401 religious encyclopedia nationalism

B,ettie

8; Rom. v. 17; Rev. xx. 4, 6). A whole series of

contrasts follows between this and the present nat­

ural body (I Cor. xv. 42 aqq.). Dishonor, conse­

quent upon the weaknesses of the present body,

gives place to glory; weakness to strength; it has

not even the material substance of the present

(I Cor. xv. 50). What its substance is, Paul does

not tell; but his insistence on the differences be­

tween the two must not be pressed. If the new

body were conceived as a wholly different body,

there would be no real victory over death, which

would then have its prey, God repairing the loss by

a new creation. In I Cor. xv. 36 38, Paul describes

the relation between the two under the analogy of

the grain which " is not quickened except it die."

But what is the kernel of the new body contained

in the old? Since it is obviously not the substance

of the old, it can scarcely be anything but the in­

dividual, characteristic form, which has remained

constant throughout all the changes of the earthly

life. Paul's view would thus be that God develops

this form to meet the needs of a new corporal exist­

ence which shall correspond to the spiritual life of

the risen soul. As noted above, he gives no indi­

cation of the nature of the bodies to be assigned to

the wicked at the resurrection. It is clear, how­

ever, that a " pneumatic body " can not be be­

stowed upon them, if only because this is an im­

perishable body, incapable of being touched by the

" second death." His idea probably is that those

who did not die in the faith and fellowship of Christ

will rise in the same bodies which they formerly

possessed those of them who are justified at the

judgment then receiving their spiritual bodies, while

the rejected go down, body and soul, to the second

death. See EscHAToLoGy, § 6. (E. SCHAEDER.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The subject is treated from the Biblical

aide in the commentaries on the passages cited, and in

I(

the works on Biblical Theology (see the lists given in and

under that article); and from the dogmatic standpoint

in the works on systematic theology (see in and under

DOGMA, DOGMATICS) and especially on Eschatology (q.v.).

Special note may be made of: S. Drew, An Essay on the

Identity and General Resurrection of the Human Body . . .

in Relation both to Philosophy and Scripture, London,

1822; G. Bush, Anastasia; or the Doctrine of the Reeur­

rection of the Body Rationally and Scripturally Considered,

New York, 1845; R. W. Landis, The Doctrine of the Res­

urrection of the Body, Philadelphia, 1846; B. F. Weet­

eott, The Gospel of the Resurrection. Thoughts on its Re­

lation to Reason and History, London and New York, 1865;

H. Mattison, The Resurrection of the Dead, Considered in

the Light of History, Philosophy, and Divine Revelation,

Philadelphia, 1866; A. H. Klostermann, Untersuchungen

sur alttestamentlichen Theologie, Gotha, 1868; A. H.

Cremer, Die AuJerstehuny der Todten, Barmen, 1870;

idem, Ueber den Zustand nach dam Tode, 3d ed., G6ters­

loh, 1892; Jahrbitcher far deutsche Theologie, 1874, no.

2 (by Staehelin), 1877, no. 2 (by KSatlin); J. Hall, How'

are the Dead Raised, and with what Body do they come)

