Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/199

 COMMENTARIES

157

COMMENTARIES

places. From Aachen he turned to Liibeck with the intention of crossing the sea to invite Kings Frederick II of Denmark and Eric XIV of Sweden. The King of Denmark, however, refused to receive the legate, while the King of Sweden invited him to England, whither he had planned to go in the near future. Queen Elizabeth of England had forbidden the papal nuncio Hieronimo Martinengo to cross the English Channel when he was sent to invite the queen to the council, hence it was very improbable that she would allow Commendone to come to England. He there- fore repaired to Antwerp, awaiting further instruc- tions from Rome. Being recalled by the pope, he re- turned to Italy in Dec, 1561, by way of Lorraine and Western Germany. Although his mission was with- out any results as regards Protestant representation at the Council of Trent, still his spotless character and his strong and imselfish pleas for a return to Catholic unity made a deep impression upon many Protestant Estates. The numerous letters which Commendone wrote during this mission to St. Charles Borromeo present a sad but faithful picture of the ecclesiastical conditions in Germany during those times. These and others were published in "Miscel- lanea di Storia Italiana" (Turin, 1869, VI, 1^240).

In Jan., 156.3, the legates of the Council of Trent sent Commendone to Emperor Ferdinand at Inn.s- bruck, to treat with him regarding some demands which he had made upon the council in his " Libel of Reformation". In October of the same year Pius IV sent him as legate to King Sigismund of Poland with instruction to induce this ruler to give political recognition to the Tridentine decrees. Yielding to the requests of Conmiendone and of Hosius, Bishop of Ermland, Sigismund not only enforced the Triden- tine reforms, but also allowed the Jesuits, the most hated enemies of the Reformers, to enter Poland. While still in Poland, on the recommendation of St. Charles Borromeo, Commendone was created cardinal on 12 March, 1565. He remained in Poland until the death of Pius IV (9 Dec, 1565), and before returning to Italy he went as legate of the new pope, Pius V, to the Diet of Augsburg, which was opened by Maximilian II on 23 March, 1566. He had previously warned the emperor under pain of excommiuiication not to dis- cuss religion at the diet. He also seized the opportu- nity to exhort the assembled Estates to carry into execution the Tridentine decrees. In Sept., 1568, Pius V sent him a second time as legate to Maximilian II. In union with Biglia, the resident nuncio at Vienna, he was to induce the emperor to make no new religious concessions to the Protestant Estates of Lower Aus- tria and to recall several concessions which he had already made. WTiile engaged in this mission, Com- mendone was also empowered by a papal Brief dated 10 Oct., 1568, to make an apostolic visitation of the churches and monasteries of Germany and the adja- cent provinces. An account of this visitation in the Dioceses of Passau and Salzburg in the year 1569 is published in "Studien und Mittheilungen aus dem Benedictiner und Cist<!rcienser Orden" (Briinn, 189.'^, XIV, .38.5-398 and 567-589). In Nov.. 1571, Pius V sent him as legate to the emperor and to King Sigis- mund of Poland in the interest of a crusade. After the death of King Sigismund, in 1572, he promoted the election of Henry, Duke of Anjou, as King of Poland, thereby incurring the displeasure of the em- peror. Upon his return to Italy in 1573, Gregory XIII appointed him a member of the newly founded Congregalin Gcrm/niicn, the purpose of which was to safeguard Catholic interests in Germany. He was so highly esteemed by the Sacred College that, when Gregory XIII fill dLUigerou.sly ill, it was generally be- lieved that Ciiiiiiucncldne would be elected pope, but he was outlived by ' !regory.

Graziam. VjI,i Comnunilnni CaulinaliK (Paris, 1669). Kr. Ir. by Flechier (Paris, 1671, and Lyons, 1702); The Camhritloe Modern HkIotii (Umdon and New York, 1907). II and (1905),

III. passim; Pallwicino. /sMna del Concilio di Trcnfo (Rome, 1846). II. 13. 15. III. 24; Prisao. Die Legaten Commendone und Capacini in Berlin (Neuss. 1846); Reiman. Die Sendung des Numius CoTnmendone nock DeutscJil. im Jahre 1561 in Forsch- ungen zur devtsch. Gesch. (Gottineen. 1867). 237-80; Susta. Die Tomuiche Kurie und das Konzil von Trient unter Pius IV. (Wien, 1904). I; Schwarz. Der Briefwechsel des K. Maximilian IT. mil Pap.it Pius V. (Paderbom. 1889); Graziani. De scriplis invita Minerva, cum adnotationibus H. Lagomarsini (Florence. 1745-6).

Michael Ott.

Commentaries on the Bible. — "To write a full history of exegesis", says Farrar, "would require the .space of many volumes." Nor is this surprising when it is borne in mind that the number of commen- taries on such a recent writer as Dante reached the grand total of thirteen hundred at the beginning of the twentieth century. As the ground to be covered is so extensive, only the barest outline can be given here. The bibliography at the end will enable the reader to pursue the subject further. We touch upon the salient points of Jewi.sh, patristic, medieval, and modern (Catholic and non-Catholic) commentaries. We begin with the Jewish writers, and deal briefly with the Targums, Mishna, and Talmuds; for, though these cannot be regarded as Bible commentaries, in the proper sense of the word, they naturally lead up to these latter. Those who require further information on this head may be referred to the special articles in The Catholic Encyclopedia, and to the works mentioned in the bibliography. Special attention is directed to the list of the best modern non-Catholic commentaries in English (V (3)]. The article is divi- ded as follows: I. Jewish Commentaries; II. Patristic; III. Medieval; IV. Modern Catholic; V. Non- Catholic.

I. Jewish Commentaries. — (1) Philo. — There was a story among the Jews in the Middle Ages to the effect that Aristotle accompanied Alexander the Great to Jerusalem, and, with characteristic Greek craftiness, obtained possession of the wisdom of Solo- mon, which he subsequently palmed off on his coun- trymen as his own. This accounted for everything that was good in Aristotle; the defects were the only thing peculiar to the philosopher. That Greek litera- ture, in general, got its inspiration from Moses wa.s an uncritical idea that dated back as far as Philo, the great Jewish writer of Alexandria. A visitor to Alex- andria at the time when Christ was preaching in Gali- lee would find there and in its vicinity a million Jews using the Scptu-agint as their Bible, and could enter their magnificent Great Synagogue of which they were justly proud. Whoever had not seen it was not supposed to have beheld the glory of Israel. The members of their Sanhedrin, according to Sukkah, were seated on seventy-one golden thrones valued at tens of thous.'inds of talents of gold; and the building was so vast that a flag had to be waved to show the people when to respond. At the head of this .assembly, on the highest throne, was seated the alabarch, the brother of Philo. Philo himself w.as a man of wealth and learning, who minglrd with all classes of men and frequented the theatre and the great library. Equally at home in the Septuagint aiul the Greek classics, he was struck and perplexed by the many beautiful and noble thoughts contained in the latter, which could bear comparison with many passages of the Bible. As this difliculty must have frequently presented it- self to the minds of his coreligionists, he endeavoured to meet it by saying that all that was great in So- crates, Plato, etc. originatetl with Moses. He set about reconciling Pagan |)hilosophy with the Old Tes- tament, and for this purpose he made extensive use of the allegorical method of interpretation. Many pas- sai;r.s of the Pentateuch were not intended to be taken literally, I'liey were liter.ally false, but allegorically true, lie did not hit upon the distinction, made later by St. Thomas Acjuinas and other Catholic