IMITATION OF CHRIST (De Imitatione Christi). - A medieval ascetical work, one of the most sublime and most widely diffused in the world. It consists of four books or treatises: Book I, Admonitiones ad spiritualem vitam utiles, in 25 chapters; Book II, Admonitiones ad interna trahentes, in 12; Book III, De interna consolatione, in 59, in dialogic form between the Lord and the faithful soul; Book IV, De Sacramento Altaris, comprises 18, also in the form of a colloquy, by means of the formula "The Beloved speaks" (Vox Dilecti), "The disciple speaks" (Vox discipuli).
Each book can be considered independent of the others; but as they now present themselves, they form an organic and complete unity, almost a spiritual directory. In Book I there are, as a rule, general counsels; in Book II, more specific counsels for a more intense interior life, while in Book III, the finest of all, the life of grace appears there in its fullness: in Book IV
In it the divine nourishment is set forth. Thus the path of perfection is shadowed forth according to the three "ways": purgative, illuminative and unitive. The in-depth study of the I. di C. has brought out not only its Benedictine spirit but also its singular affinity with the Rule of St. Benedict. The two greatest medieval ascetical masterpieces complement each other: the Rule sets souls on the way to perfection, and the I. di C. points out to them and illuminates the spiritual heights to be reached.
Evidently the I. di C. is a typically monastic work, written by a monk for monks (cf. I, 17-20 and 25, 1; III, 10, 2); but this in no way prejudices its universality: because of its profound knowledge of the human heart and the superior wisdom of its teaching, it adapts admirably to all states of life and to all the particular circumstances in which a soul may find itself.
Irrepressible in its doctrine, the pious author, although he shows himself abreast of the theological and philosophical teaching of his time, never espouses particular theories stamped by positive or scholastic theology: he keeps himself outside and above every school, and his teaching is eminently practical. He is not ignorant of the heights and mystical joys of contemplation, nor of the painful trials that precede these divine favors, but he speaks of them only to allude to them from an immediately practical point of view. Thus the description of the "wondrous effects of divine love" (III, 5), a true spiritual canticle, applies fully to the charity produced in the soul by extraordinary contemplation, while the "exilium cordis" of bk. II (ch. 9) seems to prelude the "dark night" of St. John of the Cross.
Mortification, the practice of the Christian virtues, constant union with Jesus Christ, are the three fundamental points of the I. di C., which embrace the whole of Christian ascetics, suited to all souls. In this teaching of his, the I. di C. reflects a tendency that may be called "affective": the practice of the love of God as the dominant note of the whole work ("Magna res est amor, magnum omnino bonum", III, 5, 3). And here is one of the causes of its universality and of its unmistakable fascination.
Having no scientific form or purpose, the I. di C. surpasses every limit of category and time. It is universal and perennial: it exercises in the life of souls and of the Church the most profound and lasting influence.
As for the special theological importance of certain passages, one should recall its contribution to the problem of the discernment of spirits ("motus naturae et gratiae") with chs. 54 and 55 of bk. III (cf. A. Chollet, Discernement des esprits, in DThC, IV, coll. 1385-88), and the clarification on Grace in I, 10 (for which cf. P. Debongnie, Debetur gratia, in Recherches de théologie anc. et méd., 12 [1940], pp. 145-54).
THE AUTHOR
The authorship has been disputed for centuries, and the history of the controversy itself is interesting. With sufficient certainty it can be affirmed that the work appeared anonymously. Carried outside its place of origin, it was attributed to various writers (there are, according to Fr. Brehm, "no fewer than two hundred" of them), among whom the foremost are Gersen of Vercelli, Gerson of Paris and Thomas à Kempis.
