Jean Gerson rose to the office of chancellor at the University of Paris and played an important role in the Council of Constance (1414-1418). However, his fortunes changed, forcing him to live in exile until his death. Gerson’s works in Latin and French, including sermons, have been preserved over the centuries. While he is known for spiritual writings and conciliarist polemics, the author passes lightly over the latter and focuses on the chancellor’s “spiritual and theological legacy” (29). Gerson’s role in advancing the cult of Saint Joseph receives due attention. This extensive volume treats Gerson in “the long fifteenth century” before examining his Protestant reception, Catholic reception, and reception in England and Scotland. The book notes the many editions and translations of Gerson’s works, including the copious edition compiled by Edmond Richer. No one has treated Gerson’s reception in such depth.
The first chapter is subdivided into sections concerning “the Empire,” France, Spain, Italy, and Sweden. Gerson had retreated to German lands after the Council of Constance. From there, especially from Melk, his works were diffused to monastic houses. The author mentions the hostile reaction of the Carthusian Vincent of Aggsbach, but the recent book of Meredith Ziebart was not included in the literature cited. Among the authors who used Gerson’s works were members of the Devotio Moderna, especially Johannes Wessel Gansfort. In France, Gerson’s family played a role in preserving his manuscripts. The colleges of Montaigu and Navarre at the Sorbonne also played a part in preserving Gerson’s heritage. Gerson was also known in early-modern Spain and Italy. In Italy, Antoninus of Florence, a leading Dominican of the fifteenth century, invoked Gerson’s name when treating scrupulosity. Other Gersonian influences are traced in figures like Bernardino di Busti, Girolamo Savonarola, and Christopher Columbus. Sweden, being the least known known locus of Gerson’s reception, receives welcome attention. Gerson’s Ars moriendi was among the texts translated into Swedish. These topics form just part of the evidence for the pan-European reception of the chancellor’s writings in the century following his death.
With the coming of the Reformation, the reception of Gerson split between Protestant and Catholic. In the second chapter, the author deals with ideas that the chancellor was a “forerunner” of the Reformation. The chapter also divides into Lutheran and Reformed reception. Luther’s trajectory started with intensive reading of Gerson but moved away in later years. This left little room for Gerson’s idea of spiritual quest. Gerson also played a role in Luther’s theology of music. Philipp Melanchthon, more moderate than Luther, found a place in his work for Gerson as theologian and educator. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, to the contrary, attacked and then abandoned Gerson. Martin Bucer had mixed feelings about the chancellor, especially where he was an obstacle to communion under both species. If Gerson’s influence on the first Lutheran generation declined, the second Lutheran generation recovered him. Martin Chemnitz relied on Gerson for “consolatory theology.” Lutheranism developed a strong sense of history, accepting Gerson as a critic of Rome. That included passing over Gerson’s role in the condemnation of Jan Hus. Reformed writers, including John Calvin, paid less attention to Gerson. However, all Protestant writers, historians and theologians, embraced Gerson’s emphasis on Scripture. Yet, as the author notes, the more radical a Protestant writer was, the less use he made of the chancellor’s theology.
The Lutheran use of Gerson’s texts helps explain the slow adoption of his works by German Catholic writers. However, Johannes Cochlaeus and Johan Fabri were among those who employed the chancellor in their polemics. In the Low Countries, Gerson already had a strong reception. Jacobus Latomus was among those who defended Catholic tradition, including by using Gerson’s pastoral legacy. Gerson retained his popularity in France. However, his reform agenda appealed more to diocesan bishops and the Meaux Group (including Marguerite de Navarre) than to the theologians of the Sorbonne. The Sorbonne supported the Catholic League and drove out those printers not supportive of their agenda. In Spain, however, Gerson’s influence became more important, even though writers like Francisco de Vitoria suspected him of inspiring Luther. Gerson’s influence can be seen in the development of probabilism at Salamanca. He can be found quoted on both sides in the Spanish debate about the New World and being used by both sides in conflicts over the illuminati. Moreover, Gerson has a place in the study of Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. The early Jesuits were drawn to what they regarded as Gerson’s oeuvre, including The Imitation of Christ. Their approach to confession was more consoling than the judicial approach of Trent. Gerson’s influence lay at the foundations of their response to Protestantism and the creation of newer spiritualties.
The reception of Gerson in the British Isles included acceptance of his conciliarism. English readers of his theology included Catholics and Protestants. In Scotland, James VI (later James I of England) employed Gerson in his attacks on Jesuits and other papalists. Notably in the British Isles, Thomas More made extensive use of Gerson’s texts. More shared with Gerson a certain conservatism. Like Gerson, he believed in the salvation of individuals, including himself. More, as Henry VIII’s chancellor, also appealed to Gerson’s idea of equity (epikeia) in the application of laws. Being conservative, he wrote against Christopher Saint Germain and other “heretics.” This Catholic stand led to More’s imprisonment. As a prisoner, More, like John Fisher, found comfort in Gerson’s writings.
The book ends with a General Conclusion, noting how Gerson was followed, adapted, translated, and even rejected in the centuries following his death. Looking across Europe, there was no time when Gerson’s influence was entirely rising or falling, accepted or rejected. In all cases, the chancellor had an important role in the history of moral theology, pastoral care, and catechization. Gerson also can be seen as opening the way for lay devotion to God. The Conclusion includes Table 1 (431-434), which indicates (roughly) the works of Gerson read by certain authors. Note that the Opus tripartitum is omitted from the table, because its reading and reuse are indicated in several places within the book.