Chapter VIII: Beginnings of the Reformation--Correspondence of 1518-1519 (2)

"Now whatever they write is suspected to be my work, even with
you in England, if only men of affairs who come hither from
there are telling the truth. Indeed, I confess frankly: I cannot
help admiring their talent, but a too free pen I approve in no
man. First Hutten sent out as a joke his _Nemo_; everyone knows
the argument of it was mere folly, but the Louvain theologians
kept saying it was my work, and they fancy themselves more
sharp-sighted than Lynceus himself. Then came the _Febris_
[also by Hutten]; that was mine too! though the whole spirit
and style of it differed from mine. Then appeared the _Oratio_
of Mosellanus in which he takes the part of the three languages
against these tongue-lashers. They thought to make me smart
for it, even when I had not yet heard that the _Oratio_ was in
existence; as if whatever comes into the head of this man or
that man to write, I must be accountable for it or as if I had
not enough to do to defend what I have written myself. They
are Germans; they are young men; they have pens; they are not
wanting in ability; nor are there lacking those who irritate
them by their hatred, nor those who spur them on, and then pour
cold water on them.

"All these I have warned in my letters to keep their freedom
within bounds; at all events not to attack the leading men of
the Church, lest they provoke against learning the hostility of
those very men through whose patronage it is standing up against
its enemies and thus burden the defenders of polite letters with
this enmity. But what can I do? I can warn, but I cannot compel.
To moderate my own style is within my power, but not to answer
for another's pen. The most ridiculous thing is that the recent
work of the bishop of Rochester against Faber is ascribed to me,
whereas the difference of style is as great as I am far removed
from the learning of that divine prelate. Why! there were some
who charged More's _Utopia_ upon me! whatever appears is mine,
willing or no....

"I have never sent forth a work, and I never will, without
putting my name to it. Some time ago I wrote for amusement my
_Moria_, without malice though perhaps with more than enough
freedom of speech. But I have always taken pains that nothing
should go forth from me which could corrupt youth by its
obscenity, or could in any way offend religion, or give rise to
sedition or party violence, or make a single black line upon the
good name of another. The sweat I have spent up to this time
has been spent in aiding solid learning and in advancing the
religion of Christ. All are thanking me for it on every hand,
excepting a very few theologians and monks, who refuse to be
made either better or more learned....

"If anyone cares to make the trial he will find Erasmus serving
the See of Rome with his whole heart and especially Leo the
tenth, to whose piety he is well aware how much he is indebted."

Precisely the same tone of nervous anxiety about himself appears in a letter to Cardinal Campeggio, the papal legate in England.[125] He assures him that, so far as in him lay, he has tried to maintain the cause of Christ and the Church. Of course he cannot please everyone, but he has been satisfied with the praise of the best men from Pope Leo down.

[125] iii.¹, 436.

"But see," he cries, "the perverse and ungrateful ill-will of
some men. They do not trust to writings and arguments, but
attack me with slanderous tricks. Whatever books come out in
these days, in which anybody is too free with his pranks, they
put it upon me. There appeared the _Nemo_--for that is the name
of a certain silly book; they charged me with it and would
have made out their case if the angry author had not appeared
and claimed his work for himself. There came out certain
foolish letters and there were plenty of people to say I had
helped to write them. Finally there came--I know not with what
parentage--a work of Martin Luther, an author as unknown to me
as the most unknown person in the world; I have not yet read the
book through and yet at the very beginning they kept saying it
was my work, the truth being that not one stroke in it is mine."

He begs Campeggio to contradict these scandalous lies, and to rest assured that he never has written and never will write books of this sort. The cardinal's reply was as friendly and reassuring as could be wished, but may interest us especially because it makes no direct reference to the Lutheran movement.

To Pope Leo Erasmus wrote in regard to the second edition of his New Testament.[126] The first edition had been, he says, well received by all but very few. His description of these few critics is highly characteristic:

[126] iii.¹, 490.

"Some are too stupid to be convinced by reasonable argument;
some too conceited to be willing to learn better; some too
obstinate to give up their position, bad though it be; some too
old to hope ever to do anything worth doing; some so ambitious
that they cannot bear to seem to have been ignorant of anything;
but all are men of such a kind, that it is not worth while to
try for their approval. Indeed that was a clever saying of
Seneca: 'There are people by whom it is better to be abused than
praised.'

"Among these people there is scarce one who has read my books.
They were afraid for their power, some even for their gain,
if the world should begin to grow wiser. What they themselves
really think I know not, but they try to make the uneducated
crowd believe that a knowledge of the languages and what
they call good letters are opposed to the study of theology,
whereas there is no science to which they are a greater help
and adornment. These men, born under the wrath of the Muses and
the Graces, are fighting ceaselessly against learning, which in
these our days is just rising to greater fruitfulness. Their
chief hope of victory is in slanderous trickery. If they come
out in books they simply betray their folly and ignorance.
If they are met by reasoning, the evident truth overcomes
them at once. So they confine themselves to making an uproar
with the ignorant mob and among foolish women, who are easy
to impose upon, especially under the pretext of religion,
which these people are wonderfully clever in assuming. They
put forth terrible words--'heresy!' 'Antichrist!' They keep
declaring that the Christian religion is in danger and already
toppling over, and pretend that they are holding it up on their
shoulders; and in all these hateful charges they mingle the
names of the languages and of polite literature. These horrible
things, they say, have sprung from 'poetry'--for so they call
whatever belongs to elegant learning--that is, whatever they
themselves do not understand. Such nonsense as this they do not
hesitate to blather out in public sermons, and then ask to be
called heralds of apostolic doctrine! They abuse the name of the
Roman pontiff and of the Roman see, a thing sacred to everyone,
as it ought to be.

