Int class trad (2012) 19:6381

DOI 10.1007/s12138-012-0309-0

Isaac Casaubon, Hebraist

Mordechai Feingold

Published online: 13 December 2012

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract A review essay of Anthony Grafton and Joanna Weinbegrs remarkable I

Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue. The essay seeks to pay homage to their
exemplary contribution to our understanding of Early Modern Christian Hebraism
and of erudition more generally by expanding on their pioneering study through
reflection on three themes: Casaubons early Hebrew studies; the motivation and scope
of his learning; and his posthumous reputation as a Hebraist.
Keywords Casaubon, Isaac . Christian Hebraism . Erudition . Grafton, Anthony .
Weinberg, Joanna
On 12 February 1610 Isaac Casaubon wrote a fulsome letter to Johannes Buxtorf,
professor of Hebrew at Basel. Having professed his admiration for Buxtorfs unmatched knowledge of the language and culture of the Jews, Casaubon proceeded to
deprecate his own attainments: Although I am sorry about the [limited] progress I
have made in your form of letters, I have always loved the Holy Tongue.1 The final
part of the sentence furnishes the title of the book under review, as well as serves to
encapsulate the objective of its authors. Through a series of intricately woven case
1
Isaac Casaubon, Epistolae, ed. Theodorus Janssonius Van Almeloveen (Rotterdam: Caspar Fritsch &
Michael Bhm, 1709), p. 606; Anthony Grafton and Joanna Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy
Tongue, p. 67.

A review essay of Anthony Grafton and Joanna Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue: Isaac
Casaubon, the Jews, and a Forgotten Chapter in Renaissance Scholarship. Cambridge, MA/London:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011. Pp. x, 380. ISBN 9780674048409. $35.00. I wish to
thank Kristine Haugen, Anthony Grafton, Carol Magun and Gerald Toomer for their helpful comments on
an earlier draft of this paper. Psalm verse numbers in this essay follow the KJV, whence all English
translations derive; they are one or two numerals lower than the corresponding verse numbers in the
Hebrew Bible.
M. Feingold (*)
Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA, USA
e-mail: feingold@hss.caltech.edu

64

M. Feingold

studies originally delivered as the Carl Newell Jackson Lectures at Harvard University Grafton and Weinberg seek to explore not only the precise nature of Casaubons
Hebraic knowledge, but the relation of such knowledge to the totality of his scholarly
endeavours. They recognize Casaubons limitations, and they never attempt exaggerated
comparisons to such veritable Hebraists as Buxtorf or Johannes Drusius not even to
Joseph Scaliger. Casaubon delved into Hebraic studies primarily in order to gain fuller
and deeper understanding of early Christianity and therefore, they argue, to know
Casaubon the Judaist is to know Casaubon the classicist in a new way. It is within
this carefully defined context that we should interpret their claim for the centrality of
Hebrew to Casaubon: once we take all the evidence into account once we retrace
Casaubons full webs of annotations and diary entries, letters and publications it will
become clear that Hebrew studies played a vital role in his life and thought, and that they
shed a necessary light on his methods as a scholar.2
With seeming ease, Grafton and Weinberg triangulate Casaubons diary entries,
manuscript notes, and marginalia with his published works to yield a unique insight
into the mentality and working habits of a truly extraordinary scholar. Their insistence on
the need to recapture the totality of Casaubons pursuits in order to appreciate fully the
extent of his erudition and goals, elevate scholarly standards to a new level commensurate with a similar level set by Gerald Toomers superb intellectual biography of John
Selden.3 To this end, our authors marshal all of the materials Casaubon has left us in
order to explore as wide as possible a range of the paths Casaubon broke. In addition,
they propose to bring the study of material texts, of books and those who read and used
them closer to the traditional form of classical scholarship (p. 20). The resultant rich and
intricate tapestry illuminates in an exciting way the manner in which Casaubon as well
as many other early modern scholars read and annotated books, and how Casaubons
expansive reading and exceptional memory enabled him to recognize the convergence
of disparate testimonies for a novel elucidation of antiquity.
The thematic and episodic structure of the book, mandated by its beginnings as a series
of lectures, necessarily precludes exhaustiveness. The purpose of the present essay,
therefore, is to pay homage to Grafton and Weinbergs exemplary contribution and
beautifully produced volume4 by expanding on their pioneering study through
reflection on three themes: Casaubons early Hebrew studies; the motivation and
scope of his learning; his posthumous reputation as a Hebraist.
Little information survives regarding Casaubons initiation into Hebrew. While a
student at Geneva, Grafton and Weinberg suggest, he heard Theodore Beza lecture on
the Old Testament and took Hebrew lessons with a noted scholar, Pierre Chevalier (p. 67).
Casaubons study with Chevalier, however, commenced many years later. During his
student days (15781581), the Hebrew professor at the Geneva Academy was Cornelius
Bonaventura Bertram, who held the position for nineteen years before leaving in 1586. In
all likelihood, therefore, Casaubon attended Bertrams lectures and, aided by his
own efforts, managed by 1587 to acquire basic competency in biblical Hebrew
Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue, pp. 4, 1920.
See Graftons review of Toomers John Selden: A Life in Scholarship in Huntington Library Quarterly, 74
(2011), pp. 50513, and Toomers review of I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue in History of
Universities, 26 (2012), pp. 2469.
4
It is also nearly free of errors. I note only several transcription errors of Bodl. MS Casaubon 30 fol. 105r-v
(pp. 2723, 276, 27980 n. 132).
2
3

