probabilism, and Conscience: The Origins of the Debate in Early Modern Scholasticism,” in Contexts of Conscience in Early Modern Europe, 1500–1700, ed. Braun, Harald and Vallence, Edward (London, 2004), 1–16 and 182–88.Google Scholar

70 De Jongh, , Faculté (n. 34 above), 56–59. On Driedo see Panneels, E. Johannes Driedo van Turnhout (1480?-1535) (Brussels, 1985); and Fabisch, P. “Johannes Driedo (ca. 1480–1535),” in Katholische Theologen der Reformationszeit 3, Katholisches Leben und Kirchenreform im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung 46, ed. Iserloh, E. (Münster, 1986), 33–47.Google Scholar

71 De Jongh, , Faculté (n. 34 above), 162–65. On Dorp see Heilen, H. “Martin van Dorp (1485–1525),” Moreana 25 (1988): 67–71; Galibois, R. “Lettre de More à Dorp,” Moreana 12 (1975): 33–37 and 47–48; Kinney, D. “More's Letter to Dorp: Remapping the Trivium,” Renaissance Quarterly 34 (1981): 179–201; and Martini Dorpii Naldiceni Orationes IV cum Apologia et litteris adnexis, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, ed. Ijsewijn, Joseph (Leipzig, 1986).Google Scholar

72 Brachin, , “Adrien” (n. 21 above), 98; and Pastor, Geschichte (n. 2 above), 4–2:57–58. On Hezius see Lampen, Willibrord Dirk van Heeze (Noord Brabant, 1955).Google Scholar

73 De Jongh, , Faculté, 173–80. On Latomus's spats with Luther and Erasmus see Vercruysse, J. E. “Die Stellung Augustins in Jacob Latomus' Auseinandersetzung mit Luther,” in L'Augustinisme à Louvain, ed. Lamberigts, M. (Leuven, 1994), 7–18; Gielis, Marcel Scholastiek en humanisme: De kritiek van de Leuvense theoloog Jacobus Latomus op de Erasmiaanse theologiehervorming (Tilburg, 1994); and Rummel, E. “Erasmus' Conflict with Latomus: Round Two,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 80 (1989): 69–78.Google Scholar

74 Ducke, , Handeln, 12. On his astronomy see Broecke, Vanden Limits (n. 36 above), 85–91, 137–41, and 143–44. Pighius was called to Rome by Adrian in 1522 where he remained after the pope's death. On his return to the Low Countries in the 1530 he became one of the more prominent Catholic polemicists in that part of the world. His De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia, libri decern (Cologne, 1542) provoked John Calvin to compose Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii adversus calumnias Alberti Pighii Campensis (Geneva, 1543). On this debate see Lane, A. N. S. “The Influence upon Calvin of His Debate with Pighius,” in Auctoritas Patrum II: New Contributions on the Reception of the Chuch Fathers in the 15 ^th and 16 ^th Century, ed. Grane, L. Schindler, A., and Wriedt, M. (Mainz, 1998), 125–40.Google Scholar

75 Lamberts, and Roegiers, , Universiteit (n. 32 above), 110; and De Jongh, Faculté (n. 34 above), 180–86. For discussions of Tapper's work and influence see Fabisch, P. “Ruard Tapper (1487–1559),” in Iserloh, Katholische Theologen, 58–74; and Schrama, M. “Ruard Tapper über die Möglichkeit gute Werken zu verrichten Non omnia opera hominis mala,” in Lamberigts, , ed., L'Augustinisme à Louvain (n. 73 above), 63–98.Google Scholar

76 For example, see Soto, , In IIa–IIae, q. 32, De eleemosyna; Cano, In IIa-IIae, q. 32, De eleemosyna; Medina, In IIa-IIae, q. 32; and Bañez, In IIa-IIae, q. 32.Google Scholar

77 See Vázquez, , Commentaria ac disputationes in primam secundae, disp. 62, q. 19, a. 6, c. 4, for a discussion on Adrian's ideas of conscience, and Suárez, De charitate, disp. 7, sect. 7 (Opera omnia 12, 678).Google Scholar

78 Evidence for this claim can be found by consulting Vocht, Henry De, History of the Foundation and the Rise of the Collegium Trilingue Lovaniense 1517–1540, 4 vols. (Louvain, 1951–55), 3:3. With regard to the initial opposition to the college on the part of certain theologians, De Vocht says: “Fortunately help came in the days of utter despair from the clear-sighted Adrian of Utrecht, who learned to appreciate the great humanist (sic; Erasmus); he judged that heresies should be doomed but not languages, and, consequently, dissuaded the theologians from opposing the acceptance of the college.”Google Scholar

79 Erasmus, Ep. 171 [Letter to Nicolaus Werner, Sept. 1502], ed. Allen, E., 10 vols. (Oxford, 1906–58), 1:380, lines 10–15: “Vix Lovanium veneram, continuo mihi nec ambienti nec expectanti magistrati oppidi publice legendi munus obtulere, idque commendatione spontanea domini Adriano de Traiecto, huius loci Decani. Quam conditionem ego certis de causis refutavi, quarum haec una est, quod tarn prope absum ab Hollandicis linguis, quae plurimum nocere norunt, nulli autem prodesse didicerunt.” See also De Jongh (n. 34 above), Faculté, 112.Google Scholar

