THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW.

108

nation.33 We may conclude that in the Mishnah we are given
a picture of Pharisaic Judaism as it appeared after it had had
its face " lifted ”,
I· inally, what assurance have we that the carefully selected
texts from the vast rabbinic literature served up by the apolo­
gists deserve to be considered typical of Pharisaic teaching/
What touchstone did Montefiore use when he rejected incon­
venient texts a; " negligible,” " the usual Rabbinic paradoxe-..’
and blamed Strack-Bi'lerbeck for ” taking playful exaggerinons or cam-.-.t-c enjoyments tcca serioudy? ” 1 Montei'.i'·.
J imse‘i Jt-cia.-ej, " You can fish out from the Talmudic sea ul
suits y.-.1(Jr ?ur?i■
Our^conch^;,.-.^ then, are twofold. Fir-t. that the del n.·. i"‘- Ph vi-ees in t’ne rabbinic source' and that given
Λ ‘ e" le-tamcm are not so enn trad ι etc ry as the apolog st1 tar:-; v
n..:ke . ut: and secondly, that in
tar a< the ’.v ’
i ' .?.atS
'■ "?iX'· ' ■■■ vcrs:..>n set forth in the \tw Tesi.tmt.u
T-· ' β| l! * '■
tga.:'<<·. that ■>;’ the ?Λ;'|·.γ?Κ ansi thj; .
1
rh.· .Ne ■ 1 ■*·:■.men: contains ci.icuma-ir.1 if πν.ινη
ai-· ··',
v.duc. Tix·. L·.·..· -.merced
md <un-l
*îv\- ? fClitun of
at the handhglur . •i ”. t·
, . ' ' !l>e ,’,’i anj!· r,j ne ■ 3. ilCii pr-.j-c.· i a c<- ·i._eti'i 0'
’ île ■ ‘legists of the ?hai .-s. i·. s. trie, -h- t=
·.: . . ;·
'
--d .j,
c Go'.peis as h.stori. .1 di cu:n :nts. iii.t
" ’·’
br·· : r.h .
•v;p«·'
:n
i
/ese
w
-h
th?
apposée
rc.naik
.
h’ ai ■ ’-.f. ..... p
'■ ’
: '.\f.- tC!TT..p-.'.T
1 lie
severity r.pp .e.'. '.i ‘.e -a ‘ ’.·.·. .: 1··:! of .· -til'd :-e”·
U s-C- C-Pv. then.
1 fictur ,d ûi V ,-.r
-m
.

tV.c.7

( ■ ,
'■ «ri. :t,O

l} ■

C Ht. tx-s '-r S.J-

THE MORALITY OF ARTIFICIAL FECUNDATION.

ΦΗΕ FIRST REACTION of many priests to the subject of
·*· artificial fecundation is to consider it as quite impractical.
This. I think, is a somewhat hasty judgment. Eminent theo..ziir.s of the past half-century have judged this question to
hive its practical aspects; and most of the ordinary moral theol­
ogy manuals of to-day give some space to it. And I am told
that within the past year a popular novel appeared that deA-.d the theme of artificial insemination as the solution of
me otherwise thwarted life of an unmarried woman. It is not
«bag ago that the magazine, Time, gave not a little space to

'ne present year another magazine, Ken, intrigued its readers
’■•th a very fantastic idea concerning fertilization without the
r- '■'! the male germ cell. Now, it is true that much of what
people read is sheer nonsense; nevertheless they read it, and,
1"·.γ ar nonsense, they ask us about it. For these, and other
«■ ins that could be advanced, it seems that a discussion of
- - “.oral aspects of artificial insemination would not be useless
? " 2 practical-minded; and I am confident that it offers a
measure of interest to those inclined to speculation.
■ ’ ΛI propose to give here a brief survey of the subject as it
·,χ· «en treated by the moralists of the past five decades and
'1 “'·■ Mnd a bit on one or two aspects of the question that they
p ■ ■ " not yet thoroughly discussed.
··■. the strict sense of the word, artificial fecundation com■ -■Jitute for natural sexual intercourse. Such a substitution
■M»t be called for in cases in which both husband and wife
**Ve nc,rtnal procreative cells but by an organic malformation
^rom having intercourse; or again in cases in
.
r‘ituJ*l intercourse is rendered fruitless by an acid conof the vagina which is fatal to the spermatozoa, and so

a i ■
me uisL to introuuce die 4u.csc.vMi
11 sn sciaj insemination into moral theology? According to
• <- --tors ά jre meeting with a certain degree of success in
■ΐΜίΜΐΙΙΙ^^
'é

-s

».