Isaac Casaubon, Hebraist

65

hints of which can be found in his notes on the New Testament. There also existed a
limited working relation between the two. As Campagnolo notes, Casaubon participated
in the revisions to the Geneva Bible (published in 1588), supervised by Beza in close
collaboration with Bertram.5 In 1587 Casaubon also acknowledged specific assistance
he had received from Bertram both in his New Testament notes and, more
effusively, in his commentary on Strabo.6
Nevertheless, the subsequent disappearance of Bertram from Casaubons works and
correspondence with the exception of a single acerbic quip to which I shall return
suggests formality on Casaubons part, if not outright antipathy. And for a good reason.
Notwithstanding his considerable linguistic skills, Bertram showed himself to be a rather
bigoted Calvinist, intent on modeling Geneva as narrowly as possible on what he understood
to be the dictates of Scripture.7 Toward that end, Bertram composed his most influential
work, De politia Iudaica, tam civili quam ecclesiastica (1574), purposely in order to
demonstrate that Mosaic polity prefigured the legal systems of all other human
societies and, consequently, such a polity should regulate the ecclesiastical as well
as the civil affairs of Geneva. His zeal must have been viewed as excessive even by
his colleagues as happened in 1569, when Bertram insisted on the necessity of
using Adonai, and not Jehovah, when pronouncing Gods name, a suggestion that
Beza and other ministers dismissed as absurd, superstitious, and truly Rabbinical.8
Casaubon would have considered Bertrams literalist mind distasteful under the best of
circumstances. But Bertrams crusade against Scaligers De emendatione temporum
just as Casaubon began fashioning his scholarly persona in close imitation of the ideal
of the polyhistor, as exemplified by the celebrated Leiden professor undoubtedly
compounded such a distaste. Already when Scaliger held the professorship of arts in
Geneva during the early 1570s, Bertram had developed a strong dislike of him.
Though the reason for Bertrams animosity remains unclear, it may well have been
motivated by religious zeal. Whatever the motive, in June 1573 Bertram denounced
Scaliger before the Consistory, only to find himself reprimanded by his colleagues.9
5
Matteo Campagnolo, Entre Thodore De Bze et rasme de Rotterdam: Isaac Casaubon, in Irena
Backus (ed.), Thodore De Bze (15191605). Actes du Colloque de Gneve (Septembre 2005) (Geneva:
Librairie Droz, 2007), pp. 195217, at p. 208.
6
Isaac Casaubon, Notae in Novum Testamentum, Novi Testamenti libri omnes, recens nunc editi: cum
notis & animadversionibus doctissimorum, praesertim vero, Roberti Stephani, Josephi Scaligeri, Isaaci
Casauboni (Leiden: Elzevir, 1641), p. 456; Strabo, Rerum geographicarum libri XVII (Geneva: Eustathius
Vignon, 1587), p. 208 (of the commentary): Magna gratia habeatur doctissimo viro Cornelio Bertramo,
non sacrarum tantum Literarum quas diu magna cum sua laude est professus, sed totius etiam humanitatis
peritissimo, qui veram lectionem hujus locis divinavit, eamque mihi ante aliquot annos ostendit. qua
conjectura nihil ingeniosius nihil probabilius dici queat.
7
See Richard Simons assessment of Bertram: Cornelius Bertram, understanding Hebrew better than any
who had gone before him, took greater liberty in his Correction both of the Translation and the Notes. We
cannot deny but he has corrected many places which were not literally enough translated in Olivetan's or
Calvins Translations; but on the other side he has very improperly in many places preferrd the Rabbins
Interpretation before the ancient Interpreters. He has moreover corrupted some places which were well
translated in the former Editions, and he has regulated himself chiefly by Munsters and Tremelliuss
Translations. There is more judgement in Olivetan's and Calvins Translations, although they understood
Hebrew but very indifferently: Richard Simon, A Critical History of the Old Testament (London: Walter
Davis, 1682), p. 176 (second pagination).
8
Fatio Olivier and Olivier Labarth (eds), Registres de la Compagnie de Pasteurs de Genve, III: (1565
1574) (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1969), pp. 256.
9
Ibid., pp. 1078.

66

M. Feingold

Bertram renewed his campaign a decade later, and this time more successfully. The
publication in August 1583 of De emendatione temporum indubitably alarmed the
godly in Geneva, and within months Scaliger found himself embroiled in an epistolary exchange with at least three former colleagues: Theodore Beza, Simon Goulart
and Bertram. Scaliger judged the criticisms emanating from Geneva to be informed
by ignorance, laced with malice. The second edition of his book, Scaliger assured a
correspondent, would silence those incapable of comprehending his design, who
further believed that everything they failed to understand amounted to an error.
Regarding Bertram as the instigator of the campaign against him, Scaliger was
particularly irked by the condescending manner in which the Hebrew professor
advised Scaliger to steer clear of ecclesiastical history in which he had been
insufficiently versed and take heed not to meddle with controversial positions on
points of importance to the church.10
Small wonder, therefore, that Scaliger lashed out at Bertram in his letters, as well as in
private conversation: sordidus, acariatre. Il a grandement brouill & resv en matiere
de Chronologie.11 Even more revealing is Casaubons intimation to Scaliger in 1594 of
his own low opinion of Bertram, while recalling his own defence of Scaliger against his
former colleagues accusations a decade earlier: Let even a certain Cornelius, who is (as
I am well aware) known to you, be a witness to my zeal for you, so to speak. However,
he and whoever act like Cornelius[1]12 are insane by habit, and they
reveal their minds disease all too often. But you, greatest of men, go on, I beg you:
illuminate the world of learning with the rays of your divine genius.13
If the person with whom he had laid the grounds of Hebrew learning faded from view,
Casaubon fondly recalled the one who guided the second stage of his Hebrew studies:
Pierre Chevalier, amicissimo Praeceptore. We may pinpoint with some certainty the
commencement of such studies to 1592, on the basis of a letter Casaubon wrote Philippe
Canaye de Fresnes, then in Venice, in which he announced his embarking on the study of
Aramaic and the language of the rabbies, and entreated his friend to acquire for him
several Hebrew books, including David Kimhis grammar (Sefer Mikhlol) and book of
Hebrew roots (Sefer Shorashim), as well as David Bombergs Rabbinic Bible if it
could be purchased for a reasonable price. I shall return to the motivation for such a study
below; but here it should be noted that the collaboration proved to be brief owing to
Chevaliers untimely death in March 1594. His teachers passing, Casaubon lamented, not
only deprived him of a dear friend but put an end to his plan to gain a deeper entrance into
Hebrew. A decade later he intimated as much to Scaliger: In recent days, Pierre Chevalier
of blessed memory has been transported to the seat of the blessed: his name was very
sweet to me: I would tell you what a loss his death has been to my studies, if my mind did
not shrink from the memory of this sorry misfortune. But he was all too mortal: and we too
10

Joseph Juste Scaliger, Epistres franoises des personnages illustres & doctes (Amsterdam: Harderwyck,
1624), pp. 668, 11619; Joseph Juste Scaliger, Lettres franaises indites , ed. Philippe Tamizey de
Larroque (Paris: Alphonse Picard, 1881), pp. 17380; Jacob Bernays, Joseph Justus Scaliger (Berlin:
Wilhelm Hertz, 1855), p. 312; Anthony Grafton, From De die natali to De emendatione temporum: The
Origins and Setting of Scaligers Chronology, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 48 (1985),
pp. 10043, at pp. 129, 1413.
11
Pierre Desmaizeaux (ed.), Scaligerana, Thuana, Perroniana, Pithoeana, Et Colomesiana, 2 vols
(Amsterdam: Covens & Mortier, 1740), II, p. 230.
12
A Greek verb coined by Casaubon.
13
Casaubon, Epistolae, p. 9.

Isaac Casaubon, Hebraist

67

shall follow him when it pleases God. Believe me, never have I more imbibed this: The
brief span of life forbids us to begin long hopes.14
At this point I should like to consider Grafton and Weinbergs imputing Kabbalist
motivation to Chevaliers interests and teaching, a motivation they extend to
Casaubon. Casaubons commitment to Hebrew studies, they argue at one point,
was probably conventional in its origins. By conventional they mean that the
impetus of Renaissance students of Hebrew derived in large part from deeply
speculative impulses. However, the motivation of most sixteenth-century Hebraists
differed markedly from that of Johannes Reuchlin, Pietro Galatino or Guillaume
Postel. Certainly, little evidence exists to substantiate the role of speculative
impulses in stirring either Casaubon or Chevalier. Our authors rely on a fragmentary
list of abbreviations found in Rabbinic commentaries compiled by Chevalier and
amended by Casaubon in 1596 which included, for example, discussion on the use
of the Hebrew letter as designating the divine name of God. The list, they write,
suffices to reveal something of Chevaliers approach, in addition to establishing that
he clearly took an interest in Kabbalah and Jewish magic. Furthermore, since he
copied the list, Casaubon has also been implicated: he, too, probably came to
Hebrew with exalted hopes of a similar kind, though he soon lost interest.15
The list, I believe, should not be imbued with such significance. In all likelihood it
served merely to facilitate students reading of Hebrew books which abound with
abbreviations. Insofar as it is possible to surmise anything about Chevaliers instruction and methodology from his publications, it appears that he followed a strictly
traditional linguistic approach. Such a perception is reinforced by noting the kind of
books Chevalier gave to Casaubon, undoubtedly at the start of the instruction: his
own revision of Antoine Chevaliers Rudimenta Hebraicae linguae (1590), together
with Gilbert Gnbrards Eisagoge ad legenda et intelligenda Hebraeorum & orientalium sine punctis scripta (1587). Subsequently, Casaubon turned to Elija Levitas
Massoret haMassoret, aiding himself in reading it with Chevaliers partial Latin
translation of the work.16 And as Grafton and Weinberg themselves note Casaubons
dismissive attitude towards Jewish mysticism on the basis of a comment he jotted
on the flyleaf of one of the first books he studied under Chevaliers tutelage, David
Kimhis Sefer Mikhlol, purchased for him by Canaye de Fresnes for all we know,
Casaubons detailed and irritable critique of traditional forms of Jewish nonsemantic exegesis, often associated with the Kabbalah by Christian scholars, may
well have reflected Chevaliers own opinion.17
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, then, we must conclude that sheer desire
to learn the original language of Scripture had initially informed Casaubons Hebraic
interest.18 In 1592, however, a passion of a different sort prompted him to embark on
a more rigorous study of Hebrew. Casaubon articulated his objective clearly in the
very letter in which he requested de Fresnes to purchase Hebrew books for him: I
would not work so hard on these languages [Hebrew and Aramaic] just to understand
14

