Theologians and Their Bellies The Erasmian Epithet Theologaster during the Reformation

An analysis of the role and meaning of the epithet “theologaster,” coined by Erasmus of Rotterdam in his letter from Paris in 1497, can reward us with insights into the inter-playof Reformation,scholastic,andhumanistforcesinthesixteenthcentury.Although Erasmus rarely used the term in his later correspondence or in his works, the epithet gained some popularity among the humanists and the reformers. During the confessional debates, both sides, the Catholics and the Protestants in the Holy Roman Empire and in France, reached for this same epithet as an argument and a weapon with which to demonstrate the incompetence of their opponents. The term, however, can rarely be found in the confessional polemics in Poland, despite the enormous popularity of Erasmus in the region. The history of the epithet sheds light on the importance of the humanist legacy for the confessional era.


Introduction
In August 1497, Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was thirty at the time, sent a very bitter letter from Paris.1 Writing to his younger colleague and former pupil, Thomas Grey, the humanist painted a somber picture of the Parisian univer-sity, where he was obliged to remain in order to obtain his degree of Doctor of Theology. As a former theologian turned Scotist (ego, ille vetus theologus, nuper Scotista), he had forgotten the art of writing. Erasmus expressed his complaints against scholasticism in an anecdote that was as purposefully intricate as scholastic thought itself. In a highly ironic style, Erasmus related his "theological sleep," in which the Cretan philosopher Epimenides-known for describing all Cretans as liars (Tit. 1:12)-was also the greatest scholastic theologian. Erasmus was told that the skin of Epimenides (τò Επιμενίδιον δέρμα) was worshipped at the Sorbonne almost as a relic. The Cretan published a book containing syllogisms so complex that even he would have been unable to understand his own productions-had he not been a prophet. In the tale recounted by Erasmus, Epimenides went for a walk and, finding himself tired, dozed off and fell into a theological sleep (imo somnus ille theologicus) that lasted forty-seven years. After he awoke, he returned to the city, where-with no one recognizing him-he became the object of mockery. What had he been dreaming about all those years? The most subtle subtleties (subtilissimas subtilitates) were currently taught by Scotists, Erasmus averred, since the 'Subtle Doctor' himself, the Scottish philosopher-theologian Duns Scotus (d. 1308), was in fact Epimenides reborn. The elaborate story of a dream within a dream (Erasmus dreaming about Epimenides, who is dreaming about subtleties) was, of course, an erudite joke about the Academy that found its place in the Adagia published by the humanist a decade later.2 In his letter, Erasmus added that he would merely frown and raise his eyebrows during lectures, not understanding a thing and trying not to speak a word of proper Latin, which is why Grey should not expect any of his former style or wit in the present letter. The humanist concluded his deliberations with an explanation that the joke was not aimed against theology, but the style-over-substance theologasters: "I would not have you mistakenly infer that what I have just written was directed against theology itself, to which, as you are aware, I have always been deeply devoted. I merely wished to make a joke at the expense of a few quasi-theologians [theologastros] of our own day, whose brains are the most addled, tongues the most uncultured, wits the dullest, teaching the thorniest, characters the least attractive, lives the most hypocritical, talk the most slanderous, and hearts the blackest on earth."3 ologians (rabies theologorum); but instead made a significant contribution to shaping confessional identities in the modern era.7

Word by Word
As claimed in modern dictionaries, the term used by Erasmus in his letter to Grey was a neo-Latin neologism most likely invented by Erasmus himself.8 The humanist coined it in imitation of pejorative expressions known from classical Latin, formulated using the suffix -aster and denoting incompetence. The most popular terms created based on this model and used both in classical and Renaissance Latin were poetaster (pseudo-poet) and philosophaster (pseudophilosopher), with patraster (father-in-law, stepfather) sharing the same form, though evoking slightly different connotations, also expressing scorn.9 Although the structure and meaning of the term should be straightforward, laymen could and still can find it misleading, since it suggests a compound of "theology" and -gaster or -gastrum, a Latin word of Greek origin (γαστήρ) that meant "stomach" or "belly." While this could serve as a classic case of false etymology, which is a rather frequent phenomenon, it cannot be ruled out that the readers and author alike were also aware of this ambiguity. The notion would be in line with allegations often cast at sixteenth-century clergymen, namely that their lifestyle had begun to