Hartford, 1875 D. W. Faunae, Resurrection in Nature

and in Reueiation: an Argument and a Meditation, New

York, 1884; C. E. Luthardt, Lehre son den letzten Dingen,

3d ad., Leipaic, 1885 H. W. Rinek Vom Zustand each

dam Tode, Basel, 1885; F. Splittgerber, Tod. Fortleben,

and Auferatehung 4th ad., Halls, 1885; R. $abisch,

Eachatoloyie des Paulus, Gbttingen, 1893; W. Milligan,

The Resurrection of the Dead. An Exposition of 1 Cor 

inthians xv.. Edinburgh, 1894; C. S. Gerhard, Death and

the Resurrection, Philadelphia, 1895; P. Giannone, It

Trireprw (Dells Resurrezione de Morte), 3 VON., Rome,

1895; W. F. Whitehouse, The Redemption of the Body,

London, 1895; E. Huntingford, The Resurrection of the

Body, ib. 1897; J. Maynard, The Resurrection of the Dead,

IX 32

ib. 1897; J. Hugh Games, On the Nature of the Resur­rection of the Body, ib. 1898; J. Telfer. The Coming King­dom of God, ib. 1902; L. Kessler, Relipiase Wirklichkeit. Von der Gevrissheit der AuJerstehunp, GSttingen, 1903; E. Wolfadorf, Die Auferatehunfl der Totem Bamberg, 1904; J. H. Hyslop, Psychical Research and the Resurrection, Boston, 1908; C. K. Staudt, The Idea of the Resurrection in the Ante Nicene Period, Chicago, 1910; D. V51ter, Die Entatehunp des Glaubene an die Au/erstehunp Jesu, Stras­burg, 1910; J. G. Bjbrklund, Death and Resurrection from the Point of View of the Cell Theory, Chicago, 1910.

RETABBLBM. See ALTAR, III., 1, b, o.

RETTBERG, ret'bftrH, FRIEDRICH WILHELM:

German Lutheran; b. at Celle (22 m. n.n.e. of Hanover) Aug. 21, 1805; d. at Marburg Apr. 7, 1849. He was educated at the University of GSt­tingen (1824 27; Ph.D., 1829), and after teaching at the gymnasium of his native city from 1827 30 went to Gottingen as lecturer in theology, where he was associate professor (1834 38), and assistant pastor at the Jakobikirche after 1833. In 1838 he was called to Marburg as full professor of theology and retained this position until his death. His most important writings arg those on church history, be­ginning with a monograph on the life and work of Cyprian (Gottingen, 1831), and continuing with a volume treating of the papal history of the thir­teenth century to carry on J. E. C. Schmidt's Hanal­buch der chrisdichen Kirchengeschichte (Giessen, 1834). Rettberg's chief work, however, was his Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (2 vole., Gtittingen, 1846 48), extending from the earliest period to the death of Charlemagne. He was also the author of an apologetic monograph Ueber die Heilslehren des Chrestentuma nach den Grundstttzen der evacngedisch­lutherischen Kirche (Leipsie, 1838), and of the pos­thumous Religtonsphiloeaphie (Marburg, 1850).

(J. A. WAGENMANNt.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The funeral sermon by E. Henke contains an account of Rettberg's writings and services to the Uni­versity of Marburg, and the same writer wrote the Becro­log in Kasselaehe Zeitung, no. 15, 1849, and issued an ap­preciation in Latin, Marburg, 1849. Consult also O. Garland, Hesaiache Gelehrten , Schrift&eller  and Kandla, Geschichte, i. 108 eqq., Cassel, 1883.

RETTIG, HEINRICH CHRISTIAN MICHAEL:

Protestant theologian; b. at Giessen July 30, 1799; d. at Zurich Mar. 24, 1836. He studied in his na­tive city, became teacher at the gymnasium there and privat docent at the university in 1833; and was called to the newly founded University of Zurich in 1833. His earliest writing was De tem­p  quo magi Bethlehemum venerint (Giessen, 1823). This was followed by De quatuor evangehorum ca­nonic0rum oregine (1824), discussions concerning the Fourth Gospel; next came some philosophical treatises dealing also with the Greek classics (1826­1828); Das erweislich 4lteste zeugnis jar die Eeht­hint der in den Kanon des Neuen Testaments aufge­nommenen APokalypse (Leipsie, 1829); and Qucea­tiones Philippente8 (Giessen, 1831) in all of which he displayed rationalistic leanings. But in his next book, though not bound by ecclesiastical orthodoxy, he appeared as a faithful adherent of Biblical teach­ing concerning Christ as the Son of God, Die freie protestantische Kirche oder die kirchlichen Veda, sungsgrunds&ze des Evangeliums (Giessen, 1832); in the first part of this he dealt with the relation of

Neublin THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 498

8euchlin

Church and State, arguing for the freedom of the

Church; in the second part he worked out in detail

a plan for a free organization. The work showed

great originality, and he seems to have hoped that

it would have as great influence upon the Church of

his time as the counsel of Melanchthon had had in

its time; he dedicated it to the princes and nobles

of the two Hesses. After his call to Zurich he issued

a facsimile of the Codex Sangallensis of the Gospels

(Zurich, 1836). (G. KRt1GER.)