Ibid, pp. 8, 206 (of the letters).

Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue, pp. 867, 313 n. 23.
Ibid., pp. 338, 71 n. 38.
17
Ibid, pp. pp. 878.
18
The evidence adduced by Grafton and Weinberg (pp. 8990) for suggesting a certain Kabbalist
predilection on Bertrams part is equally insufficient.
15
16

68

M. Feingold

the Hebrew rabbis: that is not, I admit, my final goal [ meum 1].
It is so that with their help I can understand the Arabic used by the great philosophers,
whose excellent writings, in every area of philosophy, are either entirely neglected
nowadays because of ignorance of the language, or are read to little or no profit. Like
other early modern aspiring Arabists, Casaubon even entertained the vision of
traveling to the Middle East in order to acquire the requisite training in Arabic: If
God grants, I have decided to train myself in the writings of the rabbis until I gain the
chance of going there. For if I hope to study the Arabic language seriously, I must
travel there.19 Such a utilitarian approach to a more intensive immersion in Hebrew
would also inform Casaubons third phase of Hebraic studies after he settled in Paris
in 1600.
Before proceeding, however, an estimation of the quality and depth of
Casaubons Hebrew knowledge while in Geneva is in order. Grafton and
Weinberg are somewhat ambiguous on the matter. On the one hand, they note
his considerable indebtedness to the labours of more formidable Christian
Hebraists such as Jean Mercier, Andreas Masius, Gilbert Gnbrard, Sebastian
Mnster, Paulus Fagius, Johannes Buxtorf and Johannes Drusius, to name but
a few. At the same time, however, they may have credited him with greater
prowess than he really possessed when arguing that as a Hebraist, Casaubon
preferred to work with the Hebrew text, rather than using the Latin cribs that
often accompanied Christian Hebraist editions of Jewish texts. On the basis of
the evidence that they themselves present it might be more accurate to conclude
that, for the most part, Casaubon often perused Hebrew texts alongside translations, or Latin works that incorporated or elucidated Hebrew texts. Not that
such dependence makes him any less an exemplary student of Hebraica; but it
tallies more comfortably with other observations they make. For example, that
Casaubons
vaunted command of Hebrew and Jewish sources sometimes had as much to do
with rhetoric as with substance. Like many of the Christian scholars who shared
his interests, Casaubon drew much of his information from a narrow range of
texts, most of them late, and used their quotations from extant earlier sources
rather than examining the originalsas he would certainly have done had
Greek or Latin texts been involved.
Or that Casaubons Hebrew script was (mostly) correct but painstaking, which
contrasts markedly with the familiar and fluent handwriting, characteristic of his
Latin and Greek handwriting.20
So what could be concluded about Casaubons competence prior to his engaging
Chevalier as a teacher? For a start, that Chevaliers bestowal on Casaubon of several
introductory grammars suggests, at the very least, the latters shaky grasp of the
language at that stage. Case in point, a spelling error Casaubon committed when
Casaubon, Epistolae., p. 569 (of the letters); Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy
Tongue, pp. 9091.
Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue, pp. 75, 78, 230, 71. Elsewhere they
note: the fact that Casaubon relied so heavily on secondary sources, the works of Christian Hebraists, is
most suggestive. It seems likely that he never carried outor even tried hard to carry outhis proposed
direct investigation of the Masorah, p. 316.
19

20

Isaac Casaubon, Hebraist

69

affixing a Hebrew phrase onto his working copy of Theophrastus (1592):

(Praise to God, Creator of the Universe). Misspelling the word

for Creator (it should have been
) indicates the difficulty with which Casaubon
recalled Hebrew orthography from memory.21 Even more telling of Casaubons
insecure handling of idiomatic Hebrew and punctuation is a marginal note he jotted
on the title page of his copy of David Kimhis Sefer Mikhlol.22 Casaubon must have
been aware of the encomium conferred on the celebrated medieval grammarian by
subsequent Jewish commentators, through wordplay on a proverb in the tractate
Avot:
(There is no Torah without flour). Adding the Hebrew
letter to the word
(flour) conjured up the grammarians name (
), without
whose commentary, the implication is, one could hardly comprehend the Torah. Upon
receiving Kimhis Sefer Mikhlol, Casaubon inscribed on the title-page his understanding of the saying in the following muddled manner:
. The
clumsiness characterizing Casaubons spontaneous Hebraic compositions c.
1592 attest to lack of practice on his part at that stage, and struggle with the
language without texts to guide him. Over the next two years, Casaubons
comprehension of both Hebrew grammar and the use of the vowel points
undoubtedly improved, as did his familiarity with the Talmud and related
Hebrew texts evidence for which can be found in his lecturing in July
1595 on rabbinic writings, when filling in for the still vacant Hebrew professorship.23 Still, as he confessed to Scaliger, Chevaliers death prevented additional
progress, while his removal to Montpellier and absorption in preparing his monumental commentary on Athenaeuss Deipnosophistae further hindered Hebraic studies. The fits and starts approach to the study of Hebrew accounts for the strain Grafton
and Weinberg detect in Casaubons efforts to master the holy tongue. But as he
struggles to master the intricacies of Hebrew grammaran effort that, as his various
heavily annotated Hebrew textbooks demonstrate, he made over and over againhe
absorbs and fine-tunes every word and every bit of information.24
Upon relocating to Paris in 1600, however, Casaubon embarked on his third, and
most extensive, phase of Hebrew studies. Once more, the interests of broad erudition,
not those of a specialized Hebraist, informed his efforts. These entailed three interlocking projects. The first involved an ambitious endeavour to write a comprehensive
study of ancient conceptions of Critica. Conceived c. 1595, Casaubon projected a
chapter on Jewish criticism as well carrying out most of the work for it during the
first decade of the seventeenth century. As Casaubon apprised Scaliger on 8 September 1601, he wished to account for the whole of the Jews. More specifically, he sought to explicate the extent to which the transmitted [Masoretic] text of
Scriptures [could] be considered reliable according to the standards of critice
especially as he never doubted the verity of Scripture: Those who think that the
Masora is evidence that the inspired books are corrupt, he inveighed in 1603, do
indeed involve themselves in a great crime, for this art provides the divine word with
21

See illustration at ibid., p. 28. The authors note the error (p. 27) without comment.
See the illustration at ibid, p. 3.
23
Karin Maag, Seminary of University? The Genevan Academy and Reformed Higher Education, 1560
1620 (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1995), p. 69.
24
Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue, p. 73.
22