80 Erasmus's academic studies had already progressed too far for him simply to be one of the audience at Adrian's lectures. Jongh, Thus De, Faculté, 114, concludes that he was in some way present and assisting. Erasmus describes himself later – in his first letter to the newly elected Pope Hadrian VI, August 1, 1522 – as tuae doctrinae theologicae auditorem et integritatis admiratorem, which because of the underlying tone of flattery cannot be taken in a wholly literal sense. Adrian had previously arranged for him to be offered an (extraordinary) chair, so Erasmus cannot be called his pupil; see Erasmus, Ep. 1304 (Allen, 5:100, lines 7–9). He is called (without comment) élève d'Adrien by Brachin, “Adrien” (n. 21 above), 102. Pastor, Even Geschichte (n. 2 above), 4–2:99, speaks of Adrian as Erasmus's “former teacher.”Google Scholar

81 Erasmus shows the lasting impression Adrian's personal integrity made on him, and in a letter of 1523 to Christoph von Uttenheim remarks that he was familiar with the Pope's “habits of life”: “Novi mores et ingenium huius Pontificis, etiam domestica consuetudine”; Erasmus, , Ep. 1332 (Allen, 5:163, lines 63–64).Google Scholar

82 We must not forget that between the putative late scholastic Adrian and the so-called prince of humanism, Erasmus, there were very considerable intellectual differences, though these were very rarely put into words. Thus in a letter to Julius Pflug, eight years after Adrian's death, Erasmus judged that: “Adrianus favebat scholasticis disciplinis, nec mirum si illis favebat, in quibus a teneris vnguiculis educatus longo intervallo praecedebat omnes”; Erasmus, Ep. 2522 (Allen, 9:328, lines 128–30). But the tone of this letter is far from one of low esteem; rather, Erasmus goes on to emphasize the learning and personal intergrity of the late pope. Only in the context of the disagreement over the condemnation of Luther, which was supported and pursued by Adrian, does Erasmus allow himself a broadside against the theologian and former Dean of Louvain: “Et inter hos qui Lutherum velint extinctum, nullum bonum virum video. Cardinalis Adriani Trajectensis epistolae miram quondam amarulentiam sapient; favet suis discipulis, ipso dignis, frigidis, fucatis, ambitiosis et vindicibus”; see Erasmus, Ep. 1166 (Allen, 4:399 lines 103–4 and line 107).Google Scholar

83 There is a precise study of this in Ducke, Karl-Heinz, Das Verständnis von Amt und Theologie im Briefwechsel zwischen Hadrian VI. und Erasmus von Rotterdam, Erfürter theologische Studien 10 (Leipzig, 1973). For Erasmus's high opinion of Adrian see ibid., 50–55.Google Scholar

84 For evidence of Adrian's friendly contact with Erasmus see ibid., 19. Adrian also took Erasmus's part in later years, when he came into conflict with the theologians of Louvain. Even just before his death Adrian intervened on Erasmus's behalf with the Sorbonne. See also Brachin, , “Adrien” (n. 21 above), 102.Google Scholar

85 See Posner, Johann, Der deutsche Papst Adrian VI. (Recklinghausen, 1962), 18. Rodocanachi, “Jeunesse” (n. 12 above), 305. Adrian's appointment as praeceptor took place in the same year, 1507, as the first edition of Erasmus's educational treatise, Dialogus de puero instituendo. Rodocanachi, “Jeunesse,” 305.Google Scholar

88 Post, , “Adriaan” (n. 13 above), 36.Google Scholar

89 The aging king Ferdinand of Aragon, the father of Johanna, had named in his will of 1512 Charles's younger brother as Regent of Castile, Aragón, and Navarre. His decision can be explained by three reasons: his daughter was mentally confused, his widowed mother was incapable of ruling, and Charles, away in the distant Low Countries, was not within easy reach. The danger of a complete transfer of the rights of succession to Charles's brother seemed realistic, at least to his advisers. There are grounds for suspicion that the ultimate reason why it was Adrian who was chosen for this difficult international diplomatic mission was the tense relationship between Charles and Croy, as well as the trust that Charles placed in his tutor. See Pastor, , Geschichte (n. 2 above), 4–2:29 (he regards Croy as having pulled strings to bring the appointment about); Post, “Adriaan,” 37 (who regards the esteem in which Adrian was held as the reason for Charles's choice); similarly Rodocanachi, “Jeunesse,” 306. For other details of Adrian's time in Spain, see B. Ortiz Itinerarium, ed. Sagarna, Ignacio Maria (Vitoria, 1950), 10–52; Real, José Sanchez El papa Adriano VI en Tarragona (Tarragona, 1956); and Bijloos, Adrianus (n. 2 above), 18–32.Google Scholar

90 Post, , “Adriaan,” 38; and Houtzager, et al., Catalogus (n. 11 above), 57–59.Google Scholar

91 See Eliot, J. H., Imperial Spain 1469–1716, rev. ed. (London, 2002; orig. pub. 1963), 102, 145, 201, and 213.Google Scholar

92 Posner, , Adrian, 25.Google Scholar

93 The first letter was sent to the emperor as early as July 6, 1520, and was followed by others on November 20, 1520 and December 23, 1520; see Ducke, , Handeln, 22 n. 137. For later correspondence between Adrian and Charles see Gachard, M., ed., Correspondance de Charles-Quint et d'Adrien VI (Brussels, 1859). This volume collects letters from late 1521 onwards.Google Scholar