BIHLIoO$APRr. K. W. Justi, Gruudlape zu einer hessischen

Gslehrten  . . . Geachichte, pp. 532 535, Marburg, 1831.

REUBLIN, reib'lin (ROEUBLI, RAEBL), WIL­

HELM: Swabian Anabaptist; b. at Rottenburg­

on the Neckar (24 in. s.w. of Stuttgart) about 1480;

d. after 1559, probably at Znaim (47 m. n.n.w. of

Vienna). His name appears in a great variety of

forms Reiblin, Rtiubli, R&ublin, Reubel, RAbl,

Rgbel, Reble, Rubli, Rublin, being some of the al­

ternative spellings. Nothing is known of his early

life. It is to be presumed that his parents were

somewhat well to do, as in 1559 (the last notice of

him) he asks King Ferdinand for permission to avail

himself of his inheritance in Rottenburg. He seems

to have received priestly orders before his matricu­

lation at the University of Freiburg in 1507. After

two years' study at Freiburg he removed to the

University of Tiibingen, where he was enrolled Aug.

21, 1509. On July 2, 1510, he was appointed pas­

tor at Greisheim in Schaffhauden. On July 24, 1521,

he became people's priest at St. Albans in Basel,

having no doubt already alined himself with the

opponents of the old order. His eloquent procla­

mation of the Gospel and bold denunciation of the

prevailing corruptions and superstitions attracted

audiences estimated by contemporaries at 3,000.

The trade gilds gave him their enthusiastic support.

The veneration of images and the keeping of eccle­

siastical fasts he strongly discouraged. In the Cor­

pus Christi procession of 1522 he carried a large

Bible instead of relics, saying, " This is the truly

sacred thing, the others are merely dead bones."

For this reckless zeal he was banished by the coun­

cil June 27. He was invited to a pastorate at Lauff­

enburg, but the Austrian authorities prevented his

acceptance. In the autumn following he was in

Zurich, where he frequently preached in the city

and surrounding towns and villages, and in 1523 he

settled at Wytikon. He was married to Adelheid

Leemann Apr. 28, 1523. Soon afterward he began

to call in question the Scriptural authority and the

propriety of infant baptism. Acting on his advice

several parents withheld their infants from christen­

ing and incurred severe punishment therefor. The

antipedobaptist sentiment extended to Zollikon

and the punishment of recusants called forth dec­

larations against infant baptism by Rr6tli, Grebel,

Blaurock, Castelberg, Manz, and others. In the

Zurich disputation of Jan. 17, 1525, on infant bap­

tism Rsublin was one of the antipedobaptist speak­

ers and he was among the first, shortly before or

shortly after the disputation, to introduce believers'

