take into his hands this work with the same feelings that he would take, perchance, the Noctes of Gellius or the Miscellanea of Politian, on which to exercise the force of his genius, the power of his eloquence, and his hidden erudition, as on a Lydian touchstone. We are engaged in a holy occupation, and in one which commends itself to the world by its especial purity and simplicity, and in which it would be ridiculous to wish ostentatiously to display human erudition or boastingly to indulge in human eloquence, which, indeed, if we possessed, it would be proper to dissemble, lest someone might rightly exclaim, "He is putting perfume in soup." In simple and pure zeal we are furnishing these Scriptures for Christian hearing so that in future more may make use of this sacrosanct philosophy, and all the more willingly that with less trouble they may realize more profit. May Christ Himself, who is our witness and helper in the work we have undertaken, look upon us with disfavor if we seek any emolument from our efforts, or if it be not true that we are knowingly and willingly going to incur a great and certain loss of money. Moreover, so far are we from being charmed with the sweetness of fame, that we would not even have put our name to the work had we not been fearful that the usefulness of the book might have been thereby lessened, since everyone regards an anonymous work with suspicion.'

Such language as this is redolent of St. Jerome; but, when we remember that the Praise of Folly came from the same hand, that in it he exercised not only his matchless literary powers but also injected into it his stored-up venom against the individuals and institutions by which he conceived he was being wronged, that he defaced the work with blasphemy and obscenity, that he was even at the present moment storing up in his mind the material that was later to soil the otherwise incomparable Colloquies and render them unfit to be used by tender youth without a previous expurgation, then indeed we feel the influence not of St. Jerome, but of Valla. All his life he strove to reach the spiritual heights, only to fall constantly back into the material depths. It is an appalling thing that this man, who wrote some of the finest works the world ever saw and dedicated them to God's honor and glory, should have paved the way for Rabelais' unutterable filthiness by setting him the example.

He had abundant reason, however, to be proud of his Greek edition of the New Testament, the result of years of work and study, another proof to the learned world of his high scholarship and, at the same time, of a laudable effort to stabilize the text of that part of the Scriptures most closely related to the Christian dispensation. That he did not succeed in substituting his Latin translation for that of the Vulgate need not surprise us. This was not due to any organized opposition on the part of other scholars, nor to the machinations of his enemies. All men, when not moved by passion or prejudice, are conservative in matters pertaining to religion. They change unwillingly, and the necessity for the change is borne in on them very slowly. Also, they cling instincEras. Ep. 373, 11. 202-21.

tively to old thoughts, old ideas, and even old traditions, with a tenacity which is as noticeable as it is surprising; and not always does the offer of something superlatively better serve to win them to the newer but stranger substitute."

So, if his Latin translation did not eventually displace the Vulgate, he might, if he chose, derive some little satisfaction from the knowledge that it was no less a man than St. Jerome who had defeated him. One of the first copies off the press he sent to Cardinal Wolsey, in an attempt to win the interest of that worldly prelate to himself: "The New Testament," he had told him earlier, "is being printed in Greek as it was written by the Apostles, and in Latin as translated by myself, together with my own annotations."

Another copy he sent to Colet, with a letter which is unfortunately lost. Colet in his answer says:

I understand what you say about the New Testament. The copies of this new edition of yours are bought with avidity and read everywhere, with many approving and admiring your work, others disapproving and finding fault with it, and saying the very things that Martin Dorp wrote to you in his epistle.'

The venerable Archbishop Warham, with the caution which was due to his position, on receipt of his copy, wrote as follows:

I have handed over your edition of the New Testament to several of my brother bishops and doctors of theology, who say with one accord that you have done a work exceedingly well that was well worth doing. Relying on their judgment, and deeming everything that proceeds from your divine genius and multifarious knowledge to be the very best possible, I extol this work of yours with every kind of praise, as well as your revision of Jerome which you have so nearly completed. By these labors you will earn an immortality of fame amongst men, a divine reward amongst the saints above, and from myself whatever I can properly and conveniently bestow." France had a Greek scholar who was perhaps superior to Erasmus in that language: William Budé. In the first edition of his New Testa

We have observed a case of this kind in our own day when in 1870 a company of eminent scholars and clergymen of the Church of England, aided by a similar body in America, started to revise for public use the old King James Version, which had been the standard translation of the Scriptures for English-speaking people since 1611. The revision was thorough and scholarly, and occupied the committee fourteen years. When this new translation was given to the public it looked so strange, especially in the absence of verses, since paragraphs had been substituted therefor, that it will only very slowly, if ever, win its way to the hearts of the people. Even among scholars it meets with mingled favor and criticism. But history is only repeating itself, for we know that the King James Version did not gain general acceptance for nearly a half century after its completion. So, if this version, the result of so many years of labor and combined study of so many scholars in both countries, has been so slow in displacing the old familiar translation, we need not be surprised if we note that the work of Erasmus experienced similar difficulties, and finally failed altogether to make a place for itself in the hearts of either the educated few or the uneducated multitude.

