In the years in which the Reformation began, Erasmus was the victim of a great misunderstanding, the result of the fact that his delicate, aesthetic, hovering spirit understood neither the profoundest depths of the faith nor the hard necessities of human society. He was neither mystic nor realist. Luther was both. To Erasmus the great problem of Church and State and society, seemed simple. Nothing was required but restoration and purification by a return to the original, unspoilt sources of Christianity. A number of accretions to the faith, rather ridiculous than revolting, had to be cleared away. All should be reduced to the nucleus of faith, Christ and the Gospel. Forms, ceremonies, speculations should make room for the practice of true piety. The Gospel was easily intelligible to everybody and within everybody"s reach. And the means to reach all this was good learning, _bonae literae_. Had he not himself, by his editions of the New Testament and of Jerome, and even earlier by the now famous _Enchiridion_, done most of what had to be done? "I hope that what now pleases the upright, will soon please all." As early as the beginning of 1517 Erasmus had written to Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, in the tone of one who has accomplished the great task. "Well then, take you the torch from us. The work will henceforth be a great deal easier and cause far less hatred and envy. _We_ have lived through the first shock."
Budaeus writes to Tunstall in May 1517: "Was anyone born under such inauspicious Graces that the dull and obscure discipline (scholasticism) does not revolt him, since sacred literature, too, cleansed by Erasmus"s diligence, has regained its ancient purity and brightness? But it is still much greater that he should have effected by the same labour the emergence of sacred truth itself out of that Cimmerian darkness, even though divinity is not yet quite free from the dirt of the sophist school. If that should occur one day, it will be owing to the beginnings made in our times." The philologist Budaeus believed even more firmly than Erasmus that faith was a matter of erudition.
It could not but vex Erasmus that not everyone accepted the cleansed truth at once. How could people continue to oppose themselves to what, to him, seemed as clear as daylight and so simple? He, who so sincerely would have liked to live in peace with all the world, found himself involved in a series of polemics. To let the opposition of opponents pa.s.s unnoticed was forbidden not only by his character, for ever striving to justify himself in the eyes of the world, but also by the custom of his time, so eager for dispute.
There were, first of all, his polemics with Jacques Lefevre d"etaples, or in Latinized form, Faber Stapulensis, the Parisian theologian, who as a preparer of the Reformation may, more than anyone else, be ranked with Erasmus. At the moment when Erasmus got into the travelling cart which was to take him to Louvain, a friend drew his attention to a pa.s.sage in the new edition of Faber"s commentary on St. Paul"s epistles, in which he controverted Erasmus"s note on the Second Epistle to the Hebrews, verse 7. Erasmus at once bought Faber"s book, and soon published an _Apologia_. It concerned Christ"s relation to G.o.d and the angels, but the dogmatic point at issue hinged, after all, on a philological interpretation of Erasmus.
Not yet accustomed to much direct wrangling, Erasmus was violently agitated by the matter, the more as he esteemed Faber highly and considered him a congenial spirit. "What on earth has occurred to the man? Have others set him on against me? All theologians agree that I am right," he a.s.serts. It makes him nervous that Faber does not reply again at once. Badius has told Peter Gilles that Faber is sorry about it.
Erasmus in a dignified letter appeals to their friendship; he will suffer himself to be taught and censured. Then again he growls: Let him be careful. And he thinks that his controversy with Faber keeps the world in suspense: there is not a meal at which the guests do not side with one or the other of them. But finally the combat abated and the friendship was preserved.
Towards Easter 1518, Erasmus contemplated a new journey to Basle, there to pa.s.s through the press, during a few months of hard labour, the corrected edition of the New Testament. He did not fail to request the chiefs of conservative divinity at Louvain beforehand to state their objections to his work. Briard of Ath declared he had found nothing offensive in it, after he had first been told all sorts of bad things about it. "Then the new edition will please you much better," Erasmus had said. His friend Dorp and James Latomus, also one of the chief divines, had expressed themselves in the same sense, and the Carmelite Nicholas of Egmond had said that he had never read Erasmus"s work. Only a young Englishman, Edward Lee, who was studying Greek at Louvain, had summarized a number of criticisms into ten conclusions. Erasmus had got rid of the matter by writing to Lee that he had not been able to get hold of his conclusions and therefore could not make use of them. But his youthful critic had not put up with being slighted so, and worked out his objections in a more circ.u.mstantial treatise.