94 Houtzager, et al., Catalogus, 147 and 184, list the places where Adrian stayed in Spain.Google Scholar

95 We do not need here to go into great detail about Adrian's election as pope, since it is of little relevance to the present subject. We may perhaps note that there was no clear decision between the two rival parties, that of the imperial supporters, who largely favored Giulio de' Medici, and the anti-Mediceans, composed of the majority of the older cardinals and many adherents of the French-Venetian party. After eleven scrutinies, Medici withdrew his candidature and made the case for a foreign cardinal who would be pleasing to the emperor, concluding by naming Adrian. However, the decisive intervention was that of Cardinal Cajetan, who had always been one of the opponents of the Medici party. In a vehement speech he praised the merits of Adrian; see Pastor, , Geschichte, 4–2:5–18. Note that when Adrian was elected pope he made no change in his name, presumably out of modesty. He therefore put himself into the line of popes with the name “Hadrianus,” though his signature was Adrianus PP VI. The name Hadrianus, following his predecessors, first appeared on his gravestone and was used in later history (ibid., 35 n. 1).Google Scholar

96 Hocks, , Papst, 69. Ortiz later recorded his time with the pope in the chronicle, Itinerarium Hadriani VI ab Hispania Romam usque, ac ipsius Pontificatus eventus (Toledo, 1546).Google Scholar

97 Houtzager, et al., Catalogus, 147.Google Scholar

98 Adrian to Erasmus on January 23, 1523, in Erasmus, Ep. 1338 (Allen 5:197, lines 32–36): “Quippe quarum neutram non modo unquam concupierimus, verumetiam vitro delatas vehementer reformidaverimus, plane (Deum testamur) recusaturi, nisi inde Dei offensam et conscientiae nostrae laesionem veriti fuissemus.”Google Scholar

99 On the idea of conscience in Adrian's moral theology, see the very full discussion by Hein, , Gewissen (n. 9 above), 304–31, and my own “Adrian of Utrecht on the Foibles of Conscience,” forthcoming, which notes the influence of the devotio moderna and thinkers such as Gabriel Biel on his moral thought.Google Scholar

100 Adrian had waited in vain since about the middle of February for the arrival of the delegates of the cardinals, in whose presence he had intended to make this announcement; see Pastor, , Geschichte, 4–2:35.Google Scholar

101 Ibid., 39–40. From March 29 Adrian was resident in Saragossa, where both parts of the Spanish episcopate and nobility, the ambassadors of England, Portugal, Savoy, and finally also the ambassador of Charles, V, came to pay their respects. Before this, he had been bombarded with letters and good advice from the imperial supporters amongst the cardinals, and it was made more than clear to him to whom he owed his election.Google Scholar

102 The publication of the new chancellery rules, in which some of the privileges of the cardinals were restricted or removed, took place on April 24, 1522; see Höfler, , Papst (n. 2 above), 174–75; and Pastor, Geschichte, 4–2:41–42; esp. 41 n. 6. On Adrian's reforms see Bachmann, H. W. “Kuriale Reformbestrebungen unter Adrian VI.” (Diss. Erlangen, 1948), and more generally, Bijloos, Adrianus (n. 2 above), 58–86.Google Scholar

103 Ibid., 46. This scene, preserved on his tomb in the church of Santa Maria dell'Anima (though the Pope is shown there riding a horse), gave rise to pamphlets of biting mockery in German Protestant circles; see Houtzager, et al., Catalogus, 188; relief on tomb, fig. 54.Google Scholar

104 McNally, , “Pope” (n. 28 above), 269–71.Google Scholar

105 Ibid., 272–75. Ferreri put his hopes in Adrian, first attacking the evils of appointments to benefices and of nepotism and going on to demand a reform of the conditions for eligibility for entry to the higher and lower ranks of the clergy, which he said should take account of the personal abilities and vocation of those appointed.Google Scholar

106 Cajetan was ready with concrete proposals to improve the education of priests and proposed the institution of seminaries for the priesthood, where young men, even without a university degree, could be taught the traditional doctrines of the Catholic Church (on the pattern of the via antiqua). He also floated the idea that bishops should be chosen from the preeminent theologians of a diocese and prelates from amongst cathedral chapters; see ibid., 275–78. For further discussion, see Ducke, , Verständnis (n. 83 above), 38–40; and Mittermaier, Karl Die deutschen Päpste (Graz, 1991), 159–60. On Cajetan's reforming ideas see Bernhard Alfred Felmberg, Die Ablasstheologie Kardinal Cajetans (1469–1534), Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 66 (Leiden, 1998).Google Scholar

107 McNally, , “Pope,” 279–80.Google Scholar

108 Thus Adrian promised to undertake a reform of the curia to overcome this primary source of church corruption. Further, in the light of recent failings, he urged that the papacy itself should return to its own Petrine vocation; see ibid., 282. There is an English translation of the Instructio in Olin, John C., The Catholic Reformation: Savonarola to Ignatius Loyola; Reform in the Church 1495–1540 (New York, 1969), 122–27. See also Olin's, John helpful survey, Catholic Reform from Cardinal Ximenes to the Council of Trent (New York, 1990), 11, 21, 69 n. 2, and 133.Google Scholar

109 Ducke, , Handeln (n. 9 above), 39–40.Google Scholar

110 See also Ducke's judgment at ibid., 44; and Bagchi, David, Luther's Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists 1518–1525 (Minneapolis, 1991), 222–27.Google Scholar

111 Ducke, , Handeln, 41–42, esp. 42 nn. 268 and 270.Google Scholar

112 Ibid., 42–43; and Berglar, , Bedeutung (n. 3 above), 106. See also Fühner, Jochen A. Die Kirchen und die antireformatorische Religionspolitik Kaiser Karls V. in den siebzehn Provinzen der Niederlande 1515–1555, Brill's Studies in Church History 23 (Leiden, 2004), 91, 102, 118–28, 146–48, 228–30, and 237–40.Google Scholar