"By these trickeries they are preparing to assault the cause
of letters, now just beginning to flourish, and also that
purified theology which is learning to know once more its own
true sources. Nothing is left untried; every sort of calumny
is thought out against those by whose work these studies seem
to be growing; and among these they reckon me. Now, how much
of importance I have contributed I know not, but surely I have
striven with all my might to kindle men from those chilling
argumentations in which they had so long been frozen up, to
zeal for a theology which should be at once more pure and more
serious. And that this labour has so far not been in vain I
perceive from this, that certain persons are furious against me,
who cannot value anything which they are not able to teach and
are ashamed to learn. But, trusting to Christ as my witness,
whom my writings above all would guard, to the judgment of your
Holiness, to my own sense of right, and the approval of so many
distinguished men, I have always disregarded the yelpings of
these people. Whatever little talent I have, it has been, once
for all, dedicated to Christ; it shall serve his glory alone; it
shall serve the Roman Church, the prince of that Church, but
especially your Holiness, to whom I owe more than my whole duty.

"I might, if I had listened to other arguments, have been
advanced to wealth and dignities; I can prove by the most solemn
testimony that what I am saying is true. But this seemed to me a
greater reward; I preferred to serve the glory of Christ, rather
than my own. From a boy I have made it my care never to write
anything irreligious or scurrilous or against authority. Or if I
formerly chattered away a little too freely, after the habit of
youth, certainly nothing becomes my present age but serious and
holy things. No one was ever made one hair the blacker or the
less religious by my writings; no disturbance has ever arisen
or ever shall arise on my account. No malice of my accusers
shall ever overcome this fixed determination of my mind. Let
others see to it what they write; I am not judging the slave of
another; let every man stand or fall to his own master. My only
grief is that through the bitter controversies of some persons
the peace of learning and of the Christian commonwealth is being
endangered."

Here he seems to shift his ground from the attacks of the men of darkness to the Lutheran "tragedy."

"The affair seems no longer to be conducted with the weapons of
argument, but the battle rages with violent abuse on both sides;
biting pamphlets are the weapons and the uproar is swelling
into madness, with mutual maledictions. There is no one, unless
he were more than man, who does not sometimes slip, but these
human lapses, if they are of such sort that we cannot wink at
them, ought to be corrected with Christian charity. Now they
are turning to evil even that which is rightly spoken, often
that which they do not understand. With bitter words they make
raw sores which might have been healed by Christian gentleness;
they alienate by harshness men whom they might have kept by
kindness. The word 'heresy' is straightway in their mouths, if
at any point they differ or wish to seem to differ. If anything
does not exactly suit them, they raise seditious cries among the
rude and untaught people. These things, springing from slight
beginnings, have often kindled a widespread conflagration, and
it comes to pass that an evil, overlooked at first as of small
account, increasing little by little, finally bursts forth
into a serious disturbance of the peace of Christendom. Great
praise is due to those excellent kings who have quieted the very
beginnings of these dissensions, as Henry VIII. in England,
and Francis I. in France. In Germany, because that country is
divided up among so many little kings, the same cannot be done.
Among us, since we have but just acquired our prince [Charles
V. was elected emperor, June 28, 1519], great and excellent as
he is, yet he is so far removed that, up to the present time,
certain men are exciting tumults without reproof. I think,
therefore, that your Holiness would be acting most acceptably
to Christ if you should impose silence upon such contentions as
these and should do for the whole Christian world what Henry
and Francis have done, each for his own kingdom. Your piety is
bringing the most powerful kings into harmony; it remains for
you, by the same means, to restore to learning the peace which
is its due. This will come to pass, if by your order they who
cannot speak shall cease their babbling against polite learning,
and they who have no tongues for blessing shall cease cursing
those who are devoted to the tongues."

This letter rewards somewhat careful reading. Two ideas are obviously before the writer's mind: First, the cause of sound learning and its application to theology, the cause with which he identifies himself so completely that every attack upon it seems a personal assault upon him, and _vice versa_. Second, the Lutheran uprising, now beginning to show its possibilities of danger. Erasmus names no names, but the solemn warning to the pope as to the little flame that may grow to a consuming fire seems to point plainly enough to Luther, and the distinction so carefully drawn between Germany and the compact monarchies of France and England confirms this idea. It is a warning prophetic in its clearness of insight, but naïve to the point of childishness in its suggestions of a remedy. The new little emperor was not only _ingenti semotus intervallo_ from the field of Luther's activity, but the very constitution of Germany made it utterly out of the question that he could take any action whatever against Luther except by the consent of the prince who was his immediate sovereign. The "_reguli_," the "little kings" in Germany, had not bought their independence by centuries of conflict to suffer any such burnings at the stake and cutting-off of heads by any emperor as those capable youths, Henry and Francis, could command at will in London or Paris.