70

M. Feingold

testimony that it has been transmitted in a wholly reliable way. I hope I shall prove
this sometime, , in a dissertation of painstaking exactitude.25
Concurrently, Casaubon expanded his inquiry into the nature and frequency
of Hebraisms linguistic forms that revealed the pressure, on the Greek
language, of an underlying Semitic habit of mind and speech in the New
Testament. As early as 1587, in his notes on the New Testament, Casaubon
spotted not a few such occurrences in the Gospels and Epistles, relying on his
own considerable store of Greek reading; however, in identifying Hebrew
parallelisms, he relied, as Grafton and Weinberg recognize, on Immanuel
Tremellius.26 By 1601 his interest morphed into a more ambitious project. As he
recorded in his diary for 7 February: I decided five days ago to investigate in a fairly
serious way the Hebrew origins of Greek words. Casaubon was pleased with the
progress he made, and his notes survive in part. As Grafton and Weinberg note, he
introduced one set of notes with an unequivocal statement concerning the contours of
his project: In my view there is no doubt that Hebrew long preceded all other
languages. Hence it is not surprising that other languages retain many traces of the
original. These include the few points that follow, which I have noted as a byproduct
of my studies.27 Casaubon envisioned a major treatise on the subject. According to
Thomas Erpenius who formed a close friendship with Casaubon while in Paris in
1609 and was made privy to the latters papers that most distinguished ornament of
his age intended to publish his brilliant demonstration on the Hebrew origination of
the Greek language.28
Casaubons opinion evidently carried weight. Erpenius embraced his mentors
views and proceeded to argue that although the evangelists and the apostles wrote
in Greek, their prose remained Hebraic: since almost all the stylistic devices, modes
of expression and the use of most of the words are not Greek but Hebrew, so that for
this reason alone it is clear that the same Spirit is the author of the scriptures of the
Old and the New Covenant.29 By the early eighteenth century, the notion that the
New Testament exhibited Hebraic mentality in the selection of idioms, without, as a
consequence, reaching the purity of classical Greek, came under criticism. Anthony
Casaubon, Epistolae, pp. 127, 174 (of the letters); Benedetto Bravo, Critice in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries and the Rise of the Notion of Historical Criticism, in C. R. Ligota and J.-L. Quantin
(eds), History of Scholarship (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 13595, at p. 166. Casaubon reiterated
his belief in one of his notes, ibid: The sacred letters, that is the tenor () of the Old and the New
Testament, are indeed incorruptible, proof against any deformation; but that the language, which is their
vehicle, has, over so long a stretch of time, suffered blemishes or minor deformations, though without
damage to the meaning, cannot, I think, be doubted. In the case of the Greek the situation is clear: many
things have been slightly changed, some more seriously impaired, but in such a way that the truth has
remained unshaken. As for the Hebrew, why should we doubt it? Does not the whole Masora give a most
sure testimony to this? See also Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue, p. 313.
26
Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue, pp. 16970.
27
Isaac Casaubon, Ephemerides, ed. John Russell, 2 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1850), I, p.
328; Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue, pp. 924.
28
Thomas Erpenius, Orationes tres, De linguarum Ebraeae, atque Arabicae dignitate (Leiden: printed for
the author, 1621), pp. 1289. For a surviving fragment of the projected treatise, see Meric Casaubon, De
quatuor linguis commentationis pars prior (London: J. Flesher, 1650), pp. 1719.
29
Erpenius, Orationes Tres, De Linguarum Ebraeae, Atque Arabicae Dignitate., pp. 11213, cited in Peter
T. Van Rooden, Theology, Biblical Scholarship, and Rabbinical Studies in the Seventeenth Century :
Constantijn Lempereur (15911648), Professor of Hebrew and Theology at Leiden (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1989), p. 58.
25

Isaac Casaubon, Hebraist

71

Blackwall, for one, chided in 1725 the great Casaubon, who had a good notion of
the purity and propriety of the new Testament Greek, and has illustrated many
passages by parallel classical expressions, [but] sometimes too unadvisedly pronounces those to be mere Hebraisms which are sound Grecisms, and provd so by the best
authors.30
Ultimately, however, Casaubon abandoned both projects, in no small part owing to
the shift in his interests Hebraic and otherwise once he became increasingly
determined to refute Cesare Baroniuss Annales ecclesiastici. Casaubon first encountered the Annales in 1598, while staying at the Lyon residence of his fervently
Catholic patron Meric de Vic, in order to oversee the printing of his Animadversiones
in Athenaei Deipnosophistas. His initial disapproval of Baronius probably stemmed
from his receiving, at precisely the same time, a presentation copy of Scaligers Opus
de emendatione temporum. The contrast between the two works could not have
seemed more striking to him: Reverence gripped me as I looked on, he wrote
Scaliger, and so much the more because . I was able to contrast your work with
Baronius's Annals, which I had not seen before. And so at last I learned, and by true
arguments I was fully assured, that between the love of truth and going fowling after
the readers favor there is as much difference as between the heaven and the earth.31
Nevertheless, submitting to de Vics importunities, Casaubon dispatched a polite
letter to Baronius, in which he expressed sentiments of respect and admiration which
had been excited in him by the first reading of the Annales. The cardinal opted to
interpret the letter as an overture by a prospective convert to Catholicism and
responded by expressing his rejoicing to find Casaubon knocking at the gate of
the church, for no less could he understand by his commending the work of an
orthodox man. Such a response undoubtedly contributed to alienate Casaubon even
further.32
Three or four years later, as he immersed himself in the history of Rome during the
first century after Christ in preparation of the Historiae Augustae Scriptores sex
Casaubon found occasion to scrutinize Baroniuss work far more carefully, and
critically. Grafton and Weinberg do not mention the Historia Augusta in this context,
but perhaps the preparatory stage of the work and the concomitant germination of
his critique of the Annales occasioned Casaubons perusal of Pietro Galatinos De
arcanis Catholicae veritatis (and related literature) between 16011603. Certainly, no
sooner had the Historia Augusta appeared in 1603 than Casaubon requested permission from Henry IV to publish a modest refutation of Baronius. To his chagrin,
permission was denied on the grounds that the time was not yet come.33 In an
attempt to sidestep such a prohibition, Casaubon may well have conspired to bait
Baronius himself into initiating a critical dialogue. After all, the cardinal had often
avowed his desire to ensure that the Annals should be true and exact, entreating
friends to point out the least inexactitude in the work by invoking St Augustines
30

Anthony Blackwall, The Sacred Classics Defended and Illustrated: Or an Essay Humbly Offerd
Towards Proving the Purity, Propriety and True Eloquence of the Writers of the New Testament (London:
J. Bettenham, 1725), pp. 201.
31
Casaubon, Epistolae, p. 93 (of the letters).
32
Mark Pattison, Isaac Casaubon 15591614, ed. Henry Nettleship, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1892), p. 318.
33
Ibid., p. 196.