The real controversy on the matter arose at the beginning of the 17th century, after Bellarmine pointed out, in his De Scriptoribus Eccl. (Rome 1613, p. 233), that a passage of the I. di C. (I, 25) was quoted in the Collationes ad Fratres Tolosanos, held to be a work of St. Bonaventure. Two parties then arose, the Gersenists and the Kempists, who drew even Roman Congregations and the French Parliament into the dispute. Congresses were also convened with the participation of the leading representatives of French scholarship, among them
C. Du Cange, E. Renaudot, Et. Baluze, J. Hardouin and J. Mabillon, who came out in favor of the Gersen of Vercelli, declaring certain codices (Aronensis, Bobbiensis, Parmensis) earlier than Kempis. Likewise G. de Gregory, after his discovery, in 1830, of the Codex de Advocatis (of the Avogadro of Vercelli). Others, however, such as G. Loth, S. Denifle, H. Hay, have thought of an unknown German, earlier than Kempis; while there has been no lack of those who have even formulated the hypothesis that the I. di C. has no properly so-called author, but is an «oeuvre impersonnelle», a cento (rapiarium) of sentences from the Flemish ascetic school known as «devotio moderna» (v.): a hypothesis that was in part favored also by C. Gusati.
The publication, however, of the Codex Kempesianus of the Royal Library of Brussels, which bears at its end the declaration «Finitus et completus anno Domini MCCCCXLI per manus fratris Thomas [a] Kempis in Monte S. Agnetis prope Zwollis» (that is, written and completed in 1441 by Thomas à Kempis), and the related studies of Pohl, who edited the critical edition of the entire Corpus Kempesianum (7 vols., Freiburg im Br. 1904-22), have powerfully corroborated the thesis of the «Kempists», so much so that many scholars regard it as definitive.
But the struggle continues as heated as before. The aforementioned authentic note of Kempis, it is said, is not to be taken as an author's signature, but as that of a copyist (per manus). Moreover the Codex is so full of inaccuracies, erasures and errors, as to make Denifle say that «le grand ennemi de Thomas à Kempis c'est son autographe». J. Van Ginneken then takes away from Kempis not only the I. di C. but also other opuscules, in order to attribute everything to his «Gerardo Groote» (Amsterdam 1942), followed in this by J. Huby.
Consequently even today there are those who think with Mansi that this is an insoluble question: «rem iacere sub lite, nunquam dirimenda». Nevertheless the «Gersenian» thesis gains ever more credit and value, and it is asserted that, despite the resistance, one day the supporters of Kempis will have to «capitulate». The oldest codices mentioned above, and others (Vercellensis, Brerensis, Vicentinus, Paulicianus, Georgianus or Patavinus, etc.), and the earliest vernacular translations, claim an Italian origin for the I. di C., and precisely a «Gersenian» one. It is added that the internal arguments are not favorable to Kempis; one is led back to seek the homeland of the I. di C. in an old Italian abbey of the 13th century, in an eminently university milieu, as was the Vercelli of Gersen.
Indeed the arguments adduced by the supporters of Giovanni Gersen (v.) of Canabaco (Cavaglià, near Biella), abbot of S. Stefano of Vercelli between 1220 and 1240, create no little difficulty for asserting that the author is Thomas à Kempis.
In favor of Thomas is adduced the similarity of style and thought found between the I. di C. and his opuscules. But while the supporters of the thesis speak of a perfect resemblance, the opponents call it «superficial», and speak instead of a «striking, incurable, irreconcilable contrast» (R. Pitigliani). In truth the texts of the ven. Thomas are beautiful, but one senses in them something studied and artificial, in comparison with the author of the I. di C. The word of the I. di C. springs forth spontaneous, simple, immediate, so penetrating that it immediately seizes the spirit. The period is lapidary and concise. Every thought, one might say, is punctuated. And even when the ideas proceed by antithesis, almost by parallelism, they are generally not linked to one another with commas and semicolons, so as to form a long period, but with a full stop, which confers on them a greater autonomy. Nor does the author indulge in more or less prolix enumerations, repeating, for example, an adverb as many times as a different noun is repeated, as happens in Thomas (cf., for example, ch. 1 of the De disciplina clunstralium, which in the Kempisian codex immediately follows the books of the I. di C., and in De imitatione Christi, I, 20, 6). In Kempis there sometimes emerges oratory and a certain professorial tone. The author, instead, of the I. di C. listens to himself, but is never seen on the chair. There is in him a tone of humility so ineffable that it conquers by the suggestive force of truth, and compels one to meditate on it as though it had reached the ear through no human medium (cf. ibid., III, 1). Conscious of his doctrine, the pious author always hides himself (cf. ibid., I, 2, 3; 5, 1; III, 15, 4). Also for this characteristic one may say with G. Zanella that the I. di C. is «a work not human, but angelic, indeed divine».
