Sébastien Castellion

André Gounelle

Translation by Sara MacVane

Sébastien Castillion was born in 1515, but the media and the public won’t be paying much attention to the few celebrations planned for the 500th anniversary of his birth. And in one sense that is normal, because during his life-time Castillion was a very private person, a loner without much of an audience. He was barely noticed in his own time and by now has been all but forgotten. This is rather unfortunate however because his theological positions and his work deserve to be more widely recognized and appreciated. Recent outbreaks of violence inspired by religion have made his thought very pertinent. In addition, studies over the last 15 years show how original his Bible translations are, and this is a characteristic of his work which has long been overlooked or misunderstood.

 

Who is Castellion?

 

He was an erudite connoisseur of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew; he was well known for his learned editions of ancient texts and for his French translations of Homer. He earned the respect of his fellow scholars, but very little money. In fact, he struggled against poverty during his whole life. Castellion first met Calvin in 1540; Castellion was 25 and just finishing his studies, and he often went to see Calvin, who was still in Strasbourg. Then in 1541 Calvin returned to Geneva, which he had left in a hurry in 1538 as a result of his conflict with the city council. One of his first tasks was to organize instruction. He needed a ‘rector’ for the city school. He made several unsuccessful offers in Strasbourg and then tried Castellion, whom he considered pious, learned, and a hard worker. Calvin had hoped to take on someone better known and with more experience than this young man, and Castellion knew that he was not Calvin’s first choice and would be replaced if a better candidate were found. Nevertheless, he accepted the position and introduced innovations to make the lessons livelier and more fun. For example, he had the students invent little plays using Biblical verses in Latin. He understood the learning process in a way rare for his time, and his dialogues were used right up until the end of the 18^th century.

 

While he was teaching, Castellion also preached regularly in Vandoeuvres, a village near Geneva. Soon his relationship with Calvin began to fall apart. Castellion was a very learned humanist, which was not true of the other preachers, and in fact he was better at Hebrew and Greek than Calvin himself, according to the scholar Richard Simon. He challenged some of Calvin’s interpretations. For example he saw the Song of Songs as a profane sexual love poem in disagreement with the traditional allegorical interpretation which Calvin instead defended. According to Calvin and those of his persuation, the two lovers in the poem are God and a human soul, or else Christ and the church. Castellion also made some Biblical translations which Calvin criticized, and a “rivalry of intellectuals” came between them, as Christian Grosse calls it in his history of Geneva.

 

In 1544 Castellion applied to become pastor in Geneva. He loved to preach, his position at the school was not permanent, he was married with a child on the way, and he wanted a stable position. The city council agreed, but, but under Calvin’s influence, the pastors refused to take him on, citing some specific interpretations, even though they agreed that these did not concern essential questions of faith. Castellion was angry and resigned from his position. He left Geneva in 1545 and settled in Basel, the city of great humanist publishers. He earned a small income correcting printers’ drafts, and then in 1553 he became professor of Greek at the university. The position assured him a living and he was able to continue his own studies. When he protested energetically against the execution of Michel Servet, his chilly relationship with Calvin turned into open and polemical hostility. On 29 December 1563, Castellion died in Basel. He was 48 years old. Calvin died 5 months later.

 

Castellion’s work on the Bible

 

Castellion made two translations of the Bible, working form the Hebrew and the Greek texts. The first, a translation into Latin for the educated, was printed in 1551; the second, in French for a wider public, in 1555. Castellion did not use his own Latin text as a basis for his French translation, but went back instead to the original texts.

 

The Latin Bible

 

When Castellion’s Latin translation appeared it gave rise to debates and continued to do so up to the 18^th century. He had two objectives.

 

First he wanted to write a classical, elegant Latin, without any borrowed words from Hebrew. His stylistic standard was the works of Titus, Livy, Sallust or Cicero, depending on which book of the Bible he was translating. Experts agree he was successful in this. When he translated the Song of Songs, he relied on the works of Catullus and Ovid, making obvious the poem’s erotic context, which is usually kept hidden (though one has to note that he was a bit of a prude here). His translation of the Hebrew poem sounds something like pornography.

 

Castellion offers the bold, though contested, translation: Jova for the name of the God of Israel. This name is never pronounced in Jewish tradition, but instead is represented by the four-letter symbol YHWH. In English it is most often translated: the LORD. Instead, Castellion gives the Latin equivalents of the Hebrew consonants, quite clearly calling to mind Jupiter (Jovis in the genitive). Some critics said that this use of Latin consonants creates too great a similarity between the Greco-Roman gods and God of the Jews, and is even sacrilegious. Others were perfectly happy with the results.