Nor was there any more promise in Erasmus' suggestion that the pope should order the parties in conflict to keep silence. The Leipzig disputation of Luther with John Eck in July of this same year (1519) was to bring out clearly that, after all, the real issue touched the papal authority, and when that was questioned it was idle to imagine that any papal action whatever could really affect the course of events.

There is a certain variation upon this suggestion in the dedication to Cardinal Campeggio of the paraphrases of certain epistles of Paul in 1519.[127] After a most flattering eulogy of Leo X. for his great interest in sound learning, Erasmus says:

[127] vii., 969.

"If a means of pacification is sought for, I think it might
most easily be accomplished if the pope should command that
each person prepare a statement of his own belief and set it
forth, without abuse of opposing views, so that the madness
of tongue and pen may be restrained, especially by those to
whom such control belongs. But if there is a difference, as
it often happens that our judgments differ like our tastes,
let the whole contention be held within the limits of courtesy
and not run over into mad excess. And if there be any point
specially touching upon doctrine--for everything ought not to be
dragged in, neck and heels, under the head of doctrine--let it
be discussed by men who are thoroughly versed in the mysteries
of the faith, who will not seek their own interests under the
pretence of the faith and who will carry on the affair with
prudent judgment, not with seditious disturbances."

Erasmus thinks he can easily persuade Campeggio and that the cardinal will easily persuade the excellent Leo. Where the superhuman beings are to be found who will carry out his innocent suggestions he does not say. We are bound to give him credit for any constructive ideas he may have had, and in all his writings there is nothing that comes much nearer to positive constructive planning than this.

If one may judge from the letter to Leo, Erasmus' early conception of the Lutheran movement was much like that which prevailed at Rome. It was a squabble of monks; Luther was an Augustinian, Tetzel a Dominican. Most monks were enemies of learning--Luther was a man of learning, but inclined to violence and not willing to keep the matter to a purely intellectual issue. He was, of course, right on many points, but was going too fast and was drawing after him many foolish people, who ought to be held in check by the established powers.

Quite the same tone appears in a long letter[128] to Albert of Brandenburg, archbishop of Mainz, the papal agent in the German indulgence of 1517 and the principal clergyman in Germany. Erasmus takes the opportunity of acknowledging the gift of a loving-cup from the archbishop to go at length into the Lutheran question. He reaches it again through the medium of his own personal difficulties. For a time, he says, he had made peace with the "theologians" at Louvain. They were to hold their scandalous tongues; he was to do his best to keep his pen still. If only they had had the archbishop's cup to drink their mutual faith in, the agreement might have lasted longer. As it is, an unhappy letter, badly understood and worse interpreted, has brought on an attack more furious than ever. He begs to explain[129]:

[128] iii., 513-D.

[129] iii.¹, 514-A.

"In the first place, I have never had anything to do, either
with the Reuchlin business or with the affair of Luther.
Whatever Cabala and Talmud may be, they have never attracted
me. Those contentions between Reuchlin and the followers of
Hoogstraaten were most displeasing to me. Luther is to me
unknown as the most unknown of men. His writings I have not had
time to read, excepting that I have just barely skimmed over
some of them."

It is very difficult to believe that these statements are true. Erasmus had interested himself in Reuchlin's affairs enough to write to two Roman cardinals in his behalf. He knew enough about Luther's writings to have convinced himself that their tone was too decided to suit him; if he had not read every word of them, he was thoroughly informed as to their contents. The motive of his denial appears in the next words:

"If he has written well, no praise belongs to me, if not there
is nothing which can be laid to my charge.... I was sorry that
the books of Luther were published and when first some writings
or other of his began to be shown about, I did my best to
prevent their publication, especially because I feared that
some tumult would be caused thereby. Luther had written me a
letter in what I thought a very Christian spirit and I answered,
warning the man not to write anything seditious or insolent
against the Roman pontiff, but to preach the apostolic doctrine
with pure heart and in all gentleness. I did this politely that
it might have the more effect. I added that there were some here
who favoured him, that he might the more accommodate himself to
their judgment. Now some have most stupidly interpreted these
words as if I favoured Luther, whereas no one of those persons
gave him any advice; I was the only one who warned him. I am
neither the accuser of Luther, nor his patron, nor his judge. As
to the man's spirit, I dare not judge him, for that is a most
difficult matter, especially if I must judge him unfavourably.

"And yet, even if I did favour him as a good man, which his
enemies admit him to be; or as an accused man, and that the laws
permit even to sworn judges; or as a man oppressed and crushed
down by those who, under some made-up pretext, are working all
they can against pure learning, what ground of fault-finding
against me were that, so long as I do not mix myself in the
matter? In fine, it seems to me the part of a Christian to
favour Luther, in this sense, that if he is innocent I do not
wish him to be crushed by the factions of the wicked; if he is
wrong I wish him to be set right, not ruined....

"But now certain theologians whom I know are neither warning
nor teaching Luther, but are only with mad howlings reviling
him before the people and tearing him in pieces with the most
violent abuse and continually having in their mouths the words
'heresy!', 'heretic', 'heresiarch!', 'schism!', 'antichrist!'
It cannot be denied that these clamours were raised among the
people chiefly by men who had never seen the books of Luther.
It is well proved that things are condemned by these people as
heretical in Luther which in Bernard or Augustine are read as
orthodox, nay, as pious words. I warned them at the beginning
to abstain from clamour of this sort and to carry on the
affair rather with writings and arguments. I said they ought
not publicly to condemn what they had not read and carefully
thought out, I will not say, understood. Then I told them it
was unbecoming for theologians to carry anything through by
violence, for their judgment ought to be of the most serious
kind, and that it was not an easy thing to gain their point
by raging against a man whose life was approved by everyone.
Finally, that perhaps it was not a safe thing to touch upon
such matters before a mixed crowd, in which there are many who
greatly dislike the confession of secret sins and if these
should hear that there are theologians who say one need not
confess all faults, they will readily snatch at it and get a
perverted notion. Now though all this must strike every man of
spirit as it does me, yet from this friendly admonition they
have conceived the suspicion that Luther's books are in great
part mine, and produced at Louvain, whereas not one stroke in
them is mine or published with my knowledge or my will. Still,
acting upon this false suspicion and in spite of all denial,
they have raised here disturbances more furious than I have ever
seen in my life.

"Further, though the special function of theologians is to
teach, I see many nowadays who are doing nothing but compelling
men, bringing them to ruin or to silence, whereas Augustine,
even in the case of the Donatists, who were not merely heretics
but furious brigands, does not approve those who would merely
compel, without also teaching them. Men to whom gentleness is
a duty, seem to be simply thirsting for human blood, so eager
are they to ensnare and ruin Luther. Now this is playing the
butcher, not the theologian. If they want to show themselves
great theologians let them convert the Jews, let them turn to
Christ those who are strangers to him, let them mend the public
morals of Christians, even more corrupt than those of Turks.
What justice is there in leading him to punishment, who has now
first proposed for discussion things which have always been
discussed in all the schools of theologians? Why ought he to be
persecuted, who begs to be instructed, who submits himself to
the judgment of the Roman See and of the schools, which they
call 'universities?' And if he refuses to trust himself in the
hands of certain persons who would rather see him crushed than
instructed, surely that is not strange."

For a man who was a total stranger to Luther and his books, Erasmus shows himself surprisingly well informed.

"Let us examine into the origin of the present troubles. The
world is burdened with human devices, with the opinions and the
dogmas of the schools, with the tyranny of the Mendicant Friars,
who, though they are the servants of the Roman See, are making
themselves a danger to the pope himself and even to kings, by
their power and their numbers. When the pope is working for
them he is more than a God; if he does anything contrary to
their convenience, he is of no more account than a dream. I am
not condemning them all; but very many are the kind of persons,
who for the sake of power and gain are seeking to ensnare
the consciences of men. With shameless effrontery they were
beginning to leave out Christ entirely and to preach nothing but
their own novel and impudent doctrines. About indulgences they
were talking in a way that not even idiots could stand. Through
this and many other things the vigour of apostolic teaching was
gradually disappearing and it was likely to happen that things
would go from bad to worse until that spark of Christian piety
should be extinguished, from which the dying flame of Christian
love might have been rekindled. The whole of religion was
turning towards more than Jewish ceremonialism. Good men grieved
over all these things. Even theologians who are not monks, and
some monks, confessed to them in private conversation. These are
the things, as I think, which first moved the heart of Luther to
set himself boldly against the intolerable insolence of certain
persons. For what else can I suspect of a man who is aiming at
neither honours nor wealth? As to the propositions which they
object to in Luther, I am not at present discussing them, but
only the manner and the occasion of them.

"Luther dared to have doubts about indulgences, but others
before him had made bold enough statements about these. He
dared to speak rather unrestrainedly about the authority of the
Roman pontiff; but others had shown little enough restraint in
this matter, and among them especially Alvarus, Sylvester, and
the cardinal of San Sisto. He dared despise the judgment of
St. Thomas, but the Dominicans had almost set Thomas above the
Gospels. He dared in the matter of the confessional to discuss
certain scruples, but in this thing the monks have entangled the
consciences of men without limit. He dared in part to despise
the conclusions of the schools; but they had laid far too
great weight upon these, and yet cannot agree upon them among
themselves, but are always changing them, cutting out the old
and putting in new. This was a pain to pious souls: to hear in
the schools scarcely a word about the apostolic teaching,
but to learn that the ancient sacred writers, long approved by
the Church, were now quite antiquated, and to hear in public
preaching seldom a word of Christ, but always of the power of
the pope and the opinions of the moderns; to know that the
whole discourse was filled with lust of gain, with flatteries,
ambition, and deceit.

