TO

_JOHN ERASMIUS FROBEN_,

_A Boy of Excellent Promise: Greeting._

The Book dedicated to you has surpassed my expectation, my dearest

Erasmius: it will be your part to take care that _you_ do not disappoint

my expectation. Our studious youth are so in love with the book, seize

upon it so eagerly, handle it so constantly, that your father has had

repeatedly to print it, and I to enrich it with new additions. You might

say it too was an [Greek: herasmion], the delight of the Muses, who

foster sacred things. It will be the more your endeavour that you also

may be what you are called, that is, that you may be, by learning and

probity of manners, "most endeared" to all good men. It were deep cause

for shame, if, while this book has rendered so many both better Latin

scholars and better men, you should so act that the same use and profit

should not return to yourself, which by your means has come to all. And

since there are so many young fellows, who thank you for the sake of the

Colloquies, would it not be justly thought absurd, if through your fault

the fact should seem that you could not thank me on the same account?

The little book has increased to the fair size of a volume. You must

also endeavour, in proportion as your age increases, to improve in sound

learning and integrity of manners. No ordinary hopes are placed upon

you: it is indispensable that you should answer to them; it would be

glorious for you to surpass them; disappoint them you surely cannot

without the greatest disgrace. Nor do I say this, because your course

thus far gives me occasion for regret, but by way of spurring the

runner, that you may run more nimbly; especially since you have arrived

at an age, than which none happier occurs in the course of life for

imbibing the seeds of letters and of piety. Act then in such a way, that

these Colloquies may be truly called yours.

The Lord Jesus keep the present season of your life pure from all

pollutions, and ever lead you on to better things! Farewell.

BASIL, _August 1st._, 1524.

AN ADMONITORY NOTE OF ERASMUS ON THE TRICKS AND IMPOSTURES OF A CERTAIN

DOMINICAN, WHO HAD PUBLISHED IN FRANCE THE COLLOQUIES OF ERASMUS

RIDICULOUSLY INTERPOLATED BY HIMSELF.

_A Book of Colloquies had appeared, the material of which was collected

partly from domestic talks, partly from my papers; but with a mixture of

certain trivialities, not only without sense, but also in bad

Latin,--perfect solecisms. This trash was received with wonderful

applause; for in these matters too Fortune has her sport. I was

compelled therefore to lay hands on these trumperies. At length, having

applied somewhat greater care, I added considerable matter, so that the

book might be of fair size, and in fact might appear worthy even of the

honour of being dedicated to John Erasmius, son of Froben, a boy then

six years old, but of extraordinary natural ability. This was done in

the year 1522. But the nature of this work is such, that it receives

addition as often as it is revised. Accordingly I frequently made an

addition for the sake of the studious, and of John Froben; but so

tempered the subject-matters, that besides the pleasure of reading, and

their use in polishing the style, they might also contain that which

would conduce to the formation of character. Even while the book I have

referred to contained nothing but mere rubbish, it was read with

wonderful favour by all. But when it had gained a richer utility, it

could not escape [Greek: tôn sykophantôn dêgmata]. A certain divine of

Louvain, frightfully blear of eye, but still more of mind, saw in it

four heretical passages. There was also another incident connected with

this work worth relating. It was lately printed at Paris with certain

passages corrected, that is to say, corrupted, which appeared to attack

monks, vows, pilgrimages, indulgences, and other things of that kind

which, if held in great esteem among the people, would be a source of

more plentiful profit to gentlemen of that order. But he did this so

stupidly, so clumsily, that you would swear he had been some street

buffoon: although the author of so silly a piece is said to be a certain

divine of the Dominican order, by nation a Saxon. Of what avail is it to

add his name and surname, which he himself does not desire to have

suppressed? A monster like him knows not what shame is; he would rather

look for praise from his villany. This rogue added a new Preface in my

name, in which he represented three men sweating at the instruction of

one boy: Capito, who taught him Hebrew, Beatus Greek, and me, Latin. He

represents me as inferior to each of the others alike in learning and in

piety; intimating that there is in the Colloquies a sprinkling of

certain matters which savour of Luther's dogmas. And here I know that

some will chuckle, when they read that Capito is favoured by such a

hater of Luther with the designation of an excellent and most

accomplished man. These and many things of the like kind he represents

me as saying, taking the pattern of his effrontery from a letter of

Jerome, who complains that his rivals had circulated a forged letter

under his name amongst a synod of bishops in Africa; in which he was

made to confess that, deceived by certain Jews, he had falsely

translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew. And they would have

succeeded in persuading the bishops that the letter was Jerome's, had

they been able in any tolerable degree, to imitate Jerome's style.