 

Castellion’s second objective was to be extremely precise in his choice of words. He always investigated their original meaning before the church took them on. For example, in Greek the word ecclesia, which gives us the word church, meant any assembly, whenever people came together, not to worship or to form a religious community, but to hear a talk, see a theatrical production, or discuss business. The same is true of baptizein, which gives us baptize. Originally it meant to jump in the water, take a bath, or have a wash. Christians gave these words sacred meanings, ignored their original significance, and reserved them for a religious context. Castellion wanted to restore the Greek words to their original meanings, and so in his Latin translation he uses respublica for the Greek ecclesia, and lotio (the washing of oneself) for baptizein. Clearly this de-sanctifying was not just a question of vocabulary. In Castellion’s view, Jesus did not found a supernatural, mystery religion rife with ritual, but a religion of the habitual, the banal, the everyday. God manifests himself, and we should also serve him, not in special ceremonies, but in our ordinary daily lives. This is like Luther’s position that household chores and farm work are no less holy than the work of priests and monks, no less sacred than the work of ministers and bishops.

 

The French Bible

 

In contrast to Castellion’s Latin Bible, his French translation was not at all successful. Protestants preferred the translation of Olivétan, despite its faults, to Castellion’s rather rough, everyday language. At first it excited some lively criticism, and then was almost entirely forgotten.

 

In the 16^th century, people saw the Bible as a noble book which reflected the grandeur and the majesty of God. Protestants felt that any translation of the Bible should use the language of court, of the king, the law-courts, the universities and the upper classes. In contrast, Castellion thought of the Bible as a book of the people, to be expressed in their plain and simple language; so that is how he translated it. He used common, banal, vulgar language, like that used by artisans and peasants, rather than the language of scholars or aristocrats. Where other translations have: Verily, verily, I say unto you at the beginning of some of Jesus’ words, Castellion uses: I assure you. For: avoid vain repetitions, Castellion has: don’t chatter. He uses common, rustic words, sometimes even slang, and often saucy language, which he prefers to stiff or solemn expressions. His contemporaries were shocked and accused him of using base, low-life expressions, of making God sound like anyone else rather than sublime. The editor Henri Estienne said that Rather than searching for grave works and ways of speaking, he studied hobos’ jargon.

 

However, Castellion’s translation is neither loose nor inaccurate. It lacks neither allure nor style. Castellion is inventive and makes up lots of new words, while he is very exacting about grammar. The translation is faithful to the original and very fluid – it has none of the clumsiness of many translations. He wanted people to be willing to hear it and able to understand it. Indeed, we might suspect that in a time when few could read, Castellion wanted to facilitate public readings aloud, in church or at home. According to Guy Bédouelle, by rejecting Castellion’s translation, for reasons of “religious and above all linguistic prejudice”, we lost what might have been the French equivalent of Luther’s Bible in German, or the King James Bible (“the Authorized Version”) in English.

 

Difficulties with the Bible

 

In the 16^th century, most Protestants believed that the Bible was clear. Calvin admitted that some verses were less than transparent, but he believed that the specialists – grammarians, commentators, and historians – would clear up any problems. He felt sure that ultimately the meaning was plain. The Bible offered clear, consistent, and coherent teaching and therefore it was worthy of serious study.

 

On the contrary, Castellion took Erasmus’ line. For him many of the texts were problematic. Some are certainly clear, particularly the most important ones which teach us to know God’s love for us and our neighbor’s love as well. Other texts are ambiguous however, or confusing, and even the great specialists of the ancient languages are unable to determine their meaning. We can offer several hypotheses, but there is no absolute solution. Castellion admits that he does not understand some passages and indicates that in his notes in the margins of his translations. Calvin criticized his constant questioning and said that it promotes skepticism, to which Castellion replied more or less – if the Bible is so clear, why did Calvin write volumes to explain it?

 

Protestants hold that the Bible is the authority for faith, while Catholics respond that since its texts are sometimes obscure, the church – as constituted by bishops, councils or the pope, must determine any theological truth.