baptism. Banished from Zurich he went first to

Greisheim and then to Waldahut, where he induced

Hubmaier (q.v.), already convinced against infant

baptism, to lead his adherents in submitting to be 

lievers' baptism. About Easter, 1525, he baptized Hubmaier and about sixty others and shortly after­ward Hubmaier baptized about 300 more. After months of successful itinerant preaching he spent some time in Strasburg in 1526. Afterward in as­sociation with Michael Sattler (q.v.) he labored with remarkable success at Rottenburg, his home town, and from there extended his evangelizing activity to Reutlingen, Ulm, and Esslingen, where he was commonly known among antipedobaptists as " Pas­tor Wilhelm." He is next found a second time in Strasburg, where he asked for a public disputation with the ministers. His request was denied by the council on prudential grounds, but private discus­sion with the ministers was arranged for. He was thrown into prison Oct. 22, 1528. Having become " miserably sick and lame " he was released (Jan., 1529) and banished with the threat that drowning would be the penalty of returning. Failing to se­cure permission to reside in Constance, he made his way with wife and children to Moravia, where he entered the Austerlitz household of the commu­nistic antipedobaptist society whose head was Jacob Wiedemann. Wiedemann, no doubt, suspected from the first in Reublin lack of sympathy with the ideals of the community and may have been unwilling to have the eloquence of the learned newcomer brought into comparison with his own uncultured preaching. Reublin is said to have criti­cized severely the disorder that prevailed and Wiede­mann resented his expression of opinion. Though urged by several of the members to invite Reublin to preach he persistently refused and when, after his return from a journey, he was informed that Reublin had preached without his permission he was so indignant that he denounced and excom­municated him and refused to give him a hearing though urged to do so by Reublin's friends. With about 150 sympathizers, Reublin made his way al­most empty handed to Auspitz, where a new com­munity was formed that suffered great hardship. In Jan., 1531, he was denounced and excommuni­cated by Jacob Huter, who had been invited by the Austerlitz and Auspitz communities to assist them in settling difficulties that had arisen, on the ground of his imperfect observance of the principle of ab­solute community of goods which the latter and the majority of the brethren regarded as of the very essence of the Gospel. He disappears from view for over twenty years, discouraged no doubt by his inability to work harmoniously with the Moravian antipedobaptists and being excluded from the lands in which his early years had been spent by the gen­eral execution of the sanguinary edict of Speyer of 1529. In 1554 old and infirm he returned to Basel and begged for permission to reside there and en­gage in humble service for the sick and poor. He was not encouraged to remain, but a considerable sum of money was given him to defray his expenses at a health resort. He returned to Moravia and is last heard of in 1559 (as above).

A. H. NEWMAN.

BIBLIOGRAPRY. A sketch of the life is furnished by G. Bos­sert in Bldtter fair W2arttembergische Kirchengeechichte, 1889, nos. 10 12, 1890, nos. 1 2. Consult further: C. A. Cornelius, Geschichte des mfanaterschen Aufruhrs, Leipsie; 1855 80; E. Egli. Die Zurcher Wiedertaufer, Zurich, 1878,

RELIGIOUS

idem, Actenaammlunp zur Geschichte der Ziircher Reforma­tion, ib. 1879; J. Beck, GewAichtsbUcher der Wiedertriufer in 0egerreich Unpam, Vienna. 1883; L. Keller, Die Be­fonnotion and die 61teren Reformparteien, Leipsic, 1885; R. Nitsche, GeschicAte der WiederMufer in der Schweiz zur Reformationzeih Einsiedeln, 1885; C. Gerbert, Geschichte der Straasburger Sektenbewegurv,7, 1684 36, Strasburg, 1889; A. H. Newman, Hist. of Anti Pedobaptism, pp. 105 sqq., Philadelphia, 1897; A. Hulshof, Gewhisdenis van den Doopegezind en Straassburp,162"7,1905. For Reublin's justification of bi self and complaint of ill treatment at the hands of the Moravian communists cf. his letter to Pilgrim Marbeck in C. A. Cornelius, ut sup., Vol. ii., Beilape.
REUCHLIft, reiHrrlinr (CAPNION), JOHANNES: German humanist; b. at Pforzheim (24 m. n.w. of Stuttgart) Feb. 22, 1455; d. at Bad Liebenzell (20 m. w. of Stuttgart) June 30, 1522. After a brief course at the University of Freiburg, where he was matriculated May 19, 1470, he was a chorister in his native town and then gained a place at court in the chantry of the Margrave Charles I. The latter sent him as companion to his son to the University of Paris, where he began the study of Greek. In the summer of 1474 he worked at Basel (B.A., 1475; M.A., 1477), still continuing his study of Greek. At this period he composed his Vocabularius brevilo­quus (1475), but his teaching of Aristotelian philoso­phy brought him into conflict with the " sophists " of the university. He accordingly returned to Paris and resumed his Greek studies, then went to Or­Mans in 1478 to study jurisprudence, receiving his degree in law in the following year and supporting himself by teaching. He continued his legal studies at Poitiers and became licentiate of law in 1481. Reuchlin then returned to Germany arid intended to lecture at Ttibingen, but was requested by Count Eberhard im Bart to accompany him to Rome. After his return to Germany he was the counselor of the count and also practised law in Stuttgart. In 1484 he received a seat among the court judges, and two years later was Eberhard's envoy to the Diet of Frankfort, besides attending the coronation of Maximilian at Aachen. Meanwhile Reuchlin had begun the study of Hebrew. He visited Rome a second time in 1490 as the companion of the nat­ural son of Eberhard, and two years later the count sent him to the court of the Emperor Frederick at Linz on a diplomatic mission. The emperor hon­ored Reuchlin by conferring on him the title and privileges of a palsgrave, and here he secured in­struction in Hebrew from the emperor's physician­in ordinary, the learned Jew Jacob Loans. He now devoted himself to the mystery of the Cabala (q.v.), and in 1494 his De verbo mirifico appeared, in which he sought to show that God and man meet through the revelation of the mysteries contained in the marvelous names of God, especially in the tetra­grammaton, the ineffable first becoming utterable through the most marvelous of all names (which he transliterated Jhovh, Jesus, recalling the tetragram­matOn Yhwh), wherein man is united with God and saved: .

