(A paper read before the third International Historical Congress, in
London, April 1913.)
Whatever may still be the troubles of the great, amongst men of
learning at any rate visits of ceremony are mercifully no longer in
fashion. At first sight one is inclined to find the cause of this in
an improved sense of the value of time. Modern inventions have taught
first the business man and then the world in general that time is
money. Improved communications with time-tables that may be relied
upon enable us to arrange our days in such a way as to be at least
more busy, if not more useful; and we have acquired a wholesome
respect for the time of others. But I do not think we should be right
in accounting for the change in this way. At all ages the scholar,
looking round him at tasks which exceed the capacity of a lifetime,
has been avaricious of the hours--'labuntur anni', 'pereunt et
imputantur' ever in his thoughts: and though the world of old moved
slower, the man of business has rarely belied his name. A more
plausible explanation is that the custom has died of surfeit. As
increased facilities of travel made the world smaller, the circle of
those that might be visited and saluted by the active grew boundless;
so that on both sides limits were desired. Another consideration is
that with new facilities came increased opportunities and hopes.
To-day we live in the happy consciousness that friends, however
distant, may be brought across the world to our doors by the urgencies
of business or pleasure; and thus no one knows what the coming year
may bring forth. In the sixteenth century men knew that opportunities
lost might never recur, and that they must seize or make them as best
they might.
At that time visits of ceremony were in great vogue. Officials and
scholars alike groaned under them. After a visit to the Court Erasmus
writes: 'If Pollio (a disguised name, as he was writing of a man who
afterwards became an intimate friend) has been with you, you will
understand what I suffered at Brussels; every day hosts of Spanish
visitors, besides Italians and Germans.' A little later he apologizes
to a correspondent for having given him a chilly welcome: 'just then I
had escaped from Brussels, quite worn out with the salutations of
these persistent Spaniards.' The custom was widespread. An English
graduate, studying for a time at Louvain, congratulates himself on
having escaped from it at Cambridge. Clenardus found it thriving at
Salamanca; Casaubon complained of it at Montpellier; in Oxford it was
even obligatory for intending disputants in the schools to pay formal
visits beforehand to their examiners.
In 1517 Erasmus' fame was at its zenith; and in consequence visitors
came to him from every side, some to seek counsel, others to adore.
His correspondence gives us many instances. In the spring of 1517,
when the Cardinal of Gurk attended Maximilian to the Netherlands, his
two secretaries, Richard Bartholinus of Perugia and Ursinus Velius, a
Silesian, prepared panegyrical verses with which to greet Erasmus if
they should have the good fortune to meet him. For some reason
Bartholinus alone came, and, presenting both the poems, elicited a
complimentary letter in reply. A more distinguished visitor received
less attention. In the summer of 1518 Erasmus was at Basle, printing
the notes to his second edition of the New Testament. The Bishop of
Pistoia, nephew of one of the most influential cardinals, and Papal
nuncio in Switzerland, also came to Basle. Wishing to see the great
scholar, he asked him to dinner. But Erasmus could not spare the time.
He declined, and in his place sent his friends, Beatus Rhenanus and
the young Amerbachs. Three times he made excuse; and at length the
Nuncio went on foot to seek in Froben's press the scholar who would
not come to him. What their conversation was we do not know; but
before leaving, the Nuncio ordered a copy of the Amerbach-Froben
Jerome to be sent to the binders and equipped with his arms and
adornments.