"I think the blame ought to be put upon these things, if Luther
wrote a little too violently. Whoever defends the apostolic
doctrine defends the pope, who is its chief herald, as the rest
of the bishops are his heralds. All bishops stand in the place
of Christ, but among them the Roman pontiff stands first. We
must believe of him that he cares for nothing more than the
glory of Christ, whose minister he boasts himself to be. They
deserve very badly of him who ascribe to him things which he
would not himself recognise and which are far from helpful to
the flock of Christ. And yet some who are stirring up these
disorders are not doing it out of love for the pope, but are
abusing his authority for their own profit and power. We have,
as I believe, a pious pope; but in the vast flood of affairs
there are many things of which he is ignorant, which even if
he would he cannot get at, but as Virgil says, the driver is
'swept along by the steeds and the car heeds not the rein.' He
therefore is aiding the good-will of the pope, who exhorts him
to those things that are especially worthy of Christ.

"It is no secret that there are persons who are stirring up
his Holiness against Luther and against all who dare to murmur
against their dogmas. But the great princes ought rather to
consider what is demanded by the permanent will of the pope,
than by a loyalty extorted by base means. What kind of people
the authors of these dissensions are I could make perfectly
clear, if I did not fear that while I am telling the truth I
may seem to be uttering abuse. Many of them I know intimately;
many have declared their quality by their writings, so that no
mirror could more clearly reflect the image of their heart and
life. Would that they who take up the Censor's rod to drive out
of the Senate of Christians whomever they will, had drunk more
deeply of the teaching and the spirit of Christ....

"I say these things the more freely because I stand in every way
utterly apart from the case of Reuchlin and Luther. I should
never care to write things of that sort, nor can I claim so much
learning for myself as to defend what others have written, but
I cannot help making this mystery plain: that those men [the
opponents of Luther] are aiming at something quite different
from what they pretend. They have long been unable to bear
the idea of sound learning and the languages flourishing, the
ancient authors coming to life, who were until just now lying
covered with dust and eaten up by moths, the world called back
to the original sources themselves. They tremble for their own
emptiness, they are unwilling to appear ignorant of anything;
they fear to lose something of their own authority. They have
long been pressing upon this sore, and at last it has broken,
for the pain could no longer be concealed. Before the books of
Luther appeared they were most urgent in this thing, especially
Dominicans and Carmelites, of whom I would that many were not
more wicked than ignorant.

"When Luther's books came out they seized upon them as a
handle and began to bring the cause of the languages, of sound
learning, of Reuchlin and Luther, nay, even my cause also,
together into one bundle,--making not only a bad exposition, but
also a bad distinction. For, in the first place, what has sound
learning to do with the question of faith, and, in the next
place, what have I to do with the case of Reuchlin and Luther?
But these people have cunningly mingled these matters together
so as to involve in one common hatred all who cultivate sound
learning. That they are not acting honestly is evident from this
fact: they confess that there is no one among ancient or modern
writers who has not made mistakes and they will make a heretic
of anyone who obstinately defends himself; but why do they pass
over the rest and so persistently examine into one or two? They
are not disturbed because Alvarus and the cardinal of San Sisto
and Sylvester Prierias have often erred; they say not a word of
these because they are Dominicans. They cry out against Reuchlin
alone because he is an enthusiastic lover of the languages;
against Luther because they imagine him to be endowed with our
learning, whereas he has but just barely touched it. Luther has
written many things rather rashly than wickedly, and among these
things they are especially enraged because he has little respect
for Thomas Aquinas, because he is diminishing the revenue from
indulgences, because he cares little for the begging Friars,
because he pays less respect to the dogmas of the schools
than to the Gospels, because he takes no account of human
argumentations about disputed points. Intolerable heresies these
are!

"But these things they pass over and make hateful charges to the
pope, these men who are united and eager only in doing harm.
Formerly the heretic was heard respectfully and absolved if he
gave satisfaction, but if he persisted and was convicted, the
extreme penalty was that he was not admitted to the communion
of the Catholic Church. Now the charge of heresy is a different
thing and yet, for some slight reason, no matter what,
straightway their mouths are full of the cry: 'This is heresy!'
Formerly he was a heretic who differed from the Gospels or the
articles of faith or from something which had an authority equal
to these. Now, if anyone differ from Thomas, he is called a
heretic; nay, if he differ from some new-fangled logic, patched
up but yesterday by any sophist of the schools. Whatever they do
not like, whatever they do not understand, is heresy! to know
Greek is heresy! to speak correctly is heresy! whatever they do
not do is heresy! I confess that the charge of violation of the
faith is a serious one, but not any and every question ought to
be turned into a question of faith. They who deal with matters
of faith ought to be far removed from every form of ambition,
of money-making, of personal hatred, or of revenge. But what
these people are chiefly concerned with, who can be in doubt?
If once the reins of their greed are let loose, they will begin
everywhere to rage against every good man. Finally they will
threaten the bishops themselves and even the Roman pontiffs;
and in fact you may call me a liar, if we are not seeing this
done by some already. How far the order of the Dominicans will
dare to go we may learn from Jerome Savonarola and the crime
of Bern.[130] I am not bringing up again the bad name of that
order, but I am only giving warning as to what we must look out
for if they are to succeed in whatever they are bold enough to
undertake. What I have said thus far has nothing to do with
Luther's cause; I am speaking only of the manner and the danger
of it. The case of Reuchlin the pope has taken upon himself.
Luther's business is referred to the universities and whatever
they may decide is no risk of mine."