There is furthermore in the I. di C. a cursus, a rhythm that might be called Benedictine, with nuances of cadence and thought, which a most sensitive ear does not find in the other genuine works of Thomas à Kempis: indeed, as has been well noted, a «flowing of free verses, similar to those of the sequences of St. Gall, with rhythms, assonances and rhymes» (G. Prampolini). For example: «Melius est peccata cavere [quam mortem fugere]» (I, 23, 1). «Amana volat, currit et laetatur: [liber est et non tenetur.] Dat omnia pro omnibus [et habet omnia in omnibus]» (III, 5, 4). It is true that the style was common to the sons of the cloister in those times, especially in ascetic matters. Hence the difficulty of being able, from internal criteria, purely stylistic, to reach an almost definitive conclusion. Nevertheless, from the simple and eloquent prose of the I. di C. one has the impression of being before an inspired soul, which says things with immediate spontaneity, tinged with a tenderness that knows no weaknesses, that knows not the charms of an affected and flowery language: it speaks because the Spirit of God makes it speak, even though, perhaps, instructed by the daily and laborious experience of a life lived, before reposing, like John at the Last Supper, on the heart of the Master, to slake its thirst at the rivers of the Infinite.
Indeed the I. di C. appears «a fruit of perfect maturity» (Michelet). In the «Kempisian» thesis, on the other hand, according to which the date of the work would oscillate between 1415 and 1427, the I. di C. would be a youthful fruit of Thomas (1379-1471); while the fruit of his maturity would be the other opuscules. Now, certainly, these cannot be compared to the I. di C. without loss to themselves. It is therefore very difficult to be able to attribute to an almost youthful work of the same author an ascetic experience far superior to that which is revealed in the opuscules written in the maturity of his years.
As for the question of the Germanic idioms, which some have noted in the I. di C., a much more copious series of evident Italianisms has been opposed to it.
Finally, the I. di C. has been considered as the most genuine and representative expression of the devotio moderna. But it must be noted that, if in method and doctrine it agrees with what is known of the ascetic school of Windesheim (v.), it does not necessarily follow that it is a fruit of the same. Moreover that school, eminently traditional, propagated, through its scriptoria, medieval opuscules.
COMPOSITION
The current order of the books that make up the I. of C. is the primitive one, consistently given by the codices of Italian (or "cisalpine") origin; in the codices of non-Italian (or "transalpine") origin, however, there are, in this regard, many anomalies. The Brussels codex, which the "Kempists" regard as the archetype of the work, places Book IV before Book III. In other codices the confusion is even greater, and the complete work is not always given (II-I-III-IV; III-II-IV-I; I-II-IV; III-II-I; II-III-I; etc.); indeed, the individual books are given as independent of one another, either entirely isolated or, sometimes, with different opuscules interposed (cf. cod. Bambergensis).
The general title of the work was borrowed from chapter I (De imitatione Christi et contemptu omnium vanitatum mundi) of Book I, either in whole or in part (whether the first or the second); the title of chapter I (De interna conversazione) of Book II was also used; as was the title of Book III (De interna consolatione), which passed into the famous French translation, the Internelle consolation.
The division of the chapters into paragraphs and the biblical citations were introduced in the printed editions. The Benedictine Th. Erhard (18th century) introduced into the text the numbering of verses as is customary for the Bible: the system was adopted in the edition of the Bibliotheca ascetica of Pustet (I, Ratisbon 1911), and, in Italy, by Dr. Sestili and by A. Mercati; it was also accepted in the Italian edition of Hoepli edited by Zumpini and Galbiati, but these opportunely add the traditional paragraph as well.
DIFFUSION
The great diffusion of the work is attested by the number of codices: about 400 remain (of which 160 are Benedictine, and about 40 Augustinian or of the Canons Regular). With the invention of printing the editions multiplied rapidly, so as to exceed two thousand already in the time of Hurter (II, col. 978). The first is that of Augsburg (1472); in Italy, that of Venice (1483), under the name of Gerson.
Of the Kempen codex, reproduced in facsimile by Charles Ruelens (Leipzig 1879), a critical edition was given by K. Hirsche (Berlin 1891) and by M. J. Pohl in the Opera omnia of Thomas à Kempis (II, De Imitatione Christi quae dicitur libri III cum coeteris autographi Bruxellensis tractatibus, Freiburg im Breisgau 1904). The edition of M. Hetzenauer (Innsbruck 1901) and that of A. Mercati (Vatican Polyglot 1925) depend on the same codex.