*vl’ *l' *>βΓ·,Ιβ'* '° *·’’:* art..·»·

C ·.·.«%* r,:..er».< ■■.’■fcirst-, '
- -·.·.·*
ίο-id .n tie works and numbers ii<ted in th·.' bibliography.

a

—
■Ml
f
iWvv··.

I

i1
i

1 10

THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW.

this matter; and the means which they most commonly ? re­
ferred for obtaining the male germ cells was masturbation by
the husband. Eschbach judged this to be immoral, the use of
an intrinsically unlawful means to a good end. Lehmkuhl"'
agreed with Eschbach. But Palmieri,3 after having first decided
the act to be a pollution, offered the following objection toward
which he seemed to incline rather favorably: Under such cir­
cumstances (namely, husband and wife unable to have natural
intercourse), the seminal ejaculation would really be directed
to the fecundation of a lawful spouse. There would be r.u
real frustration of nature; and the child conceived would be
legitimate. Berardi 4 sponsored this objection as his own
opinion.
This was all before March, 1897, when the Holy Office issued
a decree, approved by Leo ΧΙΠ, condemning artificial fecunda­
tion as illicit.5 Palmieri withdrew the offensive paragraph from
the next edition of the Opus Theologicum Morale; and Berardi
r. tracted.7 That the decree referred at least to masturbation
is the unanimous opinion of theologians. That it included also
the practice of obtaining the male germ cells by means of m’.■. rr; : i intercom >e was Berardi’s own opinion, as well as that
ot four " very learned men ” whom he consulted about the
η-.’.ΐ::··:μ
the c.-cree. And I might add that, among the
works that 1 have studied, all that explicitly mention inter■ u·. :...: : .·,<·.'.-·χιπβ as a means of obtaining the male germ celts
include this method m the condemnation.8
i i ■ . . f the earlier editions of the Gdnicot-Salsmans Cam?
■· i-ci.
’ Father Salsmans gave his opinion that, in the ca«c
o* infertility resulting from hyperacidity of the vagina, condomistic intercourse for the purpose of artificial insemination
1 At !«Mt he «taies its the 1914 e&ioss: (U. 1672) "Id mihi ww>rr risum «t t
pothstion» nun
i<ta>qœ ewe tiiicirusn-" He <M not treat the quectioa » the
**<? e»rl» «dicis»» e£ hi* Mural Theoloty·
Bullerusi-Pcthmeci: VK 1304. (102 gditaes).

I kne
man
did
cone
It
thee
ttti
ity
inc
the

b,

THE MORALITY OF ARTIFICIAL FECUNDATION.

1j1

probably licit. He has since withdrawn, that opinion.1'1
iw of no other work by a Catholic theologian that has even
uated that such a practice would be lawful. Practically
ae works in my own bibliography include interrupted and
bmistic intercourse within the scope of the decree.
î view of the condemnation and of the general opinion of
slogians, we may take this as a minimum working principle:
heial fecundation is unlawful, if it involves venereal activwhich is of itself unnatural. This is true of masturbation
1 of interrupted or condomistic intercourse. It is true when
re is question of artificially uniting the procreative ceils of
sband and wife; and it is of course true a fortiori if the
rties are not united together in marriage.
The question now arises: Is any form of artificial fecundation
rmissible? Theologians generally speak ot two methods as
iing either certainly or probably licit. Neither of these
iefirTs is artificial fertilization in the strict sense—that is. a
-tstiuite for intercourse. Rather they are merely aids to
tac,ent organic conditions or physiological processes. The
*■ these consists of inserting some kind of instrument into
■he vagina before intercourse for the purpose of facilitating the
passage of the spermatozoa into the womb. The second is used
when sufficient penetration for probable fertilization is impos­
able. In this case the doctor uses a syringe to collect the male
-trm ceils already deposited within the vagina and then forces
■ --nt iurther up into the vagina or into the womb. Though a
!«ge number of theologians approve of this method.’" some
die explicit restriction that the seminal deposit be not
''*^driwn from the confines of the vagina.’2
The methods thus far outlined are the only ones treated by
^•ordists who wrote in the early part of the present century.
*>*t about twenty years ago, Vermeersch enlivened the theo• real Ciscussion by relating a means of insemination that w'ould
no abuse of the sexual processes. The male germ cells,
* sad, could be obtained by anal massage or by puncturing the
O· Seventh edition (ijjsj.
B-’Cceroni, Cappello, De Smet, Eschbach, Ferreres, Gea-cot-Saiwnans,
l.i. ■ kuui. '.b.-c-C-e·.- n-.-n, Mersslbach. Noldsn-Schmttt, Palmieri.
'··’*. ΐ 'cr-ti-Gennato, Sabettt-Sa-rett. Tanoverey, Ubach. Vermeerach, Wottters.
•te S.Ttt. Merkeibacis, Pa-.en, Ubach.