[Ill.u.s.tration: XVII. VIEW OF BASLE, 1548]
Thus Erasmus set out for Basle once more in May 1518. He had been obliged to ask all his English friends (of whom Ammonius had been taken from him by death in 1517) for support to defray the expenses of the journey; he kept holding out to them the prospect that, after his work was finished, he would return to England. In a letter to Martin Lypsius, as he was going up the Rhine, he answered Lee"s criticism, which had irritated him extremely. In revising his edition he not only took it but little into account, but ventured, moreover, this time to print his own translation of the New Testament of 1506 without any alterations. At the same time he obtained for the new edition a letter of approval from the Pope, a redoubtable weapon against his cavillers.
At Basle Erasmus worked again like a horse in a treadmill. But he was really in his element. Even before the second edition of the New Testament, the _Enchiridion_ and the _Inst.i.tutio Principis Christiani_ were reprinted by Froben. On his return journey, Erasmus, whose work had been hampered all through the summer by indisposition, and who had, on that account, been unable to finish it, fell seriously ill. He reached Louvain with difficulty (21 September 1518). It might be the pestilence, and Erasmus, ever much afraid of contagion himself, now took all precautions to safeguard his friends against it. He avoided his quarters in the College of the Lily, and found shelter with his most trusted friend, Dirck Maertensz, the printer. But in spite of rumours of the plague and his warnings, first Dorp and afterwards also Ath came, at once, to visit him. Evidently the Louvain professors did not mean so badly by him, after all.
[Ill.u.s.tration: XVIII. t.i.tle-page of the New Testament printed by Froben in 1520]
But the differences between Erasmus and the Louvain faculty were deeply rooted. Lee, hurt by the little attention paid by Erasmus to his objections, prepared a new critique, but kept it from Erasmus, for the present, which irritated the latter and made him nervous. In the meantime a new opponent arose. Directly after his return to Louvain, Erasmus had taken much trouble to promote the establishment of the _Collegium Trilingue_, projected and endowed by Jerome Busleiden, in his testament, to be founded in the university. The three biblical languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin, were to be taught there. Now when James Latomus, a member of the theological faculty and a man whom he esteemed, in a dialogue about the study of those three languages and of theology, doubted the utility of the former, Erasmus judged himself concerned, and answered Latomus in an _Apologia_. About the same time (spring 1519) he got into trouble with the vice-chancellor himself.
Erasmus thought that Ath had publicly censured him with regard to his "Praise of Marriage", which had recently appeared. Though Ath withdrew at once, Erasmus could not abstain from writing an _Apologia_, however moderate. Meanwhile the smouldering quarrel with Lee a.s.sumed ever more hateful forms. In vain did Erasmus"s English friends attempt to restrain their young, ambitious compatriot. Erasmus on his part irritated him furtively. He reveals in this whole dispute a lack of self-control and dignity which shows his weakest side. Usually so anxious as to decorum he now lapses into invectives: The British adder, Satan, even the old taunt ascribing a tail to Englishmen has to serve once more. The points at issue disappear altogether behind the bitter mutual reproaches. In his unrestrained anger, Erasmus avails himself of the most unworthy weapons. He eggs his German friends on to write against Lee and to ridicule him in all his folly and brag, and then he a.s.sures all his English friends: "All Germany is literally furious with Lee; I have the greatest trouble in keeping them back".
Alack! Germany had other causes of disturbance: it is 1520 and the three great polemics of Luther were setting the world on fire.
Though one may excuse the violence and the petty spitefulness of Erasmus in this matter, as resulting from an over-sensitive heart falling somewhat short in really manly qualities, yet it is difficult to deny that he failed completely to understand both the arguments of his adversaries and the great movements of his time.
It was very easy for Erasmus to mock the narrow-mindedness of conservative divines who thought that there would be an end to faith in Holy Scripture as soon as the emendation of the text was attempted.
""They correct the Holy Gospel, nay, the Pater Noster itself!" the preacher exclaims indignantly in the sermon before his surprised congregation. As if I cavilled at Matthew and Luke, and not at those who, out of ignorance and carelessness, have corrupted them. What do people wish? That the Church should possess Holy Scripture as correct as possible, or not?" This reasoning seemed to Erasmus, with his pa.s.sionate need of purity, a conclusive refutation. But instinct did not deceive his adversaries, when it told them that doctrine itself was at stake if the linguistic judgement of a single individual might decide as to the correct version of a text. And Erasmus wished to avoid the inferences which a.s.sailed doctrine. He was not aware of the fact that his conceptions of the Church, the sacraments and the dogmas were no longer purely Catholic, because they had become subordinated to his philological insight. He could not be aware of it because, in spite of all his natural piety and his fervent ethical sentiments, he lacked the mystic insight which is the foundation of every creed.
It was this personal lack in Erasmus which made him unable to understand the real grounds of the resistance of Catholic orthodoxy. How was it possible that so many, and among them men of high consideration, refused to accept what to him seemed so clear and irrefutable! He interpreted the fact in a highly personal way. He, the man who would so gladly have lived in peace with all the world, who so yearned for sympathy and recognition, and bore enmity with difficulty, saw the ranks of haters and opponents increase about him. He did not understand how they feared his mocking acrimony, how many wore the scar of a wound that the _Moria_ had made. That real and supposed hatred troubled Erasmus. He sees his enemies as a sect. It is especially the Dominicans and the Carmelites who are ill-affected towards the new scientific theology. Just then a new adversary had arisen at Louvain in the person of his compatriot Nicholas of Egmond, prior of the Carmelites, henceforth an object of particular abhorrence to him. It is remarkable that at Louvain Erasmus found his fiercest opponents in some compatriots, in the narrower sense of the word: Vincent Dirks of Haarlem, William of Vianen, Ruurd Tapper.
The persecution increases: the venom of slander spreads more and more every day and becomes more deadly; the greatest untruths are impudently preached about him; he calls in the help of Ath, the vice-chancellor, against them. But it is no use; the hidden enemies laugh; let him write for the erudite, who are few; we shall bark to stir up the people. After 1520 he writes again and again: "I am stoned every day".
But Erasmus, however much he might see himself, not without reason, at the centre, could, in 1519 and 1520, no longer be blind to the fact that the great struggle did not concern him alone. On all sides the battle was being fought. What is it, that great commotion about matters of spirit and of faith?
The answer which Erasmus gave himself was this: it is a great and wilful conspiracy on the part of the conservatives to suffocate good learning and make the old ignorance triumph. This idea recurs innumerable times in his letters after the middle of 1518. "I know quite certainly", he writes on 21 March 1519 to one of his German friends, "that the barbarians on all sides have conspired to leave no stone unturned till they have suppressed _bonae literae_." "Here we are still fighting with the protectors of the old ignorance"; cannot Wolsey persuade the Pope to stop it here? All that appertains to ancient and cultured literature is called "poetry" by those narrow-minded fellows. By that word they indicate everything that savours of a more elegant doctrine, that is to say all that they have not learned themselves. All the tumult, the whole tragedy--under these terms he usually refers to the great theological struggle--originates in the hatred of _bonae literae_. "This is the source and hot-bed of all this tragedy; incurable hatred of linguistic study and the _bonae literae_." "Luther provokes those enemies, whom it is impossible to conquer, though their cause is a bad one. And meanwhile envy hara.s.ses the _bonae literae_, which are attacked at his (Luther"s) instigation by these gadflies. They are already nearly insufferable, when things do not go well with them; but who can stand them when they triumph? Either I am blind, or they aim at something else than Luther.
