In the autumn of 1495 Erasmus was at length at liberty to go to a
university. His patron, the Bishop of Cambray, gave him a small
allowance, and the authorities at Steyn were prevailed upon to
consent. His purpose was to obtain a Doctor's degree in Theology; and
so he entered the College of Montaigu at Paris, which had been founded
in 1388, but had fallen into decay and only recently been revived. In
1483 a certain John Standonck had volunteered to become Principal. By
his efforts the college buildings were restored; and by taking in rich
pupils he secured means to maintain the Domus Pauperum attached to the
College. He was an ardent, enthusiastic person, but rather lacking in
judgement; and starved his _pauperes_ in order to be able to have as
many as possible on the slender resources available. Erasmus, being
delicate and therewith fastidious, complained of the rough and meagre
fare--rotten eggs and stinking water; and with good reason, for it
made him ill, and he had to spend the summer of 1496 with his friends
in Holland.
Having established himself in the college he introduced himself to the
literary circle in Paris, through its head, Robert Gaguin, the aged
General of the Maturins, who had served on many embassies, to Spain,
to Italy, to Germany, to England. Gaguin had written much himself,
and had been one of the promoters of printing in Paris. To know him
was to be known of many. Erasmus began by addressing to him a poem and
some florid letters, and showed him some of his work. Then an
opportunity came to do him a service. Gaguin had composed a history of
the French, and it was just coming through the press. At the end the
printer found himself with two pages of the last sheet unfilled,
despite ample spacing out, and the author was too ill to lend any
help. Erasmus heard of the difficulty, and came to the rescue with a
long and most elegant epistle to Gaguin, comparing him to Sallust and
Livy, and promising him immortality. Time has turned the tables:
Gaguin's name lives, not because of his history, but because the young
and unknown Augustinian canon thought fit to court his acquaintance.
Once blooded with the printers, Erasmus went steadily on. In a few
months he published some poems of his own, on Christ and the
angels--_de casa natalitia Jesu_, a very rare volume, of which only
two copies are known. It was dedicated to a college friend, Hector
Boys, of Dundee, subsequently the first Principal of King's College,
Aberdeen, and historian of Scotland. It may be wondered what was
Erasmus' motive. A dedication of a book had a market value and usually
brought a return in proportion to the compliments laid on. Correctness
certainly required that the book should be sent to the Bishop of
Cambray. Boys was only a fellow-student, whose acquaintance Erasmus
had made at Montaigu. The explanation perhaps lies in the fact that
Bishop Elphinstone was then negotiating with Boys to come to Aberdeen;
in the newly-founded university Erasmus may have sighted hopes for
himself. The following year saw another volume produced by him; the
poems of his Gouda and Deventer friend, William Herman, with a few of
his own added. This time the Bishop of Cambray did not fail of his
due.
When Erasmus came to Paris, he was nearly 29, older by far than the
ordinary arts student, but not old for the theological course, which
lasted longer than the others. To reach the first step, the Bachelor's
degree, he had to attend a number of lectures; and very tedious he
found them. Theologians are apt to be conservative. The method of
instruction had not advanced far beyond the dictation of text and
gloss and commentary, which had been current before the days of
printing. Erasmus yawned and dozed, or wrote letters to his friends
making fun of these 'barbarous Scotists'. 'You wouldn't know me,' he
says, 'if you could see me sitting under old Dunderhead, my brows knit
and looking thoroughly puzzled. They tell me that no one can
understand these mysteries who has any traffic with the Muses or the
Graces. So I am trying hard to forget my Latin: wit and elegance must
disappear. I think I am getting on; maybe some day they will recognize
me for their own.' They did, and he proceeded B.D.; when is not known,
but probably by Easter 1498.
At the present day in England our systems are very set. A man
matriculates at a university and completes his course there: to change
even from one college to another is becoming almost unknown. Abroad,
however, things are more fluid, and students pass on from university
to university in search of the best teacher for special parts of their
course. So it was in Erasmus' time. A course of lectures attended in
one university could be reckoned in another; and thus men often
proceeded to their degrees within a short time of their matriculation.
Having taken his Bachelor's degree at Paris, Erasmus at once proposed
to convert it into a Doctor's in Italy; but one hope after another of
going there was disappointed. In 1506 he wished to take it in
Cambridge; but after obtaining his grace, he was offered a chance to
go to Italy as tutor to the sons of Henry VII's Italian physician. He
accepted with delight, and was made D.D. as he passed through Turin;
the formalities apparently requiring only a few days.