72

M. Feingold

maxim: I delight in a true and severe corrector.34 Availing himself of such an

avowal, Casaubon dispatched Baronius a copy of the Historia Augusta, along with
a cover letter that concluded with a polite challenge: And so if our reasoning or
explanations should ever differ slightly from yours, we do not suppose that you, most
generous Baronius, will feel that modesty is lacking in our pages. As humans and
worthless creatures we easily err, commit mistakes, and are deceived; with Gods
help, we will never be convicted of contradicting the known truth, either in this or in
any variety of learning.35
As Baronius refused to take the bait, Casaubon temporarily shelved his plan for a
refutation, only to revive it in 1607, when he attempted to slip a partial critique into
his De libertate ecclesiastica liber singularis a defence of the republic of Venice
during the time of the Interdict. Henri IV ordered the suppression of the book while in
press, and the advertised chapter against Baronius remained unwritten.36 By then
Casaubon had long come to share Scaligers conviction concerning the centrality of
Jewish sources to the history of early Christianity, as well as to recognize the
vulnerability of the Annales on this point. As Grafton and Weinberg put it: Baronios
failings as a Hebraist mattered as much as his defects as a Hellenist, and both made
it impossible for him to write a scholarly study of the early church. Thus Hebrew
received new and special significance and by then a new mission: Casaubon set out to
demolish not only a particular history of the early church but also the entire Catholic
culture of erudition.37 Our authors devote considerable attention to Casaubons dexterous deployment of the arsenal of Rabbinic learning that he had acquired during the
decade he prepared his refutation, especially during his sojourn to England. Their account
is illuminating in many respects: from their sampling of Casaubons reading, to fleshing
out the extraordinary tale of Casaubons encounter with Jacob Barnet the Jew whom he
See Baroniuss request of Nicholas Faber not to hold back criticism of the Annales: illudque Augustini
solere mihi in ore versari; Verum atque severum diligo correctorem meum: Raymundus Albericius,
Venerabilis Caesaris Baronii Epistolae et opusculae (Rome: Komarek, 17591770), I, p. 228.
Anabel Kerr, The Life of Cesare Cardinal Baronius (London and Leamington: Art & Book Company,
1898), p. 82. He was always displeased if his critics showed any reluctance to find fault, and at once wrote
to beg for a more explicit correction. Nicholas Faber, Regius Chancellor of Paris, a most learned man and
among the first critics of the age, was one of Baroniuss most frequent correspondents. There was a
statement in the Annals which he wished to challenge, but with the diffidence inseparable from real
learning he merely hinted at it in his letter to Baronius. The latter promptly replied: As to your praises of
my bookwhich I blush to have publishedthey manifest your generosity, for you praise that which you
admit to be displeasing to you; and you touch the matter with a hand as light as that with which you might
touch a man laid up with the gout, in other words you write as if you feared to hurt me. But touch boldly;
speak freely; and know that you will thereby give me real pleasure. I have ever on my lips those words of
St. Augustine: I delight in a true and severe corrector.
35
Alfonso Capecelatro, The Life of Saint Philip Neri, Apostle of Rome, trans. Thomas A. Pope, 2 vols
(London: Burn & Oats, 1894), II, p. 15; Casaubon, Epistolae, p. 181 (of the letters). Casaubons fury at the
cardinals scholarship is clear from a letter to Henry Savile in 1602. Expressing dismay at reading in the
recently published edition of Lipsius correspondence that the latter thought that Greek letters is merely
ornamental and not necessary, Casaubon also decries Lipsiuss recommendation that the reading of
Baronius alone should be sufficient for learning ecclesiastical history, thereby spurning all ancient authors:
ibid., pp. 599600 (of the letters).
36
The published Table of Contents included under chapter 10: That Cardinal Baronius has, in maintenance of this ecclesiastical liberty, writ many things that are contrary to truth. A confutation of his
Paraenesia. Remarks upon his Annals. Several critical comments are included in the three chapters that
were published.
37
Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue, pp. 183, 169.
34

Isaac Casaubon, Hebraist

73

had employed as a teacher and later helped whisk from prison, following Barnets
reneging on his promise to convert to Christianity to their sampling of Casaubons
confutations of Baronius through an effective deployment of Hebraic erudition.
I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue focuses primarily on erudition, especially
as it manifested itself in Casaubons progress toward the refutation of Baronius.
Grafton and Weinberg are certainly aware of the centrality of Scriptures to his
Hebraic interests, but that aspect of Casaubons interest and especially the deep
emotional role exerted by Biblical Hebrew on Casaubons psyche could be more
developed. Nowhere is such a feature given more prominence than in the private
diary that Casaubon started on 18 February 1597 his thirty-eighth birthday and three
months after leaving Geneva a daily practice he continued until his death. Scrutiny
of Casaubons recourse to Hebrew in the diary will prove, I believe, indispensable for
comprehending one key element of his attraction to Hebrew.
Grafton and Weinberg are correct to view Casaubon as an ascetic Christian
humanist who tried to combine his scholarly and devotional lives whenever possible,
one who made the close reading of the Hebrew Bible a pious exercise. They cite as
evidence a diary entry for 17 April 1597: Since I felt a little better, I rose very early
from the bedclothes and buried myself in my study and in my little literary pursuits. I
began by falling on my knees, and gave myself over to reading and meditating on the
holy Word of God.38 However, to gauge the range and significance of Casaubons
emotions that day, the events of the previous week should be recalled. Casaubons
illness, it turns out, had been quite serious, bringing him or so he believed to the
brink of death. Initially, he sought solace in Seneca, as he had already been engaged
in a close reading of the Stoics. Thus, on 12 April, he meditated hard and long over
Senecas reflection in the thirteenth epistle to Lucilius on the fool who is always
getting ready to live. Seneca urged the then governor of Sicily to consider how
revolting is the fickleness of men who lay down every day new foundations of life,
and begin to build up fresh hopes even at the brink of the grave. Look within your
own mind for individual instances; you will think of old men who are preparing
themselves at that very hour for a political career, or for travel, or for business. And
what is baser than getting ready to live when you are already old?39 Senecas
sagacity prompted Casaubon to agonize over the nature of his own studies, and over
his own immoderate passion for the classics. In subsequent days, as his health
deteriorated, Casaubons anxiety over his salvation, as well as over the fate of his
literary work, increased prompting him on 16 April to an extended passionate
supplication to God not to permit his many years labour on Athenaeus to perish:
For inasmuch as you, my God, have desired that I should cultivate the field of
letters even though what I have so far achieved is poor, trivial, and less than
nothing in order that so many wakeful nights of my studious youth should not
perish without some fruit, I now determine that, God willing, I must next apply
myself to this plan, that what I do have nearly finished, I should push forth as
soon as possible. Therefore my intention remains first of all to devote myself
38

Ibid., p. 102; Casaubon, Ephemerides, I, p. 15.

Casaubon, Ephemerides, I, p. 12; Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistolae morales, trans.
Richard M. Gummere, 3 vols (London and New York: William Heinemann & G. P. Putnams Sons,
1917), I, p. 83. Casaubon also noted parallel passages in Seneca on the topic.
39