Although Jerome speaks of this deed as one of extreme and incurable

roguery, our Phormio takes peculiar delight in this, which is more

rascally than any notorious book. But his malicious will was wanting in

power to carry out what he had intended. He could not come up to

Erasmus' style, unpolished though it be: for he thus closes his flowery

preface:_ Thus age has admonished, piety has bidden me, while life is

still spared in my burdensome age, to cleanse my writings, lest those

who follow my mournful funeral should transcribe my departed soul!

_Such being the man's style throughout, he has nevertheless not shrunk

from interweaving his flowers with my crowns; either pleasing himself in

a most senseless manner, or having a very ill opinion of the judgment of

divines. For these things were composed for their benefit, all of whom

he supposes to be such blockheads that they will not instantly detect

the patch-work he has so awkwardly sewn together. So abjectly does he

everywhere flatter France, Paris, the theologians, the Sorbonne, the

Colleges, no beggar could be more cringing. Accordingly, if anything

uncomplimentary seems to be said against the French, he transfers it to

the British; or against Paris, he turns it off to London. He added some

odious sayings as if coming from me, with the view of stirring up hatred

against me amongst those by whom he is grieved to know me beloved. It is

needless to dwell upon the matter. Throughout he curtails, makes

additions, alterations after his fashion, like a sow smeared with mud,

rolling herself in a strange garden, bespattering, disturbing, rooting

up everything. Meanwhile, he does not perceive that the points made by

me are quite lost. For example, when to one who says_, 'From a Dutchman

you are turned into a Gaul,'[A] _the answer is made_, 'What? was I a

Capon then, when I went hence?': _he alters_ 'From a Dutchman you are

turned into a Briton. What? was I a Saxon, then, when I went hence?'

_Again, when the same speaker had said_, 'Your garb shows that you are

changed from a Batavian into a Gaul,' _he puts_ 'Briton' _for_ 'Gaul';

_and when the speaker had replied_, 'I had rather that metamorphosis,

than into a Hen,' _alluding to_ 'Cock:' _he changed_ 'Hen' _into_

'Bohemian.' _Presently, when there is a joke_, 'that he pronounces Latin

in French style,' _he changes_ 'French' _into_ 'British,' _and yet

allows the following to stand_, 'Then you will never make good verses,

because you have lost your quantities'; _and this does not apply to the

British. Again, when my text reads_, 'What has happened to the Gauls'

_(cocks)_ 'that they should wage war with the Eagle?' _he thus spoils

the joke_, 'What has happened to the pards, that they should go to war

with the lilies? _as if lilies were in the habit of going forth to war.

Occasionally he does not perceive that what follows his alterations does

not hang together with them. As in the very passage I had written_, 'Is

Paris free from the plague?' _he alters_, 'Is London free[B] from the

plague?' _Again, in another place, where one says_, 'Why are we afraid

to cut up this capon?' _he changes_ 'capon' _into_ 'hare'; _yet makes no

alteration in what follows_, 'Do you prefer wing or leg?' _Forsooth,

although he so kindly favours the Dominican interest that he desired to

sit among the famous Commissaries: nevertheless he bears with equal mind

a cruel attack on Scotus. For he made no change in what one says in my

text_, 'I would sooner let the whole of Scotus perish than the books of

one Cicero.' _But as these things are full of folly, so very many of the

contents bear an equal malice joined to folly. A speaker in my text

rallies his comrade, who, although of abandoned life, nevertheless puts

faith in indulgentiary bulls. My Corrector makes the former confess that

he, along with his master Luther, was of opinion that the Pope's

indulgences were of no value; presently he represents the same speaker

as recanting and professing penitence for his error. And these he wants

to appear my corrections. O wondrous Atlases of faith! This is just as

if one should feign, by means of morsels dipped in blood, a wound in the

human body, and presently, by removing what he had supplied, should cure

the wound. In my text a boy says_, 'that the confession which is made to

God is the best;' _he made a correction, asserting_ 'that the confession

which is made to the priest is the best.' _Thus did he take care for

imperilled confession. I have referred to this one matter for the sake

of example, although he frequently indulges in tricks of this kind. And

these answer to the palinode (recantation) which he promises in my name

in his forged preface. As if it were any man's business to sing a

palinode for another's error; or as if anything that is said in that

work of mine under any character whatever, were my own opinion. For it

does not at all trouble me, that he represents a man not yet sixty, as

burdened with old age. Formerly, it was a capital offence to publish

anything under another man's name; now, to scatter rascalities of this

kind amongst the public, under the pretended name of the very man who is

slandered, is the sport of divines. For he wishes to appear a divine

when his matter cries out that he does not grasp a straw of theological

science. I have no doubt but that yonder thief imposed with his lies

upon his starved printer; for I do not think there is a man so mad as to

be willing knowingly to print such ignorant trash. I ceased to wonder at

the incorrigible effrontery of the fellow, after I learnt that he was a

chick who once upon a time fell out of a nest at Berne, entirely [Greek:

hek kakistou korakost kakiston hôon]. This I am astonished at, if the

report is true: that there are among the Parisian divines those who

pride themselves on having at length secured a man who by the

thunderbolt of his eloquence is to break asunder the whole party of

Luther and restore the church to its pristine tranquility. For he wrote

also against Luther as I hear. And then the divines complain that they

are slandered by me, who aid their studies in so many night-watches;

while they themselves willingly embrace monsters of this description,

who bring more dishonour to the order of divines and even of monks,

than any foe, however foul-mouthed, can do. He who has audacity for such

an act as this, will not hesitate to employ fire or poison. And these

things are printed at Paris, where it is unlawful to print even the

Gospel, unless approved by the opinion of the faculty.

This last work of the Colloquies, with the addition of an appendix, is

issued in the month of September, 1524._

[Footnote A: Gallus: meaning also a Cock.]

[Footnote B: _Immunis_ instead of _immune_ agreeing with Londinum.]

* * * * *

_From a letter of Erasmus dated 5th Oct. 1532, we gather some further

particulars about the obnoxious person above referred to. His name was

Lambert Campester. Subsequently to his exploit at Paris in printing a

garbled edition of the Colloquies, he "fled to Leyden; and pretending to

be a great friend of Erasmus, found a patron, from whom having soon

stolen 300 crowns, fled, was taken in his flight amongst some girls, and

would have been nailed to a cross, had not his sacred Dominican cowl

saved him. He, I say, many other offences and crimes having been proved

against him, is at length in a certain town of Germany, called, I think,

Zorst, in the Duchy of Juliers,--his cowl thrown aside, teaching the

Gospel, that is, mere sedition. The Duke begged them to turn the fellow

out. They answered that they could not do without their preacher. And

this sort of plague spreads from day to day."_

#ERASMUS ROTERODAMUS# TO THE _DIVINES OF LOUVAIN_,

_His dearly beloved brethren in the Lord, greeting._

A matter has been brought to my knowledge, not only by rumour, but by

the letters of trustworthy friends, expressly stating in what words, in

what place, a calumny was directed against me in our midst, through the

agency of a well-known person, who is ever true to himself; whose very

character and former doings lead one to assume as ascertained fact what

in another would have been but probable. Accordingly, I thought I ought

to make no concealment of the matter; especially from you, whose part it

was to restrain the unbridled impudence of the fellow, if not for my

sake, at all events for that of your Order.

He boasts and vociferates that in the book of Colloquies there are four

passages more than heretical: concerning the _Eating of meats_ and

_Fasting_, concerning _Indulgences_, and concerning _Vows_, Although

such be his bold and impudent assertion, whoever reads the book in its

entirety will find the facts to be otherwise. If, however, leisure be

wanting for the reading of trifles of this description, I will briefly

lay the matter open. But before I approach it, I think well to make

three prefatory remarks.

First, in this matter contempt of the Emperor's edict[C] cannot be laid

to my charge. For I understand it was published May 6th, 1522, whereas

this book was printed long before: and that at Basle, where no Imperial

edict had up to the time been made known, whether publicly or privately.

[Footnote C: Edict of the Emperor Charles V.: 1523.]

Secondly, although in that book I do not teach dogmas of Faith, but

formulae for speaking Latin; yet there are matters intermixed by the

way, which conduce to good manners. Now if, when a theme has been

previously written down in German or French, a master should teach his

boys to render the sense in Latin thus: _Utinam nihil edant praeter

allia, qui nobis hos dies pisculentos invexerunt_. ("Would they might

eat naught but garlic, who imposed these fish-days upon us.") Or this:

_Utinam inedia pereant, qui liberos homines adigunt ac jejunandi

necessitatem_. ("Would they might starve to death, who force the

necessity of fasting on free men.") Or this: _Digni sunt ut fumo pereant

qui nobis Dispensationum ad Indulgentiarum fumos tam care vendunt_.

("They deserve to be stifled to death who sell us the smokes (pretences)

of dispensations and indulgences at so dear a rate.") Or this: _Utinam

vere castrentur, qui nolentes arcent à matrimonio_. ("Would they might

indeed be made eunuchs of, who keep people from marrying, against their

will")--I ask, whether he should be forced to defend himself, for having

taught how to turn a sentence, though of bad meaning, into good Latin

words? I think there is no one so unjust, as to deem this just.

Thirdly, I had in the first instance to take care what sort of person it

should be to whom I ascribe the speech in the dialogue. For I do not

there represent a divine preaching, but good fellows having a gossip

together. Now if any one is so unfair as to refuse to concede me the

quality of the person represented, he ought, by the same reasoning, to

lay it to my charge, that there one Augustine (I think) disparages the

Stoics' principle of the _honestum_, and prefers the sect of the

Epicureans, who placed the highest good in pleasure. He may also bring

it against me, that in that passage a soldier, amongst many things which

he speaks about in true soldier-fashion, says that he will look for a

priest to confess to, who shall have as little of good as possible about

him. The same objector would, I imagine, bring it up against me, were I

to ascribe to Arius in a dialogue a discourse at variance with the

Church. If such charges against me would be absurd, why in other matters

should not regard be had to the quality of the person speaking? Unless

perchance, were I to represent a Turk speaking, they should decide to

lay at my door whatever he might say.

With this preface, I will make a few general remarks on the passages

criticised by the person to whom I refer. In the first passage, a boy of

sixteen years says that he confesses only sins that are unquestionably

capital, or gravely suspected; while the Lutherans teach, as I

understand, that it is not necessary to confess all capital offences.

Thus the very facts show, that this boy's speech is in great

disagreement with the dogma which you condemn. Presently, the same boy

being asked, whether it be sufficient to confess to Christ himself,

answers that it will satisfy his mind, if the fathers of the Church were

of the same opinion. From this my critic argues, not with dialectic art,

but with rascally cunning, that I suggest that this _Confession_ which

we now practise was not instituted by Christ, but by the leaders of the

Church. Such an inference might appear sound, were not Christ one of the

Primates of the Church, since according to Peter's saying He is Chief

Shepherd, and according to the word of the Gospel, Good Shepherd.

Therefore he who speaks of princes of the Church, does not exclude

Christ, but includes Him along with the Apostles, and the successors of

the Apostles, in the same manner as he who names the principal members

of the body does not exclude the head. But if any one shall deem this

reply to savour of artifice: well now, let us grant that the boy was

thinking of pure men, heads of the Church: is it then not enough for the

boy that he follows in the matter of confession their authority, even

although he is not assured whether the Popes could ordain this on their

own authority, or handed it down to us from the ordinance of Christ? For

he has a mind to obey, in whatever way they have handed it down. I am

not even myself fully convinced as yet, that the Church defined the

present practice of Confession to be of Christ's ordinance. For there

are very many arguments, to me in fact insoluble, which persuade to the

contrary. Nevertheless, I entirely submit this feeling of my own to the

judgment of the Church. Gladly will I follow it, so soon as on my watch,

for certainty I shall have heard its clear voice. Nay, had Leo's Bull

given the fullest expression of this doctrine, and any one should either

be ignorant of it, or should have forgotten it, it would meanwhile

suffice (I imagine) to obey in this matter the authority of the Church,

with a disposition of obedience, should the point be established. Nor in

truth can it be rightly inferred, _This Confession is of human

ordinance, therefore Christ is not its Author_. The Apostles laid down

the discipline of the Church, without doubt from Christ's ordinances:

they ordained Baptism, they ordained Bishops, &c., but by the authority

of Christ. And yet it cannot be denied, that many particulars of this

Confession depend on the appointment of the Pontiffs, viz., that we

confess once a year, at Easter, to this or that priest; that any priest

absolves us from any trespasses whatever. Hence I judge it to be clear

how manifest is the calumny in what relates to _Confession_.