dangerously resemble that of laypersons. Throughout Europe, churchmen were often accused of abusing the pleasures of the table and the bedroom, and in these anticlerical discourses the biblical figure of the belly (Phil. 3:19) became a symbol of broadly understood sensuality and sin, exemplifying the ever stronger aversion to obesity.10 Sixteenth-century French expressions les théologiens du ventre, les ventres théologiques, or les penseurs de la panse were formulated in the same vein. 11 The greatest examples of these accusations may be found in François Rabelais' monumental work Gargantua and Pantagruel, which, admittedly, did not feature the word theologastri, but theologians were repeatedly insulted therein using terms such as "Sorbillans, Sorbonigènes, Sorbonicoles, Xorboniformes, Sorbonisecques, Niborcisans, Saniborsans."12 As controversially argued by Mikhail Bakhtin, the "lower stratum," which also included the belly and the sphere of sensuality, was one of the fundamental axes of Rabelais' narrative and a reflection of the popular culture.13 In turn, in the German-speaking realm, one could find words such as

Humanist Criticism
Erasmus did not seem to attach any great weight to the neologism he had coined. The humanist did not use it in Antibarbari or The Praise of Folly. Neither did the term appear in the most scalding attack on scholastics: The Letters of Obscure Men, published anonymously in 1515, although, on the face of it, the expression would suit the tone of the work, and literally hung in the air.18 The biting satire penned by humanists impersonating obscure scholastics was based on juxtaposing the epistolary style prescribed in rhetorical textbooks with crude language, meaning not only dog Latin, but also a predilection for obscenities, words denoting excrement, miction and defecation, and intimate body parts making up the entire "realm of the belly."19 However, in the early sixteenth century, the expression was definitely known to humanists and followers of Erasmus, who used it in their private and unpublished correspondence. In 1512, it was employed by Johannes Altenstaig, a humanist and theologian educated in Tübingen, who would soon turn into an opponent of the Reformation.20 In his epistolographic treatise published in Augsburg, he employed the word theologastri in order to refer to theologians from Tübingen who either did not know Latin or used its barbarized form.21 Nevertheless, in his work Vocabularius theologiae from 1517, a sort of glossary The second humanist using the Erasmian term was Johannes Eck, a theologian and lecturer from Ingolstadt, who was to become the most prolific Catholic polemicist opposing Luther. On the eve of the Reformation, during the disputation on usury (so-called Zinsstreit), he defended this praxis, which led to him being called the lackey of the Fuggers, prominent family of financiers and bankers.23 Since the bishop of Ingolstadt had put a formal stop to the dispute, Eck's treatise was aimed against pseudo-literate advisors to bishops and other theologasters.24 The intense print activity of the Reformation introduced new insults. Both sides of the conflict-defenders of the Curia and Protestants-soon recognized Erasmus' term. The first people to adopt his expression were two fierce polemicists: Eck and Martin Luther. Already around 1518-in the first disputation concerning Luther's Theses25-Eck accused semi-literates and theologasters of meddling in theology.26 Since Eck had titled himself Obeliscus, Luther responded under the pseudonym Asteriscus. In his opinion, Eck and "all his scholastic theologasters" (ab universis suis theologastris scholasticis) were not able to counter any arguments against indulgences.27 Both sides of the dispute were hurling the same epithet at each other. In the writings of the polymath and humanist Eck, pseudo-theologians denoted followers of the Ref- ormation. In turn, Luther used the term in its meaning coined by Erasmus at the turn of the century, accusing "certified" theologians of incompetence and arrogance. At the same time as launching his polemic against Luther, Eck wrote a letter to Erasmus, praising the supreme erudition that had won him general respect. According to Eck, everyone was an Erasmian apart from a narrow group of monks and theologasters.28 Trying to encourage Erasmus to dissociate himself from Luther and Wittenberg, Eck assured the humanist that Erasmians would protect him against theologasters.29 The fact that both Luther and Eck used the term in a slightly different meaning could be the reason why Erasmus rarely used the neologism he had invented. However, he did remind his followers about it between 1518 and 1521, when he published selected correspondence containing his letters to Grey and Eck's missive.30 Simultaneously, he decided to include the neologism into a new edition of Adagia, published in Basel in 1515.31 Some of his readers and supporters-like a suffrage bishop of Speyer, Anton Engelbracht in his copy of Erasmus' edition of Jerome32-placed the word theologaster on the margins of Erasmus' writing as synonym for a scholastic theologian.