Castellion agreed with the Catholics about the difficulty of Biblical texts, but he did not agree with their solution. Castellion would hold that some texts seem to affirm the Trinity, while others seem to deny it. Different understandings of Holy Communion can be justified by different texts. Who will determine these debates, and indeed why determine them? For him, a holy life, service towards others, and love of one’s fellow are the absolute requirements, and these precepts are perfectly clear. For the rest, let us all arrive at our own opinions with as much care and thought as we can, but let us accept that others may have different opinions. We can discuss our ideas, but let us not fight over them.

 

In contrast to the dogmatism of his age, Castellion was not absolute about doctrine, but believed that we should examine it critically. He did not condemn doubt, but believed that it should inspire us to be thoughtful, prudent, and humble. As Jacques Roubaud has written: In contrast to Calvin, Castellion does not speak in the name of God, but in the name of what he understands as the teaching of the Gospel. We should steer clear “absolute affirmation”. Whenever we claim absolute certainty, we forget our own finitude.

 

Freedom of Conscience

 

This approach to the Bible naturally leads Castellion to affirm freedom of conscience.

 

Michel Servet

Castellion came out strongly against the execution of Michel Servet, and this put him in opposition to Calvin. This is also where his position against any religious violence began. Michel Servet was a Spanish physician. In 1531 he published a book entitled De Trinitatis erroribus. Was this tract as anti-trinitarian as is often claimed? Servet offers a variation on the doctrine of the Trinity, while stating that he does not understand the idea of “person” in the classical sense. I concede that the Father is one person, the Son is one person, and the Holy Spirit is one person; and I recognize Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as only one God. There it is, the true Trinity, but I would prefer not to use this word, which is not found in Holy Scripture. This does not seem to be anti-Trinitarian, and Castellion agrees: Servet believed in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that is to say the Trinity, but he interpreted it differently than they did.

 

Whatever the truth was however, the book caused a lot of criticism, more for its title, one might suppose, than for its contents. Servet had to hide and during the 1550s he practiced medicine in Vienna under an assumed name. He wrote another book called Christianisimi Restitutio (Restoring Christianity) which he published clandestinely. He then sent a copy to Calvin and asked for his brotherly opinion. One of Calvin’s close collaborators sent the book on to a Catholic cousin in Lyon who gave it over to the Inquisition, along with other documents which allowed them to identify and locate Servet. Did Calvin aid and abate this denunciation? No one knows, but suspicion weighs heavily on Calvin’s reputation. The Inquisition arrested Servet, who managed to escape. On his escape route, he passed through Geneva, where he was recognized, arrested, and imprisoned. So in no time at all, he had escaped from a Catholic prison, to find himself in a Protestant one. He was convicted and burnt alive on 27 October 1553. His condemnation came from the city Council of Geneva, not from Calvin, but Calvin had testified against him and had served as theological expert for the prosecution. In February of the following year, he published a book entitled Déclaration pour maintenir la vraie foi (Declaration on maintaining the true faith) which justified the execution of heretics. According to Calvin, it is the duty of the political and judicial authorities to eliminate them.

 

Castellion was horrified and made his position known. He published a collection of texts against execution for heresy by Christian authors. These went from the early church up until the 16^th century (including some by Calvin himself). While Calvin’s Déclaration was coming off the press, Castellion wrote a rebuke entitled Contre le libelle de Calvin (Against Calvin’s injurious Position), but the censors refused to allow publication. It only appeared in 1612 in Holland, though copies had been passed around clandestinely since 1555. Calvin claimed that right doctrine should be defended. Castellion’s reply has gone down in history: Killing a man is not defending a doctrine, it is killing a man. He challenged Calvin: In the end, will you tell us that it is Christ who taught you to burn men?

 

Castellion did not agree with Servet’s ideas, nor did he suggest that they were less absurd than Calvin claimed. He contested the legitimacy of condemning anyone for his or her religious opinions. He felt that it is not just to execute anyone simply because he or she maintains a doctrine rightly or wrongly considered heretical. According to Castellion everyone has a heresy, that is to say, someone else’s religion. Castellion’s arguments re-echoed among Protestants of that time, for though they massively opposed anti-Trinitarian positions, the execution of Servet made them uncomfortable.

 

Religious wars

 

During the 1560s France experienced religious wars. In October 1562, a year before he died, Castellion published a book, Conseil à la France désolée (Advice to anguished France), in which he severely reproached both Protestants and Catholics for raising troops and taking up arms in order to “force consciences”, forgetting that the Gospel teaches love and respect for others. He advocated a France of two free religious traditions, two churches, where everyone could serve God according to his or her faith, not someone else’s.