74

M. Feingold

completely to Athenaeus, providing that this also pleases you who rule the
heaven and earth by your will and being. I pray to you, my God, make me
obligated to this vow, if this business promotes the glory of your name, my own
salvation, and the well being of my dearest wife and most beloved children.40
It is against this fretful background that the lengthy entry of 17 April should be
interpreted. The worst being over, Casaubon obviously felt as if his prayers had been
answered. Hence, the striking and distinctive turn noted by Grafton and Weinberg
that the diary entry took. But it intended to express considerably more than a plea to
Christian scholars to read the Bible in the same way as the classics, and even more
intensively. Casaubons cri de coeur is profoundly personal:
But is it not perverse that we are reputed learned? We read the writings of the
pagans with great enthusiasm, and we eagerly gather and extract whatever we
find there that is cleverly said and has to do with forming the character. And
there is nothing wrong with that. But consider how much more richly we could
furnish ourselves with texts like this drawn from the sacred books!41
The biblical verse that Casaubon chose to illustrate the point (1 Chronicles
29:15) attests to the scope of his crisis of conscience: For we are strangers
before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a
shadow, and there is none abiding [no hope]. A truly swanlike song of David,
Casaubon gushed. O pure honey! o true delight! o sweet food for the soul! What
made the verse such sweet food for the soul, however, is the personal meaning he
found therein. Casaubon transcribed the second half of the verse in Hebrew
, as was his wont on those rare occasions when he
found a biblical passage to be particularly expressive of his condition. Grafton and
Weinberg draw attention to Casaubons learned engagement with the precise meaning
of
(mikveh) relying on the commentaries of Rashi and Kimhi but they
miss the full import of Casaubons intensely subjective reflection on the transitory
nature of his own earthly existence, when characterizing the exercise to be an instance
of how he saw not only reading of the Bible but also consultation of Jewish
commentators as an integral part of his very Christian reading of the text.42
A painful reminder of his anxiety resurfaced on 3 June 1599, upon receiving news of
Janus Gruteruss affliction with consumption. Fearing the worst, Casaubon shuddered at
the thought of that erudite man passing away in the flower of his youth. Recalling also
Rittershusiuss recent death brought to his mind Jobs reflection on the vanity of mortal
man. So much so that Casaubon saw fit to transcribe Job 14:5 as a reminder of his own
mortality:
(Seeing his days
are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his
bounds that he cannot pass).43
40

Casaubon, Ephemerides, I, pp. 1415.

Ibid., I, p. 15, partly translated in Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue, pp.
1023: Sed nonne praeposteri sumus nos qui literati cluimus? in queis cum omnia sint !,
etiam venustas et elegantia saepe mirabilis.
42
Casaubon, Ephemerides, I, pp. 1516; Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue,
p. 103.
43
Casaubon, Ephemerides, I, pp. 16162.
41

Isaac Casaubon, Hebraist

75

Such an emotional, even reverential, attitude toward the Hebrew Bible informed
Casaubons attitude throughout his life. He often found himself transported as much by
the poetic beauty of biblical passages, especially those drawn from Psalms and Proverbs,
as by his perceiving them to be exceptionally germane to his present circumstance or
even of a divine sign. Thus, for example, on 27 November 1598 Casaubon resumed
studying the Hebrew Bible after a hiatus of several months by reading Solomons
wise sayings. Proverbs 11:2 delighted him on account of its conveying a true and just
message to such an extent that, he wrote, he thought fit to transcribe it, in Hebrew, into
his diary:
(When pride cometh, then cometh
shame: but with the lowly [modest] is wisdom). As he deemed the message pertinent
to the (proper) manner in which to conduct himself and his studies, Casaubon
continued to meditate on this and related lessons from the Book of Proverbs for
several more days, again transcribing (in Hebrew) those verses that, he believed, best
captured his station as a righteous man and a wise scholar.44
The clearest expression Casaubon gave of his personalization of Scriptures occurred on 20 July 1608. Early that day Casaubon took his wife and his sister, as well
as two of his sons, to attend services at the Calvinist Church in Charenton, near Paris.
A disaster, following a river collision, was barely averted; but during the ordeal
Casaubon lost his Greek Psalm-book precious to him as his wife gave it on him as a
wedding gift twenty-two years earlier while desperately attempting to save his wife
from falling into the river. He noticed the loss only after arriving at the church, as the
congregation began singing. Casaubon was struck by the fact that the verse chanted
was Psalms 86:13:
[
].45 As he meditated over this providential sign he also recalled that, while on the boat, he and his
wife chanted together Psalm 92, and that the collision occurred just as they reached
the seventh verse: When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of
iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever. In awe, Casaubon
could not but remember that place of S. Ambrose, where he says .... that this is the
peculiarity of the book of Psalms, that every one can use its words as if they were
peculiarly and individually his own.46
The search for meaning, guidance, and solace that always informed
Casaubons reading of the more literary parts of Scripture, is in plain view
on those rare instances when he opted to transcribe Hebrew passages into his
diary. Ever concerned about his reputation, for example, scholarly as well as
religious, Casaubon found that most elegant saying of Ecclesiastics 7:1

(A good name is better than precious ointment) a fitting proverb

with which to conclude the first notebook of his diary.47 In a similar vein, his lengthy
diary entry for New Years Day 1603 consisted of a solicitation on behalf of
Protestantism, his family and himself, and concluded by invoking Psalm 90:17:
44
Ibid., I, pp. 1036. These included Proverbs 18:12 (Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and
before honour is humility); 15:33 (The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is
humility); 12:16 (A fools wrath is presently known: but a prudent man covereth shame); 15:19 (The way of
the slothful man is as an hedge of thorns: but the way of the righteous is made plain).
45
[For great is thy mercy toward me:] and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell. Casaubon
added the Greek and French versions.
46
Casaubon, Ephemerides, II, pp. 62122; Pattison, Isaac Casaubon 15591614., pp. 20910.
47
Casaubon, Ephemerides, I, p. 153.

76

M. Feingold

(And let
the beauty of the LORD our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of
our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it), where the
famous repetition of the supplication in the second half of the verse denotes an
emphatic appeal for God to facilitate the success of his endeavours.48 Another
supplication involved his invoking Nehemiahs plea (5:19) to be remembered for his
meritorious deeds for the same purpose, as Casaubon concluded his reckoning of his
deeds for 1601:
(Think upon me, my God, for good, [according to all that I have done for this people]).49
Even more striking is Casaubons drawing on a Hebrew verse of Scripture at a time of
an acute religious crisis. On 14 May 1609, as the concerted campaign to convert him had
reached such intensity that Casaubon feared he would not manage to withstand the
pressure while his co-religionists feared him to be on the verge of crossing over he
found the leisure to study Scripture. Having scanned the headings of the first Book of
Kings, an extraordinary elegant and apt verse (1 Kings 18:21) struck him. It contained
Elijahs poignant admonition to the Israelites assembled at Mt Carmel not to waver on
matters of religion. Visibly moved, Casaubon transcribed the Hebrew verse

(How
long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if
Baal, then follow him) before rendering the text into Greek and supplementing it
with a brief linguistic analysis.50 A year and a half later, though newly secured in his
Protestant belief and safely ensconced in London, Casaubon still agonized over his
long-standing doubts concerning the Eucharist and the nature of the ancient church.
Psalm 119:176 enables him to acknowledge his deliverance from being led astray
owing to Gods grace, of course:

(I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy
commandments).51
Casaubon was also given to rapture when reacting in Greek or Latin to his
readings, or when supplicating God to approve his work, protect his family and
deliver him from his oppressors. However, whereas Casaubon is given to spontaneity
and paraphrasing (from memory) when praying or expressing ardour in Greek and
Latin, he never deviates from the letter of the biblical text which he copies carefully.
Such exertion further substantiates my conviction that he resorted to the holy tongue
in his diary only at moments of great anguish. When imploring God to wipe out his

(evil inclination), for example, Casaubon is articulating more emphatically than usual his (proper Calvinist) perception of himself as a sinner. Indeed,
the cumulative effect of his articulation permits us to comprehend his conviction
that the safety of his family, as well as the progress of his labours, is predicated
on a pure heart. For instance, we find him on 7 August 1611 bewailing his
inability to enjoy the pleasures of marriage and the company of his children
not to mention the company of his books, without which all his time and studies

48

Ibid., I, p. 458.
Ibid., I, p. 389.
50
Ibid., II, p. 674.
51
Ibid., II, p. 808.
49