I.
■
t.

112

ÎiÎl- CCCLEM 'SnC.lt. β£7Ι7?Λ.

epididymis.13 Doctors with whom I have discussed this nutar
rather doubt the efficacy of the massage for fertilizing pur­
poses; and they add that there is little danger of either method’s
becoming very common. Nevertheless, there is a possibility of
this type of artificial fecundation; hence it i' well for us to
crystallize the principles according to which various ca«es might
be solved.
The question, then, is: Is artificial fecundation permissible if
the male cells are obtained without venereal activity"?
shall consider the problem with reference to three ca-es: 1. be­
tween husband and wife; 2. between two unmarried perso:: :
3. between a married person and a third party, especially if to­
other -pou-e consent- to the operation.
in introducing the first question, it may be useful to st.·.'.·:
tnat we pn..uppo=c a validly married couple, therefore a mur.ige contracted without antecedent and perpetual impotent-,
l urf-ermore, :o .tv.iid all confusion of issues, we can presuppose
a mar.-:.u_· a'reidv consummated. Our only question, thc\’t-.re. :·.: 1- ;r l.c:;. -ind»;· ccrtvn crcuntS’-ance-, lor suer. .'.
marr.eu c-mp'.t t . have rcc-iur-e to the form of .-.rtincial impre.; ■
πη··η n .w under considerat..m?
i.. r:e.-n ..T the v,.;rh, that I have consulted take up the
p:...-,em ■ ·.
» t-.-p^ or artit'»:-.! m-eminatiiin bctw.vn tv.i-i’ind
.o.c wit j. t): t <.■. -S'.bctti-B.-.rrttt, Capped ». Marc-Ges..... n«·· I’-Smet. Vkrkelb.-ch. and L’i-ach)* ϊ·«ά ιρ· η >t as
.'.Ist·...” ·ι}, r. .-..t-Sal .r4r.,, io.·'.,·. N /id-.r.-'-.i-n-i", ?.:.en,
i' c 'ta-Creni-.iro. '■ \rmeer c.i. Jni; Veu-er- ■ c ·:».·..ter i: a.- at
: probably Ik ·.. liefor.- cvm-. n ng the d-t.: '· ·-f tm- c·.-.■ ■..·«>·, it w J
u-xful to tis .· » I'r-.ef .ma'."·
.lamentai r,t; -.· ^orcerr.iaç
<k:>t
m.;ri".d
U’
y: .'agate.
11 one sense, it o ..tris fiiriy rvij-nr th it :-;.-.rr.cd p:
o.e
wh'.t nuv be -.er·-.::d a merely iel.-cct rich: r » p- pr.j.-.t . 1
re‘ .r to the right which .ad: p-.u-y acq.; re-:
ri <■ is-»Jv * ■ ■
■ ■-•.r, a right to ί nich the ot.ier ntrty '.--umes .: c»-r..
't
■ cition. Tiu·. neither party ■- olri geJ
rtu .·■’ :: a
“ ■·— ige : ntric: :o submit to ar- ficiai fecu::da «. v.-.x’·. <■;
r r : wit- -r. The precu-e abiigrion t= .ι.ί.’·. -.· r
;

7

-Î1·

THE MORALITY OF ARTIFICIAL FECUXDATIOX.