113 Pope Adrian's role as a determined opponent of Luther's attempts at reform were, even in the middle of the twentieth century, regarded as so forcible that in a collection of essays in his honor on the occasion of the fifth centenary of his birth in 1959, he was described as “le premier Pape de la contre-réforme.” See Adrien VI, Le premier Pape de la contre-réforme: Sa personnalité – Sa carrière – Son œuvre, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 14 (Leuven, 1959), esp. Halkin, León-E., “Adrien VI et la réforme de l'église,” ibid., 26–34; and Coppens, J. “Adriaan VI.: De eerste paus van de contra-reformatie,” Folia Lovaniensia (1960): 1–16. For a critical assessment of Adrian's relations with the reformers see Creighton, Mandell A History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation, 5 vols. (London, 1882–94), 5:184–235; and Duffy, Saints and Sinners (n. 10 above), 204, who without much evidence asserts that Adrian was unable to appreciate the basis of Luther's case. A fairer appraisal can be found in Bagchi, Luther's Earliest Opponents, 227.Google Scholar

114 Erasmus, Ep. 1324 (Allen, 5: 150–55), of December 1, 1523. Contents also provided by Ducke, , Verständnis (n. 83 above), 28–29.Google Scholar

115 Erasmus, Ep. 1329 (Allen, 5:155–56), of December 22, 1523, probably written before he received Hadrian's letter (Ep. 1324). Contents given in Ducke, , Verständnis, 29–30.Google Scholar

116 Erasmus, Ep. 1338 (Allen, 5: 196–98). Contents given in Ducke, , Verständnis, 30–31. In it Adrian beseeches Erasmus, in the light of the threat to the souls of those convinced by Luther's theses, to take a clear stand on the side of the pope and support him with his learned advice.Google Scholar

117 Erasmus, Ep. 1352 (Allen, 5: 150–55). Contents given in Ducke, , Verständnis, 28–29. It is not clear what Erasmus, who suppressed important parts of this letter on grounds of confidentiality, intended by this advice. A possible interpretation would be the suggestion of calling a council which would have dealt with Luther's causa; see ibid., 32. Pastor, Geschichte (n. 2 above), 4–2:101, suggests the idea of arbitration by means of a tribunal of scholars. Hocks, Papst (n. 3 above), 89–90. There is an example of a poem mocking Hadrian in Höfler, Papst (n. 2 above), 221 n. 2. For further discussion see D'Amico, John F. Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome: Humanists and Churchmen on the Eve of the Reformation (Baltimore, 1983), 11–12, 86, 111, 219, and 237. Adrian was the target of the spiteful criticism of the humanist Vianesius Albergati, whose remarks at the pontiff's expense were invariably disportionate to anything that Adrian actually did; see Les commentaires de Vianesius Albergati, Compte rendu des Séances de la Commission royale d'histoire, ser. 5, n. 1, 1891, ed. Bacha, Eugène (Brussels, 1891), 102–66.Google Scholar

119 Steiner, Robert, “Von Leo X. bis Clemens VII.: Zwei Humanisten und ein Puritaner auf dem päpstlichen Thron und ihr Verhältnis zur Kunst,” in Festschrift Arnold Geering, ed. Ravizza, Victor (Bern, 1972), 190. When Hadrian was shown the Laokoon group of sculptures as the most important work of ancient art, he is reported to have said drily, “But they are only heathen idols”; see Pastor, Geschichte, 4–2:52.Google Scholar

120 Ibid., 53. For further discussion see Reiss, Sheryl E., “Adrian VI, Clement VII, and Art,” in The Pontificate of Clement VII: History, Politics, Culture, ed. Gouwens, K. and Sheryl, E. Reiss (Aldershot, 2005), 339–62.Google Scholar

121 The pruning of the administrative apparatus of the papacy was accompanied by a modest appointment of Dutchmen and Spaniards. Thus Adrian made his friend Willem van Enckenvoirt datary (head of the office responsible for dispensations and papal appointments to benefices) and his pupil Dirk van Heeze private secretary. Both proved faultless in the performance of their duties. But the effect of these men on the Romans, who regretted the passing of Leo X's extravagant court, was too ascetic and excessively strict; see Höfler, , Papst, 218–19; and Posner, Adrian (n. 85 above), 46. In many other cases, however, the new officials were relentless in their dilatoriness and were sometimes known for their recalcitrance. The most prominent example, besides the venal secretary of state Zisterer, was the aging cardinal Soderini; see Pastor, Geschichte, 4–2:126–28.Google Scholar

122 Ibid., 121–22.Google Scholar

123 Ibid., 126. Adrian had resisted successfully the endeavors of imperial diplomacy to draw him into an alliance of Charles, V, Henry VIII, and other princes against Francis, because he backed a course of neutrality in the light of the external threats. On the French king see Castelot, André François I, un roi de France (Paris, 1983); and Knecht, Robert French Renaissance Monarchy: Francis I and Henry II (London, 1996).Google Scholar

124 On April 13^th Pope Adrian sent out a bull in which he imposed an armistice on the whole of Christendom, under sanction of excommunication and interdict; see Pastor, , Geschichte, 4–2:129.Google Scholar

125 Ibid., 135.Google Scholar

126 Houtzaager, et al., Catalogus (n. 11 above), 89.Google Scholar

127 Ibid., 189–90.Google Scholar

128 Pastor, , Geschichte, 4–2:148. After careful examination of the reports of witnesses this indefatigable historian of the papacy suspects that the cause of death was an incurable kidney disease linked to the damaging effects on his body of climate and mental stress. On this see Simon, W. and Arco, M. T. “Das Ende Adrianus VI.: Ein medizinisch-historischer Versuch,” Medizinische Monatsschrift 5 (1959): 303–6; and Bijloos, Adrianus (n. 2 above), 103–9.Google Scholar