Isaac Casaubon, Hebraist

77

are lost. Abruptly, Casaubon cuts short this self-pity, cognizant that tears should
be shed rather over his own sins and those of his family, whence all his earthly
evils stem. Grant him to imitate the holy prophet who said of himself (Psalm
(Rivers of waters run down
119:136):
,
mine eyes, because they keep not thy law). Three weeks later he added an equally
impassioned plea (Psalm 51: 3):
(Have
mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness: according unto the
multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions).52
With this background in mind, we may turn to Casaubons subsequent outburst (19
September), discussed by Grafton and Weinberg. Casaubon reiterates his deep resentment of his long separation from his children and wife who had returned to
France four and a half months earlier in order to take care of family matters. The only
joy left to him, the despondent scholar writes, is the reading of Scriptures. That
thought reminds him of the frequency in which the word
(joy) and its cognates
appear in Psalm 119, his favourite.53 Contemplating this, he deduces that the word
indicates a very special type of joy, as exemplified in Psalm 51:14 where David, after
he had sinned, implores God to restore his
(joy and gladness) the

precise meaning of which he clarifies in a subsequent verse:

,
(Restore to me the joy of Your salvation). Noting a parallel in Rom. 14:17 For
the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in
the Holy Ghost Casaubon implores God to instruct him, as well as his family, in the
bliss of that particular joy.54
Grafton and Weinberg demonstrate the connection between this and subsequent
entries in Casaubons diary, and a pious meditation on Psalm 119 found among his
papers. Yet, while aware of Casaubons anguish, our authors seem to ignore the progression to scholarly engagement, thereby eliding the underlying deep anxiety. Subsequent
diary entries not mentioned by Grafton and Weinberg help illustrate the point. On 20
September Casaubon turned to peruse St Ambroses commentary on the Psalms, which
occasioned a lengthy reflection on the interpretative biblical strategies of the early Church
Fathers. The reflection laid the ground for Casaubons observatiunculae on Psalm 119.
But these were composed only several days later, after another emotional private
meditation on 21 September. Whatever time he could steal from necessary affairs, we
read, was devoted to reading the Psalms to assuage his woes. O admirabile !,
he enthused, here are the remedies against all diseases of the soul. He meditated
again on Psalm 119, this time focusing on verse 42 as uncannily epitomizing his
present state of mind:
(So shall I have wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in thy word). O Lord, he cries,
I, too, am a wretched sinner, I am my own
(reproacher). Having reiterated his
faith and submission, and atoned for writing somewhat harshly to his wife, not to
delay her return any longer, Casaubon appears to have been comforted.55
52

Ibid., II, pp. 541, 85960, 874.

All Davidic Psalms are divine, but this one excels them all; it is, as it were, the embodiment of all Holy
Scripture: Bodleian Library, MS Casaubon 25 fol. 74, cited in Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always
Loved the Holy Tongue, p. 54.
54
Casaubon, Ephemerides, II, pp. 88182.
55
Ibid., II, pp. 88285.
53

78

M. Feingold

For the remaining three years of his life Casaubon never again quoted Hebrew in
his diary. As he soon reunited with his family, Casaubon devoted himself entirely to
his anti-Catholic productions first the epistle to Cardinal du Perron (c. November
1611), and then his refutation of Baronius. Henceforth, his Hebrew efforts were
entirely channelled into the needs of that great work. Grafton and Weinberg devote
a considerable portion of their book to elucidating the Hebraic scholarship that went
into that work. They also pause to reflect on what can be inferred on Casaubons
views about the Jews from his genuine interest in Hebrew. The received opinion
concerning the necessary coexistence of anti-Jewish prejudices with serious study of
rabbinic literature among Christian Hebraists, they suggest, is in need of modification. They fleetingly make the case for Scaliger, and more tentatively for Casaubon:
Knowledge was to be pursued, but the perversion of truth, Christian or Jewish,
was not to be countenanced. Absorbed as he was in Hebrew and Judaic studies,
and ever intent on acquiring knowledge to facilitate his reading of biblical,
rabbinic, and medieval Hebrew literature, Casaubon does not appear to evince
any real sympathy for Jews. Least of all does he show any for the rabbis. In his
grand critique of Baronios Ecclesiastical Annals he articulates his judgment on
Jews and their texts: Christians should pay attention to the rabbis when they
speak about the Hebrew language or talmudic institutions. But when it comes to
actual content, to history or to explication of the antiquities of the ancient
people, no confidence should be given to their testimony, unless we want to
be fooled. Nevertheless, this stereotypical judgment, as we will ultimately
demonstrate, is never taken to the letter.56
Perhaps they are overly cautious. The evidence presented throughout the book
sufficiently counters this stereotypical judgment. They point out in one place how
the impassioned reading of Jewish prayer books testify to Casaubons spiritual quest,
which knew no denominational boundaries.57 Even more telling is Casaubons relationship with the hapless Jacob Barnet a relationship that they meticulously
reconstruct in the book. Correspondingly, Casaubons scholarly integrity also evinces
his moderation. He recognized that Scripture, just like ancient Greek texts, underwent
corruption in the process of time. Yet, as his sympathetic summary of Robert
Wakefields defence of the overall integrity of the Masorah indicates, Casaubon rejected
the traditional Christian claim that Jewish rabbis had deliberately falsified the Hebrew
text of the Old Testament in order to confound Christians. Casaubon further contended
that while the Jews may have been responsible for the death of Jesus, they did not
crucify him. Jews did not use crucifixion as a death penalty. It was not they, but the
Romans, who nailed Jesus to the Cross.58
Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue, pp. 6667.
Ibid., p. 43. Casaubon emphatically expressed his own spiritual cast of mind when denouncing
Baroniuss failure to make the requisite distinction between public and private prayer in Scripture:
Although the Psalms, with their prophetic doctrine and doxology, are not infrequently intermingled with
prayers, their recitation really entails the enunciation of praises of God. But nobody can spend enough time,
be it day or night, in the pious duty of lauding God with the texts taken from the holy page: Isaac
Casaubon, De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI (London: John Bill, 1614), p. 325; Grafton
and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue, pp. 512.
58
Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue, pp. 25367, 3278, 191, 194.
56
57

Isaac Casaubon, Hebraist

79

True, Casaubon was given to disparaging the ancient rabbis. In 1605, for example, he
cautioned the young jurist Charles Labb against wasting his time in pursuing the trifles
of Rabbis, whose vile writings except for those by the great Moses Maimonides were
outside the scope of his profession.59 The language recurs often in the Exercitationes.
He dismissed the ravings of the Rabbis (deliria Rabbinorum) and their wild
inventions (insana figmenta), as well as restricting the use Christians should make
of their writings to matters of Hebrew language and Talmudic institutions. Likewise,
on the same page he denounced the perfidious rabbis, while magnifying the worth
of Maimonides precisely because he had been the first of his people who ceased to
be a trifler.60 Yet, these stock phrases though indicative of the prejudices permeating the milieu in which he lived, and the writings that informed his Hebrew training
cannot be said to represent his actual practice. His scholarly irritation with certain
rabbinic accounts, and his Christian indignation with other passages, never
prevented him from fully integrating Jewish learning into his work. Like
Scaliger, Casaubon often resorted to derogatory remarks when peeved by
shoddy (or partisan) scholarship. 61 But, especially insofar as Casaubon was
concerned, such outbursts did not reflect total rejection as further scrutiny of his
writing, both published and in manuscript, should reveal.
Finally, what may be concluded about Casaubons contemporary reputation as a
Hebraist? Grafton and Weinberg cite one of Thomas Erpeniuss orations, in which he
lavished praise on that distinguished ornament of the time, Isaac Casaubon who,
throughout his works, had strewn learned and truly precious observations that had
been obtained from Judaism. However, our authors continue, Erpenius perceptive
observations on Casaubons predilection for Hebrew fell on deaf earsfor centuries.
Yet though contemporaries were unaware of Casaubons notebooks and marginalia,
the display of Hebrew in his confutation of Baronius certainly alerted readers to
Casaubons pretensions. Future research into the many Catholic responses to the
Exercitationes will broaden our understanding of the hostile appraisal from Baroniuss defenders. The Jesuit Thomas Carwell made an explicit quip at Casaubons
expense when chiding Archbishop William Laud for relying on Casaubons response
to Perron: Rabbi Casaubon, [from a bad crow a bad
egg], must help him out.62 Here, however, I would like to draw attention to the more
curious hostility that prominent Protestant Hebraists had aired. Consider Johann
Buxtorf the Younger who, for some inexplicable reason, gratuitously insinuated
incompetence when charging Casaubon with bungling a Hebrew idiom. Tractate
Shavuot includes the following proverb: There is no family that has a tax collector
which is not a family of tax collectors, and if a family has a robber they are all

