The expectation that he would be able to speak the conciliating word was paling. For the rest he failed to see the true proportions. During the first months of 1520 his attention was almost entirely taken up by his own polemics with Lee, a paltry incident in the great revolution. The desire to keep aloof got more and more the upper hand of him. In June he writes to Melanchthon: "I see that matters begin to look like sedition.
It is perhaps necessary that scandals occur, but I should prefer not to be the author." He has, he thinks, by his influence with Wolsey, prevented the burning of Luther"s writings in England, which had been ordered. But he was mistaken. The burning had taken place in London, as early as 12 May.
The best proof that Erasmus had practically given up his hope to play a conciliatory part may be found in what follows. In the summer of 1520 the famous meeting between the three monarchs, Henry VIII, Francis I and Charles V, took place at Calais. Erasmus was to go there in the train of his prince. How would such a congress of princes--where in peaceful conclave the interests of France, England, Spain, the German Empire, and a considerable part of Italy, were represented together--have affected Erasmus"s imagination, if his ideal had remained unshaken! But there are no traces of this. Erasmus was at Calais in July 1520, had some conversation with Henry VIII there, and greeted More, but it does not appear that he attached any other importance to the journey than that of an opportunity, for the last time, to greet his English friends.
It was awkward for Erasmus that just at this time, when the cause of faith took so much harsher forms, his duties as counsellor to the youthful Charles, now back from Spain to be crowned as emperor, circ.u.mscribed his liberty more than before. In the summer of 1520 appeared, based on the incriminating material furnished by the Louvain faculty, the papal bull declaring Luther to be a heretic, and, unless he should speedily recant, excommunicating him. "I fear the worst for the unfortunate Luther," Erasmus writes, 9 September 1520, "so does conspiracy rage everywhere, so are princes incensed with him on all sides, and, most of all, Pope Leo. Would Luther had followed my advice and abstained from those hostile and seditious actions!... They will not rest until they have quite subverted the study of languages and the good learning.... Out of the hatred against these and the stupidity of monks did this tragedy first arise.... I do not meddle with it. For the rest, a bishopric is waiting for me if I choose to write against Luther."
Indeed, Erasmus had become, by virtue of his enormous celebrity, as circ.u.mstances would have it, more and more a valuable a.s.set in the great policy of emperor and pope. People wanted to use his name and make him choose sides. And that he would not do for any consideration. He wrote evasively to the Pope about his relations with Luther without altogether disavowing him. How zealously he defends himself from the suspicion of being on Luther"s side as noisy monks make out in their sermons, who summarily link the two in their scoffing disparagement.
But by the other side also he is pressed to choose sides and to speak out. Towards the end of October 1520 the coronation of the emperor took place at Aix-la-Chapelle. Erasmus was perhaps present; in any case he accompanied the Emperor to Cologne. There, on 5 November, he had an interview about Luther with the Elector Frederick of Saxony. He was persuaded to write down the result of that discussion in the form of twenty-two _Axiomata concerning Luther"s cause_. Against his intention they were printed at once.
Erasmus"s hesitation in those days between the repudiation and the approbation of Luther is not discreditable to him. It is the tragic defect running through his whole personality: his refusal or inability ever to draw ultimate conclusions. Had he only been a calculating and selfish nature, afraid of losing his life, he would long since have altogether forsaken Luther"s cause. It is his misfortune affecting his fame, that he continually shows his weaknesses, whereas what is great in him lies deep.
At Cologne Erasmus also met the man with whom, as a promising young humanist, fourteen years younger than himself, he had, for some months, shared a room in the house of Aldus"s father-in-law, at Venice: Hieronymus Aleander, now sent to the Emperor as a papal nuncio, to persuade him to conform his imperial policy to that of the Pope, in the matter of the great ecclesiastical question, and give effect to the papal excommunication by the imperial ban.
It must have been somewhat painful for Erasmus that his friend had so far surpa.s.sed him in power and position, and was now called to bring by diplomatic means the solution which he himself would have liked to see achieved by ideal harmony, good will and toleration. He had never trusted Aleander, and was more than ever on his guard against him. As a humanist, in spite of brilliant gifts, Aleander was by far Erasmus"s inferior, and had never, like him, risen from literature to serious theological studies; he had simply prospered in the service of Church magnates (whom Erasmus had given up early). This man was now invested with the highest mediating powers.
