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 attitude 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
_justitia_ 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 classical 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 accumulation 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 passing, 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 Cajetanus 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 God 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 pronounced 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
attitude the great and the petty side of his personality are
inextricably intertwined. The error because of which most historians
have seen Erasmus's attitude 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 homogeneous. 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 noble 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 attitude 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.
The expectation that he would be able to speak the conciliating word was
paling. For the rest he failed to see the true proportions. During the
first months of 1520 his attention was almost entirely taken up by his
own polemics with Lee, a paltry incident in the great revolution. The
desire to keep aloof got more and more the upper hand of him. In June he
writes to Melanchthon: 'I see that matters begin to look like sedition.
It is perhaps necessary that scandals occur, but I should prefer not to
be the author.' He has, he thinks, by his influence with Wolsey,
prevented the burning of Luther's writings in England, which had been
ordered. But he was mistaken. The burning had taken place in London, as
early as 12 May.
The best proof that Erasmus had practically given up his hope to play a
conciliatory part may be found in what follows. In the summer of 1520
the famous meeting between the three monarchs, Henry VIII, Francis I and
Charles V, took place at Calais. Erasmus was to go there in the train of
his prince. How would such a congress of princes--where in peaceful
conclave the interests of France, England, Spain, the German Empire, and
a considerable part of Italy, were represented together--have affected
Erasmus's imagination, if his ideal had remained unshaken! But there are
no traces of this. Erasmus was at Calais in July 1520, had some
conversation with Henry VIII there, and greeted More, but it does not
appear that he attached any other importance to the journey than that of
an opportunity, for the last time, to greet his English friends.
It was awkward for Erasmus that just at this time, when the cause of
faith took so much harsher forms, his duties as counsellor to the
youthful Charles, now back from Spain to be crowned as emperor,
circumscribed his liberty more than before. In the summer of 1520
appeared, based on the incriminating material furnished by the Louvain
faculty, the papal bull declaring Luther to be a heretic, and, unless he
should speedily recant, excommunicating him. 'I fear the worst for the
unfortunate Luther,' Erasmus writes, 9 September 1520, 'so does
conspiracy rage everywhere, so are princes incensed with him on all
sides, and, most of all, Pope Leo. Would Luther had followed my advice
and abstained from those hostile and seditious actions!... They will not
rest until they have quite subverted the study of languages and the good
learning.... Out of the hatred against these and the stupidity of monks
did this tragedy first arise.... I do not meddle with it. For the rest,
a bishopric is waiting for me if I choose to write against Luther.'
Indeed, Erasmus had become, by virtue of his enormous celebrity, as
circumstances would have it, more and more a valuable asset in the great
policy of emperor and pope. People wanted to use his name and make him
choose sides. And that he would not do for any consideration. He wrote
evasively to the Pope about his relations with Luther without altogether
disavowing him. How zealously he defends himself from the suspicion of
being on Luther's side as noisy monks make out in their sermons, who
summarily link the two in their scoffing disparagement.
But by the other side also he is pressed to choose sides and to speak
out. Towards the end of October 1520 the coronation of the emperor took
place at Aix-la-Chapelle. Erasmus was perhaps present; in any case he
accompanied the Emperor to Cologne. There, on 5 November, he had an
interview about Luther with the Elector Frederick of Saxony. He was
persuaded to write down the result of that discussion in the form of
twenty-two _Axiomata concerning Luther's cause_. Against his intention
they were printed at once.
Erasmus's hesitation in those days between the repudiation and the
approbation of Luther is not discreditable to him. It is the tragic
defect running through his whole personality: his refusal or inability
ever to draw ultimate conclusions. Had he only been a calculating and
selfish nature, afraid of losing his life, he would long since have
altogether forsaken Luther's cause. It is his misfortune affecting his
fame, that he continually shows his weaknesses, whereas what is great in
him lies deep.
At Cologne Erasmus also met the man with whom, as a promising young
humanist, fourteen years younger than himself, he had, for some months,
shared a room in the house of Aldus's father-in-law, at Venice:
Hieronymus Aleander, now sent to the Emperor as a papal nuncio, to
persuade him to conform his imperial policy to that of the Pope, in the
matter of the great ecclesiastical question, and give effect to the
papal excommunication by the imperial ban.
It must have been somewhat painful for Erasmus that his friend had so
far surpassed him in power and position, and was now called to bring by
diplomatic means the solution which he himself would have liked to see
achieved by ideal harmony, good will and toleration. He had never
trusted Aleander, and was more than ever on his guard against him. As a
humanist, in spite of brilliant gifts, Aleander was by far Erasmus's
inferior, and had never, like him, risen from literature to serious
theological studies; he had simply prospered in the service of Church
magnates (whom Erasmus had given up early). This man was now invested
with the highest mediating powers.