129 Recall the harsh assessment of Adrian's moral theology by commentators such as Vereecke, , “Un Pape moraliste” (n. 5 above).Google Scholar

130 It is interesting that an indifference to Adrian's achievements as a speculative thinker and a misunderstanding of late scholastic thought can be observed at the very outset of modern historiography of medieval philosophy. For example, Maurice De Wulf (1867–1947), whose histories of medieval philosophy were widely read and greatly admired, and who further sought to chronicle specifically the contribution of thinkers in the Low Countries to the history of medieval philosophical discourse, was dismissive of Adrian's work. In his La philosophie scolastique dans les Pays-Bas (Louvain and Paris, 1895), De Wulf writes: “On ne peut dire qu'Adrien Boyens ait rompu avec la scolastique. Mais le culte de la philosophie et de la théologie modernes, des tendances moins hostiles au progrès…. Boyens est théologien avant d'être philosophe” (316). Significantly, De Wulf omits all mention of Adrian in his later Histoire de la philosophie en Belgique (Brussels and Paris, 1901).Google Scholar

131 Grabmann, Martin, Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, 2 vols. (Freiburg, 1911; repr. Berlin, 1956), 1: 112–17.Google Scholar

132 De Jongh, , Faculté (n. 34 above), 77.Google Scholar

133 Similar sentiments about the practices of fifteenth-century philosophy and theology have been made by other recent historians. See Kaluza, Zénon, Les querelles doctrinales à Paris: Nominalistes et Réalistes aux confins du XIVe et XVe siècles (Bergamo, 1988); and Hoenen, Maarten J. M. F. “Via Antiqua and Via Moderna in the Fifteenth Century: Doctrinal, Institutional, and Church Political Factors in the Wegestreit,” in The Medieval Heritage in Early Modern Metaphysics and Modal Theory 1400–1700, ed. Friedman, Russell and Nielsen, Lauge (Dordrecht, 2003), 3–36.Google Scholar

134 On this debate see Fredericq, P., “L'hérésie à I'Université de Louvain vers 1470,” in Académie Royale de Belgique – Bulletins de la Classe des Lettres des Sciences morales et politiques et de Classe des Beaux-Arts (Brussels, 1905), 11–77; Laminne, J. “La controverse sur les futurs contingents a l'Université de Louvain au XVe siècle,” ibid., 372–438; and Baudry, Leon La Querelle des Futurs Contingents (Louvain 1465–1475) (Paris, 1950).Google Scholar

135 This is one of the major conclusions to emerge from a more recent study of the debate by Schabel, Chris, “Peter de Rivo and the Quarrel over Future Contingents at Louvain: New Evidence and New Perspectives (Part 1),” Documenta e Studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 6 (1995): 363–473; and “Part II,” ibid., 7 (1996): 369–435.Google Scholar

136 On Constance see Brandmüller, Walter, Das Konzil von Konstanz 1414–1418, 2 vols. (Paderborn, 1997), and on Basel see Steiber, J. W. Pope Eugenius IV (Leiden, 1978). For a general survey see Oakley, Francis The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300–1870 (Oxford, 2003), 60–111.Google Scholar

137 See the important studies by Black, A. J., “Heimericus Heimerich de Campo: The Council and History,” Annuarium historiae conciliorum 2 (1970): 78–86; and “The Realist Ecclesiology of Hemierich van de Velde,” in Van Eijl, Facultas S. Theologiae Lovaniensis (n. 4 above), 273–91. Of further relevance is Maarten Hoenen, J. F. M. “Academics and Intellectual Life in the Low Countries: The University Career of Heymeric de Campo (1460),” Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale 61 (1994): 173–209.Google Scholar

138 The eclectic nature of Heimericus's thought is explained by Meersseman, G., Geschichte des Albertismus II: Die ersten kölner Kontroversen (Rome, 1935); and Hoenen, Maarten J. M. F. Heymericus de Campo (Baarn, 1990). In the nineteenth century Adrian's views on ecclesiology would bring him further notoriety especially in respect of his opinion on papal infallibility, not least his famous rebuke of Pighius's conjecture that a pope could never fall into heresy. On this see Fea, C. Difesa istorica del Papa Adriano VI. Nel punto che riguarda la infallabilita' d' Sommi Pontefici in materia di fede (Rome, 1822); and for more recent analysis see Thils, G. L'infallibilité pontificate: Source, Conditions, Limites (Gembloux, 1969).Google Scholar

140 On this issue see Poschmann, B., Penance and Anointing the Sick (New York, 1964); and Patton, Hugh The Efficacy of Putative Attrition in the Doctrine of the Theologians of the XVI and XVII Centuries (Rome, 1966), 1–17.Google Scholar

141 Summa angelica (Bellefoye, 1519), “confessio sacramentalis,” n. 15, fol. 54a.Google Scholar

142 In IV, De poenitentia, restitutione, q. 20, fol. 147. For commentary see Kurtscheid, B., “De obligatione sigilii confessionis iuxta doctrinam Hadriani VI,” Antonianum 1 (1926): 84–101.Google Scholar

143 In IV Sententiarum quaestionis ultissimae (Paris, 1521), d. 17, q. 9, fol. 136.Google Scholar

144 De poenitentia, restitutione et contractibus (Paris, 1581), q. 20, fol. 147.Google Scholar

145 Commentaria ac disputationes in tertiam partem S. Thomae, tomus quartus (Lyons, 1631), q. 92, a. 2, dub. unic. 219a.Google Scholar

