It is sometimes said that if the French kings brought
nothing else back from their campaigns in Italy they brought back the
Renaissance. [Sidenote: Reformation] There is a modicum of truth in
this, for there are some traces of Italian influence before the reign
of Francis I. But the French spirit hardly needed this outside
stimulus. It was awakening of itself. Scholars like William Bude and
the Estiennes, thinkers like Dolet and Rabelais, poets like Marot, were
the natural product of French soil. Everywhere, north of the Alps no
less than south, there was a spontaneous efflorescence of intellectual
activity.

The Reformation is often contrasted or compared with the Renaissance.
In certain respects, where a common factor can be found, this may
profitably be done. But it is important to note how different in kind
were the two movements. One might as well compare Darwinism and
Socialism in our own time. The one was a new way of looking at things,
a fresh {188} intellectual start, without definite program or
organization. The other was primarily a thesis: a set of tenets the
object of which was concrete action. The Reformation began in France
as a school of thought, but it soon grew to a political party and a new
church, and finally it evolved into a state within the state.

[Sidenote: Christian Renaissance]

Though it is not safe to date the French Reformation before the
influence of Luther was felt, it is possible to see an indigenous
reform that naturally prepared the way for it. Its harbinger was
Lefevre d'Etaples. This "little Luther" wished to purify the church,
to set aside the "good works" thereof in favor of faith, and to make
the Bible known to the people. He began to translate it in 1521,
publishing the Gospels in June 1523 and the Epistles and Acts and
Apocalypse in October and November. The work was not as good as that
of Luther or Tyndale. It was based chiefly on the Vulgate, though not
without reference to the Greek text. Lefevre prided himself on being
literal, remarking, with a side glance at Erasmus's _Paraphrases_, that
it was dangerous to try to be more elegant than Scripture. He also
prided himself on writing for the simple, and was immensely pleased
with the favorable reception the people gave his work. To reach the
hearts of the poor and humble he instituted a reform of preaching,
instructing his friends to purge their homilies of the more grossly
superstitious elements and of