To what degree of exasperation Erasmus's most violent antagonists at
Louvain had now been reduced is seen from the witty and slightly
malicious account he gives Thomas More of his meeting with Egmondanus
before the Rector of the university, who wanted to reconcile them. Still
things did not look so black as Ulrich von Hutten thought, when he wrote
to Erasmus: 'Do you think that you are still safe, now that Luther's
books are burned? Fly, and save yourself for us!'
Ever more emphatic do Erasmus's protestations become that he has nothing
to do with Luther. Long ago he had already requested him not to mention
his name, and Luther promised it: 'Very well, then, I shall not again
refer to you, neither will other good friends, since it troubles you'.
Ever louder, too, are Erasmus's complaints about the raving of the monks
at him, and his demands that the mendicant orders be deprived of the
right to preach.
In April 1521 comes the moment in the world's history to which
Christendom has been looking forward: Luther at the Diet of Worms,
holding fast to his opinions, confronted by the highest authority in the
Empire. So great is the rejoicing in Germany that for a moment it may
seem that the Emperor's power is in danger rather than Luther and his
adherents. 'If I had been present', writes Erasmus, 'I should have
endeavoured that this tragedy would have been so tempered by moderate
arguments that it could not afterwards break out again to the still
greater detriment of the world.'
The imperial sentence was pronounced: within the Empire (as in the
Burgundian Netherlands before that time) Luther's books were to be
burned, his adherents arrested and their goods confiscated, and Luther
was to be given up to the authorities. Erasmus hopes that now relief
will follow. 'The Luther tragedy is at an end with us here; would it had
never appeared on the stage.' In these days Albrecht Duerer, on hearing
the false news of Luther's death, wrote in the diary of his journey that
passionate exclamation: 'O Erasmus of Rotterdam, where will you be?
Hear, you knight of Christ, ride forth beside the Lord Christ, protect
the truth, obtain the martyr's crown. For you are but an old manikin. I
have heard you say that you have allowed yourself two more years, in
which you are still fit to do some work; spend them well, in behalf of
the Gospel and the true Christian faith.... O Erasmus, be on this side,
that God may be proud of you.'
It expresses confidence in Erasmus's power, but at bottom is the
expectation that he will not do all this. Duerer had rightly understood
Erasmus.
The struggle abated nowise, least of all at Louvain. Latomus, the most
dignified and able of Louvain divines, had now become one of the most
serious opponents of Luther and, in so doing, touched Erasmus, too,
indirectly. To Nicholas of Egmond, the Carmelite, another of Erasmus's
compatriots had been added as a violent antagonist, Vincent Dirks of
Haarlem, a Dominican. Erasmus addresses himself to the faculty, to
defend himself against the new attacks, and to explain why he has never
written against Luther. He will read him, he will soon take up something
to quiet the tumult. He succeeds in getting Aleander, who arrived at
Louvain in June, to prohibit preaching against him. The Pope still hopes
that Aleander will succeed in bringing back Erasmus, with whom he is
again on friendly terms, to the right track.
But Erasmus began to consider the only exit which was now left to him:
to leave Louvain and the Netherlands to regain his menaced independence.
The occasion to depart had long ago presented itself: the third edition
of his New Testament called him to Basle once more. It would not be a
permanent departure, and he purposed to return to Louvain. On 28 October
(his birthday) he left the town where he had spent four difficult years.
His chambers in the College of the Lily were reserved for him and he
left his books behind. On 15 November he reached Basle.
Soon the rumour spread that out of fear of Aleander he had saved himself
by flight. But the idea, revived again in our days in spite of Erasmus's
own painstaking denial, that Aleander should have cunningly and
expressly driven him from the Netherlands, is inherently improbable. So
far as the Church was concerned, Erasmus would at almost any point be
more dangerous than at Louvain, in the headquarters of conservatism,
under immediate control of the strict Burgundian government, where, it
seemed, he could sooner or later be pressed into the service of the
anti-Lutheran policy.
It was this contingency, as Dr. Allen has correctly pointed out, which
he feared and evaded. Not for his bodily safety did he emigrate; Erasmus
would not have been touched--he was far too valuable an asset for such
measures. It was his mental independence, so dear to him above all else,
that he felt to be threatened; and, to safeguard that, he did not return
to Louvain.
[Illustration: XIX. THE HOUSE AT ANDERLECHT WHERE ERASMUS LIVED FROM MAY
TO NOVEMBER 1521]
[Illustration: XX. ERASMUS'S STUDY AT ANDERLECHT]
FOOTNOTES:
[17] Translation on pp. 229 ff.