146 Quodlibeticae 5 (Louvain, 1518); see De Jongh, , Faculté (n. 34 above), 98.Google Scholar

147 Another example can be found in the writings of Godscalc Rosemondt, professor from 1516 to 1525, who published several practical works of religious instruction that focused on the morality or otherwise of certain devotional practices. See Pijper, F., Geschiedenis der Boete en Biecht in de Christelijke Kerk, 2 vols. (The Hague, 1908), 2:311; and De Jongh, Faculté, 98 and 165–67.10.1007/978-94-015-2544-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

148 See Grabmann, , Geschichte der scholastichen Methode (n. 131 above), 2:17. See also Les questions disputées et les questions quodlibétiques dans les facultés de théologie, de droit et de medicine, ed. Bazàn, Bernardo C. and Wippel, John (Turnhout, 1985).Google Scholar

149 Glorieux, Palémon, La littérature quodlibétique, 2 vols., Bibliothèque Thomiste 21, Section Historique 18 (Paris, 1935), 2:13.Google Scholar

150 Greitemann, , “Via” (n. 38 above), 28, stresses that by holding regular disputations Louvain protected itself against a very rapid decline of the skill, which had already takenc effect in Cologne and Paris by the end of the fifteenth century. See also Lawn, Brian The Rise and Decline of the Scholastic Quaestio disputata: With Special Emphasis on Its Use in the Teaching of Medicine and Science (Leiden, 1993).Google Scholar

151 Meier, Ludwig, “Les disputes quodlibétiques en dehors des universités,” Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 53 (1958): 401–42, at 441; on the composition of the audience see Glorieux, Littérature, 2:10.Google Scholar

152 Glorieux uses both terms, quolibet and quodlibet, presumably to express the fact that the choice of themes (de quodlibet) and also the person posing the question (de quolibet) was a matter of choice: de quolibet ad voluntatem cuiuslibet; see Littérature, 2:36–37. This however is true only for the period of high scholasticism, where practically anyone present could pose a question for dispute, whereupon the chairman had to decide whether it was admissible; see ibid., 2:34.Google Scholar

153 This was the term in use during Adrian's period in Louvain. It is found in ch. 18 of the Statutes of the Faculty of Arts (1429), which are reproduced in Reusens, , Syntagma (n. 4 above). There the heading of the chapter referred to is De quodlubeticis disputationibus seu quaestionibus; see ibid., xx.Google Scholar

154 Ibid., xxiv.Google Scholar

155 Ibid., xx. The other date lay between the third Sunday in Lent and Palm Sunday (de paschate); see Glorieux, , Littérature, 2:9.Google Scholar

156 See De Jongh, , Faculté (n. 34 above), 97, where the title “venerabilis quodlibetarius nunc cathedrans” is used. It can also be found in Adrian's Quaestiones Quodlibeticae, while the Statutes mentioned use the term Praeses Quodlibeticarum disputationum. See Reusens, Syntagma (n. 4 above), xxii (art. 2).Google Scholar

157 According to Glorieux, , Littérature, 2:10, the time was also fixed by tradition.Google Scholar

158 Meier, , “Disputes,” 439–40.Google Scholar

159 Glorieux, , Littérature, 2:10.Google Scholar

160 Ibid., 33–34. Passive attendance at the Quodlibet disputations was a condition of entry to the licenciate.Google Scholar

161 If a Baccalareus replied, he did so as deputizing for his professor. Thus Glorieux is right to speak, Littérature, 2:33, of an “acte magistral.” See also Lamberts, , Universiteit (n. 32 above), 73, regarding the Faculty of Arts.Google Scholar

162 Reusens, , Syntagma (n. 4 above), lii. But Adrian often opened his disputation by breaking down and reproducing the “quaestio principalis” in a series of individual questions, each of which could be dealt with in turn as a “quaestio cum argumentis.” See for example QQ II (n. 4 above), intr. (fol.13r^b); III intr. (fol. 24r^a).Google Scholar

163 Grabmann, , Geschichte der scholastischen Methode (n. 131 above), 2:544.Google Scholar

164 For the sake of accuracy we should note that in the first of his twelve Quaestiones quodlibeticae that are preserved in writing Adrian begins the reponse with Ad hec respondeo. See QQ I, a. 1 resp. (fol. 2v^a C).Google Scholar

165 It is impossible to work out a comprehensive and unified model for all the quodlibets dealt with by Adrian. He varies the structure of his argument greatly, and only in the rarest cases concludes the quaestio cum argumentis with the argumenta post opposition. We cannot say with certainty whether he was reacting spontaneously to objections advanced by his opponentes or already had their arguments to hand when he set them out. This might have varied from one occasion to another and is usually clear from the wording with which Adrian introduces each of the rationes ante oppositum. Two short examples may suffice. After Adrian has divided the quaestio principalis in his second Quodlibet into three parts, he introduces the rationes ante oppositum of the first part as follows: “Et primo circa quodlibet adducam contraria motiua. vt ex eis iuxta se positis: magis clareat decisa Veritas. Et respondebo obiectis”; see QQ II, a. 1 arg. ante opp. (fol 13r^b). Here the following arguments are clearly provided by Adrian himself, as they are in passages where he begins dices fortasse or objicies fortasse, and so forth. Towards the end of the main question in the third Quodlibet we find the words of the chairman himself: “Arguit quodlibetarius: is qui credit”; QQ III, a. 3 arg. quodl. (fol. 31r^b O). Such cases are however extremely rare.Google Scholar

166 Glorieux, , Littérature (n. 149 above), 2:12, 28; and Grabmann, Geschichte der scholastischen Methode (n. 131 above), 2:20–21.Google Scholar