The versions are innumerable: in all European languages, and in many Oriental ones. An Italian vernacular rendering in fourteenth-century Tuscan, accepted by the Accademia della Crusca as a text of the language, was published by C. Mella, with an ample historical introduction (Rome 1775; Turin 1880). Among the modern Italian versions, those of a literary character by A. Cesari and C. Guasti stand out, as well as the more popular one by Cardinal E. Enriquez.
Among the recent ones, mention is made of the translations of O. Tescari (Turin 1929; 3rd ed. 1947), of Abbot Placido Lugano (Rome 1932); of Fr. G. Lottini (Rome 1932; 3rd ed. 1949), and that of Msgr. A. Masini (Florence 1941), preferred by M. Cordovani in his Breviario spirituale secondo l'I. di C. (Rome 1950). An excellent literary commentary is found in the reprint of Guasti edited by Zumpini and Galbiati (Milan 1938). A. Levasti brought C. Guasti into conformity with the critical edition of Pohl (Florence 1928).
In France the versions of P. Corneille (in verse), of Le Maistre de Sacy, of Michel de Marillac and of Lamennais (v.) are celebrated, whose "reflections" are often reproduced in the Italian editions of Cardinal Enriquez.
In the other countries too the versions of the I. di C. are very numerous. A truly universal book, dear to all, because to all it brings light and comfort: a small and immense book, powerful and gentle, highly beneficial to humanity. — See plate C.
Bibliography11 works
Before Puyol, to be remembered: G. de Grégory, Histoire du livre de l'I. de J.-C. et de son véritable auteur, 2 vols., Paris 1843; K. Hirsche, Prolegomena zu einer neuen Ausgabe der «Imitatio Christi» nach dem Autograph des Thomas v. Kempen, 3 vols., Berlin 1873-94; L. Santini, I diritti di Tommaso da Kempis, 2 vols., Rome 1879-80; H. Denille, Kritische Bemerkungen zur Gersen-Kempisfrage, in Zeitschr. für kath. Theologie, 6 (1882), pp. 692-718; 7 (1883), pp. 692-743 (cf. ibid., 9 [1883], pp. 193-96).
Among the most recent: L. Dumas, L'I. de J.-C., Paris 1913 (systematic exposition of the doctrine); P. Pourrat, La Spiritualité chrétienne, II, ibid. 1924, pp. 379-400 (the Devotio moderna); J. Coumoul, Les doctrines de l'I. de J.-C., Lille 1926; J. Huijsen, Les premiers documents historiques concernant l'«Imitation», in La vie spirituelle, of the years 1925-26, Suppl. to vol. XII, pp. 213-28 and to vol. XIII, pp. 1-17 and 96-116; id., Quelques objections contre Thomas à Kempis, ibid., Suppl. to vol. XIII, pp. 202-22; id., Gerson et l'«Imitation», ibid., 1934, Suppl. to vol. XXXIX, pp. 146-65; to vol. XL, pp. 28-47 and 90-104; E. De Schaepdrijver, Qui est l'auteur de l'«Imitation»?, in Revue d'ase. et de myst., 9 (1928).
Liber III
Quomo non fit curiofoi feru-rat: Saramiter: 1) bumilio imi-rat: 2) diubidendo ferum fidi
fere fidi. Cap. viv.
Buendii est tibi a curiofoi
i mumili plicutatione bu-no plundifimi saramiter
fi non via in pubitationio plundif
penergi. Eui ferutant est mairllatio-oppinct a glaza. Smo va
let non operari 3) homo iteliger
poet. Eclarabia pia 4) bumilio
impulino veritatio-parata femper
poet 5) per Smo partii fementos
fludono ambulare. Pata simpleti-ra que sufficea quellonum relinqui visa 4) piana ac firma pergi
femita midareum dei. D'idei ne-notimem perdiderunt sum aliota
ferutari voluerit. Fidea a te rigit
fincera vita-non alitudo intellenuo 1000 pusfundina impliterio
dei. Si no intelligia nec capia que
infra te fium-qui compaebendo ca
que fupa te fium? Subdete non e
bamita fium noli fidei, 5) subitur
nibi fiumne fiumne pour tibi fium
vatic ac necolarium. Ouidam gra-uter rentant de fide ac saramiter:
fed non est hoc ipila ipurandi-fed
poetno inimico. Poli curare-noli
nuputare cum cogitationibus nao
nec ad limifia a diubolo subitatio-neo refpende: fed erde verbis prierede functio quo 7) propietio 7) fu-gita a intregni unim. Eper mulri pdefi 9) eula fultine dei ferum.