113

germ cells is only indirect, namely, it is assumed only with
rence to sexual intercourse, of which this receis ing and
jig are the natural culmination. So, since the right to give
receive is correlative to the obligation assumed, we may con­
de that in this sense each party to the marriage contract
juires only an indirect right to propagate.
But, is this the only aspect under which their right to propa­
te can be considered? By marriage, these two, taken together
.i excluding all others, are set up by God as an adequate prinpie of human generation. They are the natural founders of
human family, evidently with some right to propagate their
Hid. Must we say that this is merely the indirect right indiated above, which belongs to the individual with respect to
te other party; or is it not rather true that these two, as a
«V generative unit in society, have a direct right to propagate
sy any means which is not in itself wrong? Are not the mar* d partie; in very much the same situation regarding propa­
gation as the individual is in regard to self-preservation? He
f-S a natural right to preserve his life, and failing normal means
& may use abnormal, or artificial, forms of nourishment. So,
” sttms that married people, when unable to generate by the
5«mal means of sexual intercourse, may use abnormal means,
provided that means be not sinful.
foregoing analysis expresses the opinions of those who
“P-ofo the licitness of the type of artificial fecundation we are
r‘ow discussing. Objections against the solution may be
stouped into four classes. The first objection—advanced by
Cappello, De Smet, and Barrett—consists simply of the asser-

the right
propagate is limited to the normal means
-- -<xual intercourse. In the light of the analysis already given,
*fost reply that this limitation is not evident. It is true
5<3rne capacity for intercourse is required for contracting
it js true
tjiat
mutua| rights and obligations
nurri£4 people do not extend directly to any other p roc teai’- ’·"*· But it seems that some further proof or declaration
®
Holy See is necessary before it can be said apodictically
-li ' 7
r-os P°ss£ss
common a right to propagate which
or^’
by mutual consent, to have recourse to some extra>r· =ry rr.t-ar,·;
propagating which is not in itself sinful.

A
4#***»*1 ·
UUM? <

114

THE ECCI.ESI.'STICAL REVIEW.

Merkelbach considers the means (extraction of the germ cells
from the epididymis) as evil, places this in the same category
as pollution and onanism, and specifies it as " ratione sui gen­
erationis irr.pcditivn
With due reverence, his parallelism
must be denied and his terminology rejected. The expression,
" ratione sui generationis impeditiva,” implies the abuse of
sexual processes. It applies therefore to pollution and onanism.
But the puncture of the epididymis involves no use of the sexual
prtn'i
hence cannot properly be styled an abuse, an unnatural
sexual act. Of itself, its intrinsic morality might partake of
the nature of a minor mutilation, somewhat similar to that
involved in a blood transfusion. Moreover, if extraction of
seminal iluid from the epididymis were absolutely wrong (like
poiluti·m and onanism), it could never be allowed, and physi­
cian ·· Ct uld not resort to it even for examination purposes;
A tn rd objection i- that urged by Ubach: artificial fecundat or. .-i th.- t} pc would render the married state ridiculous.
t<r. it ·.·. 1 ·_ίί λ; .id, it is d'.-.-ay ; licit: and the married people
c .uhi ’.· ;·.·,· rc.crx; it at v, .11. And ti t;·· many of the natural
pur.' ■<.-· : τ’'.'.:;·.·’.···.·'·.- w«>i·.’ I b·. thwarted.
<':w. m.-ci· v.< can repiv wit;', revers—.ce and sucçe-t that th’3
■rd.·.. ;■■■ . :
m act ...mewhat like a c.M.rcr.mg.
hut..;.
un.’-joi;, am-t··!· d:d nor ih'nk th it i i:e p i '•i tdty
of
hn.-regr.it·· r. wj-./id .it· aw.-.i w th th. -, e.·.:.·! .rpuh.. '-.nura'. appetite- Ini. a vs;·-· uf a;-e"ina i'-;·"-.'·'·'··
Men wL· -an eat no-m.d’.y arc r->c rr..ich inchned t .· ic. ·’ ’ ' ·”■
seis.· a.·: icially; nor arc people capable of η >:nn· t.itu·.cot; ·, y tempteii to forego that act:cr. tor π m,.ei:: ·.
■ «·-ich s, : ·. <jy
least, a nucinae. Mo’ti
'k'
·■’
’< thr. rrj’l ors who permit this typ.’ >r nti1 -.i ■. -r i (i
: .; crue rex ji should hold ii ?s 1 ■’1
'·'■·
i:·*
(n is n t a far ccncl.’sun. Many
■ ·■■■: : :·-' -r. .·■.' st; as sllic:t v th ut a jus ify'ng cause-·