Further, no mention is there made of _fasting_, to which the Gospel and

the Apostolic epistles exhort us, but _concerning the choice of foods_,

which Christ openly sets at naught in the Gospel, and the Pauline

epistles not seldom condemn; especially that which is Jewish and

superstitious. Some one will say, this is to accuse the Roman Pontiff

who teaches that which the Apostle condemns. What the Gospel teaches,

is perfectly plain. The Pontiff himself must declare with what intention

he commands what the Gospel does not require. Yet no one there

says--what I know not whether Luther teaches--that the constitutions of

the Pontiffs do not render us liable to guilt, unless there has been

contempt besides. In fact, he who speaks in that passage grants that the

Pope may appoint an observance; he simply enquires, whether this were

the intention of the Pope, to bind all equally to abstinence from meats,

so that one who should partake would be liable to hell-fire, even

although no perverse contempt should be committed. And he who says this

in the Colloquies, adds that he hates fishes not otherwise than he does

a serpent. Now, there are some so affected that fish is poison to them,

just as there are found those who in like manner shrink from wine. If

one who is thus affected with regard to fishes, should be forbidden to

feed on flesh and milk-food, will he not be hardly treated? Is it

possible that any man can desire him to be exposed to the pains of hell,

if for the necessity of his body he should live on flesh? If any

constitution of Popes and Bishops involves liability to the punishment

of hell, the condition of Christians is hard indeed. If some impose the

liability, others not; no one will better declare his intention than the

Pope himself. And it would conduce to the peace of consciences to have

it declared. What if some Pope should decree that priests should go

girt; would it be probable that he declared this with the intention that

if one because of renal suffering should lay aside the girdle, he should

be liable to hell? I think not. St. Gregory laid down, That if any one

had had intercourse with his wife by night, he should abstain the next

day from entering church: in this case, supposing that a man, concealing

the fact of intercourse having taken place, should have gone to church

for no other reason than that he might hear the preaching of the Gospel,

would he be liable to hell? I do not think the holiest man could be so

harsh. If a man with a sick wife should live on meat, because otherwise

she could not be provoked to eat, and her health required food, surely

the Pope would not on that account determine him to be liable to hell!

This matter is simply made a subject of enquiry in the passage referred

to, and no positive statement is made. And certainly before the Imperial

Edict, men were at liberty to enquire concerning these matters.

In point of fact, neither in that place nor elsewhere do I absolutely

condemn the _Indulgences_ of the Popes, although hitherto more than

sufficient indulgence has been shown them. It is simply that a speaker

ridicules his comrade, who, although in other respects the most

frivolous of triflers (for so he is depicted), yet believed that by the

protection of a Bull he would get safely to heaven. So far from thinking

this to be heretical, I should imagine there was no holier duty than to

warn the people not to put their trust in Bulls, unless they study to

change their life and correct their evil desires.

But _Vows_ are ridiculed in that passage. Yes, they are ridiculed, and

those (of whom there is a vast multitude) are admonished, who, leaving

wife and children at home, under a vow made in their cups, run off along

with a few pot-companions to Rome, Compostella, or Jerusalem. But, as

manners now are, I think it a holier work to dissuade men altogether

from such Vows than to urge to the making of them.

These, forsooth, are the execrable heresies which yonder Lynceus

descries in the Puerile Colloquy. I wonder why he does not also give my

Catunculus and the Publian mimes[D] a dusting. Who does not perceive

that these attacks proceed from some private grudge? Yet in nothing have

I done him an injury, except that I have favoured good literature, which

he hates more than sin; and knows not why. Meantime he boasts that he

too has a weapon, by which he may take his revenge. If a man at a feast

calls him Choroebus or a drunkard, he in his turn will in the pulpit cry

heretic, or forger, or schismatic upon him. I believe, if the cook were

to set burnt meat on the dinner-table, he would next day bawl out in the

course of his sermon that she was suspected of heresy. Nor is he

ashamed, nor does he retreat, though so often caught, by the very facts,

in manifest falsehood.

[Footnote D: Publius Syrus (B.C. 45), a writer of _mimes_, or familiar

prose dramas. A collection of apophthegms from his works is said to have

been used as a school-book in Jerome's days.]