To what degree of exasperation Erasmus"s most violent antagonists at Louvain had now been reduced is seen from the witty and slightly malicious account he gives Thomas More of his meeting with Egmonda.n.u.s before the Rector of the university, who wanted to reconcile them. Still things did not look so black as Ulrich von Hutten thought, when he wrote to Erasmus: "Do you think that you are still safe, now that Luther"s books are burned? Fly, and save yourself for us!"
Ever more emphatic do Erasmus"s protestations become that he has nothing to do with Luther. Long ago he had already requested him not to mention his name, and Luther promised it: "Very well, then, I shall not again refer to you, neither will other good friends, since it troubles you".
Ever louder, too, are Erasmus"s complaints about the raving of the monks at him, and his demands that the mendicant orders be deprived of the right to preach.
In April 1521 comes the moment in the world"s history to which Christendom has been looking forward: Luther at the Diet of Worms, holding fast to his opinions, confronted by the highest authority in the Empire. So great is the rejoicing in Germany that for a moment it may seem that the Emperor"s power is in danger rather than Luther and his adherents. "If I had been present", writes Erasmus, "I should have endeavoured that this tragedy would have been so tempered by moderate arguments that it could not afterwards break out again to the still greater detriment of the world."
The imperial sentence was p.r.o.nounced: within the Empire (as in the Burgundian Netherlands before that time) Luther"s books were to be burned, his adherents arrested and their goods confiscated, and Luther was to be given up to the authorities. Erasmus hopes that now relief will follow. "The Luther tragedy is at an end with us here; would it had never appeared on the stage." In these days Albrecht Durer, on hearing the false news of Luther"s death, wrote in the diary of his journey that pa.s.sionate exclamation: "O Erasmus of Rotterdam, where will you be?
Hear, you knight of Christ, ride forth beside the Lord Christ, protect the truth, obtain the martyr"s crown. For you are but an old manikin. I have heard you say that you have allowed yourself two more years, in which you are still fit to do some work; spend them well, in behalf of the Gospel and the true Christian faith.... O Erasmus, be on this side, that G.o.d may be proud of you."
It expresses confidence in Erasmus"s power, but at bottom is the expectation that he will not do all this. Durer had rightly understood Erasmus.
The struggle abated nowise, least of all at Louvain. Latomus, the most dignified and able of Louvain divines, had now become one of the most serious opponents of Luther and, in so doing, touched Erasmus, too, indirectly. To Nicholas of Egmond, the Carmelite, another of Erasmus"s compatriots had been added as a violent antagonist, Vincent Dirks of Haarlem, a Dominican. Erasmus addresses himself to the faculty, to defend himself against the new attacks, and to explain why he has never written against Luther. He will read him, he will soon take up something to quiet the tumult. He succeeds in getting Aleander, who arrived at Louvain in June, to prohibit preaching against him. The Pope still hopes that Aleander will succeed in bringing back Erasmus, with whom he is again on friendly terms, to the right track.
But Erasmus began to consider the only exit which was now left to him: to leave Louvain and the Netherlands to regain his menaced independence.
The occasion to depart had long ago presented itself: the third edition of his New Testament called him to Basle once more. It would not be a permanent departure, and he purposed to return to Louvain. On 28 October (his birthday) he left the town where he had spent four difficult years.
His chambers in the College of the Lily were reserved for him and he left his books behind. On 15 November he reached Basle.
Soon the rumour spread that out of fear of Aleander he had saved himself by flight. But the idea, revived again in our days in spite of Erasmus"s own painstaking denial, that Aleander should have cunningly and expressly driven him from the Netherlands, is inherently improbable. So far as the Church was concerned, Erasmus would at almost any point be more dangerous than at Louvain, in the headquarters of conservatism, under immediate control of the strict Burgundian government, where, it seemed, he could sooner or later be pressed into the service of the anti-Lutheran policy.
It was this contingency, as Dr. Allen has correctly pointed out, which he feared and evaded. Not for his bodily safety did he emigrate; Erasmus would not have been touched--he was far too valuable an a.s.set for such measures. It was his mental independence, so dear to him above all else, that he felt to be threatened; and, to safeguard that, he did not return to Louvain.
