§ 4. The Remaining European Countries
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Robertson, J. M. (John Mackinnon)
Source notes
109 Cp. Jacob, Notice, p. xxxviii; Smith, ii, 524. ↑
110 Rathery, p. 71; Stapfer, pp. 42–43. ↑
111 Stapfer, p. 53. ↑
112 Jacob, p. xxxix. ↑
113 Rathery, pp. 44–49. The notion of Lacroix, that Rabelais visited England, has no evidence to support it. Cp. Rathery, p. 49, and Smith, p. xxiii. ↑
114 Cp. Jacob, p. lx. Ramus himself, for his attacks on the authority of Aristotle, was called an atheist. Cp. Waddington, Ramus, sa vie, etc., 1855, p. 126. ↑
115 See the list in the avertissement of M. Burgaud des Marets to éd. Firmin Didot. Cp. Stapfer, pp. 63, 64. For example, the “theologian” who makes the ludicrous speech in Liv. i, ch. xix, becomes (chs. 18 and 20) a “sophist”; and the sorbonistes, sorbonicoles, and sorbonagres of chs. 20 and 21 become mere maistres, magistres, and sophistes likewise. ↑
116 It is doubtful whether Rabelais wrote the whole of the notice prefixed to the next edition, in which this attack was made; but it seems clear that he “had a hand in it” (Tilley, François Rabelais, p. 87). ↑
117 R. Christie, Étienne Dolet, pp. 369–72. Christie, in his vacillating way, severely blames Dolet, and then admits that the book may have been printed while Dolet was in prison, and that in any case there was no malice in the matter. This point, and the persistent Catholic calumnies against Dolet, are examined by the author in art. “The Truth about Étienne Dolet,” in National Reformer, June 2 and 9, 1889. ↑
118Epistre, pref. to Liv. iv. Ed. Jacob, p. 318. ↑
119 Cp. W. F. Smith’s trans. of Rabelais, 1893, ii, p. x. In this book, however, other hands have certainly been at work. Rabelais left it unfinished. ↑
120 Jacob, Notice, p. lxiii; Stapfer, p. 76. ↑
121 So Rathery, p. 60; and Stapfer, p. 78. Jacob, p. lxii, says he resigned only one. Rathery makes the point clear by giving a copy of the act of resignation as to Meudon. ↑
122A Discourse ... against Nicholas Machiavel, Eng. tr. (1577), ed. 1608, Epist. ded. p. 2. ↑
123 Liv. iv, ch. xliii. ↑
124 Liv. iii, ch. xxiii. ↑
125 Liv. iv, ch. xlv–xlviii. ↑
126 Liv. iv, ch. xlix sq. ↑
127 Liv. iv, ch. xxxii. ↑
128 Prof. Stapfer, Rabelais, sa personne, son génie, son œuvre, 1889, pp. 365–68. Cp. the Notice of Bibliophile Jacob, ed. 1841 of Rabelais, pp. lvii-lviii; and Perrens, Les Libertins, p. 39. In his youth he affirmed the doctrine. Stapfer, p. 23. ↑
129 Cp. René Millet, Rabelais, 1892, pp. 172–80. ↑
130 Liv. iii, ch. xxxvi. ↑
131 The description of him by one French biographer, M. Boulmier (Estienne Dolet, 1857), as “le Christ de la pensée libre” is a gross extravagance. Dolet was substantially orthodox, and even anti-Protestant, though he denounced the cruel usage of Protestants. ↑
132 Wallace (Antitrinitarian Biography, 1850, ii. 2) asserts that Dolet “not only became a convert to the opinions of Servetus, but a zealous propagator of them.” For this there is not a shadow of evidence. ↑
133 Cp. Voltaire, Lettres sur Rabelais, etc. i. ↑
134 Cp. author’s art. above cited; R. C. Christie, Étienne Dolet, 2nd ed. 1890, p. 100; Octave Galtier, Étienne Dolet (N.D.), pp. 66, 94, etc. ↑
135 Christie, as cited, pp. 50–58, 105–106; Galtier, p. 26 sq. ↑
136 It is to this that Rabelais alludes (ii, 5) when he tells how at Toulouse they “stuck not to burn their regents alive like red herrings.” ↑
137 Christie, p. 80. ↑
138 Liv. iii, ch. xxix. ↑
139 Christie, p. 86. ↑
140 One of his enemies wrote of him that prison was his country—patria Doleti. ↑
141Procès d’Estienne Dolet, Paris, 1836, p. 11; Galtier, pp. 65–70; Christie, pp. 389–90. ↑
142Procès, p. viii.; Galtier, p. 78. ↑
143 Galtier, p. 101 sq.; Christie, p. 461. ↑
144 A modern French judge, the President Baudrier, was found to affirm that the laws, though “unduly severe,” were “neither unduly nor unfairly pressed” against Dolet! Christie, p. 471. ↑
145 Concerning whom see Christie, as cited, pp. 29 01. ↑
146 Tilley, as last cited, p. 69. ↑
147 Christie, p. 317. ↑
148 Christie, as cited, pp. 465–67; Lutteroth, La Reformation en France pendant sa première période, 1850, pp. 39–40; Prof. H. M. Baird, Rise of the Huguenots, 1880, i, 240 sq. ↑