Later in the year the enthusiastic Eobanus of Hesse appeared in
Louvain. He had come from Erfurt where he was teaching, and the main
purpose of his journey was to see Erasmus. His _Hodoeporicon_,
printed on his return, describes his course in detail. With a young
companion, John Werter, also from Erfurt, he entered Louvain in the
evening. Next morning early they sent in their 'callow' verses to the
great man, and followed shortly themselves. Erasmus came down to greet
them at the door with a kindly welcome, and Eobanus describes a
banquet to which he invited them, entertaining them with serious talk
and light-hearted jest. But it was at no light cost to Erasmus' time:
for when his admirers left five days later, he had been cajoled into
writing six letters of compliment, two to the travellers themselves
and four more to friends at Gotha and Erfurt. But this was not the
only cost. Eobanus imbued others of the Erfurt circle with his
hero-worship; and next year came two more, Jonas and Schalbe, to
trouble Erasmus' leisure, when he was taking a spring holiday at
Antwerp, 'by the sea', and to bear off more letters to Erfurt. The
spirit that animated these visitors is shown in a letter of John
Turzo, bishop of Breslau, a man of Erasmus' own age. In 1518 Ursinus
Velius, the disappointed secretary of the Cardinal of Gurk, had become
canon of Breslau on Turzo's presentation; and had doubtless talked to
his patron of Erasmus' attractive gifts. 'I am most eager to visit
you' wrote the Bishop, from Breslau. 'If ever I had heard that you
were anywhere within a week's journey from here, I should have rushed
over at once: indeed I would have gone as far as Belgium, if only the
business of my office allowed. The men of Cadiz who journeyed to Rome
to see Livy were not more eager.'
A picture of the interruptions to which Erasmus was exposed is given
in a preface written in Froben's name for the new edition of Erasmus'
_Epigrammata_ combined with More's and with the _Utopia_, March 1518.
'Most of these verses' Froben is made to say 'were written not for
publication, but to give pleasure to friends; to whom he is always
very obliging. When he was here bringing out his New Testament and
Jerome, heavens! how he worked! toiling away untiringly day after day.
Never was any one more overwhelmed in composition; and yet certain
great persons thought themselves entitled to come and waste his time,
coaxing out of him a few lines of verse or a little letter. So
compliant was he that they made it very difficult for him. To refuse
seemed uncivil when they pressed him so. But to write when his mind
was intent elsewhere, and not a minute to spare from his labours----!
However, he did write, on the spur of the moment, turning aside for a
little to the groves of the Muses.'
Some other visitors can be traced in this period. John Alexander
Brassicanus, poet laureate, came from Tubingen in September 1520 and
saw Erasmus at Antwerp; whence in reply to a letter of self-introduction
he bore away a complimentary letter that he afterwards printed, and
the sound piece of advice, that if he wished to become learned, he
must never think himself so. More distinguished was Ferdinand
Columbus, the explorer's natural son and heir, who in October 1520,
on one of those journeys on which he gathered his famous library,
received at Louvain a copy of Erasmus' _Antibarbari_, with his name
inscribed in it by the author. A visitor to whom we must pay more heed
was John Draco, one of the Erfurt circle, who in July 1520 came to pay
homage at Louvain.
In the autumn of 1518 the agent of a Leipzig bookseller trading to
Prague received a letter to carry back with him and forward on to
Erasmus at Louvain. The writer was a certain Jan Slechta, a Bohemian
country gentleman, who was living at Kosteletz on the upper waters of
the Elbe, a few miles to the North-east of Prague. He was a man of
education and position. After taking his M.A. at Prague in 1484, he
had served for sixteen years as a secretary to King Ladislas of
Bohemia and Hungary; but about 1507, disgusted with the turmoils of
court life in that very troubled time, he had retired to his home, to
give his later years to the education of his son and the personal
management of his estates. The world of affairs had not extinguished
his love of learning. He was an intimate friend of Bohuslaus of
Hassenstein, scholar and traveller, and corresponded with him in
elegant Latin. Attracted by the reputation for eloquence won by the
notorious Hieronymus Balbus, he had persuaded him _c._ 1499 to come
and teach in Prague--a step which in view of Balbus' bad life he
afterwards deeply regretted. He was also the author of a dialogue on
the relations of body and soul, entitled _Microcosmus_; which with
characteristic modesty he kept for more than twenty years known only
to his intimate friends--indeed it was only in the last year of his
life that he composed a dedication for it, and it seems never to have
been printed.
The tone of Slechta's thoughts in his later years was grave and
serious; as well it might be. The two kingdoms, then but loosely
united, were torn with internal factions and racial jealousies; while
in church towers and over city gates the bells hung ready to proclaim
to the countryside the advent of that ever-present menace, the Turk.
