5. They allege that the Church is in error, and that they
themselves are the brethren of Christ and the true imitators of
the Apostles.
Amongst the special errors are denials of the validity of indulgences
and of the efficacy of masses for the dead; and the general simplicity
of their conduct is shown in their practices at birth and death,
baptism requiring only pure water, not holy oil and the chrism, and
extreme unction banished from the death-bed.
Finally the good Dominican gives a brief account of the life of these
Brethren 'without obedience'. In his preface he expresses his
difficulty in gathering the truth about them: 'for they are as
inconstant as the moon, and the practices alleged against them in the
past are denied by them to-day.' But he concludes honestly that though
their faith is 'abhominable' to true Christians, their life is good
enough. His good sense is further shown by his refusal to accept an
absurd story about their method of choosing their leaders. 'When one
of these is to be chosen', so ran the tale, 'the community meets
together. And as they sit in silence, the windows being open, a great
fly enters and buzzes over them, settling at length on the head of
one; who is then set apart for a season. And when he is brought back,
he is found to be learned in Latin and theology and whatever else is
necessary, though he were rude and ignorant before.' This Lilienstayn
finds clearly false: the simple life of the Brethren he illustrates by
their practice. 'They have Bibles in Bohemian, which they read. Their
women wear veils, and no colours, only black, white and grey. They all
labour with their hands.' Thus their life to him was 'good enough'. It
may remind us in many points of the Quakers.
The attacks upon them led the Brethren to reply. In 1507 they composed
an _Apologia_ addressed to the King, to show that they were not
without rule, without law and without obedience, and to defend the
manner of their life. This was printed at Nuremberg in 1507, and again
in 1518; but of the original editions I have not been able to see a
copy. The attacks continued. In 1512 another ponderous volume
appeared, composed by Jacob Ziegler, the well-known Bavarian
scientist, to demonstrate the falsity of their opinions. What finally
impelled the Brethren to court countenance from Erasmus is not clear;
possibly the cool reception the Utraquists had had from Luther the
year before, with the rather contemptuous suggestion that their style
and opinions were more like Erasmus' than his own. The episode has
escaped Erasmus' biographers; and I cannot find any mention of it
except an allusion in one of his letters, and a description in a
treatise on the Brethren by Joachim Camerarius the elder (1500-1574).
Camerarius' book was not published till 1605; but we can perhaps trace
the source of his information. From 1518 onwards he spent some years
at Erfurt. In January 1521 Erasmus describes the visit of the
Brethren's envoys as having occurred six months before; at Antwerp,
according to Camerarius, where he may be traced in June 1520. If we
recall that it was in July that Draco came from Erfurt to pay his
visit of homage, it seems quite likely that on his return he may have
given to Camerarius the detailed record which the latter has
preserved.
By that time Erasmus' name was well known in Central Europe. 'Both
from Hungary and Bohemia' he says in 1518 'bishops and men of position
write to thank me for my New Testament.' Apart from the learned world
there were others, too, who must have known him; for a Bohemian
translation had just appeared of the new preface to his _Enchiridion_,
a preface in which he had written with an almost Lutheran freedom
about abuses in the Church, and had extolled the life of simple
Christianity. This was a book to appeal at once to the Brethren.
Another of his works which may have had its effect in attracting them
was the _Julius Exclusus_. This exquisitely witty satire dealt freely
with the Pope and his office, the Pope whom the Brethren accounted no
more than a simple priest; and though its licence was too bold for
Erasmus ever to admit its authorship--indeed, as we have seen, he
consistently denied it--, it was attributed to him on all sides, in
company with others, his secret being on the whole well kept. The
_Julius_ was translated into Bohemian, somewhere about this time: but
from the nature of it, a kind of book to which publishers as well as
authors were loath to put their names, it cannot be definitely placed.
So it was, too, with the _Moria_, which had been translated by Gregory
Hruby Gelenski, father of the scholar, Sigismund Gelenius; but of
which no contemporary edition survives.
If the Brethren had seen Erasmus' final letter to Slechta, they might
well have been encouraged to hope much from him. But of this there is
no indication. Slechta was hardly likely to communicate it to them;
and though such documents often leaked out against the owner's will,
its first appearance in print was in 1521, in Erasmus' _Epistolae ad
diuersos_. I cannot find any translation into a vernacular except a
German version by John Froben of Andernach which appeared at Nuremberg
in 1531.
Whatever was the motive attraction, the Brethren sent as their
envoys, so Camerarius tells us, Nicholas Claudianus, a learned
physician, and Laurence Voticius (Woticky), a man of many
accomplishments, who died at a good age in 1565--a date, which, if it
be not a later interpolation, is an indication as to when Camerarius
composed his narrative.[44] They brought with them a copy of their
_Apologia_, printed at Nuremberg in 1511--a date which appears to be
wrong--and presented it to Erasmus at Antwerp with the request that he
would read it through and see if there was anything in it that he
would wish to have changed. If that were so, they would readily defer
to his criticisms; but if, as they hoped, he approved of what they
said, it would be a help and consolation to them if he would express
that opinion.