They are preparing to conquer the phalanx of the Muses."
This was written by Erasmus to a member of the University of Leipzig in December 1520. This one-sided and academic conception of the great events, a conception which arose in the study of a recluse bending over his books, did more than anything else to prevent Erasmus from understanding the true nature and purport of the Reformation.
CHAPTER XVI
FIRST YEARS OF THE REFORMATION
Beginning of the relations between Erasmus and Luther-- Archbishop Albert of Mayence, 1517--Progress of the Reformation--Luther tries to bring about a _rapprochement_ with Erasmus, March 1519--Erasmus keeps aloof; fancies he may yet act as a conciliator--His att.i.tude becomes ambiguous--He denies ever more emphatically all relations with Luther and resolves to remain a spectator--He is pressed by either camp to take sides--Aleander in the Netherlands--The Diet of Worms, 1521--Erasmus leaves Louvain to safeguard his freedom, October 1521
About the close of 1516, Erasmus received a letter from the librarian and secretary of Frederick, elector of Saxony, George Spalatinus, written in the respectful and reverential tone in which the great man was now approached. "We all esteem you here most highly; the elector has all your books in his library and intends to buy everything you may publish in future." But the object of Spalatinus"s letter was the execution of a friend"s commission. An Augustinian ecclesiastic, a great admirer of Erasmus, had requested him to direct his attention to the fact that in his interpretation of St. Paul, especially in that of the epistle to the Romans, Erasmus had failed to conceive the idea of _just.i.tia_ correctly, had paid too little attention to original sin: he might profit by reading Augustine.
The nameless Austin Friar was Luther, then still unknown outside the circle of the Wittenberg University, in which he was a professor, and the criticism regarded the cardinal point of his hardly acquired conviction: justification by faith.
Erasmus paid little attention to this letter. He received so many of that sort, containing still more praise and no criticism. If he answered it, the reply did not reach Spalatinus, and later Erasmus completely forgot the whole letter.
Nine months afterwards, in September 1517, when Erasmus had been at Louvain for a short time, he received an honourable invitation, written by the first prelate of the Empire, the young Archbishop of Mayence, Albert of Brandenburg. The archbishop would be pleased to see him on an occasion: he greatly admired his work (he knew it so little as to speak of Erasmus"s emendation of the Old Testament, instead of the New) and hoped that he would one day write some lives of saints in elegant style.
The young Hohenzoller, advocate of the new light of cla.s.sical studies, whose attention had probably been drawn to Erasmus by Hutten and Capito, who sojourned at his court, had recently become engaged in one of the boldest political and financial transactions of his time. His elevation to the see of Mayence, at the age of twenty-four, had necessitated a papal dispensation, as he also wished to keep the archbishopric of Magdeburg and the see of Halberstadt. This acc.u.mulation of ecclesiastical offices had to be made subservient to the Brandenburg policy which opposed the rival house of Saxony. The Pope granted the dispensation in return for a great sum of money, but to facilitate its payment he accorded to the archbishop a liberal indulgence for the whole archbishopric of Mayence, Magdeburg and the Brandenburg territories.
Albert, to whom half the proceeds were tacitly left, raised a loan with the house of Fugger, and this charged itself with the indulgence traffic.
When in December 1517, Erasmus answered the archbishop, Luther"s propositions against indulgences, provoked by the Archbishop of Mayence"s instructions regarding their colportage, had already been posted up (31 October 1517), and were circulated throughout Germany, rousing the whole Church. They were levelled at the same abuses which Erasmus combated, the mechanical, atomistical, and juridical conception of religion. But how different was their practical effect, as compared with Erasmus"s pacific endeavour to purify the Church by lenient means!
"Lives of saints?" Erasmus asked replying to the archbishop. "I have tried in my poor way to add a little light to the prince of saints himself. For the rest, your endeavour, in addition to so many difficult matters of government, and at such an early age, to get the lives of the saints purged of old women"s tales and disgusting style, is extremely laudable. For nothing should be suffered in the Church that is not perfectly pure or refined," And he concludes with a magnificent eulogy of the excellent prelate.