167 De Jongh, , Faculté (n. 34 above), 97–98.Google Scholar

168 Glorieux, , Littérature, 2:42.Google Scholar

169 Ibid., 2:13–14. This is especially so in the case of Thomas Aquinas; see Boureau, A. and Marmursztejn, E. “Thomas d'Aquin et les problèmes de morale practique au XIIIe siècle,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 83 (1999): 685–706.Google Scholar

170 For the relevant dates see Reusens, , Syntagma (n. 4 above), xxiv–xxv. For discussion of Adrian's views on these topics see Hein, Gewissen (n. 9 above), 342–65 and my “Adrian of Utrecht on the Foibles of Conscience” (n. 99 above).Google Scholar

171 See Reusens, , Syntagma (n. 4 above), li–lii, who cites testimonies from various highly placed contemporaries, who praised Adrian because of the usefulness of his works.Google Scholar

172 Ibid., xxv–xxvii.Google Scholar

173 Ducke, , Handeln (n. 9 above), 54–55.Google Scholar

174 Here an instructive contrast can be made with a late twelfth-century penitential writer such as Alan of Lille (1143–1203) or any thirteenth-century theologian who devoted time and attention to the sacrament, such as Bonaventure or Thomas Aquinas. On fifteenth-century developments in the theology of penance see Tentler, Thomas N., Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation (Princeton, 1975); and “Postscript,” in Penitence in the Age of Reformations, ed. Lualdi, Katherine Jackson and Thayer, Anne T. (Aldershot, 2000), 240–59. A useful analysis of medieval thinking on this issue can be found in a seventeenth-century work by the Oratorian historian Jean Morin (1591–1659), Commentarius historicus de disciplina sacramenti poenitentiae tredecim priorum saeculorum (Paris, 1651).Google Scholar

175 Unlike later casuistical writers such as Jesuit authors of the Institutiones theologiae moralis of the Counter-Reformation, Adrian had no intention of preparing his students in advance for all the difficulties that a confessor might face. In contrast to these writers, Adrian's approach to casus conscientiae is much more selective and focused, and less synoptic.Google Scholar

176 See QQ II (n. 4 above), intr. (fol.12r^a).Google Scholar

177 Reusens attempts to construct a “systematic compendium,” on the lines of Aquinas's Summa theologiae, of Adrian's doctrinal statements. He draws repeatedly on the unpublished commentary on Proverbs mentioned above, though he admits himself that it goes no further than the commentary in the Sentences; see Syntagma, xxxiii–xxxiv.Google Scholar

178 See QQ IV, a.1 sol. (fol. 24v^a K), and QQ II, a.1 pro dec. (fol. 15r^b D), for a reference to Avicenna.Google Scholar

179 Reusens, , Syntagma (n. 4 above), liii; and Ducke, Handeln (n. 9 above), 72.Google Scholar

180 We must first mention here the collections of decretals themselves, i.e., those of Gratian, the Decretales Gregorii IX (Liber Extra), the Extravagantes of John XXII, and the Extravagantes communes (extending to the decretals of Sixtus IV). We often find references to the glosses on them or the authors of the glosses: Johannes Teutonicus (Glossa ordinaria on the Decretum Gratiani), Bernardus de Botone (Glossa ordinaria on the Liber Extra), Johannes Andreae (Glossa ordinaria on the Liber Sextus), sometimes with and sometimes without the name of the author of the gloss being given. Further canonists and decretalists are brought in during the course of arguments: Isidore of Seville, Anselm of Laon (who collaborated on the Glossa ordinaria on the Decretum Gratiani), Bernard of Pavia, Geoffrey of Trano, Bartholomeus Brixiensis (author of glosses on the Decretum Gratiani), Landulphus Colonna (who wrote in 1290 De translatione imperii on the papacy), Henry of Segusia – usually known as Hostiensis (Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, frequently quoted by Adrian as an authority on canon law) – Henry Bohic, Antonius of Butrio (who wrote a commentary on the Decretales of Gregory IX), Francis de Zabarellis (Cardinal of Florence), and de Tedeschis, Nicholas, generally known as Panormitanus (who wrote a commentary on the Decretales of Gregory IX, conciliarist, a work which after the Glossa ordinaria was the most frequently quoted commentary).Google Scholar

181 Adrian makes no direct reference to William of Ockham's views and apparently ignores other aspects of the via moderna. In my view, the omission of the Venerable Inceptor is based not so much on Adrian's general rejection of nominalism as on the prohibition in the faculty at Louvain, which not only forbade the use of the works of both Ockham and Buridan for teaching but led to several initiatives to ensure that it was carried out up to 1497 at least (see n. 38 above). The rare occurence of references to Buridan is largely to be explained by the fact that they are limited to a few passages from his commentary on Aristotle's Ethics; see QQ VI (n. 4 above), a. 1 ad rat. ante opp. 2 (fol.v^a 52 G).Google Scholar

182 Ibid., 176–210. See also my “Origins of Probabilism” (n. 7 above), and Schüßler, Rudolf, Moral im Zweifel, Band 1, Die scholastische Theorie des Entscheidens unter moralischer Unsicherheit (Paderborn, 2003), 132–39.Google Scholar

183 Adrian, QQ I, a. 2 concl. corr. (fol.5r^a-b J): “Aduertendum est quod Veritas vt in rebus reperitur, dicit conformitatem seu adequationem rei ad intellectum. et ergo omne illud quod intellectui recto seu rationi recte conforme est et adequatum: dicitur verum. Potest autem rationi recte aliquid dupliciter esse conforme. in ratione signi et in ratione regulati. vt dicit. distinctio 46. 4 in fine prime questionis. In ratione signi actiones nostre sunt commensurate ad mentem: dum quis talem se exhibet in dictis et factis exterius qualis est interius. Et talis appellatur a Philosopho 4. Ethicorum authekastos…. In ratione regulati. aliquid est adequatum intellectui: quando est tale quale ratio dictat ipsum debere esse. Ipsa enim ratio est: quod oportet agentem aspicere: vt possit recte agere ac medium attingere superhabundantiam et defectum declinando. vt dicitur in principio 6. Ethicorum. Et istud regulatum: aut est operatio vel opus procedens a tali operatione. Et quia operatio procedens ab anima: est quedam vita secunda, ideo rectitudo talis operationis dicitur veritas vite.”Google Scholar