The death of Eberhard (Feb. 24, 1496) brought Reuchlin in peril of his life from the unbridled Eber­hard the Younger and the Augustinian Konrad Holzinger, who were opposed to him. He fled from Stuttgart to Heidelberg and was appointed coun 

ENCYCLOPEDIA

ReubUn

Reuohlln

selor and chief tutor by the Elector Palatine Philip, Dec. 31, 1497. In 1498 Reuchlin again went to Rome on a mission for his patron, finding oppor tunity to continue his Hebrew studies with a learned Jew, Obadiah Sforno, and meeting Aldus Manucius at Venice. In Apr., 1499, he was again at home. Duiing the period of his residence at Heidelberg, which was now to end, he had written, besides Latin poems and epigrams, two Latin comedies in imita­tion of Terence, Sergius, and Henno.

Meanwhile Eberhard the Younger had been de­posed in Worttemberg, and it became possible for Reuchlin to return to Stuttgart, where he was one of the three judges of the Swabian alliance until the end of 1512. In the midst of his official duties and his private practise, he found time to publish at Pforzheim, in 1506, his De rudimentis Hebraicis. This was followed in 1512 by a Hebrew edition of the seven penitential Psalms with a literal Latin translation and grammatical explanation for the use of beginners; and in 1515 by his De accentibua et orthographia lingum Hebraicte. In the mean time he had published in 1517 his De ante cabbaliatica, in which the cabala was held to have been revealed to Adam by an angel and to have been preserved in unbroken tradition to the time of the great synar gogue and then transmitted by it to the writers of the Talmud. The cabala was further asserted to be in harmony with the Pythagorean philosophy, which had drawn from Egyptian, Jewish, and Per­sian sources. The esoteric doctrines of the cabala were emphasized and the various methods of gemar tria were explained and exemplified.