·’ ·"’ '· “ ■ .;·”■· ’ ■ .1 r 1-· -.'’T..·.· ς,'π.:;l’.y ‘.ο ; ’iny;
■r '■ '■·.
;-.·■ trrr-.
i'tc u.·'·. n- ' ii
s' ■ ·-■■■.·’;■
r if···;./
..d;·, r-'ci’e· ·. ,-r: i :·.
Jf
■·-.·■ i ή i. ti >■:.
■■ ,;T.i.-r i: -’.·. i- v·· - ·. .·<» ■·

sh.icn
th.’r.a■’· tr<i
·

\ fl" ’
■ j«X' on 5 til···· ■/··.■.· i'·, e;·.;·.;·- .
·.-:·.: '"th
artificial Is. ur.dat-or, dargr-■ wp·. :.ii’y -t •ie·.;:·'·: r
ô

life,
noo
îha
tec
be

THE MORALITY OF ARTIFICIAL FECUNDATION.

uman affairs there are such dangers, even in normal married
It is because of these dangers and because it is a proneed departure from the normal method of having children
i authors who admit, the licitness of this type of artificial
iindation between husband and wife demand that it should
practised with great caution and resorted to only for a very
:ous reason.
To sum up. There is a very solid extrinsic authority for per:ttmg this type of artificial fecundation between husband and
lie, and it seems justifiable on intrinsic grounds. It has nothgm common with an unnatural sex act. such as pollution; or
■tn a disordered sex act, such as fornication. In this method
■ fecundation, there is no frustration of the sexual processes;
nd the child thus conceived is the offspring of parents united
» the stable bond of matrimony, and thus naturally apt and
®:>gited to provide for its welfare.
The second case proposed for discussion was: May r unaurned women be artificially impregnated by cells extracted
;:γλ an unmarried man? The theologians’ answer to the ques...
" no ” Some 14 dismiss the subject with
■·' ■■-.x suument that a woman has no right to fecundation,
hy I-,.
husband; some17' add the intrinsic reason.
·’act dues not make the provision demanded by the
<·.·■ :he care of the offspring. They refer to the
. .. . .njl r-ndo'oph'.cal argument for the necessity of marriage
e-..f fornication: an argument which is valid here
w"*'Jse it :■· direct-..! against fornication, not precisely as an act
-- iiwnered passion, but rather as a disordered generative act.
>nseir.:nacion, consisting essentially of the giving and
"-i ; --i-, procreative cells, is a generative act, and so must
■■'“mt.! h- ;ίή; law' of nature -which requires that such an
be puced only by persons united in the permanent bond of
n hide need of cklaymg longer on this case. The
■L· Tient s.· :ge-ied iccve can be found fully developed in St’· ' < -.’’’.mentitf’ a '.J in many modern theological
‘
Leismkuttf. Cappello,: Merkelbach, N01 d m-S ch mi£ t, Tan qu ere? ■
, ’■ *■»«--.. V -inmnch.
,
t.
-22. s unj. Ss-curulae, Q. 154, a. 2.
-U- Ci.,:.·.
Ci ’a·.·, i,' 154, a. 2.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW.