During the greater part of 1518, Erasmus was too much occupied by his own affairs--the journey to Basle and his red-hot labours there, and afterwards his serious illness--to concern himself much with Luther"s business. In March he sends Luther"s theses to More, without comment, and, in pa.s.sing, complains to Colet about the impudence with which Rome disseminates indulgences. Luther, now declared a heretic and summoned to appear at Augsburg, stands before the legate Cajeta.n.u.s and refuses to recant. Seething enthusiasm surrounds him. Just about that time Erasmus writes to one of Luther"s partisans, John Lang, in very favourable terms about his work. The theses have pleased everybody. "I see that the monarchy of the Pope at Rome, as it is now, is a pestilence to Christendom, but I do not know if it is expedient to touch that sore openly. That would be a matter for princes, but I fear that these will act in concert with the Pope to secure part of the spoils. I do not understand what possessed Eck to take up arms against Luther." The letter did not find its way into any of the collections.
The year 1519 brought the struggle attending the election of an emperor, after old Maximilian had died in January, and the attempt of the curia to regain ground with lenity. Germany was expecting the long-projected disputation between Johannes Eck and Andreas Karlstadt which, in truth, would concern Luther. How could Erasmus, who himself was involved that year in so many polemics, have foreseen that the Leipzig disputation, which was to lead Luther to the consequence of rejecting the highest ecclesiastical authority, would remain of lasting importance in the history of the world, whereas his quarrel with Lee would be forgotten?
On 28 March 1519 Luther addressed himself personally to Erasmus for the first time. "I speak with you so often, and you with me, Erasmus, our ornament and our hope; and we do not know each other as yet." He rejoices to find that Erasmus displeases many, for this he regards as a sign that G.o.d has blessed him. Now that his, Luther"s, name begins to get known too, a longer silence between them might be wrongly interpreted. "Therefore, my Erasmus, amiable man, if you think fit, acknowledge also this little brother in Christ, who really admires you and feels friendly disposed towards you, and for the rest would deserve no better, because of his ignorance, than to lie, unknown, buried in a corner."
There was a very definite purpose in this somewhat rustically cunning and half ironical letter. Luther wanted, if possible, to make Erasmus show his colours, to win him, the powerful authority, touchstone of science and culture, for the cause which he advocated. In his heart Luther had long been aware of the deep gulf separating him from Erasmus.
As early as March 1517, six months before his public appearance, he wrote about Erasmus to John Lang: "human matters weigh heavier with him than divine," an opinion that so many have p.r.o.nounced about Erasmus--obvious, and yet unfair.
The attempt, on the part of Luther, to effect a _rapprochement_ was a reason for Erasmus to retire at once. Now began that extremely ambiguous policy of Erasmus to preserve peace by his authority as a light of the world and to steer a middle course without committing himself. In that att.i.tude the great and the petty side of his personality are inextricably intertwined. The error because of which most historians have seen Erasmus"s att.i.tude towards the Reformation either in far too unfavourable a light or--as for instance the German historian Kalkoff--much too heroic and far-seeing, is that they erroneously regard him as psychologically h.o.m.ogeneous. Just that he is not. His double-sidedness roots in the depths of his being. Many of his utterances during the struggle proceed directly from his fear and lack of character, also from his inveterate dislike of siding with a person or a cause; but behind that is always his deep and fervent conviction that neither of the conflicting opinions can completely express the truth, that human hatred and purblindness infatuate men"s minds. And with that conviction is allied the n.o.ble illusion that it might yet be possible to preserve the peace by moderation, insight, and kindliness.