During this period Reuchlin became involved in the controversy which was to embitter the closing years of his life. As early as 1505, in his missive, Warumb die Juden so fang im elend wind, he had held that the wretchedness of the Jews was a punish­ment for their rejection of the Messiah and their stubborn unbelief. At the same time, he did not wish them persecuted, but prayed that God might enlighten them. But Johann Pfefferkorn, a con­verted Jew, acted differently. He sought to compel the Jews to surrender all books contrary to the Chris­tianfaith and to attend sermons preached for their conversion. Pfefferkorn's course won the approval of the emperor, who, on Aug. 19, 1509, issued a mandate requiring compliance with his plans. Reuchlin declined to cooperate with Pfefferkorn, while Uriel, archbishop of Mainz, forbade Pfefferkorn to work in his archdiocese until further notice. Meanwhile the Jews of Frankfort had complained to the emperor that Pfefferkom was ignorant in these matters, and Maximilian placed uriel in charge of the confiscation, at the same time directing him to as­semble certain scholars and others; including Reuch­lin, and then to decide the matter. But Uriel de­layed, and on July 6, 1510, Pfefferkorn obtained from the emperor a new requirement that the archbishop should merely secure the written opinions of those he "had before been directed to consult, these deci­sions being intended for the emperor's consideration. On Oct. 6, 1510, Reuchlin accordingly delivered his opinion. He distinguished between obvious impie­ties, such as the Nizahon and the Toledoth Yeshu, which should be destroyed after legal investigation

Reuohlin THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 500

and condemnation, and the others, which should be preserved. The latter were divided into six cate­gories, characterized partly as having no bearing on Christianity (as philosophy and natural science), partly as unobjectionable (liturgies), partly as in­dispensable for understanding the Bible (commen­taries), partly as defending the Christian faith (the cabala), and partly as containing much of value along with superstition (the Talmud). He likewise held that the Jews were not heretics, but could claim legal protection. The opinions of the other scholars were radically different, and Maximilian determined to lay the matter before the diet, but no actual steps were ever taken.

The literary controversy, however, still dragged on, and Pfefferkorn finally offered to be judged by the emperor, the archbishop of Mainz, a university, or the inquisitor. Reuchlin replied to Pfefferkorn in his Augenapiege2 (1511), but the pastor at Frankfort Peter Meyer, judging the book heterodox, inhibited it and sent a copy to the Dominican Jakob Hoch­atraten, inquisitor of the province of Mainz, who submitted it to the theological faculty of Cologne. Arnold of Tungern and the Dominican Konrad KS1lin, commissioned to examine it, required Reuch­lin to withdraw all copies and publicly to beg his readers to consider him   a true Catholic and an enemy of the Jews and especially of the Talmud. This was demanding too much, and after a series of further polemics, including ,R,euchlin's Ain cdare Verstentnus (1512) and Defensio contra calumniatores (1513), the emperor was prevailed upon to silence both parties in June, 1513. Reuchlin now endeav­ored, through Frederick the Wise, to have the man­date extended to all his opponents; and the at­tempt of a Dominican to malign Reuchlin to the elector led both Luther and Carlstadt to express themselves in his favor. Frederick answered the Dominican with diplomatic reserve; but meanwhile the Cologne faction had secured from the emperor the confiscation of the Defensio, while Hochstraten had gained the condemnation of the Augenspiegel from the universities of Louvain, Cologne, Mainz, Erfurt, and Paris. Reuchlin was accordingly cited before the court of the inquisition at Mainz (Sept. 9, 1513). He failed to appear, but appealed to the pope, and then went to Mainz in the hope of a peace­able understanding. Failing in this, he again ap­pealed to the pope, who entrusted the decision to the Palagrave George, bishop of Speyer (Nov., 1513). George cited the parties concerned and delegated judgment to the learned canon Thomas Truchsess, a pupil of Reuchlin's. On Mar. 29, 1514, judgment was rendered in favor of Rsuchlin, whereupon Hoch­straten appealed to the pope, and a committee of twenty two was finally appointed, which, on July 2, 1516, decided in Reuchlin's favor. At this mo­ment, however, a papal mandatum de supersedendo was issued, and judgment was postponed indefi­nitely, though Hochstraten remained for a year in Rome, vainly endeavoring to secure the condem­nation of the Augenapiegei.

END OF VOLUME IX.

