The triumph of the cross

by Girolamo Savonarola

The translator of what I cannot but call the Pseudo Triumph of the Cross, but which he ascribes to Savonarola, professes on the title-page that it is “translated from the Latin”; and in the Preface he assures his readers that “this translation has been made from a valuable copy, printed with all the abbreviations peculiar to Savonarola’s manuscript, found in the Archives of Sion College”. Where, then, does the fault lie? Who is responsible for the omissions?[12] Is the defect—or are the defects, for their name is “Legion”—in the original, or in the “translation”? Let us see. There is only one Latin copy of The Triumph of the Cross in the Sion College Archives, and, as the translator says, it is “a valuable copy”. It lacks the first page; otherwise it is complete. The loss of the title-page, however, matters little, as the edition is recorded at the end of the book: “Venumdatur in aedibus Ascensianis. Typog. Ascensiana, MDXXIIII.” Truly “a valuable copy,” printed in Paris by a certain J. B. Ascensius in the year 1524, only twenty-six years after the author’s tragic death. It is not the first edition. This, as we have seen, appeared in Florence in 1497, the year before he died. Still it is an early edition. There is another copy of this Ascension Press edition of 1524 in the library of the British Museum. A third copy, belonging to the library of the Dominican Fathers at Woodchester, lies on my desk as I write these words. It is a small octavo volume bound in vellum, and besides The Triumph of the Cross, it contains several other treatises of the Florentine Dominican. The inscription at the end, with the date, corresponds to the Sion College copy. The space at my command will only allow me to call attention to two or three discrepancies between the original, the “valuable copy” found in the Archives of Sion College, and the book which claims to be a translation.

In the original Latin edition, the Third Book contains eighteen chapters; in the translation only fifteen chapters appear. There is no explanation given, either in the Preface or in the body of the work, of the reason of the omission, nor is it stated that these three chapters are omitted. The chapters which are absolutely ignored in the pseudo-translation are those which appear in the original, and in this present translation, as chapters xv., xvi., and xviii. If the reader will refer to them, he may perhaps form his own opinion as to the reason of the omission from what purports to be a translation. These chapters contain what the translator would probably call “sectarian” teaching; they embody the “sectarian spirit,” from which, he tells us, The Triumph of the Cross is free. The first of the three omitted chapters treats of the Sacraments, and teaches that there are seven, even as does the Catholic Catechism of to-day. Following the argument of St. Thomas, the author shows the need of each of the seven Sacraments, from the analogy between the life of the body and the spiritual life of the soul. In the following, or sixteenth chapter, which the translator, on his own responsibility, evidently puts under a ban of excommunication from an English home, Savonarola treats of what the scholastics call “the matter and form” of the Sacraments, and explains, in terse and clear words, the meaning and object of each of these seven channels of grace to the soul. This chapter is “sectarian” indeed. Hence, we may presume, its eradication, its being pulled up root and branch from English soil; hence its elimination from English pages; hence its absolute extermination, as far as English readers are concerned. Savonarola wrote it in Latin, and reproduced it in Italian, but we will have no popery and no popish doctrine in our pure English tongue! We have it, however, at last, in this translation, as we have had it from the beginning in the chapter of the original to which I allude. Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance (or Confession), Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony—all are there, with their object, their meaning, their “matter and form,” as the scholastics would call their component parts, their mode of administration, and their effects upon the human soul in time and in eternity.

Finally, in the third of the proscribed chapters—the eighteenth in the original work—we have a dissertation on the Ceremonies of the Church. Savonarola shows with what wisdom they form part of the Church’s discipline, and how they answer to a demand of the soul of man in his worship of the Most High. The author explains, too, some of the practices of the Catholic Church, which, in our days, as in his own, are often misrepresented or misunderstood.

The unprejudiced reader may draw his own conclusions as to the reason of the omission of the three chapters from the book we have been referring to, and which appear, probably for the first time in English, in the pages which follow this Introduction. The Twenty-fifth of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Creed declares: “There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord ... Baptism and the Supper of the Lord”. Savonarola says there are seven. The Twenty-eighth Article professes that “transubstantiation ... cannot be proved in Holy Writ; it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture”. Savonarola, on the contrary, holds that the Catholic doctrine can be proved, and that it is clearly taught in Holy Writ by Jesus Christ the Divine Teacher. The Thirty-fourth Article attaches little importance to ceremonies, and calls in question the need of outward uniformity in the services of the Church. Savonarola has an entire chapter written in their defence and explanation, in which he speaks of crucifix and images, of devotion to the Mother of Jesus, of the consecration of churches, of lighted candles, of sacred vessels, and even of holy water. What then? The Articles are right; Savonarola must be wrong; he must be “sectarian”. Then leave out the sectarianism; omit the chapters in which he treats of subjects which are distinctly and essentially Catholic. It is the old story. They will make Savonarola a Protestant, or, at least, a herald of Protestantism, a precursor of Luther and Calvin, a harbinger of the Reformation, whether he will or no. Whereas, as every reader of his history and writings must know, he was of Catholics the most Catholic—Catholic in life, Catholic in death, Catholic to the heart’s core.