In April 1519 Erasmus addressed himself by letter to the elector Frederick of Saxony, Luther"s patron. He begins by alluding to his dedication of Suetonius two years before; but his real purpose is to say something about Luther. Luther"s writings, he says, have given the Louvain obscurants plenty of reason to inveigh against the _bonae literae_, to decry all scholars. He himself does not know Luther and has glanced through his writings only cursorily as yet, but everyone praises his life. How little in accordance with theological gentleness it is to condemn him offhand, and that before the indiscreet vulgar! For has he not proposed a dispute, and submitted himself to everybody"s judgement?
No one has, so far, admonished, taught, convinced him. Every error is not at once heresy.
The best of Christianity is a life worthy of Christ. Where we find that, we should not rashly suspect people of heresy. Why do we so uncharitably persecute the lapses of others, though none of us is free from error?
Why do we rather want to conquer than cure, suppress than instruct?
But he concludes with a word that could not but please Luther"s friends, who so hoped for his support. "May the duke prevent an innocent man from being surrendered under the cloak of piety to the impiety of a few. This is also the wish of Pope Leo, who has nothing more at heart than that innocence be safe."
At this same time Erasmus does his best to keep Froben back from publishing Luther"s writings, "that they may not fan the hatred of the _bonae literae_ still more". And he keeps repeating: I do not know Luther, I have not read his writings. He makes this declaration to Luther himself, in his reply to the latter"s epistle of 28 March. This letter of Erasmus, dated 30 May 1519, should be regarded as a newspaper leader[17], to acquaint the public with his att.i.tude towards the Luther question. Luther does not know the tragedies which his writings have caused at Louvain. People here think that Erasmus has helped him in composing them and call him the standard bearer of the party! That seemed to them a fitting pretext to suppress the _bonae literae_. "I have declared that you are perfectly unknown to me, that I have not yet read your books and therefore neither approve nor disapprove anything."
"I reserve myself, so far as I may, to be of use to the reviving studies. Discreet moderation seems likely to bring better progress than impetuosity. It was by this that Christ subjugated the world."
On the same day he writes to John Lang, one of Luther"s friends and followers, a short note, not meant for publication: "I hope that the endeavours of yourself and your party will be successful. Here the Papists rave violently.... All the best minds are rejoiced at Luther"s boldness: I do not doubt he will be careful that things do not end in a quarrel of parties!... We shall never triumph over feigned Christians unless we first abolish the tyranny of the Roman see, and of its satellites, the Dominicans, the Franciscans and the Carmelites. But no one could attempt that without a serious tumult."
As the gulf widens, Erasmus"s protestations that he has nothing to do with Luther become much more frequent. Relations at Louvain grow ever more disagreeable and the general sentiment about him ever more unkind.
In August 1519 he turns to the Pope himself for protection against his opponents. He still fails to see how wide the breach is. He still takes it all to be quarrels of scholars. King Henry of England and King Francis of France in their own countries have imposed silence upon the quarrellers and slanderers; if only the Pope would do the same!
In October he was once more reconciled with the Louvain faculty. It was just at this time that Colet died in London, the man who had, better perhaps than anyone else, understood Erasmus"s standpoint. Kindred spirits in Germany still looked up to Erasmus as the great man who was on the alert to interpose at the right moment and who had made moderation the watchword, until the time should come to give his friends the signal.
But in the increasing noise of the battle his voice already sounded less powerfully than before. A letter to Cardinal Albert of Mayence, 19 October 1519, of about the same content as that of Frederick of Saxony written in the preceding spring, was at once circulated by Luther"s friends; and by the advocates of conservatism, in spite of the usual protestation, "I do not know Luther", it was made to serve against Erasmus.
It became more and more clear that the mediating and conciliatory position which Erasmus wished to take up would soon be altogether untenable. The inquisitor Jacob Hoogstraten had come from Cologne, where he was a member of the University, to Louvain, to work against Luther there, as he had worked against Reuchlin. On 7 November 1519 the Louvain faculty, following the example of that of Cologne, proceeded to take the decisive step: the solemn condemnation of a number of Luther"s opinions.
In future no place could be less suitable to Erasmus than Louvain, the citadel of action against reformers. It is surprising that he remained there another two years.