[Ill.u.s.tration: XIX. THE HOUSE AT ANDERLECHT WHERE ERASMUS LIVED FROM MAY TO NOVEMBER 1521]
[Ill.u.s.tration: XX. ERASMUS"S STUDY AT ANDERLECHT]
FOOTNOTES:
[17] Translation on pp. 229 ff.
CHAPTER XVII
ERASMUS AT BASLE
1521-9
Basle his dwelling-place for nearly eight years: 1521-9--Political thought of Erasmus--Concord and peace--Anti-war writings--Opinions concerning princes and government--New editions of several Fathers--The _Colloquia_--Controversies with Stunica, Beda, etc.--Quarrel with Hutten--Eppendorff
It is only towards the evening of life that the picture of Erasmus acquires the features with which it was to go down to posterity. Only at Basle--delivered from the troublesome pressure of parties wanting to enlist him, transplanted from an environment of haters and opponents at Louvain to a circle of friends, kindred spirits, helpers and admirers, emanc.i.p.ated from the courts of princes, independent of the patronage of the great, unremittingly devoting his tremendous energy to the work that was dear to him--did he become Holbein"s Erasmus. In those late years he approaches most closely to the ideal of his personal life.
He did not think that there were still fifteen years in store for him.
Long before, in fact, since he became forty years old in 1506, Erasmus had been in an old-age mood. "The last act of the play has begun," he keeps saying after 1517.
He now felt practically independent as to money matters. Many years had pa.s.sed before he could say that. But peace of mind did not come with competence. It never came. He never became truly placid and serene, as Holbein"s picture seems to represent him. He was always too much concerned about what people said or thought of him. Even at Basle he did not feel thoroughly at home. He still speaks repeatedly of a removal in the near future to Rome, to France, to England, or back to the Netherlands. Physical rest, at any rate, which was not in him, was granted him by circ.u.mstances: for nearly eight years he now remained at Basle, and then he lived at Freiburg for six.
Erasmus at Basle is a man whose ideals of the world and society have failed him. What remains of that happy expectation of a golden age of peace and light, in which he had believed as late as 1517? What of his trust in good will and rational insight, in which he wrote the _Inst.i.tutio Principis Christiani_ for the youthful Charles V? To Erasmus all the weal of state and society had always been merely a matter of personal morality and intellectual enlightenment. By recommending and spreading those two he at one time thought he had introduced the great renovation himself. From the moment when he saw that the conflict would lead to an exasperated struggle he refused any longer to be anything but a spectator. As an actor in the great ecclesiastical combat Erasmus had voluntarily left the stage.
But he does not give up his ideal. "Let us resist," he concludes an Epistle about gospel philosophy, "not by taunts and threats, not by force of arms and injustice, but by simple discretion, by benefits, by gentleness and tolerance." Towards the close of his life, he prays: "If Thou, O G.o.d, deignst to renew that Holy Spirit in the hearts of all, then also will those external disasters cease.... Bring order to this chaos, Lord Jesus, let Thy Spirit spread over these waters of sadly troubled dogmas."
Concord, peace, sense of duty and kindliness, were all valued highly by Erasmus; yet he rarely saw them realized in practical life. He becomes disillusioned. After the short spell of political optimism he never speaks of the times any more but in bitter terms--a most criminal age, he says--and again, the most unhappy and most depraved age imaginable.
In vain had he always written in the cause of peace: _Querela pacis_, the complaint of peace, the adage _Dulce bellum inexpertis_, war is sweet to those who have not known it, _Oratio de pace et discordia_, and more still. Erasmus thought rather highly of his pacifistic labours: "that polygraph, who never leaves off persecuting war by means of his pen", thus he makes a character of the _Colloquies_ designate himself.
According to a tradition noted by Melanchthon, Pope Julius is said to have called him before him in connection with his advice about the war with Venice,[18] and to have remarked to him angrily that he should stop writing on the concerns of princes: "You do not understand those things!"