In the priesthood men could mark much that was amiss; and the seamless
robe of Christ was rent with schism, the candle that Hus and Jerome
had lighted a century before, still burning clearly among less sober
heresies, which drew down on it, as upon themselves, spasmodic
outbursts of retributive violence. Uneasy sat the crown on Ladislas'
head; and when Death, coming as a friend, took it from him in 1516, it
was only to thrust this sad office upon a ten-year-old boy, who after
ten more years of childish government was miserably to perish at
Mohacz. No wonder that Slechta and his friends looked anxiously upon
the future. 'The times of Hus and Wycliffe which our grandfathers
detested, seem golden beside our own' wrote Bohuslaus to Geiler of
Kaisersberg--a member of that grave circle of Strasburg humanists,
with which, it may be noted in passing, our Bohemians had much in
common. The letters of Slechta contain two disquisitions, one on the
frailties of a celibate clergy, the other on the duties of a parish
priest; advocating reforms by which he hoped to check the continuous
growth of 'those unutterable heretics, the Pyghards': by whom he meant
the Bohemian Brethren.
What moved Slechta to correspond with Erasmus we do not know; possibly
a slighting reference in one of the latter's printed letters to 'those
schismatic Bohemians, who have infected most of Europe'. Slechta's
letter is unhappily lost; but from Erasmus' reply, dated 23 April 1519
from Louvain, its general tenor may be gathered. It began, of course,
with eulogies of Erasmus and his work; and then, after some account of
the writer's life and fortunes, it proceeded to assure him that there
were persons in Bohemia who were not merely interested in good
learning but prepared to advance it. Finally it invited him to come to
Prague. Erasmus' answer to his unknown correspondent was courteous,
but firmly declined the invitation. 'What I can do at Prague I do not
see. It is considerate of you to offer me an escort for my journey;
but I confess I do not like regions where such company is necessary.
In this country one can go about wherever one likes, alone. I am sure
that, as you say, I should find among you plenty of learned and pious
men, who are not contaminated with the errors of schism. But how is it
that this division is suffered to remain? Better unity with some
hardship than to hold one's own at the cost of discord. I fear it is
money that stands in the way. Paul suffered the loss of all things
that he might win Christ. The world is full of cardinals and princes
and bishops; if only one of these would take up this matter in a truly
Christian spirit! If Paul were on the Pope's throne, I am sure he
would allow not only his revenues but his authority to be diminished,
if his loss would purchase unity.' Erasmus concludes cordially: 'If we
cannot meet, at any rate we can write. I will walk and talk with you
sometimes beside your Elbe, you shall come and dwell with me in
Brabant. Friendship can flourish without actual contact.'
This letter was handed to Slechta on 11 September, four and a half
months after it was written. Nearly a year had elapsed since his
letter had been dispatched and he had given up hopes of a reply: so
that these amiable and encouraging words were the more welcome, and he
at once proceeded to act upon them. Within a month he had composed a
letter of some elegance, in which while subscribing to Erasmus'
prayers for unity, he pointed out the difficulties of the task. To the
remarks about coming to Prague he rejoined regretfully: 'I can quite
see that there is nothing for you to do here. There are many of us who
would have been glad of your coming; but I understand that we must
hope to see you at another time and elsewhere. That travellers in our
country need an escort you would not wonder if you could see how the
roads run, among lofty mountains shrouded in impenetrable forests.
These give cover to hordes of brigands, who prey upon travellers and
merchants, robbing and killing indifferently. Almost every month
there are punitive raids made from the towns, and brigands are
captured and put to death. But the pest seems ineradicable.'