[130] The reference is to a celebrated fraud perpetrated by the
Dominicans of Bern to demonstrate their superiority over their
Franciscan rivals. The fraud was detected and the ringleaders
were burned alive, 1509.

The letter concludes with the now familiar protestations that he, Erasmus, has nothing whatever to do with the present troubles, but is merely giving a timely warning.

This letter to Archbishop Albert is the most important in the group we are now considering. It shows us practically every aspect of Erasmus' position in the year 1519, and suggests the numerous lines of comment thereon. The least convincing parts of it are those which refer to himself personally. These may be sufficiently explained by that joy in fancying himself persecuted which we have noted in him from the first. It needed but very slight foundations for him to build up a whole fabric of imaginary assaults, aimed at him because he was the one great source from which all intellectual energy might seem to flow. It was like his vanity to be vastly flattered if someone suggested that Luther could never have done what he had done without Erasmus' help, and he magnified that suggestion by saying it over and over to his numerous correspondents in every possible variation. The repeated declaration that he knew nothing about Luther or his books is too silly to deserve attention. He shows the most complete comprehension of what Luther was doing, and practically contradicts himself within the space of a few lines by stating that he has "taken a taste" of certain Lutheran books and been greatly attracted by them.

Another curious point is his insistence upon grouping Luther and Reuchlin together and setting himself over against them. In fact the points of view of these two men were at least as different as was that of Erasmus from either of them. Reuchlin was above all things a Humanist, a man of "the languages," and the "tragedy" in which he was concerned, his quarrel with the Dominicans of Cologne, had reference to the use which might properly be made of Hebrew by a sound Christian scholarship. All this was certainly very closely allied with the work of Erasmus and had no direct connection with that of Luther; yet Erasmus, furiously anxious not to seem to have anything in common with either, has no scruple in joining them together in one common reproach.

All this gives an effect of pettiness to Erasmus' attitude towards the Reformation and tends to obscure his actual service. So far as one can get at his real meaning, it is something like this: the real authors of the present troubles are the mysterious people whom he here continually refers to as "certain persons" or "those men," and whom he occasionally defines more specifically as the monks or the enemies of sound learning. Luther is right in calling attention to the evils of church life; he is not the first to do it, and Erasmus heartily agrees with him. "Those people" are attacking Luther because they feel, as well they may, that their rights and privileges are in danger, if men are going to listen to his criticism. They are catching, therefore, at every excuse to charge him with heresy. Erasmus affects to believe that pope, cardinals, and all good and reasonable men will see through these attempts and will hasten to save the Church by accepting what is valuable in this Lutheran criticism and acting upon it at once.

But,--and here is the line of distinction,--there was also in Luther's appeal an element of doctrine, an implication at least that the Church was false to its own teaching as to the direct relation between God and the soul of man. The consequences of this doctrinal implication were, as Erasmus must have felt at once, of the most far-reaching sort, and he was not prepared to follow them up. An unconditional declaration in Luther's favour would have seemed to commit him to the doctrinal as well as to the practical conclusions from Luther's premises.

This gives at least a shadow of reasonableness to his refinement of distinction between merely reading over the works of Luther and making such careful study of them as would enable him to attempt a reply. On the 23rd of September, 1521, he writes to Bombasius in Bologna[131]:

[131] iii.¹, 665-B.

"I am wholly occupied with revising my New Testament and some
other works, trying like the bears gradually to lick into shape
the crude product of my talents. But soon I hope to have more
leisure. I have been trying hard to persuade Aleander to give
me permission to read Luther's writings; for nowadays the world
is full of sycophants and prize-fighters. He said emphatically
he could not do this without a special permit from the pope; so
I wish you would get this for me in the form of some kind of a
brief. For I do not want to give a handle to these knaves, who
would like nothing better."

His _bête noire_ at Louvain seems to have been a person called Egmund, a Carmelite monk, who may serve us as the type of "those persons" who were trying to identify Erasmus with the Lutheran cause. Writing[132] to the _Rector Magnificus_ of the University of Louvain, still in 1519, Erasmus says that this Egmund had been expressing the pious hope that as St. Paul had been converted from a persecutor to a doctor of the Church, so Erasmus and Luther might some day be converted.

[132] iii.¹, 537.

"What will become of these men? The one thing they want is
to do harm in some way, and it offends them that I am not a
Lutheran, as indeed I am not, except in so far as Luther serves
the glory of Christ. I know that I am rather free of tongue,
but yet no one has heard me approve the doctrine of Luther. I
have never taken pains to read his books, excepting a few pages,
and these rather skimmed than read. Your contentions against
Luther I have always consistently favoured, but far more your
writings, especially those of John Turenholtius, who, as I hear,
has carried on the discussion in a scholarly way and without
personalities."

He has not read Luther, yet he has steadily approved the Louvain contentions against him and especially the writings of a man of whom he knows only by hearsay that he writes in good temper!

"If his [Luther's] books were to be burnt, no one would find me
any the sadder. I have written privately and said many things to
prevent him from writing so seditiously, and yet I am called a
Lutheran! If these jokes amuse your university, I am man enough
to bear them; for I would rather do this than take revenge for
them; but in my judgment the cause would be better served by
other methods. Vincentius is charging me with the tumult in
Holland, in which after a most foolish discourse, he came near
being stoned to death; whereas the truth is I have never written
to any Dutchman either for Luther or against him."

He writes to Mountjoy in the same year[133]:

[133] iii.¹, 538-C.

"While you are happy for so many reasons I am compelled to fight
with certain monsters rather than men. By Hercules! I would like
to try what eloquence might do, were it not that as I lay my
hand upon the hilt a certain Christian modesty, like Pallas in
Homer, seizes me by the hair and restrains me."

So far Erasmus had stood in an attitude of studied neutrality. We have to gather from his emphasis and from the undercurrent of his eloquence our impression as to the side on which his sympathies really lay. If the world could only have stood still long enough for his wise and cautious suggestions to affect the parties, all might yet have been well. Unhappily for the Erasmians of all times, the world moves, and it does not move strictly according to rule. Even while Erasmus was exhorting to mildness, events were forcing men into partisan attitudes which made his counsel of no avail. There were enough men who felt passionately the wrongs which he felt only academically, to force the discussion into the fighting stage. The more this becomes evident, the more clearly we see Erasmus moving over from the position of sympathetic neutrality towards the reforming party into that of suspicion and declared hostility.

In the correspondence we have just quoted, the weight of emphasis is on the provocation which the reformers had received. They were pretty violent, but their enemies were worse, and if the highest authority were to act at all, it would do better to compel the men of darkness to silence rather than the excellent Luther and his worthy followers. How far Erasmus, whether in 1519-20 or at any later time, really changed his opinion on any of the points at issue, will probably always remain a subject for controversy. We are concerned with the change of emphasis by which his final attitude was determined.

Two letters of 1519, one to Philip Melanchthon, in the centre of the Lutheran camp, and one to the Dominican Jacob Hoogstraaten, the head of the Inquisition at Cologne, will serve to show how evenly at this time Erasmus distributed the discipline he felt himself called upon to administer to the new and more tumultuous generation.

One can hardly help smiling at this passage from the letter to the gentle and peace-loving Melanchthon, by all means the sweetest-natured of all the Reformation champions. Erasmus makes him some very pretty compliments on his books and then goes on[134]:

[134] iii.¹, 431.

"But, if you will take advice from Erasmus, I wish you would
take more pains in setting forth good learning than in attacking
its enemies. They are indeed worthy of being assailed by good
men with every sort of abuse, but, if I am not mistaken, we
shall accomplish more in the way I advise. Besides, we ought to
fight in such fashion that we may seem to be their superiors,
not only in eloquence but also in modesty and in good breeding.
Everyone here approves of Martin Luther's character, but there
are divers opinions as to his beliefs. I myself have not yet
read his books. Certain things he is right in calling attention
to, but I wish he had done it as happily as he has boldly. I
have written about him to Duke Frederic."

This letter to Frederic of Saxony,[135] wanting in our collection, emphasises as strongly as possible the excellence of Luther as a man, and, while disclaiming all interest in his doctrine, urges the Elector to defend him against his persecution.

[135] Karl Hartfelder, "Friedrich der Weise von Sachsen und D.
Erasmus," in _Zeitschrift für vergleichende Literaturgeschichte_,
etc., N. F., iv., 1891.

Doubtless he was no less favourable to Luther than he was in the following year, when the Elector Frederic, finding himself at Cologne on imperial business, had an interview with Erasmus, of which his intimate counsellor and biographer Spalatin gives an account[136]:

[136] _Friedrichs des Weisen Leben und Zeitgeschichte_, von G.
Spalatin, Jena, 1851, p. 164.

"There at Cologne the most learned Erasmus of Rotterdam was with
the Elector, who talked with him on all kinds of subjects and
asked him if he believed that Doctor Martin Luther had erred in
his writing and preaching. Thereto he answered in Latin: 'Yes,
on two points, namely, that he has attacked the crown of the
pope and the bellies of the monks.'"

Thereat the Elector laughed and he recalled the saying a year or so before his death (1525).

Luther contributes to our impression of this interview in his Table-talk:

"Doctor Martin said that the Elector Frederic of Saxony had an
interview with Erasmus at Cologne in 1519 and had given him a
cloak and said afterward to Spalatin: 'What kind of a man is
Erasmus? one cannot tell where one stands with him.' And Duke
George said, after his fashion: 'Plague take him! One never
knows what he is at. I like better the way of the Wittenbergers;
they say yes and no.'"[137]

[137] Walch, Luther's _Werke_, xxii., 1623-4.

The letter to Hoogstraaten, who had been the chief enemy of Reuchlin, was the boldest venture of Erasmus in this early stage of the Lutheran contest. It is a monument to the writer's skill in defending two sides of a question at once. It is dated in August, 1519, and begins[138]:

[138] iii.¹, 484.

"When I was reading, some time ago, the books in which your
quarrel with Reuchlin is contained, I was often impelled to
write to you, first by Christian love, then by the profession
of our common studies and further by the special affection
with which from a boy I have ever regarded your Order [!], and
lastly by an uncommon attraction towards you, whom I understand
to be a man of agreeable and courteous manners. That you are
most eagerly devoted to our new studies, your writings clearly
proclaim, which affect throughout refinement and elegance of
diction and leave no doubt what your opinion is as to sound
learning."

All this tempted Erasmus to give him some good advice; but then, on the other hand, he reflected that good advice is seldom acceptable and generally harms the adviser. The bishop of Cologne, however, had removed this scruple, and, if he tells the truth about Hoogstraaten, Erasmus thinks he may venture on some gentle admonition. At first he was dreadfully afflicted at Reuchlin's violence; but then friends told him that Reuchlin must have had terrible provocation, for that he was naturally the mildest of men. Then certain persons said hard things of Hoogstraaten, and finally, when Erasmus came to read him, he was compelled to say that he had liked him better before he began to defend himself. Then, a little while after, he had picked up "in another person's library" certain furious letters against Hoogstraaten and, little as these pleased him, he was able partly to excuse them, having read the pamphlets which had called them forth. He is not fighting Reuchlin's battle; rather Hoogstraaten's, for he is trying to tell him what will be for his advantage. If he answers that this is simply his office as inquisitor, very well; let him perform his office, but in such a manner that he may seem to everyone to be doing solely the service of Christ.

"Had you not done your duty when after so many years and such a
storm of pamphlets you had persecuted a quite obscure man, who
perhaps would never have been known at all, if you had not made
him famous? and this after the Roman pontiff, learning that the
affair was of such a kind that it was better to drop it than
keep it in agitation any longer, had ordered silence. If any
error dangerous to Christian piety appears, it is first to be
carefully worked out by the discussions of learned men and then
is to be reported to the bishop. When you have done that your
part as inquisitor is done. You have made the inquiry and have
brought it before the proper authorities. You are not called
upon to stir up heaven and earth and to raise such tumults as
these. Would that you had spent as much pains, as much money
and time, in preaching the Gospel of Christ. If you had, I am
greatly mistaken or Jacob Hoogstraaten would be a greater man
than he is now, and his name would be far more honoured among
all good men, or at least would be less hated. As it is, a
great part of this hatred falls upon your Order, which, heavily
burdened already by serious hostilities on many accounts, ought
not to be weighed down by new ones."

Then follows a long defence of some words of Erasmus quoted by Hoogstraaten, without naming their author, but which seemed to draw him into the Reuchlin quarrel. "May Christ be as favourable to me as I am little favourable to the Cabbala!" He cares nothing for the Jews:

"Who is there among us who does not sufficiently hate this
race of men? If it is a Christian thing to hate Jews, we are
all good Christians enough! The one thing that makes all the
trouble is the neglect of learning. You will be serving much
better the cause, not only of the Dominican order, but also of
Theology as a whole, if you will check by your authority the
vacant abuse of certain persons who everywhere, in public and
private discourses, in disputations, at banquets, and what is
most serious, in public preaching are brawling against skill in
the languages and against polite letters, mingling with their
hatred of these, cries of 'Antichrist!' 'heresy!' and other
violent words of this sort, whereas it is perfectly clear how
greatly the Church is indebted to men skilled in languages and
in eloquence. These studies do not hide the dignity of theology,
but make it more plain; do not oppose it, but serve it. You
would not straightway brand the art of music as heretical, if
perchance some musician were to be apprehended as a backslider.
The error of the man is to be condemned, but honour is still to
be paid to his studies.... If Theology will join in doing honour
to these studies she will in turn be adorned by them; but if
she abuses and reviles them, I fear it will come to pass, as
Paul says, that while they are assailing each other with mutual
bites, they will simply be the death of each other."

In view of this correspondence of 1518-19 we may well consider here the much-discussed question of Erasmus' personal courage. Of all the charges brought against him on both sides that of timidity is the most frequent. Of all the explanations of his attitude toward the Reformation this is the most obvious and the most popular. If one can accept it, it settles promptly and once for all a multitude of perplexing questions. "Why did Erasmus not do or say this thing or that thing? He was afraid." In pursuance of our principle not to pretend to know the motive of every act of Erasmus' life, we shall not attempt to give one answer that will fit all cases, but shall venture to be a little Erasmian ourselves and try to view this matter from more than one side.