I must leave it to the calm unbiassed judgment of the reader to decide whether this kind of translation is fair; whether it is just to the memory of the great Dominican whom so many, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, profess to revere; whether it is just even to the English-reading people, to the vast majority of whom original works written in Latin or Italian are sealed books, and who have consequently to depend upon the fidelity and accuracy of a translation. If the translator had professed to give an expurgated edition of The Triumph of the Cross; if he had told his readers that he had eliminated everything that was “sectarian”; if he had undertaken to give selections from the work, in defence of Christianity; if he had professed to reproduce, in more modern English, the translation published by the Cambridge University Press in 1661, to which I have referred—this we could understand; but to call a book with several chapters ruthlessly discarded, “The Triumph of the Cross translated from the Latin”—this, assuredly, it is beyond the power of words to condemn. The translator of the Cambridge edition of 1661—as we may readily understand both from the date and the place of the publication—omits the identical passages omitted in the edition of 1868—those which I have referred to, and others to which I shall refer,—but he is candid and fair in so doing. He prepares the reader for this in his Preface or Dedicatory Letter, to which he appends his initials, J. W. B. “I know” (he writes) “that you will not disdain to look upon him (Savonarola) in this English Dress, wherewith I have attired him; nor blame me for having cut off some few shreds, that he might, with more credit, appear amongst us.... You will approve of my choice of this author, who lived in the thickest darkness of popery.” Not so, however, the “translator” of the English edition of 1868. He suppresses whole paragraphs and entire chapters without note or comment. Moreover, he assigns no reason for so doing.

One further reference, and I have done with this so-called translation. In the original edition of A.D. 1524 we find in the Fourth Book nine chapters. In the mutilated English version we find also nine. No chapter, it is true, is bodily omitted from the Fourth Book. One chapter, however, has come under the reckless and unscrupulous pruning knife of the translator; evidently, again, because it ran counter to his religious views, or the preconceived ideas of those for whose benefit he was translating. The sixth chapter of this Fourth Book, which professedly treats of the doctrine of heretics, is in reality a dissertation on Church government, and a plea for visible Church unity under one visible head. After instancing, by way of analogy, the unity of bees under one queen, and the unity of the members of the human body under one head, the author goes on to show the need there is of one Chief Ruler in the Church. He quotes the prophet Osee, and also the well-known words of our Lord about the “One fold and the One Shepherd”. He then proceeds to argue that Christ was the visible Head of the Church when on earth, adding that when He ascended into Heaven, He would not leave the Church “without any earthly head,” seeing that in such a case it would become a prey to divisions, confusion, and disorder; and therefore He said to Peter, “Feed My sheep”. “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock,” etc. And again: “I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,” etc. All this we find word for word in the English version which we are considering. Savonarola then continues—and the whole of the following words are excluded from the pseudo-translation:—“It can not, however, be supposed that Christ conferred this dignity on Peter alone, to the exclusion of his successors, since He Himself has declared that the Church should endure for ever in the order which He had established. Speaking to His disciples, and, in their person, addressing all the faithful, He said: ‘Behold I am with you even unto the consummation of the world’ (Matt. xxviii. 20). And again, by the mouth of Isaias, He said: ‘He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom; to establish it, and strengthen it with judgment and justice, from henceforth and for ever’ (Is. ix. 7). These passages clearly indicate that the office confided by Christ to St. Peter, being highly expedient and necessary to the Church, should, by an unbroken succession, be guaranteed to her for ever. Hence it follows that, as Peter was chosen by Christ to be His vicar and the shepherd of the whole Church, all his successors must inherit his power. And, as the bishops of Rome hold the place of Peter, the Roman Church must consequently be the mistress and ruler of all churches, and the whole body of the faithful must live in unity with the Roman Pontiff. Whosoever, therefore, disagrees in his teaching with the doctrine of the Roman Church withdraws from Christ, following crooked ways. And, as all heretics dissent from the teaching of the Church, they have all declined from the right way, and are unworthy of the name of Christians. For by heretics we mean such as, falsifying the words of Holy Scripture and choosing a religion for themselves, do obstinately persevere in their error.

“Again, Truth, as is often said, mates with truth, and all truths confirm each other. Now heretics disagree so entirely among themselves, that they have scarcely one point in common, nay, rather they bespatter each other with abuse; they present no solidity of argument. This fact alone proves how far they have wandered from the Truth. But the doctrine of the Roman Church, in all matters affecting faith or morals, is one; and Catholic doctors, though almost innumerable, never dissent nor desire to dissent from it.”

Every syllable of this profession of Savonarola’s faith in the supremacy of the successor of St. Peter is expunged in the translated version. There are no asterisks to show that words are left out. There is no footnote, no word in the Preface, to explain the unpardonable liberty of the translator. A comma is put after the words “loosed in heaven,” and the translator continues,—as though this were the author’s continuation,—“from which we may see that Jesus Christ,” down to the words “He shall sit and rule upon the throne of David,” etc. The entire passage about the successor of St. Peter, “Hence it follows,” is summarily omitted from what purports to be a translation.

I have nothing more to say, except, in justice to Savonarola, to enter a protest against the book to which I have been referring being considered a translation of The Triumph of the Cross. If I have dwelt at length upon this subject, it is only out of respect for, and in justice to the memory of, one for whom I have a sincere veneration, and who has so often, and so unjustly and unjustifiably, been represented as being wanting in loyalty to the See of Peter, of being “a forerunner of Luther,” and “a harbinger of the Reformation”.[13] It is by such methods as the one against which I am protesting that these accusations against the Catholic loyalty of Savonarola have been apparently substantiated. It is by the persistent repetition of them that they have been perpetuated. “Here” (they say) “is a book of his which professedly gives us the articles of his creed. It is absolutely unsectarian. There is nothing distinctively Catholic in it. Nothing which any non-Catholic could object to. There is not a word about the seven Sacraments, about Confession, Extreme Unction, the Mass, Ceremonies, and above all about the Pope being the successor of St. Peter in the government of the Church!” And yet the reader will find all these doctrines of Catholic belief clearly and luminously treated. He will find an explicit profession of faith in all the vital and crucial articles of the Catholic Creed in the volume which is now presented to him, together with the author’s “reason for the hope which was in him”. For Savonarola was ever mindful of the admonition of the Chief Apostle, “being always ready to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason for that hope which is in you”.[14]