Erasmus had, in spite of a certain innate moderation, a wholly non-political mind. He lived too much outside of practical reality, and thought too navely of the corrigibility of mankind, to realize the difficulties and necessities of government. His ideas about a good administration were extremely primitive, and, as is often the case with scholars of a strong ethical bias, very revolutionary at bottom, though he never dreamed of drawing the practical inferences. His friendship with political and juridical thinkers, as More, Budaeus and Zasius, had not changed him. Questions of forms of government, law or right, did not exist for him. Economic problems he saw in idyllic simplicity. The prince should reign gratuitously and impose as few taxes as possible.
"The good prince has all that loving citizens possess." The unemployed should be simply driven away. We feel in closer contact with the world of facts when he enumerates the works of peace for the prince: the cleaning of towns, building of bridges, halls, and streets, draining of pools, shifting of river-beds, the diking and reclamation of moors. It is the Netherlander who speaks here, and at the same time the man in whom the need of cleansing and clearing away is a fundamental trait of character.
Vague politicians like Erasmus are p.r.o.ne to judge princes very severely, since they take them to be responsible for all wrongs. Erasmus praises them personally, but condemns them in general. From the kings of his time he had for a long time expected peace in Church and State. They had disappointed him. But his severe judgement of princes he derived rather from cla.s.sical reading than from political experience of his own times.
In the later editions of the _Adagia_ he often reverts to princes, their task and their neglect of duty, without ever mentioning special princes.
"There are those who sow the seeds of dissension between their townships in order to fleece the poor unhindered and to satisfy their gluttony by the hunger of innocent citizens." In the adage _Scarabeus aquilam quaerit_ he represents the prince under the image of the Eagle as the great cruel robber and persecutor. In another, _Aut regem aut fatuum nasci oportere_, and in _Dulce bellum inexpertis_ he utters his frequently quoted dictum: "The people found and develop towns, the folly of princes devastates them." "The princes conspire with the Pope, and perhaps with the Turk, against the happiness of the people," he writes to Colet in 1518.
He was an academic critic writing from his study. A revolutionary purpose was as foreign to Erasmus as it was to More when writing the _Utopia_. "Bad monarchs should perhaps be suffered now and then. The remedy should not be tried." It may be doubted whether Erasmus exercised much real influence on his contemporaries by means of his diatribes against princes. One would fain believe that his ardent love of peace and bitter arraignment of the madness of war had some effect. They have undoubtedly spread pacific sentiments in the broad circles of intellectuals who read Erasmus, but unfortunately the history of the sixteenth century shows little evidence that such sentiments bore fruit in actual practice. However this may be, Erasmus"s strength was not in these political declamations. He could never be a leader of men with their pa.s.sions and their harsh interests.
His life-work lay elsewhere. Now, at Basle, though tormented more and more frequently by his painful complaint which he had already carried for so many years, he could devote himself more fully than ever before to the great task he had set himself: the opening up of the pure sources of Christianity, the exposition of the truth of the Gospel in all the simple comprehensibility in which he saw it. In a broad stream flowed the editions of the Fathers, of cla.s.sic authors, the new editions of the New Testament, of the _Adagia_, of his own Letters, together with Paraphrases of the New Testament, Commentaries on Psalms, and a number of new theological, moral and philological treatises. In 1522 he was ill for months on end; yet in that year Arn.o.bius and the third edition of the New Testament succeeded Cyprian, whom he had already annotated at Louvain and edited in 1520, closely followed by Hilary in 1523 and next by a new edition of Jerome in 1524. Later appeared Irenaeus, 1526; Ambrose, 1527; Augustine, 1528-9, and a Latin translation of Chrysostom in 1530. The rapid succession of these comprehensive works proves that the work was done as Erasmus always worked: hastily, with an extraordinary power of concentration and a surprising command of his mnemonic faculty, but without severe criticism and the painful accuracy that modern philology requires in such editions.
Neither the polemical Erasmus nor the witty humorist had been lost in the erudite divine and the disillusioned reformer. The paper-warrior we would further gladly have dispensed with, but not the humorist, for many treasures of literature. But the two are linked inseparably as the _Colloquies_ prove.