184 Adrian, QQ X, a. 2 ad arg. ante opp. 1 (fol 104v^b P): “ergo sicut optare vt aliquid liceat contra dictamen recte rationis vel vt aliquid liceat contra precepta iuris naturale indispensabilia est optare contra debitum rationis ordinem et sic peccare.”Google Scholar

185 Adrian, QQ X, q. 2 prop. 1 (fol. 103v^a J): “Secunda pars correlarij supponit aliqua esse naturali iure immutabiliter seu indispensabiliter bona.” Here we have a kind of conclusion drawn from the previous discussions of whether or not it was possible to dispense from the unchangeable natural law. This is explained further in the passage that follows, where Adrian adds Bernard of Clairvaux's statement of unchangeable necessity: “Necessarium inquit incommutabile accipi velim: quod divina ita constat et eterna ratione firmatum / vt nulla ex causa possit vel ab ipso deo aliquatenus immutari.”Google Scholar

186 For further discussion of Adrian's account of the natural law and its relationship to the writings of thirteenth-century scholastics such as Aquinas, and its similarity to late medieval accounts furnished by writers such as Gabriel Biel, see my “Adrian of Utrecht on Natural Law and Morality” (n. 9 above).Google Scholar

187 Adrian, , Quaestiones in quartum Sententiarum praesertim circa sacramenta (In IV [n. 4 above]), De poen. Q. 2 resp. (87v^b): “Pro responsione est advertendum quod alia quaestio est de absoluta potentia dei: an possit per poenitentiam vnum mortale sine altero remitti. Quia sic possible est quicquid contradictionem non includit: nulla autem videtur implicatio contradictioni: quod unius iniuriam mortalis offensae remittat caeteris in statu priore permanentibus, potissimum si fateamur deum peccata absolute remittere posse: sine creatae charitatis infusione.”Google Scholar

188 See Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 86 a. 3; and I–II, q. 109 a. 2.Google Scholar

189 Adrian, In IV (n. 4 above), De poen. Q. 2 resp. (fol. 87v^b): “Aliud vero est quaerere de potentia ordinata dei. An videlicet stante lege et sua ordinatione possit etc. Et sic error est dicere: quod deus possit vnum mortale remittere sine altero.”Google Scholar

190 Ibid. (fol. 88r^a): “Nullum mortale dimittitur sine diuino amore seu charitate quern sine dubio nulli communicat inimico.”Google Scholar

191 Ibid. “Est enim charitatis vestis nuptialis quae dividit inter filios regni et perditionis: ut habet glo. 1 ad Corinthios XI ergo non potest remitti vnum mortale sine alio.”Google Scholar

192 Ibid., Pro sol. (fol. 88r^a-b): “Pro horum solutione praemitto: quod deus dicitur illud posse secundum potentiam ordinatam quod decreuit seu statuit facere.”Google Scholar

193 Ibid., fol. 88r^b: “Colligimus autem ex scriptura sacra deum decreuisse: quod nulli persistenti in peccato mortali cuiuscumque culpae remissionem faciet. Ergo non potest de potentia ordinata, et hoc voluit Aug. Minorem deduco ex verbo domini Esaiae vlti. Ad quern autem aspiciam, nisi ad pauperculum et contritum spiritu et trementem sermones meos? talis autem non persistit in aliquo mortali: ergo etc. Item psal. lxv. Iniquitatem si aspexi in corde meo non exaudiet dominus. Ergo decreuit dominus non remitteret unum peccatum: durante in homine alia iniquitate.”Google Scholar

194 Ducke, , Handeln (n. 9 above), 86.Google Scholar

195 Adrian, QQ XII (n. 4 above), a. 1 (fol. 116v^b): “Hec questio unum supponit: scilicet, quod Deus aliquotiens innocentes fame, peste et bello percutit propter excessus seu peccata aliorum.”Google Scholar

196 These are listed in the argumenta ante opposition. See ibid. (fol. 116r^b–v^b), and Ducke, , Handeln, 87–88.Google Scholar

197 Adrian, QQ XII, a. 1 opp (fol. 116v^b): “In oppositum arguo / propter peccata parentum fuerunt in Sodomis simul occisi parvuli innocentes.”Google Scholar

198 Ibid., a. 1 sol. (fol. 117r^a A): “Pro huius solutione advertendum / quod deus non solum iuste potest cuilibet hominum auferre temporalia bona seu fortunae bona quae dedit. sed etiam bona corporis. immo vitam ipsam / ipse enim est dominus vite et mortis: plenum arbitrium habens universe creature.”Google Scholar

199 Ibid. a. 1 sol. (fol. 117v^a D). Hoger Instituut voor Wijsbegeerte Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenGoogle Scholar

200 For different assessments of Adrian's capabilities as a moral theologian, see Ducke, , Handeln (n. 9 above), 271–320; Hein, Gewissen (n. 9 above), 320–46; and my “Adrian of Utrecht on Natural Law and Morality” (n. 9 above).Google Scholar

201 “Even the best of men may be born in times unsuited to their virtues” (“Proh dolor quantum refert in quae tempora vel optimi cuiusque virtus incidat”).Google Scholar