Pam infideco 7) perutato non
sentat 9) fiumc tam pollider: fideiles affi neatoo viria media strat
veter. Pergerigo cum fiumpici 7
industriari fidei 7) cum fiumpici re-uercuna ad saramentum accede.
Cincupuli intelligare no valo-oo
nominopentis fiumc chimiter. Pam
falat te ooua fiall qui fibi nimfo
credit. Gradif ooua 6) fiumplicibuo
reutat 6) bumilibuo- 7) unimifid
parmulo-aperti fenili purio mentis
nuo 7) afididiti quarium curiofoi 7
fuperino. P. 100 bumina debilia
est 7) falli postel: fideo 6) vera fal-li non postel. Ommo ratio 7) maturalio intelligario fidei liqui debet:
no precedere nec infringere. Pam
fideo 7) amo: ibi mazine parcellunt
7) occidio modio 1) bec functifimo
7) fupererecellentifimo saramento
operantur. Dono permus 7) imenfio
infinitoga potentig facit magna 7
inferutabilia intes 7) in terra: nec
est intelligario mirabilium operi
n. 8) fialla ellent opera dei ut facile 6) bumina retione caperent:
noi ellent mirabilia nec inefabilia
picenda.
Epiciit liber quartuo 7) virinuo ne saramento altario.
Zebannio Serfon cancellarii
partitinio- 6) consipra midi
peneri 7) vatic opobali finit
M. 100. 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1) 1)
L. 100 Dec.
(Int. Enc. Catt.)
IMITATION OF CHRIST - First edition of the I. of C., published in Italy (Venice 1483). End of I. IV - Copy from the Vatican Library.
pp. 209-11; F. Vernet, La spiritualité médiévale, Paris 1920, pp. 59-60; P. Debonngie, Un témoignage méconnu en faveur de Thomas à Kempis (de ms. 4338 de Vienne), in Revue d'hist. eccl., 26 (1930), pp. 109-15; id., Les thèmes de l'imitation, ibid., 36 (1940), pp. 289-344; id., Henri Suso et l'Î. de J.-C., in Revue d'asc. et de myst., 21 (1940), pp. 242-68; id., Orchrift ou Remaniment ? l'imitation de Lubek, in Rec. d'hist. eccl., 44 (1940), pp. 488-507 (regarding the works of Fr. van Ginneken; cf. ibid., 43 [1948], pp. 608-10); R. Pitigliani, Contributo di documenti nuovi alle controversie sull'Î. de C.: Saggio bibliografico-critico, in Aevum, 9 (1935), pp. 321-429; F. Meda, Le traduzioni italiane del « De J. C. », in Conversium, 9 (1937), pp. 215-23; Piergiovanni di G. e M. (d. Giovanni Bonardi), L'autore italiano della I. de C.: Giovanni Gerson, Biella 1938 (cf. review by P. Ferraris, in Civ. Catt., 1939, I, pp. 151-154); I. Schuster, L'ascetica benedettina e la I. de C., in La scuola cattolica, 67 (1939), pp. 273-93; M. Lewandowski, Une énigme de l'histoire : l'auteur inconnu de l'Î. de J.-C., with preface by P. Pourrat, Paris 1940; J. Huby, Les Origines de l'Î. de J.-C., in Science religieuse, 1943, pp. 102-39; 1944, pp. 211-44; M. Batllori, Las ultimas aportaciones al problema de la I. de C., Palma de Mallorca 1944; J. Mahieu, Le bénédictinisme de l'Î. de J.-C., in Ephém. Theol. Lavaniennes, 22 (1946), pp. 376-94 (regarding the article by Card. Schuster); T. Lupo, Kempis o Gerson ?, in La scuola cattolica, 75 (1947), pp. 220-37.
Igino Cecchetti