Slechta then proceeds to the religious troubles, and after expressing
general agreement with Erasmus, describes the three main parties into
which the life of Bohemia and Moravia was cloven. First the orthodox
Romanists, loyal to the Church and in unity with Germany and the rest
of Christendom; finding their adherents amongst the upper classes,
together with some of the King's cities and the monasteries, many of
which, though once rich, had now fallen into decay. Secondly, the
Utraquists, otherwise orthodox but practising communion in both kinds,
and at their services reading the Epistle and Gospel in the
vernacular: with some supporters among the nobility, a good many
gentry, and nearly thirty royal cities. After tracing their history
from the Council of Basle and briefly stating their views, he adds
that no one in the kingdom is able to propound a solution of the
difficulties existing. Thirdly, the Bohemian Brethren, whom he styles
Pyghards. This name, from the opprobrious sense in which it is
generally used, is now thought to be derived from the Beghards, a
mediaeval sect whose vagaries drew down upon it frequent persecution;
but Slechta traces it to a foreign vagabond who came from Picardy in
1422 and infected with his pestilent doctrines the army of John Ziska,
the Taborite, an army of those that were in distress, in debt, in
discontent.
This sect, Slechta tells us, lasted continuously down to the times of
the late King Ladislas (d. 1516), and indeed increased considerably
under him; for his thoughts were much occupied with Hungary, and he
was content if Bohemia could be maintained in an outward appearance of
peace. Then follows a description of their opinions. 'The Pope and all
his officials they regard as Antichrist. They choose their own
bishops, rude unlettered laymen, with wives and families. They salute
one another as Brother and Sister; and recognize no authority but the
Bible. Their priests celebrate mass without vestments, use leavened
bread and only the Lord's Prayer. Transubstantiation they deny, and
the worship of the host they regard as idolatry. Vows to the saints,
prayers for the dead, and confession to priests they ridicule; and
they keep no holy days but Sundays, Christmas, Easter and Whitsun.' 'I
will not waste your time with more of these pernicious views. My
feeling is that if the two first-named parties could only be
reconciled, this nefarious sect might, with the aid of the King, be
exterminated or at any rate reduced to a better state of faith and
religion.'
The roads in Bohemia might be dangerous, but the distance to Louvain
was not so great as it had seemed at first; for Erasmus' reply is
dated 1 Nov. 1519, only three weeks after Slechta's letter. He begins
again with the roads. 'Prevention is better than punishment. It would
be wiser if, instead of these avenging raids, the more frequented
roads could be cleared of forest on either side, and held by
block-houses and armed posts at intervals. Indeed it is somewhat
discreditable that the great towns and princes of Germany cannot
achieve what the Swiss do by co-operation and local action.' He then
turns to the religious dissensions, and in his passion for concord
exclaims that it would be better that a nation should be united in
error than so numerously divided: experience shows that there is no
opinion so wild but that some one will be found to embrace it. Of the
orthodox party he has nothing to say beyond extolling the system by
which the Pope might act as judge and father of all, and as supreme
court of appeal. To the Utraquists he would counsel conformity to the
practice of the majority; although unable to understand why the Church
should have allowed a practice instituted by Christ to fall into
disuse.
Then he comes to the Brethren, and after admitting that they have
strayed further than the Utraquists from the rule of Christian life,
he continues: 'If they go on still in their wickedness, they must be
restrained; but this is not the duty of any one who likes, nor must
violence be used, lest the innocent suffer with the guilty. Their
practice of electing their own priests and bishops has authority in
antiquity; but it certainly is unfortunate if their choice falls on
men bad as well as unlearned. With the titles of Brother and Sister I
see no fault to find: it is a pity they are not more widely used among
Christians. To prefer God's word in the Bible to the judgements of
Doctors is sound: though to reject the latter altogether is as uniform
an error as to embrace them to the exclusion of everything else. To
celebrate the mass in everyday dress is not contrary to the truth;
but it is a pity to abandon customs sanctioned by use and authority:
though perhaps the Pope might be persuaded to concede to them the use
of their own rites, as he does to the Greeks and the Milanese. The
Lord's Prayer is, of course, part of our own use; and though it seems
narrow to confine themselves to this, I doubt whether they do worse
than those who weave in long strings of intercession from any source.