At the time, following the first edition of the New Testament, the humanist was at the peak of his fame.33 However, the growing popularity of Martin Again, the Erasmian neologism hung in the air, even if the theologian himself used the expression sparingly. One of Erasmus' apologies against Edward Lee was printed in 1520 together with a poem by Riccardo Sbruglio against some sycophantic theologasters from Louvain.35 The invective appeared, however, only on the title page of the print and not in the poem itself, which defended divine or angelic Erasmus against his unworthy opponent, whom the author compared to a barking but tailless and snoutless dog. In his defenses against accusations of harboring sympathy for Protestantism, Erasmus had to deny his alleged aversion to Catholic theologians whom he had dubbed theologasters. In his Apologia addressed to the canon of Calahorra, Sancho Carranza de Miranda (d. 1531), who in 1522 invited the humanist to debate, encouraging him to dispel any doubts concerning his attitude, Erasmus claimed to have never employed the term theologaster with respect to theologians.36 Further on in the work, he specified that even if he had ever used this expression, it would have been aimed against conceited schoolmen who ignored the Scriptureabove all against the Sorbonne, and not against any true experts in divine affairs.37 The second example is his disputation from 1525 with the Carthusian Petrus Sutor, where Erasmus defended the right of laypersons to read and interpret the Bible.38 The humanist was provoked by Sutor, who claimed in his work De tralatione Bibliae (1525) that the laity had no right to analyze the Holy Scripture. The Bible, a difficult and mysterious book, could only be explored by experts with adequate skills and time. It should not be touched by uneducated people, women, and theologastri (quos antichristi praecursores vocant), who dare to not only paraphrase the New Testament but also prepare revised translations thereof.39 This was a clear and unambiguous attack on Erasmus and Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples using their own rhetorical weapon. Erasmus responded in the same year with Apologia adversus Petri Sutoris debacchationes, claiming that the Bible had been written in the language of ordinary people and addressed to them.40 To Sutor, claimed Erasmus, sumus omnes theologastri, although the humanist tried to prove that it was in fact the Carthusian who was lacking eloquence. Melanchthon structured his apology around five main points concerning scholasticism, the obligations of secular authority, indulgences and penance, the war with the Ottoman Porta, and papal authority. Invoking, among others, Pico della Mirandola-and implicitly referencing the works of many other humanists-Melanchthon painted scholasticism as dark and rotten.48 His most serious allegation against it was the subordination of theology to philosophy, forgetting about the Bible in the process. The scholastics treated Aristotle, whom they uncritically worshipped,49 as their undisputed authority, and the science they pursued represented childish tomfoolery, frivolous questions and stupid opinions.50 Recalling the dispute concerning the Donation of Constantine, signing over authority over Rome and the western empire to the Pope, and Lorenzo Valla's work in proving it a forgery-reissued on the initiative of the Protestants and hotly debated in Wittenberg51-Melanchthon criticized papal authority and the concept of apostolic succession.52 Seemingly in line with Luther's beliefs, he argued that the two regimens-matters of faith and earthly politics-should be separated, making several references to Luther's work On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. At the same time, however, he urged secular authorities to embark upon reforms, above all in the sphere of education and the academy, where scholastics had wreaked the greatest havoc, promoting insatiable greed, arrogance, obstinacy, and hubris-in other words, "what the Turk cannot accomplish, we accomplish ourselves."53 And so, despite the sim- On several occasions in his disputation, Melanchthon referred to scholastics and bishops supporting Rome's authority as theologasters.55 In the context of his comprehensive attack on scholasticism, this term had a deeply Erasmian significance: denoting pseudo-theologians who had forgotten about the Bible-the genuine foundation of theology, and about classical culture, which made it possible to interpret the Scripture. However, among his accusations hurled at scholastics who had taken control of universities, there were also ones known from reformatory polemics: that schoolmen only cared about "their bellies."56 Consequently, Roman "inventions"-such as indulgences or sacramental mass-only served to "fill the bellies" of employees of the Church.57 The belly signified first and foremost concern for one's personal interests, income, position, and earthly authority.58 Nevertheless, in line with the Epistle to the Philippians quoted by Melanchthon (Phil. 3:19), it was also used as a synonym for sin in general. When, in the mid-sixteenth century, Calvin published the apology of his collaborator from Geneva, Guillaume Farel, against Pierre Caroli's accusations, the term was included in the title of these works. 