Catalogo 2013.pdf - Libreria Antiquaria Alberto Govi

as a radical challenge by the professional logicians and theologiansat the University of Paris.Led by rector Pierre Galland, the university movedagainst the intruder on several fronts in a campaign designedto silence him. ‘Who can oppose Aristotle without declaringwar against our forefathers’ explained Galland, weighing thefull implications of Ramus’ approach. It is ‘an open declarationof war against the most religious pontiffs, the most venerableemperors, the most esteemed kings’. If every man can reasonfor himself, what is there in this world that cannot be re-examinedfrom scratch? The prerogatives of popes, emperors andkings derive their legitimacy all from sanction of the theologyfaculty, which in turn, founded its authority on Aristotle andScripture.So Ramus’ position did appear more seditious thanLuther’s, since Luther did not question the authority of Mosesand Ramus challenged the authority of Aristotle. A formal debatewas arranged to examine the validity of Ramus’ charges.Ramus’ views were declared false and pernicious. In 1544 anedict by King Francis I followed. Ramus’ books were suppressedand he was forbidden to teach philosophy.Nevertheless, in 1545 Ramus was appointed presidentof the Collège de Presles, and in 1547, through the intercessionof Ramus’ old and long cultivated school fellow, Charles deGuise, Cardinal of Lorraine, Henry II revoked the ban. The centralevent of his rise to fame certainly was Ramus’ appointmentas regius professor of eloquence and philosophy in 1551.In the present oration Ramus not only pleads for philosophybut also for himself. He describes his revolutionarycourses of studies at the Collège de Presles and maintains thatthey are in accord with the University’s statutes. The close ofthis plea is perhaps Ramus’ most touching piece of writing, quite personal and eloquent, and an important sourcefor his biography.In 1562 Ramus converted to Protestantism, and in 1568 he fled France. He sought a teaching position inEuropean universities and studied Protestant theology in Basel.. In 1571 Ramus, critical of the actions of the Synodof the Reformed Church of France held at La Rochelle, tried to persuade Bullinger to reject them. In may 1572 thesynod met at Nîmes, where is rejected Ramus’ advocacy of a congregationalist form of church government. Shortlythereafter Ramus was a victim of the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of August 23, 1572 (cf. G. Huppert, PeterRamus the Humanist as ‘Philosophe’, in: “Modern language Quarterly”, LI, 1990, pp. 208-223).Adams, R-113; W.J. Ong, Ramus and Talon Inventory, (Cambridge, MA, 1958), p. 156, no. 198. € 950,00against the Council of Trent and Della Casa’s Index of prohibited books32) VERGERIO, Pier Paolo (1498-1565). Concilium Tridentinum fugiendum esse omnibus Pijs. Bern, MatthiasApiarius, 1551.4to. (20) leaves (the last is a blank). Marbled boards, marbled edges, some very light spots, but a very good copy.VERY RARE FIRST EDITION of Vergerio’s main critic of the Council of Trent.The work was reprinted with a few additions at Tübingen in 1553. Although the printing place and theprinter are not indicated, the edition was surely printed at Bern by Matthias Apiarius. First of all Vergerio spent thesummer of 1551 in that city. Secondly the initials used in the volume appear in other Apiarius’ publication of thesame period: one in particular, the capital letter ‘I’, is very peculiar because among the decorations it shows a bear,which is the animal symbol of the city of Bern.“La violenta campagna che questi [Vergerio] scatenò contro Roma e contro la seconda fase del Tridentino,traeva origine dall’intensità emotiva, religiosa con cui si era dedicato nei tre lustri precedenti alla causa conciliaree dalla profonda disillusione che ne era scaturita. Vergerio si era infatti contraddistinto tra la metà degli annitrenta e gli anni quaranta per un’instancabile attività diplomatica al servizio della prospettiva conciliare… Dopola profonda delusione che accompagnò lo svolgimento della prima fase tridentina, e la rottura con la Santa Sedeche accompagnò la sua fuga dall’Italia, Vergerio, ancora nell’estate 1549, rimaneva pieno di speranza in “un buonconcilio libero e cristiano”. [Tuttavia] la mancata elezione del Pole al soglio pontificio e quella in sua vece di GiovanniMaria Del Monte (Giulio III), ma soprattutto l’accordo che questi raggiunse con l’imperatore in vista di unaripresa del concilio di Trento, gli procurarono l’ennesima delusione. La sistematica disattesa di tutte le rivendicazionidei protestanti tedeschi non fece che confermare ai suoi occhi l’attitudine manifestata dal Del Monte durantel’attività di legato conciliare nella prima fase dell’assise… Vergerio rimaneva sempre convinto della necessità diuna grande riunione di prelati e di rappresentanti di principi e Stati per risolvere i problemi della cristianità. Ma daquel momento in avanti tutta la sua polemica sarebbe stata incentrata sulla contrapposizione tra un concilio libero,- 34 -