59

Casaubon, Epistolae, p. 234.

Casaubon, De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI, p. 100, 455, 611.
61
Scaliger found it quite easy to explain these obvious mendacia [forgery of Aristeas]: they stemmed
from the natural Jewish urge to deceive. Who, he asked rhetorically, is unfamiliar with the fabrications of
the Jews?: Joseph Juste Scaliger, Thesaurus Temporum (Amsterdam: Joannes Janssonius, 1658), p. 134
(of the Animadversiones in Chronologica Eusebii), cited in Anthony Grafton, Jacob Bernays, Joseph
Scaliger, and Others, in Anthony Grafton, Bring out Your Dead : The Past as Revelation (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001), pp. 27998, at p. 295.
62
Thomas Carwell, Labyrinthus Cantuariensis: or Doctor Lawd's Labyrinth (Paris: John Billaine, 1658),
p. 100.
60

80

M. Feingold

robbers. Casaubon cited the first part of the proverb in Hebrew adding a Latin
translation that oddly began Ne contingat tibi uxor, before providing the proper
Latin sense (e familia in qua sit aliquis publicanus; quia omnes sunt publicani) to
which he added a gloss that equated tax-collectors (publicani) to robbers and worse
(latrones, scelerati, peccatores), proffering Matthew 9:10 as additional proof. Either
because Casaubon failed to cite the complete proverb, or because of the addition to
the Latin translation, Buxtorf deemed that the latter thereby male adducit hoc
proverbium.63
Wilhelm Schickards censure proved sharper, and more spiteful, again for reasons
that are difficult to fathom. They exceeded the bounds of scholarly disagreement
and on a topic that had been contentious among the Rabbis themselves descending
into a reflection on a person who had been dead for more than a decade. At stake was
the nature and scope of the Sanhedrins jurisdiction over kings. Baronius inferred
(incorrectly) from Josephuss account of Herods appearance before the Court, that
the Sanhedrin could judge a king. Casaubon retorted by invoking Mishnah as proof
that, according to Jewish law, none but God could judge a king.64 While approving
the general thrust of Casaubons refutation of Baronius, Schickard claimed that the
passage cited by Casaubon referred only to the kings of Israel, not of Judea.
Following a brief substantive retort Schickard turned negative:
Now I say unwillingly, and most gently, what the truth forbids me to conceal:
that good man was dreaming, whether he wrote this in order to gain favor
(which I do not believe), or whether it happened, out of human weakness,
through a hatred and a zeal to contradict his adversary, as sometimes falls to the
lot of great men as soon as they have undertaken to attack someone, which is
more probable; or whether, at last, he mistakenly seized upon this through
superficial reading, which is the most likely of all. For even if he is a man of
infinite reading, whose judgment and ability with Greek and Latin quotations I
venerate, when it comes to Hebrew I perceive that this Homer often nods. In
consideration of his other virtues, this should very deservedly be pardoned in
him. As far as the sole passage in the Talmud that he has to support him, it
should be known that it is completely opposite [to what he says]. True, he has
not committed the crime of telling a falsehood, for he has rendered the passage
as it is, as these problems were usually disputed on both sides, but he did not
accurately study the passage that he claims to have read, otherwise he would not
have seized upon only a fragment of it.65
A generation later, Johann Christoph Wagenseil, too, deemed it necessary albeit
more politely to reprove Casaubon for weighing in improperly on matters Hebraic.
63

Johann Buxtorf, Jr., Florilegium Hebraicum (Basel: Ludwig Knig, 1648), pp. 956; Casaubon, De
rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI, p. 304. Buxtorfs singling Casaubon out is noteworthy, for
it is the only instance in which he criticized the Hebrew knowledge of Hebraists.
64
For a brief discussion of Casaubons position, see Grafton and Weinberg, I Have Always Loved the Holy
Tongue, pp. 27274 n. 119.
65
Wilhelm Schickard, Jus Regium Hebraeorum (Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner, 1625), p. 63; Casaubon, De
rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI, pp. 24445. In his refutation of Baronius, Casaubon
appealed to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 19a) in order to argue that according to Jewish law none but
God may judge a King. Schickard, however, pointed out that the passage in question referred to the kings of
Israel, not Judea.

Isaac Casaubon, Hebraist

81

He targeted Casaubons disparaging remarks in the Exercitationes on the worth of

rabbinic writings:
For I do not disapprove what Casaubon says in Exerc. 1 on the Apparatus to
Baronios Annales: Every scholar knows how little credit should be ascribed to
the rabbis even in sacred history (for in all other history, they are usually more
blind than moles). And yet one should remain within these limits, whence I
would not assent equally in all particulars to another pronouncement of the
same eminent man, in Exerc. 16 n. 15, when he authoritatively asserts: Christians ought to give no little credence to the Rabbis in questions of the Hebrew
language and the usage of a particular word, or of a particular law of the
Talmud: but when we proceed from words to things, or to history, or to the
explication of the customs of the ancient Hebrews, then unless we wish to be
deceived and mistaken, we must place no faith in them whatsoever.
However, Wagenseil continued, Casaubon is mistaken in forbidding us to seek
from the Talmudists any explication of the customs of the ancient Hebrews: he would
have rendered a far different judgment if he had advanced as far in Hebrew learning
as in Greek and Latin. Many reasons compel us to believe that this otherwise highly
learned man, from whose glory I do not wish to detract, can scarcely have turned the
pages even of the writings of any common and recent Rabbi; much less can we think
that he has spent much time in reading the Talmud, or grant him the ability to make
judgments about that work.66
It is difficult to explain what prompted these three eminent Christian Hebraists to
pick on Casaubon. Were they moved by professional jealousy against a perceived
interloper? Did they fear that Casaubons soaring scholarly reputation would confer
unwarranted credit on matters Hebraic? Or do the snide remarks conceal some
underlying religious or intellectual undercurrents? These and many related questions
await further investigation. With Grafton and Weinbergs superb road map to guide
us, however, charting a new course for comprehending early modern Christian
Hebraism and erudition more generally becomes a more feasible, as well as a
more pressing, task.

66
Casaubon, De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticis exercitationes XVI, p. 9; Johann Christopher Wagenseil, Tela
Ignea Satanae (Altdorf: Johannes Henricus Schnnerstaedt, 1681), pp. 667.