62 At the time, the expression theologasters was most frequently used with respect to Parisian theologians-i.e., the Sorbonne. 63 In France, the term owed its fame to farces which were much more popular than the theological treatises. A crucial work stigmatizing Parisian theologians was La Farce des Théologastres-a dialogue written in France during the period of confessional disputes.64 Like many works from the era, it was published anonymously, without the printer's name or place of publication, but may be assumed to have been printed in Lyon, most likely in the printing shop of Barnabé Chaussard, between 1532 and 1552.65 However, the moment of publication does not correspond to the date of creation, as the farce must have been written a long time beforehand. Dating this work to the 1520s is supported by its connection to the trial of Louis de Berquin (1490-1529), the translator of Erasmus' and Luther's works. The trial was definitively concluded on 17 April 1529, when Berquin was burned at the stake, but the work was most likely created between November 1526 and June 1528, when the translator and his supporters (including Erasmus) were still fighting for his acquittal.66 Apart from the title's Theologasters, other protagonists of the farce include Brothers (Fratres), Faith (Foy), Reason (Raison), Scripture (Le Texte de saincte Escripture), and Mercury from Germany (le Mercure d'Allemaigne). The play is composed of four parts: in the first, Faith talks to Theologasters and Brothers; in the second, the debate is joined by Reason and Scripture; in the third, Reason and Scripture visit Mercury; and in the fourth, Mercury, Reason, and Scripture revisit Theologasters, Brothers, and Faith.
The farce begins with a disease to which Faith has succumbed.67 Her complaints interrupt a scholarly dispute between Theologasters and Brothers about the misery of the "new theologians" (theologiens noveaulx), who despise scholastic Latin and read only Greek (omnes nunc leguntur [!] grecum).68 In turn, Faith is suffering from colic caused by sophistry (passїon sophisticque), from the simony that ruined her reputation (Simonїe la pthisique / M' a du tout mon bon bruit tolly), and from the spread of unbelief (une mode lunatique). In a nutshell, she is plagued by le mal sorbonique. However, to Brothers' and Theologasters' horror, the cure to Faith's problems is to be found in Germany-the homeland of Martin Luther. And, rather than convening councils or celebrating "Judaic ceremonies" ( judaїque ceremonie), it involves reading the Holy Scripture. Obviously, this is something Brothers and Theologasters cannot agree with, as they find the Scripture unclear, attaching greater weight to the authority of Parisian theologians.69 At this moment, the dispute is joined by Reason and Scripture, both of which find holes and inconsistencies in the arguments employed by Noz Maistres Theologastres, criticizing their pursuit of profit, their greed, and their conspiracy against translations of German literature.
It is in this context that the name of Louis de Berquin first appears in the text, but he is only mentioned as a translator of Erasmus' oeuvre from Latin into French, not as an expert in the writings of Martin Luther, which were also published in German. Reason also alluded to the heresy trial instigated against vier 1524 à novembre 1533, ed. J.K. Farge (Paris: Aux Amateurs de Livres, 1990) n. 94a, 95a, 145a; J.K. Farge, "Les procès de Louis de Berquin: épisodes dans la lutte du Parlement de Paris contre l'absolutisme royal," Histoire et Archives 18 (2005)  de Berquin without the presentation of any reasons by the prosecution (sans monstrer erreur ne raison). Scripture, on the other hand, complained that no one gave the Bible as much attention as Erasmus, Melanchthon, and Faber (i.e., Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples). In the world of Parisian theologians, one's position depended on criteria other than cause or reason: abstract argumentation skills (tout leurs queros et utruns) and giving feasts (Si on veult estre bien disné, / Il convient en leurs actes estre). Further on, Reason and Scripture started listing the mistakes committed by theologians from Paris: not only did they neglect reading the Bible because of their focus on scholastic methods, but they also prevented laypersons from accessing the book. Their lectures were little more than absurd tricks and follies (plus folles tricques) where the works of Aristotle were more important than the Bible, so they deserved to be called Theolonginqui.70 Since their focus revolved around questions of whether God knew how many fleas there were in Paris or whether God could be a woman, an animal, or a stone, they turned into targets of jokes and mockery.
As the debate was nowhere near a conclusion, Reason and Scripture sought the help of Mercury from Germany, with whom they returned to the sick Faith, Theologasters, and Brothers. Mercury introduced himself as "Berquin," but-on seeing him-Brothers shouted "Lutherїn," to which Mercury-Berquin retorted: Nenni non, je suis chrestїen!71 When Theologasters declared that Erasmus, Faber, Luther, and Berquin were nothing more than heretics to them (n'estes que garçons heretiques), Mercury-Berquin told them to stop their follies, tricks, and flatteries and instead point out where and how he was in the wrong. However, Theologasters did not allow the debate to turn into a rational exchange of opinions based on an analysis of texts, instead treating their own judgment as the basis of faith. In their eyes, this vindicated their arbitrary decisions and unjustified sentences.72 When Mercury-Berquin launched into a tirade in defense of reason (la raison), Faith told him to stop and start listening to her. Then, Mercury-Berquin embarked on a speech that may be seen as the conclusion and summary of the entire work. He suggested that Theologasters should look into a mirror (Speculum / Aultrement dit le grand Miroer / Des Theologastres)-i.e., de Berquin's work, currently presumed lost. Berquin criticized indulgences, the idea of the mass as opus operatum, and the lenient piety of theologians from the Sorbonne. Promoting the idea of liberation from sin through indulgences in fact completely undermined the meaning of contrition and atonement.73 As Claude Longeon has convincingly claimed, this line of criticism was very close to ideas contained in Luther's Ablaßthesen, where the attack against indulgences began with exploring the meaning of a call to atonement.74 In the alternative presented by Mercury-Berquin (indulgences vs. contrition and penance), one may hear echoes of Thesis 39: "It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need for true contrition."75 Following these impudent declarations on the part of Mercury-Berquin, the Farce experiences a similar slump as can be observed in Erasmus' Praise of Folly. The Brothers preferred to stay out of the debate, but ominously stated that they "[would] find Mercury" (Ne te chault, on te trouvera), while Reason concluded the farce with an Erasmian declaration: Everything was meant as a joke aimed at Theologasters and not theologians. The message of this work follows the poetics of early Reformation debates. Sorbonne theologians were accused of rather stereotypical offences, known from polemic literature since the times of Petrarch, popularized in Northern Europe by The Praise of Folly or The Letters of Obscure Men, and also employed in polemics published by Melanchthon. The main and most serious argument against them was incompetence. On several occasions, Theologasters and Brothers admitted to having never read the Bible (this was symbolically conveyed in the scenes where they failed to recognize their interlocutors-Scripture, Reason, and Mercury-Berquin); they did not know Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; they were against granting the faithful, particularly women, access to the Bible; and were the object of general mockery and ridicule. These faults were exacerbated by the virtues of Mercury-Berquin, who was educated, wise, and refined. He recognized Reason and Scripture straight away, and during the debate offered to provide Theologasters with translations of texts they were not able to understand. He also clearly declared openness to any rational argu- This rather stereotypical critique of the clergy and theologians lacked at least one element employed in previous disputations and gave marginal importance to another. First of all, the moral decay of the clergy was entirely omitted: the farce features none of the usual jokes about priests living in informal relationships or the "monastic phallus."79 Controversial issues of the time, such as the tithe, the quest for profit, and accumulating prebends, were only mentioned in passing. In short, elements of popular humor referring to the "realm of the belly" were abandoned in favor of theological issues: the Bible's accessibility and laypersons' right to interpret it, ecclesiology, and soteriology. While there is no doubt about the humanistic and Lutheran character of the farce, there is no clear demand for access to communion under both species, the criticism of indulgences does not lead to expounding the idea of justifying sola fide, and making fun of the ecclesiological concepts put forward by Theologasters or the dogmas of the infallibility of the Church and popes gives no grounds for formulating the principle of universal priesthood. According to Claude Longeon, the main axis of the farce is its attitude to reason and rationality: Mercury, after all, is the symbol of cunning and craftiness.80 The farce against theologasters expresses a humanistic hope for reconciling reason and faith in the spirit of genuine piety.

Poland without a Belly
Given the considerable popularity of the word "theologasters" in France and the German Empire, a similarly warm reception could be expected in Poland, where attacks against the exceedingly lay lifestyle of the clergy were commonplace in the late medieval and early modern period.81 There were at least two arguments in favor of employing the already established Erasmian term: a strong connection between the political and intellectual elites and Erasmus as well as anticlericalism, which likely played a decisive role in the mass fascination with Reformation ideas.82 However, references to the "realm of the belly" never caught on in Poland, perhaps owing to a certain widely held structure of argumentation. According to Janusz Tazbir, whose analysis encompassed the entirety of Old Polish culture: "The most important charges formulated by Polish nobility against the clergy concerned material issues, the ignorance of certain priests, their excessively sumptuous lifestyle or charging inordinate fees for religious services. Contrary to print activity taking place in Western Europe (particularly Germany), sex-related matters came further down the list."83 However, at the outset of the Reformation, there were no original publications in Poland that would attack Catholic clergy from a Protestant standpoint. Numerous texts from the German Empire were imported to Poland, most likely to satisfy the needs of a narrow circle of educated recipients. On the other hand, the catalogue of anti-Reformation works, mostly printed in Kraków during the reign of King Sigismund i (1506-1548), was rather extensive, as it encompassed almost thirty titles.84 It is precisely on the pages of one such literary disputation that one may find a unique example of the use of theologastri as an insult. This took place during the dispute between the canon of Poznań, Grzegorz (Snopek) of Szamotuły (Szamotulski), and the vice-chancellor of the Lubrański Academy, Christopher Hegendorfer.85 Although the controversy concerned Poznań, Grzegorz prepared his text in Kraków and dated the preface to 12 May 1535, Cracovie ex meo museolo. 86 The dispute provoked the publication of Hegendorfer's reply in Wittenberg,87 to which, in turn, Grzegorz again responded.88 Grzegorz (d. 1541) was a typical representative of the academy of the late Middle Ages.89 Having received a solid academic upbringing (bachelor's and master's degrees in Kraków and the title of doctor obtained a few years later from a different university), he worked as a lecturer and preacher. For some years, he was the vice-chancellor of the cathedral school in Gniezno (1507-1509) and Kraków (1511-1513), in 1525 he became the canon of Poznań, and in 1533 took on the post of archdeacon in the same city. He could easily be described as the embodiment of a medieval clergyman, who abused excommunication and ruthlessly enforced the rents he was due. In spite of these activities, he was continuously associated with the Kraków academy where he lectured. His body of work-of a secondary, compilatory nature-is most striking in its defense of indulgences and reluctance to indulge in humanistic novelties.
The polemics against the humanist Hegendorfer published in Poznań aptly convey the canon's intellectual profile. In comparison with other anti-Lutheran polemics that appeared in Poland, Grzegorz's writings Anacephaleosis flosculos monogrammos and Vincula Hiipocratis [!] have a highly intellectual character. 90 In the first work, Grzegorz defines nine arguments where he cannot concur with Hegendorfer.91 The most important points of contention were the methods of academic reasoning and the relationship between philosophy and theology. Hegendorfer criticized the system of knowledge for its idolatrous attitude toward Aristotle and the resulting preference for philosophy at the expense Erasmus Studies 41 (2021) 200-229 of theology. According to Grzegorz, the criticism of Aristotelian metaphysics formulated by Hegendorfer was a humanist attack at the very foundations of scholasticism, which relied on Aristotle's writings in its arguments. Grzegorz believed that his reasoning could be informed by the writings of Aristotle and Plato, while Hegendorfer urged primary reliance on the Bible "augmented" by rational argument. Therefore, at first sight, the humanist was arguing against the antique tradition, while the schoolman defended its authority. Even if it was obvious that not Aristotle, but the Bible and Church tradition, was the bone of contention, literally both adversaries expressed anti-Lutheran sentiment. They both defended the freedom of human will but differed in their line of argumentation.92 Aside from methodological concerns, the debate focused on ecclesiology. Wanting to prove that Hegendorfer was in fact a crypto-Lutheran, Grzegorz criticized the notion of a universal priesthood promoted by the humanist, treating it as a return to the tradition of sycophants preaching against compensation, and as paving the way for children and women to access both the pulpit and the power of the keys (potestas clavium).93 He pointed out that the vice-chancellor had in fact reiterated the Lutheran definition of the Church as a congregation of saints headed by Christ himself.94 To Grzegorz, this ignored the visible manifestation of the Church, which was of utmost important to him.95 The Church was a body (corpus) made up of various members (membra), or-in other wordsa hierarchic institution.96 Ordained Church hierarchy had the power of the keys, which included both preaching the word of God in churches (templa) as well as giving the Eucharist and hearing oral confessions.97 One of the more interesting elements of Grzegorz's reasoning was the open and very tolerant character of this ecclesiology. The visible form of the Church was a mixed one, as evil people also belonged to it.98 Tares and wheat would grow together until the harvest, and wise maids would coexist with foolish ones.99 These formulations and rhetorical figures were common among anti-Lutheran polemicists who spoke out against the Reformation from the standpoint of tolerance. The aim of this argumentation was to show that the essence of Reformation consisted of relatively trivial abuses of office, which the Church could deal with using existing structures.
The most important theological controversy, justification by faith, was the last point Grzegorz made.100 The canon accused Hegendorfer of relying on a simple syllogism to prove that humans can only be justified by their faith in Christ: either people are justified by Christ or else he died in vain, yet since we know that Christ did not die in vain, people are justified by faith. To Grzegorz, this line of reasoning resonated with the thoughts of Luther. However, the archdeacon believed that Luther's understanding of Saint Paul's idea that "the righteous will live by faith" (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11) was mistaken and too narrow. According to Grzegorz, Paul's idea of faith also encompasses fasting and deeds.101 Thus, the conclusion of the dissertation was clear: Hegendorfer was a Lutheran.
Hegendorfer's response was a great praise of humanism dedicated to Andrzej Górka, at the time the castellan of Kalisz. Although eloquence was a relatively recent addition to Sarmatian Poland, the humanist argued, it had already borne tremendous fruit, cleansing schools from barbarism. It had also polished a number of diamonds Sarmatia was replete with, to mention but the Sorbonne, Wolan argued that only prolonged contact with theological writings entitled one to preach,107 and he refused to acknowledge laypersons' right to interpret the Bible or have their say in matters concerning theology.108 New writers (scriptores Neoterici) neither knew the Scripture nor Greek or Hebrew, and they made mistakes in Latin.109 These theologasters did not in fact practice theology, but a poor version of philosophy-or, as he goes on to add-not even philosophy, but mere grammar.110 Therefore, Wolan's advice was to bring these supposed masters down to earth.111 Consequently, the term coined by Erasmus, when employed by this fine Calvinist polemicist-as in the case of Grzegorz of Szamotuły-was meant to stigmatize unorthodox science. Contrary to Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, or Beza, Polish polemicists used the insult not to expose the incompetence of people holding academic titles and representing powerful institutions. This term did not serve to undermine the authority emanating from representatives of established paradigms. Like Eck, Grzegorz and Wolan spoke from entirely different positions: as defenders of hierarchy and order against careerists and heretics. Therefore, in their eyes, the term "theologaster" maintained its etymological meaning-they were criticizing the pseudo-theologians who lacked the required qualifications and therefore were not entitled to enter into deliberations concerning God. On the other hand, the other meaning, based on false etymology and denoting the "sphere of the belly"-with its connotations of sin, carnality, and eroticism-disappeared.

Paths of Transfer
Last but not least, the forms of communication through which the term theologastri reached its recipients deserve some consideration. Having left behind the circle of handwritten correspondence and polemic rough-and-tumbles that-until 1518-were also limited to manuscripts, pseudo-theologians found their place in ephemeral printed works (Flugschrift and Flugblatt) published in the German Empire in vast quantities with large circulations. According to estimates, around 200,000 titles were published in the German Empire in the sixteenth century; at least 10,000 appeared during the most intense clashes between Lutherans and Catholics (1520-1530). 112 The circulation of some printed works is estimated at a thousand copies, and the most widely read works-such as the translation of the Bible or Luther's Small Catechism-were printed in more than 100,000 copies. 113 While ephemeral printed productions were the mass medium of Reformation in the German Empire, elsewhere, their impact was much lower.114 Contrary to Luther and his followers or polemicists from the German-speaking realm, the author of La Farce des Théologastres did not publish his apology as an ephemeral printed work but prepared a theater play instead. Consequently, the example of France may prove that other forms of communication maintained their position even after the popularization of print, and, what is more, that they also played an important role in disseminating Reformation ideas. 115 The mass media in the form of sermons, songs, and the theater are much more difficult for historians to capture than the relatively well-preserved printed material, but their scope must have been incomparably greater. 116 The number of short plays (morality plays, farces, monologues) written in France in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is estimated at c. 250, out of whichaccording to André Tissiera-around 200 works have the word "farce" in the title.117 In France, the means used to carry Reformation ideas were still largely the manuscript and the spoken word, thus constructing a slightly different public sphere than in the area of influence of German printing presses.