In the first place what a foolish, what a mad blather he made against my

revised New Testament! Next, what could be more like madness than that

remark which he threw out against J. Faber and myself, when the very

facts bespoke that he did not understand what agreement there was

between me and Faber, or what was the subject of controversy! What more

shameless than his fixing a charge of forgery and heresy in the course

of a public address on me, because I rendered according to the Greek:

Omnes quidem non resurgemus, sed omnes immutabimur ("We shall not all

rise again, but we shall all be changed.") What more like a raging

madman, then his warning the people at Mechlin, in a public address, to

beware of the heresy of Luther and Erasmus! Why should I now recall the

ravings that he belches out rather than utters in the midst of his high

feasting as often as his zeal for the house of the Lord is inflamed from

his cups? He lately said in Holland, that I was set down for a forger

among the divines of Louvain. (One who was present and heard it wrote to

me.) When asked, Why? Because, says he, he so often corrects the New

Testament! What a dolt of a tongue! Jerome so often corrected the

Psalter: is he therefore a forger? In short if he is a forger, who

either rashly or from ignorance translates anything otherwise than it

should be, he was a forger, whose translation we use at the present day

in the Church. But what good does this sort of behavior do him? All men

laugh at him as a Morychus,[E] shun him as a crackbrain,--get out of

his way as a peevish fellow you can do nothing with. Nor can they think

ill of him, of whom he says such spiteful things. And though he

displeases all, himself alone he cannot displease.

[Footnote E: Lit.: One stained or smeared: an epithet of Bacchus

(Dionysos) in Sicily, "smeared with wine-lees." ([Greek: moryssô].)]

This doubtless he holds to be an Imperial edict, that he with raging

insolence of tongue should rave at whomsoever he pleases. Thus does this

wise and weighty man support the interests of the orthodox faith. This

is not a zeal of God, to hurt the harmless; but it is a rage of the

devil. The Jewish zeal of Phinehas was once extolled, but not that it

might pass as a pattern with Christians. And yet Phinehas openly slew

impious persons. To your colleague whatever he hates is Lutheran and

heretical. In the same way, I suppose, he will call small-beer, flat

wine, and tasteless broth, Lutheran. And the Greek tongue, which is his

_unique_ aversion,--I suppose for this reason, that the Apostles

dignified it with so great an honour as to write in no other,--will be

called Lutheran. Poetic art, for he hates this too, being fonder of the

_potatic_, will be Lutheran.

He complains that his authority is lessened by our means, and that he is

made a laughing-stock in my writings. The fact is, he offers himself as

an object of ridicule to all men of education and sense; and this

without end. I _repel slander_. But if learned and good men think ill of

_a man_ who directs a slander at one who has not deserved it, which is

it fair to consider the accountable person, he who rightly repels what

he ought not to acknowledge, or he who injuriously sets it afoot? If a

man were to be laughed at for saying that asses in Brabant have wings,

would he not himself make the laughing-matter? He cries out that _the

whole of Luther is in my books_, that on all sides they swarm with

heretical errors. But when those who read my writings find nothing of

the kind, even if ignorant of dialectics, they readily infer the true

conclusion. He has authority from the Emperor. Let him therefore conduct

himself in the spirit of the Emperor, who would rather that wrong-doers

should be cured than punished, and certainly does not desire that the

harmless should be injured. He has entrusted this function to a man he

did not know; when he shall have ascertained the fellow's character, he

will doubtless recall what he has entrusted. It is not the disposition

of the mildest of Emperors, nor of the most upright of Popes, that those

who spend their night-watches in studying how to adorn and assist the

State, should be exposed to the spite of such men; even although there

were some human infirmity in the case. So far are they from desiring to

estrange good and honest men, and force them to take a different side.

These matters are more your concern than mine. For this man's manners

invite much discredit upon your order, while the mass of the people

judge of you all by this one sample. Unjustly so, I admit; but so the

world wags. And the harshness of your brother estranges no small number

from the study of divinity. I know that the man is utterly disliked by

you, with the exception of two or three boon companions, and one old

hand, who abuses the man's folly in the interests of his own lusts. But

all would definitely understand that you disapprove of him, if, since he

cannot be restrained, you were to expel him from your table. I well know

such a step will be very difficult to take. For men of his stamp are

reluctantly torn away from the smell of stated, sumptuous, and free

repasts. Nevertheless this concerns the honour of your Order, towards

which I have good reason to be well-disposed. Farewell.

Supposed to have been written in 1531.