Their opinions about the sacraments are certainly impious; but at any
rate they are under no temptation to exploit these holy mysteries for
the sake of gain or futile glory or tyrannous imposition. I do not see
why they should reject vigils and fasts in moderation; but these are
matters for encouragement rather than positive command. About
festivals they seem to follow the usage current in the days of Jerome:
better, I think, than the modern calendar, full of saints-days which
end in riot and carouse, and on which the honest journeyman is
forbidden to work for his children's bread.' As Slechta read these
words, he must surely have felt as did Balak, the son of Zippor, when
he listened to the seer from Mesopotamia taking up his parable upon
Israel in the plains of Moab. The man whose eyes were open, had
blessed the Brethren instead of cursing them; and literary Europe
might well follow his lead.
The history of the Bohemian Brethren is of exceptional interest,
affording an example of a community professing a plain, simple faith
and ruling their lives by modest conceptions of ordinary goodness,
who, guided by leaders almost unknown to the world, through the
trials of good and evil repute, through tribulation and prosperity,
kept serenely upon the path they had marked out for themselves, living
and growing into one of the most flourishing and devoted missionary
bodies of the present day. As is natural under such conditions, their
origin is not free from obscurity. Men connected them with the
Waldensians of Southern France, or traced them, as we have seen, to a
leader from Picardy. Through the fifteenth century they grew steadily
in strength and unity, sheltered by the toleration which Rome
unwillingly granted to the Utraquists as a result of the Compacts of
Basle; and as compared with other dissentient bodies their name was
singularly free from gross imputations. Throughout that age such
imputations were freely made and believed against heretics. This was
not unreasonable. In the low state of public and private morals faith
was regarded as an indispensable bulwark to conduct, the faith which
taught indeed that a man should love God and his neighbour, but
stablished him into practising what he professed, by lurid pictures of
the fate awaiting him if he did not. Without this bulwark it was not
thought possible that a man could lead a godly, righteous and sober
life; and so he was considered capable of every form of vice, if he
ventured to doubt the truth of those opinions on which the Church had
set its seal, in realms into which it now seems that human knowledge
cannot penetrate.
At the beginning of the sixteenth century fresh attempts were being
made to win back the Brethren to orthodoxy; and in this work the
ardour of the Dominicans burned bright. In 1500 one of them, Henry
Institor, a Doctor of Theology, procured from Alexander VI bulls which
recognized him as 'Inquisitor into heresy throughout Germany and
Bohemia', and empowered him to collect heretical books and send them
to the Bishop of Olmutz, the chief see of Moravia, to be burned; also
to join to himself two or three other Masters of Theology and preach
against the heretics. These bulls are printed at the head of a great
volume written by Institor, with the title 'A shield for the faith of
the Holy Roman Church against the heresy of the Waldensians or
Pickards, who on all sides are infecting with virulent contagion
certain races in Germany and Bohemia, to hatred of the clergy and
enervation of the ecclesiastical power'. In 1501 the volume appeared
at Olmutz, with an enumeration of thirty-six erroneous articles in
which the Pickards denied the authority of the Church; followed of
course by a vigorous refutation. At the same time one of their own
countrymen, Augustine Kasenbrot of Olmutz was writing a series of open
letters on the Brethren and their views.
But the most succinct account of the position is contained in an
attack made upon them by a learned and fair-minded Dominican, Jacobus
Lilienstayn. His book, 'a Treatise against the erroneous Waldensian
Brethren, commonly known as the Pickards, without rule, without law,
and without obedience, of whom there are many in Moravia, more than
in Bohemia', was composed in 1505 and is dedicated to the Dean of
Prague. It begins by setting forth five general and twelve special
errors of the Waldensians. The former are as follows:
1. They call the Gospels, the Epistles and the Acts, together
with the Old Testament where it agrees with the New, 'the Law
of Christ'; and they attack and deride the Doctors of the
Church.
2. They say the Pope has no more power in administering the
sacraments of the Church, and in other ecclesiastical matters,
than a simple priest has.
3. They say that in the practice of the Church nothing is to be
added to what Christ and the Apostles taught and did.