The question of the structure of the public sphere of Reformation in Poland is even more difficult. In the times of Sigismund the Old, Protestant works were almost solely imported (also from neighboring Königsberg) and very rarely reprinted. The dimensions of the import of books "brought in by the barrelful"-as numerous bishops used to complain-will have to remain unknown. Information about Lutheran plays or carnival performances is similarly scarce.118 On the other hand, the sphere of print, delineated by officially published and sold works, had an anti-Reformation character, something that only changed in the mid-sixteenth century, alongside the founding of Protestant church organizations with their own printing presses that could operate thanks to the support of powerful patrons.119 Yet the mechanism of their establishment and their way of functioning resulted in an entirely different character than the public sphere of Reformation that had formed in the German Empire in the first half of the century thanks to the eruption of ephemeral printed matter. This difference was also reflected in the use of the term theologaster.

Outlook and Summary
The aforementioned cases constitute a collection of the most significant examples of the insult theologasters in the sixteenth century. Of course, the term was also known in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and it even made it to ephemeral print material published during the Thirty Years' War.120 It appeared on the pages written by erudites, such as Melchior Adam, author of the list of used not so much as an argument or an insult, but rather as a relic of scholarly character, an Erasmian symbol. To sum up, it is worth taking another look at the history of this bizarre insult. In the early writings of Erasmus, the term "theologaster" meant, above all, an aversion to institutionalized science and the form it took on in the times of scholasticism. His complaints resonate with the overtones of an underrated expert excluded from the academic world, where his competence was neither valued nor necessary. The meaning of this term, like the general attitude evinced by Erasmus, was marked by an ambivalent mix of rejection and aspirations. Presuming this image of the unappreciated scholar, complaining against the academy, was at least partially true, the self-perception of Erasmus must have changed over the years as the humanist joined the academic world, teaching in Cambridge, helping in establishing the university in Louvain and holding the position in Basel. This might explain why the Latin neologism did not become a permanent feature in his writings, even when he accused schoolmen of demonstrating an excessively irreverent approach to classical tradition. Nevertheless, the insult became generally known with the publication of the eminent humanist's correspondence.
On the eve of the Reformation, the term was mostly appreciated by Catholic polemicists. It was used to emphasize the incompetence of representatives of fledgling confessions, who did not have the required tools to interpret the Bible and, thus, no right to become involved with it. Behind this criticism was the fundamental dispute about the significance and importance of the Church for religion. In a number of disputations all over Europe, Catholic polemicists tried to argue that the Bible was a difficult text, whose interpretation was rooted in tradition and belonged to an institutionalized Church. Lay know-it-alls had no legitimacy to take on said task.
On the other hand, in the language of Protestant theologians of all confessions, the term was used to criticize Catholic polemicists, most often scholastics from the Sorbonne. Gradually, as churches became more and more institutionalized, it was also used as an argument against various radical Reformation movements, as demonstrated by Wolan's disputation with the Antitrinitarians. The Confrontation between Lutheran Orthodoxy and Pietism could serve as another example of the implantation of the humanist slur. While criticizing the dilettantism or radical rationalism of their opponents, they simultaneously praised institutional knowledge. Perhaps without being fully aware of that, Protestant polemicists were reiterating the gesture of their Catholic adversaries.
The above deliberations do not claim to reconstruct the vocabulary used by cultures of conflict in the modern era. Their aim was to demonstrate by way of a meaningful and unique example the role of humanist culture in the development and shape of the Reformation movement. Bernd Moeller formulated a radical version of this thesis with his provocative statement that "without humanism there would be no Reformation."128 Even though the proposal was largely accepted (especially among researchers of humanism), in certain studies-often very one-sided-the relationship between humanism and Reformation comes down to a shared interest in ancient languages and the Bible, to the conflict between Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther concerning free will, and the question of reforming the Academy as proposed by Melanchthon. The history of the term coined by Erasmus demonstrates therefore both the depth of the ties between both spheres and their complex nature.