 

According to Castellion, although we note that there are religious differences, we are unable to say who is right and who is wrong. We should recognize this. Judgement belongs to God, who will intervene at the end of time to winnow the chaff from the grain. Castellion’s religious pluralism is not simply a concession to a temporary political situation; it rests on the human condition here and now. It does not constitute total freedom of opinion, however, for Castellion wrote that we should reject atheists with horror. Although he is often well ahead of his time, he nonetheless lived in an era when belief in God was not so much a question of religion or faith, as of public order. And although he believes that Christians should not condemn Jews or Muslims, and vice versa, he is not opposed to sanctions against atheists, although he excludes capital punishment.

 

In August 1563 the synod of Reformed Churches condemned Castellion’s book, as the Catholic authorities already had. Christian Grosse says that Protestants and Catholics reached a consensus of intolerance, though some people disagreed. The most notable of these is perhaps Michel de l’Hospital who proposed a moratorium on religious conflicts until such time as a council could decide the question. De l’Hospital may never have heard of Castellion, nor do we know whether Castellion was familiar with his speech. We do know however that Castellion did read a book called Exhortation aux princes et Seigneurs du conseil privé du Roi (Exhortation to the Princes and Lords of the King’s Privy Council), by the lawyer Etienne Pasquier, which makes the same point as de l’Hospital. Pasquier’s and Castellion’s conclusions are similar, even though Pasquier’s arguments are mainly juridical and political, while Castellion’s are theological. No one listened to either of them.

 

Castellion’s heritage

 

Castellion was somewhat known during his own life-time as a humanist and a teacher (Montaigne mentions him, for example). Then during the 17^th and 18^th centuries we find him named among those people who opposed Calvin.

Bayle includes him in his dictionary, but the reference is rather toned down. And though his name is mentioned here and there, he was not at all well known. The only exception were the Remonstrants in the Dutch Reformed Church who claimed Castellion as their own and conserved his manuscripts.

 

Then in 1892 Ferdinand Buisson pulled Castellion out of obscurity and wrote a remarkable, methodical and erudite doctoral thesis about him. Today it is still useful and was republished in 2010. Buisson was an associate of Jules Ferry and he helped to create non-religious educational programs for primary schools. He was an accomplished, inspiring teacher and then he turned to politics. He headed the commission to prepare the 1905 law on the separation of church and state. He received the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1927 for his work on reconciliation after the First World War. Castellion’s work had three merits for Buisson: it anticipated modern teaching methods; it announced and prepared liberal Protestantism – to which Buisson was attached; and it proclaimed freedom of conscience.

 

In 1914, 22 years after Buisson, a liberal French pastor, Etienne Giran (who died in Buchenwald in 1944), published a book in which he described two types of reform: the dogmatic, authoritarian, intransigent, and narrow-minded one of Calvin; and the open, generous, liberal, and intelligent one of Castelion. On the one hand, he wrote, we fnd those who consider themselves prophets, and imagine that they proclaim the Word of God and know the truth. When they can, they condemn and eliminate their adversaries. On the other side, we find the humble readers of the Bible, those who seek truth and know that they are fallible. They listen to others, take them into account and welcome what they have to contribute.

 

In 1936 as Stefan Zweig was fleeing Nazism, he published a book about Castellion, which is very well written, but full of errors. It is Castellion contre Calvin ou conscience contre violence (Castellion vs Calvin, or conscience vs violence). When he discusses the Geneva of Calvin, he is in reality thinking of Hitler’s regime and Stalin’s (as he explicitly wrote to Romain Rolland). It is nevertheless a moving testimony of intellectual resistance to the Nazis and has the merit of moving the debate from purely religious controversy to political ideologies.

 

Buisson was much more rigorous and Giran was much more forceful, vehement, and sometimes even injust, but they both acknowledged the two sides of the Protestant tradition. One side is strict in belief, rigid, and sectarian; the other is a broad, supple and tolerant. We all know the tension between these two traditions and are little able to reconcile our convictions and our propensity for tolerance. Castellion tells us that differences of opinion never justify physical or mental violence. He believes that we should never sacrifice the respect we owe others for certitudes which we consider fundamental or sacred. I see Castellion as the heir of the Old Testament prophets when they denounce the arbitrary abuse of power. He is a precursor of those intellectuals who emerge during the Dreyfus affair, convinced as they were that their culture and learning obliged them to protest against injustice and to defend a human being. And has it not once again become urgent for us to respond to his appeal?

 

 

Pour faire un don, suivez ce lien