Eras. Ep. 348.

• Ibid., 423.

'Ibid., 425.

ment, Erasmus finds fault with the meaning which Budé had given to the Greek word лapaxoλou0nxótt in the gospel of Luke i. 3. Like all really proficient scholars, Budé acknowledged his mistake, and was so far from being resentful that he even thanked Erasmus for setting him right and proceeded to bring forward further Greek quotations against himself. Together they labored to give a better translation of this verse; and in the second edition Erasmus omitted all reference to Budé's mistake. On the other hand, Budé criticized some of the annotations to the work, something which Erasmus did not relish at all, seeing which, and observing that Erasmus was becoming testy on the subject, Budé, in order to relieve the tension, withdrew his remark about "finespun arguments" as referring to the New Testament, and said that he was only referring to some of Erasmus' minor writings which, he frankly told him, would appear to posterity to have been falsely labeled, inasmuch as they smacked more of Erasmus than of their own title. Erasmus dissented vigorously and went on at great length to free himself from Budé's criticism, eliciting in return from Budé the following remark, which possibly contains considerable truth: "When I have heard others talking of them [your works], I have sometimes said that I missed in Erasmus a mind content with what is enough, since you had not been satisfied with being a man of much learning, but you must also be a man of much writing.'

99 8

What Budé was alluding to here is not hard to guess. He was referring to the fact that Erasmus had not been satisfied to give an admirable Greek edition of the New Testament, considering his handicaps, and accompanying it with a fairly accurate Latin translation, but had added annotations of his own which might have been valuable for the understanding of the Sacred Text had he stopped there. But, as we have so often seen before, he could not refrain from injecting into these annotations his own personality; and, as a consequence, where we look for serious and dignified comment on the form and spirit of the text, we often find puerile and silly remarks on subjects that can by no stretch of the imagination be connected with a Greek edition of the New Testament. Lest this last statement may seem unwarranted, we will quote Drummond on this same point:

But the notes on the New Testament were by no means confined to questions of textual criticism. There was other matter in them which was sure to give offence, and which might seem to have been introduced on purpose to offend. They were made the vehicle, perhaps to an unwarrantable extent, for conveying the opinions of the writer upon the manners of the time, and especially for uttering sarcastic allusions to the various abuses which prevailed in the Church. In fact, the Encomium Moria was here repeated, only in a somewhat more serious form. And on many points-for example, on the dress of the priests and the ceremonies observed in public worship, on fasts and feasts, on the monastic life, on vows, penance, the worship of relics, on marriage and divorce, opinions were expressed which, if they were not at variance with the authorized 8 Ibid., 435.

doctrines of the Church, were at all events in direct conflict with popular ideas, and with the teachings and practice of the most zealous upholders of the ecclesiastical system.

It may be assumed we are interested enough to give to Erasmus all the credit for literary achievement that is truly his. Much as we admire Drummond's work on Erasmus for its fine literary flavor, we cannot agree with him in ascribing to Erasmus more praise in the matter of getting out an early edition of the Greek New Testament than his deserts warrant. He asserts that, at the time Erasmus undertook to edit the New Testament in Greek, such was the ignorance of the monks that many of them did not know that there was any Greek or Hebrew original of the accepted Latin Vulgate. Such statements have been repeated from generation to generation by those who are too indolent or too partial to look up the real facts and print them, whether they make for or against their preconceived ideas. We hold no brief for the monks, but these very letters of Erasmus which we are engaged in studying disprove all such general and misleading statements. Of the large body of his friends everywhere, probably the majority were learned monks; and in this very work of the Greek New Testament Drummond must have forgotten about Kuno of Nuremberg, the Dominican monk who assisted Erasmus in the work, and of whom he said that he was "a man eminently reliable and diligent in investigating the matters which pertained to the restoration of authors, and particularly deserving of a long life spent in the service of good literature." Drummond must have forgotten also what Beatus Rhenanus said of Kuno, that "he was almost more learned in Greek than in Latin, and versed in the best authors.' Drummond must also have forgotten that it was a Franciscan monk in the person of Cardinal Ximenes who had printed the New Testament in Greek even before Erasmus, although he was not ready to issue the complete Bible until 1522. Froben, the Basle printer, had heard of this coming edition, which was called the Complutensian from being printed at Alcalá in Spain (the Latin name of which is Complutum), and informing Erasmus of the fact, he hastened to anticipate it by issuing that of Erasmus in 1516. The great haste necessary to accomplish this was reflected in the many typographical and other errors with which the first edition of Erasmus' Greek New Testament abounds. The Complutensian Bible was in direct contrast to this, occupying from 1502 to 1517 in its execution, and was the

99 10

0 Op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 318-19.

10 Allen has gone to the trouble of seeing what this monk really accomplished, and tells us that "he studied under Aldus and John of Crete at Venice, and under Marcus Musurus and Scipio Carteromachos at Padua. He was sent by Aldus in 1505 to request Maximilian's patronage for the Neacademia. He became an eminent Greek scholar, and in 1507 published at Padua a translation of Basil's De diferentiis obolaç xal iñootάoews, dedicated to Jodocus Gallus. In 1511, or perhaps earlier, he came to Basle and worked for Amerbach's press, helping with Jerome, and teaching Amerbach's sons Bruno and Boniface, who were joined in August, 1511, by Beatus Rhenanus. He brought a number of Greek MSS. from Italy, and published a translation of Gregory of Nyssa's philosophical works dedicated to Beatus, and an oration of Gregory Nazianzen dedicated to Thomas Truchses, besides an unpublished translation from Chrysostom."

result of the leisurely work of the scholars whom Cardinal Ximenes had assembled in his newly established University of Alcalá. Leo X also gave this edition of the Scriptures his pontifical sanction when it was published in 1522, so between the two editions honors were equal. Ximenes' object in issuing the polyglot Bible was, as he says in his preface, "to revive the languishing study of the Sacred Scriptures." For this purpose he supplied his workers with the most accurate texts of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin originals then available, even sending to the Vatican library for some of its more ancient codices. His Bible also gives the Chaldaic Targum of the Old Testament, with an interlinear translation of the Greek version. The work was issued in six large volumes, the last volume containing also a Hebrew-Chaldaic dictionary, a Greek dictionary, and a Hebrew grammar. This great man was born in Spain in 1436, and died there in 1517, before he had the pleasure of seeing his monumental work in print. He was educated at the University of Salamanca and, having taken his degree of Doctor in canon and civil law, he went to Rome to practice his profession at the pontifical court. We note, in passing, the coincidence that another Spaniard was a prominent member of the Roman Curia at that particular period who was destined to bring eternal shame and reproach on the Church, of which he was later the unworthy head when he became Pope Alexander VI. Nevertheless, we may properly doubt that Rome was the sink of iniquity that some writers unctuously delight to enlarge upon. One man alone could darken the perspective of an entire century if he happened to be Pope, and that is what happened in the case of Alexander VI. Ximenes left Rome and went back to Spain, not to rail at the corruption which existed at the Roman court, but to enter a Franciscan monastery. There his piety, his love of learning, and his executive ability, were such that he was promoted from office to office in the Church, until at last he was advanced to the dignity of the cardinalate. He was loath to leave his humble cell and only under compulsion did he accept office at all. He was once reprehended by the Pope for dispensing with the external trappings of his cardinalitial rank, but would only consent to wear even the episcopal dress in such a way that the friar's habit underneath might remain visible. This is in such strong contrast to Erasmus that we feel it worthy of mention. Erasmus' action in the matter of his habit vividly reminds us of Jovinian, and Jovinian must have been well know to him, since it is St. Jerome who has handed down the anecdote. Jovinian had spent his youth in a monastery, where he had subjected his body to fasting, manual labor, and other ascetic practices; but, having lost his pristine fervor, he went to the other extreme, becoming a freethinker and eventually adopting the heresy of Helvidius. He left his monastery and went to Rome, where he tried to spread his peculiar ideas. These may be reduced to four, of which the last was Erasmus' favorite belief, viz., that abstinence from certain meats is unprofitable. Jovinian became decidedly sensual in his way of living, and, throwing off his monk's habit, clothed himself in the finest of garments, ate sumptuously, and drank only delicate wines. We draw no comparisons amongst these three men, Erasmus, Jovinian, and