The Age of Erasmus by P. S. Allen

P >> P. S. Allen >> The Age of Erasmus

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

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.

4. They hold the pure text of the Gospel without any gloss.

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.

* * * * *

INDEX

Aberdeen University, 103-4.

accuracy, new standards of, 258-61.

Adrian VI, 107.

Agricola, R., 14-21, 25-9, 31, 32, 63.

Agrippa, H.C., 143.

Aldus, 126, 128, 129, 135-6, 151, 253, 262-3.

Aleander, 112, 136, 209, 297.

Alexander of Ville-Dieu, 41.

alphabetical principle, 43, 47-9.

America, 92.

Amorbach:
Ba., 147-9;
Bo., 147-9, 151, 164, 193, 278;
Br., 147-51;
J., 77, 146-51.

Andreas, B., 129.

Andrelinus, Faustus, 113, 186.

Aquinas, 12, 255.

Arnold of Hildesheim, 24.

Arthurian legend, 93.

Artlebus of Boskowitz, 296-8.

Ascham, 156, 208, 256, 266.

Asperen, destruction of, 172.

astrology, 216-18.

Augustinian Canons, reformed, 81;
house at Oxford, 117.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18