manuals.1® Traditional Catholic theology teaches without equi­
vocation that generative activity must .be confined to the
married state;18 and no Catholic theologian could look with
favor upon procreation by the unmarried.
To come now to our last case. Two married people a«
unable to have children. May they, by mutual consent, have
recourse to a “ proxy father,” provided the germ cells be ob­
tained from this third party without venereal activity?
Fundamentally, the question has already been answered. The
parties to the fecundation are nor man and wife, hence the
law of nature forbids the operation. Nor does the guarantee
offered by the married parties themselves furnidi the natural
provision required. Philosophically, such a ci/.i-.y'-'t :-j c.'.".
for the child w«uld be termed accidental; it is r.uir.o. r.r exCv-ptix.’r.al case. The minimum ab-olute rules ;ac .'.vui·.·
laid J ■•‘■n for the g·· id of the specks admit of no exc.pt.> n·.
1 uri'.’.ermore, married partie·» have no power to give such
c,in ent. For o their right to propigatc i- taken diner..·. ·'.
nn-· :■■· ti-.c ’*·.■ p.mk·» tbcm-elv.-s as a generative unit. a:ic. ·
;t'
oe it ca Judes ’died pirtk··’. And it it is consul.·.·
o’.’.irrc'iV, as •■r<.c-i.-d with their right to c-»n -gal act*. t:'..··
:t s - methir.c .·■
nail·.- mmuil and d-o
J,·■'.'·J <>f t‘ *·
prti:- The ι·.:χ?.ι >f the hu-b.ind nugiir c-.i .v·..'.. ·ν th ’’ ■'
p-.-sc·.·; injur, -hat ■.-•oodj otherv. a,· be ; :■ f k : :.; n l: m: tut
t .ar- it take .va -.y de i-lury to rhe mur-lige b ■" :-· ' -Airr··’..
pc pic must tai·.·.· f. -h bond a- it has teen c-: •J.·'
Gid
Γ: dr -arious r-.a-r.ig,·
hts are r,.t c..:r.mu·· - r.··. ··> mhets.
Γ<’■ y‘.mes ha*·, a <'.rr.:.n r.-'cativc jrd ;i-t.'..ô e nt- i oser
*h.’ r ■ this m * ·
» that ..-le,- ct .".u
n· '.·.’. .* rn.v.
.’b 'a··· from t. -g
A d-im vr ». v.·.
’ right'’
v. k mean a J.-aJ.-.g . Ç tb.e ό-r..l. f..r ike 0-..·.·:
; J' . con•is . i ! these π
- 'r7i.
•■r .‘vzing th ■ -.>r
„i-r
.1 -J.·.·.
' ■ ..
•hr c -dcmninc t. k
-.us a .-.j-e.l ..·
:■ - ιι·, dw»u!d
s

‘

Venire,

'

, ,

-

J

...

· -

ζ .--.·

iw m
·» *

.*

- · . ~

*

i Ί

«OB l^ù».

ΜίΤϋ.

·

t-*

·1

Λ»'·

exist
jeopa
the i
prot

aSe
fad
and
at
th

THE MORALITY OF ARTIflClAL FECUNDATION.

117

between husband wife with respect to their child; and it
.rdizes the happiness of all three. The child is born into
world, not only without the natural guarantee of fatherly
ection and love that he should have, but rather in circumces which are of their nature apt to deprive him of this
ction. He is flesh of his mother’s flesh, but not of his
let's; he is born a stepson; throughout his childhood days
: on into the successes or failures of his manhood, he will be
least a potentially constant source of jealousy. By nature,
: child should bind father and mother together; this child is
>re apt to divide their love.
There might be exceptions to the last argument; but it does
itkne the dangerous situation into which " third-party ’’
cundation places married people. Even if the practice were
ct wrong in itself, childless couples would do better to forego
■ and to adopt someone. With the adopted child they begin
rte on an equal footing.
This entire discussion may be summarized in a few brief
sntences. Artificial insemination involving pollution or onan­
ism is never lawful; but if married people who are unable to
cave natural fertile intercourse wish to resort to a means of
jspregnation which includes no abuse of the sexual functions,
■ a probable that they may do so. Between two parties who
.re sot united together in marriage, no form of artificial fecun<kt:An is lawful,
Reterexces

f'»·,
U-i-

•Ho.

to AUTHORS CITED IN THIS ARTICLE

" These works contain a rather complete treatment:

Ic-rio: Theologia Moralis (1934), Π, 87$, 876.
Pivea: De Matrimonio (1936), II, 2110 fi.; also III, 2110
lowers-. De Virtute Castitatis, (1929 and 1932), n. 106.
U' Ci-

SU ...
ί**ίϊ< z;.·

these general works on Moral Theology:
Arregui (1937), n. 806.
hwerin i -palmteri (1892), VI, 1304; (1900), VI. 891Succeroni (191$), IV, 10$2.
huiut
8Ή.
?«-errs 1932V p, 1337.