[44] L. Camerarius, in his preface, 1 Jan. 1605, describes the
book as composed 'more than thirty years ago'.
He took the book and said he would be glad to read it; but when after
a few days they came for his answer, he told them he had been too busy
to do more than glance through it: so far as he had gone, he found no
error and nothing that he would wish to alter. He declined, however,
to bear testimony about it, as this would bring them no help, and only
danger to himself. 'You must not think', he said, 'that any words of
mine will bring you support; indeed, my own influence, such as it is,
requires the backing of others. If it is true that my writings are of
any value to divine and useful learning, it seems to me unwise to
jeopardize their influence by proclaiming publicly the agreement
between us: such actions might lead to their being condemned and torn
from the hands of the public. Forgive me for this caution, you will
perhaps call it fear: and be assured that I wish you well and will
most gladly help you in other matters.' The envoys were disappointed,
Camerarius records, but took his refusal in good part: for they relied
not on the judgements of men to be the foundation of their heavenly
edifice of truth. The good sense of his words no doubt appealed to
them; for the Brethren were above all things moderate men, averse from
violence, convinced perhaps by their own experience that a display of
courage is unwise when it provokes opposition and raises obstacles to
progress.
The matter was not, however, allowed to rest. In the same year an
appeal on behalf of the Brethren was made to Erasmus from another
quarter. One of the features of their movement had been the number of
the nobility who had become sympathizers, if not actual members of the
community. One of these was Artlebus of Boskowitz, a kinsman perhaps
of that 'nobilis virgo, Martha de Boskowitz' whom the Brethren in
addressing the King had adduced as one of their supporters. From the
castle of Znaim, his official residence as Supreme Captain of Moravia,
Artlebus wrote, telling Erasmus of the steady growth of the Brethren,
and of the futility of all attempts to withstand their doctrines by
argument; and sending him a copy of their Rule, with the request that
he would read it and frame thereupon a standard of Christian piety,
which all men, including the Brethren, might follow. He turned then
to praise Luther for the courageous fight he was making, and urged
Erasmus to join with him in sowing the seed of the Gospel.
Erasmus' reply, dated 28 Jan. 1521 from Louvain, has no address but
'N. viro praepotenti'; and in consequence its connexion with Artlebus
of Boskowitz has escaped notice. As was to be expected, he declined
the proposal that he should set up a standard of Christian observance.
He might criticize with all freedom the practices of monks and clergy
and speak straightly of Papal iniquities: but the standard of the
Church was still the life of Christ, and he would not arrogate to
himself the right to draw the picture of this anew. He took the
opportunity to lament, as he had done to Slechta, the discord
prevailing in Bohemia, and to urge that a serious attempt should be
made to reconcile the Brethren to the Church. But since his
correspondence with Slechta the world had gone forward. Luther had
burned the Pope's bull at Wittenberg, and Aleander at Worms was
pressing the Diet to annihilate him. Erasmus has less to say to
Artlebus in favour of the Brethren than he had said to Slechta:
indeed, after the appeal for moderation, he goes no further than to
condemn the attitude of the opponents of the Papacy, doubtless
intending to include among them the Brethren. About Luther he would
give no decided opinion. 'It is absurd how men condemn Luther's books
without reading them. Some parts of Luther's writings are good; but
parts are not, and over these I skip. If Luther stands by the
Catholic Church, I will gladly join him.' Artlebus' reply is not
extant; but a sentence in a letter of Erasmus to Wolsey a year later
shows that the 'Bohemian Captain' was greatly vexed by the failure of
his overtures.
This is the last trace of Erasmus' correspondence with Bohemia. But,
uncompromising as he had been in his refusal to both appeals, his
influence there was only just at its commencement, if we may judge by
the list of his works translated into Bohemian, which the Ghent
bibliography has brought to light. The translation of his preface to
the _Enchiridion_ was followed by his version of the _Saturnalia_ of
Lucian (first published in 1517) in 1520; the _Precatio dominica_
(1523) in 1526; his version of the New Testament in 1533; some of the
Colloquies in 1534; the _De Ciuilitate_ (1530) in 1537; the Paraphrase
on St. Matthew (1522) and the _De puritate Ecclesiae_ (1536) in 1542;
the _De immensa Dei misericordia_ (1524) in 1558 and 1573; the
_Apophthegmata Graeciae sapientum_ (1514) in 12 editions between 1558
and 1599; the _De praeparatione ad mortem_ (1534) in 1564 and 1786;
and the _Vidua Christiana_ (1529) in 1595. The envoys of the Brethren
were perhaps wise enough to see that they had much to learn from the
man who was courageous enough to preach caution and to let himself
appear afraid.
* * * * *