What was said about the _Moria_ may be repeated here: if in the literature of the world only the _Colloquies_ and the _Moria_ have remained alive, that choice of history is right. Not in the sense that in literature only Erasmus"s pleasantest, lightest and most readable works were preserved, whereas the ponderous theological erudition was silently relegated to the shelves of libraries. It was indeed Erasmus"s best work that was kept alive in the _Moria_ and the _Colloquies_. With these his sparkling wit has charmed the world. If only we had s.p.a.ce here to a.s.sign to the Erasmus of the _Colloquies_ his just and lofty place in that brilliant constellation of sixteenth-century followers of Democritus: Rabelais, Ariosto, Montaigne, Cervantes, and Ben Jonson!
When Erasmus gave the _Colloquies_ their definite form at Basle, they had already had a long and curious genesis. At first they had been no more than _Familiarium colloquiorum formulae_, models of colloquial Latin conversation, written at Paris before 1500, for the use of his pupils. Augustine Caminade, the shabby friend who was fond of living on young Erasmus"s genius, had collected them and had turned them to advantage within a limited compa.s.s. He had long been dead when one Lambert Hollonius of Liege sold the ma.n.u.script that he had got from Caminade to Froben at Basle. Beatus Rhena.n.u.s, although then already Erasmus"s trusted friend, had it printed at once without the latter"s knowledge. That was in 1518. Erasmus was justly offended at it, the more so as the book was full of slovenly blunders and solecisms. So he at once prepared a better edition himself, published by Maertensz at Louvain in 1519. At that time the work really contained but one true dialogue, the nucleus of the later _Convivium profanum_. The rest were formulae of etiquette and short talks. But already in this form it was, apart from its usefulness to latinists, so full of happy wit and humorous invention that it became very popular. Even before 1522 it had appeared in twenty-five editions, mostly reprints, at Antwerp, Paris, Stra.s.sburg, Cologne, Cracow, Deventer, Leipzig, London, Vienna, Mayence.
At Basle Erasmus himself revised an edition which was published in March 1522 by Froben, dedicated to the latter"s six-year-old son, the author"s G.o.dchild, Johannes Erasmius Froben. Soon after he did more than revise.
In 1523 and 1524 first ten new dialogues, afterwards four, and again six, were added to the _Formulae_, and at last in 1526 the t.i.tle was changed to _Familiarium colloquiorum opus_. It remained dedicated to the boy Froben and went on growing with each new edition: a rich and motley collection of dialogues, each a masterpiece of literary form, well-knit, spontaneous, convincing, unsurpa.s.sed in lightness, vivacity and fluent Latin; each one a finished one-act play. From that year on, the stream of editions and translations flowed almost uninterruptedly for two centuries.
Erasmus"s mind had lost nothing of its acuteness and freshness when, so many years after the _Moria_, he again set foot in the field of satire.
As to form, the _Colloquies_ are less confessedly satirical than the _Moria_. With its telling subject, the _Praise of Folly_, the latter at once introduces itself as a satire: whereas, at first sight, the _Colloquies_ might seem to be mere innocent genre-pieces. But as to the contents, they are more satirical, at least more directly so. The _Moria_, as a satire, is philosophical and general; the _Colloquia_ are up to date and special. At the same time they combine more the positive and negative elements. In the _Moria_ Erasmus"s own ideal dwells unexpressed behind the representation; in the _Colloquia_ he continually and clearly puts it in the foreground. On this account they form, notwithstanding all the jests and mockery, a profoundly serious moral treatise and are closely akin to the _Enchiridion militis Christiani_.
What Erasmus really demanded of the world and of mankind, how he pictured to himself that pa.s.sionately desired, purified Christian society of good morals, fervent faith, simplicity and moderation, kindliness, toleration and peace--this we can nowhere else find so clearly and well-expressed as in the _Colloquia_. In these last fifteen years of his life Erasmus resumes, by means of a series of moral-dogmatic disquisitions, the topics he broached in the _Enchiridion_: the exposition of simple, general Christian conduct; untrammelled and natural ethics. That is his message of redemption. It came to many out of _Exomologesis_, _De esu carnium_, _Lingua_, _Inst.i.tutio christiani matrimonii_, _Vidua christiana_, _Ecclesiastes_.
But, to far larger numbers, the message was contained in the _Colloquies_.