.ΤΛΛΓΛ ijvl'ii;, Π, Ϊ4-;.
lone: {19}4-Frencl·. ed). n. 749.

!#Μ.

Wo

H8

Till. ïC( Lf.MAK ICAl REVIEW.

Marc-Gesternunn-Raus·. ι 1954», II, 2118.
Merkclbach (1936), Hi, 938.
Nddin-Schmitt (1933), "De 6° ”, n. 77.
Piiccna-Genturû (1934), VII, 249 ss.
Piicctra-Cienn.iro: \ιι>»>;:απιι>·ι ( 1938), η. 1C17.
Pr"n?mer (1936). III, 799.
sabetti-Birrett ,1931), n. 934 and idd. 66.
Tanquercj t 19?6 >, I. " <'uppi.” n. 36.
Verineer.ch ( 193 3 ), IV. n. 64.
L'bich ·. 1927), H, S66.

Hl. Conter iku ihest rr. >re spixi.iliz.ed wo-ks:
Bc.-jrJi: Pr.i\.·· Co>(r’< ^riur:· >·: (1898) , rm. 1009, 1010( ippe’.'n,: 1)··
(1933., n. 3S3-3S4.
ï)c hr-..-t: (Λ- Sr-.f/.j',■(.,·/ , f [-)v
vo’.ur:; H ' 1 '

iil|fill 1 11 il ; ύΙ Wliltsilf
1

e,::..
\

Ά

'a-

iv-i-.-.

;

K

Ρ,'>ν.<..\>-;ι, c -7 / ·îI-j^îîM · ■. i1'''·
C.c.2), r. 2!^τ
i·,;·,). nn. S«, 2-1·
.·: v.,<_JriC JV . 1'11.. n. 347-

I). <j ,9

/.·, Γ)

Gi-Rv..d Kli.ia· -

I»

■I

“ CUPIDI CURIOSI GYROVAGI

,0,

!λ p.

i.

■THE De Imitatione Christi has been frequently commended
·*■ by editors and translators for its “ simplicity
There is
i sense in which this commendation is merited. The reader of
almost any version of it into his own vernacular tongue will
indeed find the highest ascetical truths conveyed to him in brief,
quivering sentences that find their way easily into his mind and
heart. The Golden Book is a masterpiece of brevity. In a
certain sense, it is also clear, because its author avoided conten;
lion and disputation and tried to win all men to the cause of
peace by the methods of peace. " He was simple, and he dipped
;
his pen in simplicity.”
:
The message he sought to deliver to men was capable of
simple statement because the author had first of all understood
it himself, and had thus merely to open to his readers his heart
rather than his library. He did not content himself with the
s
easy theory that a simple message, uttered in a slovenly fashion,
i
could not be marred by a crude statement of it. He therefore
I
knew the advantage of disciplined habits of expression. He
i
'
tarther still, and added to a pleasing rhetoric a rare power
ut compression. And to this directness and brevity thus
t
ccnxvej he superadded rhythmic and rhymic cadences intended,
t
doubtless, to emphasize certain thoughts and at the same time
11 imke his message more attractive to the tastes of his own age.
I
He was an artist in style. And, if we trust the theories of Carl
Krsche and the inferences of Dr. Cruise, we shall conclude that
’·* had aho mastered that ars artium of the refined writer, the
•-nA or power to conceal his art; for it was not until compara>
th-ely recent years that the rhymes and rhythms faintly appreci­
ated by modern ears in the Latin text of the Imitation were
c.-emed capable of such analysis as sought to elevate them into
I
a t-smcious and systematized art of expression on the part of
Thomas ;·. Kempis. If the feature of his artistry was intelliI
gîtstly appreciated in his own times, it had nevertheless been
to the recognition of succeeding centuries down to the last
cuarrer of the nineteenth century.
.
zc d traudition nt the Imitation will of course try to
?r 'tr.c t’·^ -.imp’ic'.ty ut thought and the directness and brevity
■ ' ’h. c-ig r.ai Latin. While attempts have been made to pre-