Reuchlin had the sympathy of the Humanists, as was evidenced both by their letters addressed to him, which he published as Clarorum virorum epistolte (Tfibingen, 1514, and Zurich, 1558) and Epistohe obscurorum virorum (q.v.). He had a powerful pro­tector in Franz von Sickingen (see SiC%INGEN, FRANZ vorr), who warned the Dominicans, and especially Hochstraten, to leave Reuchlin in peace. A final court was now determined upon, which met atF'rank­fort in May, 1520, and, condemning Hochstraten's attitude, recommended that the provincial should prevail on the pope to end the controversy and enjoin silence on both parties, while the Dominican chapter deposed Hochstraten from his offices of prior and inquisitor. At Rome, however, Reuehlin was now considered to be in sympathy with Luther, and on June 23, 1520, the papal decision was ren­dered in favor of Hochstraten. Reuchlin appealed in vain to Rome, and Sickingen with equal futility to the emperor. But interest in the controversy was at an end the problem of Luther had appeared. On Feb. 29, 1520, Reuchlin was appointed by Duke William of Bavaria professor of Greek and Hebrew at Ingolatadt, but early in the following year the plague compelled him to go to Tfbingen, where he lectured in 1521 22.

The indirect services of Reuchlin to the Refor­

mation were considerable. In 1518 he recommended

his great nephew Melanchthon as professor of Greek

at Wittenberg; yet his own attitude toward Luther

was unsympathetic, as was his feeling toward the

Reformation in general. (G. KAwERAu.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A notable source is the Acta judiciorum in­ter Pr. Jacobum Hochdraten . . . d Johannem Reuchlin, Hagenau, 1518. Lives have been written by J. H. Mai, Durlach, 1887; H. von der Hardt, Helmstadt, 1715; S. F. Gehres, Carlsrube, 1815; E. T. Mayerhoff, Berlin, 1830; F. Barham, London, 1843; J. Lamey, Pforzheim, 1855; and L. Geiger, Leipsic. 1871. Consult further: Melanchthon's Oratio continene historiam J. Capnionis, in CR, mi. 999 sqq.; L. Geiger, Johann Reuchlins Briefraech­sd, Tffbingen,1875; idem, in Viertdiahraachrift fitr Kultur and Litteratur der Renaissance, i (1888), 118 sqq.; E. Schneider, in Zeitachrilt fflr Geachichte des Ober­rheins, xiii. 547 599; F. W. H. Cremane, De J. Hochdrati vita d seriptia, Bonn, 1889; L. Geiger, Dar Studium der hebrdiwhen Spruahe in Deutschland, Breslau, 1870; idem, Renaissance and Humanismus, pp. 504 sqq., Berlin, 1882; D. F. Strauss, Ulrich von Sutton, Leipsic, 1871; Horawitz, in the Sitzunpaberichte of the Vienna royal academy, philosophic historical class, 1877; K. Hartfelder, Deutsche Ueberadsuryen klasaischer Schriftsteller ausdem HeidelberperHumanistenkreia, Heidel­berg, 1884; G. H. Putnam, Books and their Makers, i. 428 sqq., ii. 172, 202, 228, 237, New York, 1897; idem, Censorship of the Church of Rome, i. 83 sqq., 233, 335 eqq., ii. 44 sqq., 217, ib. 1907; J. Janssen, Hint. of the German People, iii. 44 sqq., St. Louis, 1900; F. A. Gasquet, The Bve of the Reformation, 159 180, 183 185, New York, 1901; Cambridge Modern History, i. 572 sqq., ii. 895­898, New York, 1902 04; N. Paulus, Die deutschen Domi­nikaner im Kampfs pepen Luther,. pp. 94 sqq., 119 sqq., Freiburg, 1903; T. M. Lindsay, Hist. of the Reformation, i. 87 sqq., New York, 1908; the introduction to the Epis­tole obscurorum virorum, ed. F. G. Stokes, London, 1909; Schaff, Christian Church, v. 2, pp. 825 830; O Pfleiderer, Development of Christianity, 177 179, New York, 1910; Hefele, Concilienpeschiclde, viii. 774 sqq.; Kr, x.1101 1109. Most of the works which deal with the Reformation and the early Reforms= have some discussion of Reuchlm.