The art of reasoning is an excellent thing; and so long as man
continues to live according to reason, some training in this art will
continue to be a part of education. Indeed, an elementary knowledge of
it is as necessary as an elementary acquaintance with the art of
arithmetic. Both arts have this in common that though their feet walk
upon the earth, their heads are lost in the clouds. A moderate
attainment of them is indispensable to all; but their higher
developments can only be comprehended by the acutest minds. In the
Middle Ages the art of reasoning had been raised to such a pitch of
perfection that it entirely dominated the schools. Its exponents were
so proud of it that its bounds were continually extended; and it
became impossible to obtain a university degree without a high level
of proficiency in disputation. For his examination a candidate was
required to dispute with all comers--in practice this came to be a
small number of appointed examiners, three or four--on questions which
had been announced beforehand. It was not a hasty affair--time was
allowed for reflection, and the examination might easily last several
hours or even all day. But clearly readiness in debate was likely to
count in a man's favour, and so besides knowledge of standard authors
to be adduced in support of opinions--the Bible, the Fathers, the
mediaeval commentators, the Canon Law and the glosses upon it--it was
important to a candidate to be able to handle a question properly, to
divide it up into its different parts by means of distinctions, to
shear off side issues, to examine the various facets which it
presented when approached from different points of view; and all this
without hesitation, and of course in Latin.
In order to train candidates in this art, university and college
teachers gave frequent exhibitions of disputations, which from being
on any subject, de quolibet, were styled 'quodlibeticae questiones',
or 'disputationes'. A high dignitary presided, with the title of
'dominus quodlibetarius', and propounded questions, usually one
supported by arguments and two plain; and then the disputer, who
presumably came prepared, delivered his reply, clear cut into fine
distinctions and bristling with citations from recognized authorities.
Such work necessarily cost trouble and forethought, and the
hard-working teacher of the day, instead of printing his lectures on
philosophy or history or editing and commentating texts, gave to his
pupils in permanent form the quodlibetical disputations which the busy
among them had struggled to copy down into note-books, and over which
the inattentive, like Erasmus, had yawned.
These are some of the subjects disputed at Louvain, 1488-1507, by
Adrian of Utrecht; first as a young doctor, then as professor of
theology, and finally for ten years as vice-chancellor, before he was
carried away to become tutor to Prince Charles, and entered upon the
public career which led him finally to Rome as Adrian VI.
1488. Whether to avoid offending one's neighbour it is
permissible to break a vow or oath duly made.
1491. Whether one is bound to act on the command of a superior,
contrary to one's own opinion, knowing that in former days the
matter had been regarded as doubtful.
1492. Whether it is lawful to administer the Eucharist or to
confer the benefit of absolution on one who declares that he
cannot abstain from crimes.
1493. Whether of the two is more likely to be healed and
offends God the less, the man who sins from ignorance or
infirmity, or the man who sins of deliberate intent.
1495. Whether a priest who gives advice that tithes ought not
to be paid on the fruits of one's own labours, can receive
remission of his sin without undergoing severe punishment.
Whether transgression of human laws constitutes mortal sin.
1499. Whether prayer on behalf of many is as beneficial to the
individuals as if one prayed as long a time for each one.
1491. <? 1501> Whether it is permissible to give money to any
one to procure one a benefice by praising one's dignity and
merits to the provisor to the benefice.
Here are some of John Briard of Ath, a notable theologian, who was
subsequently Vice-chancellor of Louvain:
1508. Whether a man who has confessed all his mortal sins but
has omitted his voluntary occasions of stumbling, is bound to
confess over again.
Whether we are bound by the law of love to deliver a neighbour,
against his will, from oppression, infamy, or death, when we
cannot do so without hurt or danger to ourselves.
Whether beneficed students on account of their studies are
excused from reading their canonical hours.
We will now consider in brief Briard's handling of the following
question: 'Whether a prize of money won at Bruges or elsewhere by the
hazard known as the game of the pot, or what is commonly called the
lottery, may be retained with a clear conscience as a righteous
acquisition?'
'For the decision of this question I premise:
1. Firstly, that gain is not to be considered unlawful because
it comes by good fortune, and not by one's own labour.
The truth of this preamble is shown thus: If gain coming by
good fortune is unlawful, it follows that all gain arising from
division by lot is unlawful. But this is false: therefore, &c.
The consequent is proved by the fact that all such gain rests
on good fortune. The falsity is shown by the opinions of almost
all the doctors who write on this subject:
St. Thomas, 2.2, question 95, article 8, shows that there is
nothing wrong in dividing by lot, between friends who cannot
otherwise decide.
In this opinion agree Alexander of Hales, part 2 of his
_Summa_, question 185, membrane 2; Angelus in his _Summa_ under
the word _sors_, section 2, after the gloss in _Summa 26_,
question 2; Antoninus, part 2, title 12, chapter 1, section 9.
2. Secondly, that gain is not to be considered unlawful because
it comes without labour. This would exclude gifts.
3. Thirdly, that gain is not to be considered unlawful because
it comes from cupidity, avarice, forbidden trade, or opus
peccaminosum <e.g. working on a saint's day>, unless there is
fraud, deception, or the like.
See Petrus de Palude, book 4, distinction 15, question 3,
conclusion 4, about the gain arising from acting. Also Angelus
in his _Summa_ under _restitutio_, part 1, section 6.
4. Fourthly, that a work which brings public advantage, either
spiritual or temporal, is not necessarily unlawful because some
people are thereby provoked to sin.
Otherwise it would be unlawful to manufacture arms or to make
war.
On these premises I base the following propositions: