"You've expressed it beautifully," said he, "for it is truly an artifice of the rhetoricians to falsify, to counterfeit, to distort everything."

With a smile I admitted that at times rhetoricians did lie, but that occasionally our own Masters in Theology did the same thing. Again, when I stated that I had been consulting for the dignity of the divines, he replied:

"Leave that care to us; we will look out for that."

When I added that in burning the books of Luther they might be driving him from the libraries, but not surely from the minds of men, he said:

"Ja, from their minds where you have placed him."

When finally all hope of agreement between us was lost-so that, if I mentioned good literature, he called it bad; if I spoke about the correcting of a work, he dubbed it the falsifying, rather; if I said that I was not interested in any faction, he immediately styled me the head of that faction; and stood ready to deny that there was a stone in an olive or a shell on a walnut were I to make the statement-the rector cutting short the quarrel which had lasted too long, observed that such recriminations were unworthy of divines, but that he would willingly listen to anything which would restore the shattered friendship.

"Come," said I, "since you say that no single drinking bout will serve for the restoration of concord, what remains to be done?" Urged by the rector he replied:

"That you restore to us our good name, which has been injured by you."

"Where," said I, "in my Epistles?" He nodded.

"Those having been already published," I replied, "I am unable to do what you desire, although I have injured no man's reputation in them."

"Withdraw what you have said," he persisted.

"How?"

"Write that there are theologians at Louvain who are sincere and upright."

"That I have never denied," said I, "but if those whom I criticized furnish me proper material, I will write magnificently about them."

At this he got angry again.

"Yes, and if you will furnish us the opportunity to speak well of you, we will do so,' was the rejoinder. "You have a pen, we have a tongue. You accuse us of barking at you behind your back, but I am speaking to your face."

"It would not be surprising if with your manners you were to spit in the face of a good man," said I.

He retorted that he had never yet been so disrespectful, and the rector, breaking in, admonished us that it was about Luther, who was the cause of the trouble, that we ought to speak.

"Come," said Egmondanus, "you have written for Luther; now write against him."

I denied that I had written for him, but had rather assisted the theologians against him, and instanced many reasons why I could not a lack of leisure, a want of ability, a feeling of fear-and I alleged, as a further excuse, that it would smack of cruelty were I to give free rein to my pen against a man who was already prostrate and conquered.

"Write just that:" he exclaimed, "write that Luther has been overthrown by us."

I replied that there were not lacking those who had already vociferated that fact, even if I kept silent. Moreover, it would seem more appropriate that those who had won the victory should celebrate it; and that it was not clear to me that they had conquered him when they had not yet published their works against him.

Despairing at this, he turned to the rector, saying:

"Did I not tell you we should accomplish nothing? As long as he refuses to write against Luther, just so long shall we consider him a partisan of Luther."

"But," said I, "by this same reasoning I shall hold you to be a partisan of Luther, since you have not written against him, and not only you, but a great many others besides."

Thereupon, waving rather than saying a farewell to the rector, but not to me, he departed, just as those who, in a school of gladiators, receiving a wound outside the rules governing the contest, shake hands with the rest, but not with him by whom they have been wounded. c. November, 1520.°

This account was intended to be humorous, but, of a surety, the occasion of it was far from humorous either to Erasmus or Egmondanus. Drummond is a little unjust to the latter when he characterizes him as "an old Carmelite priest, very ignorant, very obstinate, and very violent." After all, we get his picture from the brush of Erasmus, who could hardly be called unbiased in the matter. It is not conceivable that any of the opponents of Erasmus was ever "ignorant" in the accepted meaning of that term. Egmondanus was a Doctor of Divinity, with all the learning and erudition that such a title has always demanded. In addition, he was a professor in one of the leading universities of Europe, and not even Erasmus himself questions his scholy acquirements. Why then should we? It was scarcely charitable ... Erasmus to hint that Egmondanus came into the presence of the rector and himself with a face flushed with wine and good cheer, when we remember how bitterly he resented similar insinuations which were made of himself after his residence with Aldus at Venice. In the same way one feels that Egmondanus hardly deserves the taunt that Erasmus flung at him, in saying that he should hardly feel surprised from his manner to see him spit in the face of any good man. This was gratuitous and not at all germane to the matter under discussion, and must have served only to alienate neutral listeners from the support of Erasmus. Although it might not appear so from our subject's biased account, one feels upon the whole that Egmondanus emerged from the affair with fully as much 6 Eras. Ep. 1162.

dignity as himself; but that the whole discussion was conducted on such a vulgar plane adds no credit to either Erasmus or Egmondanus. We have already referred to Erasmus' visit to Cologne, during which he made to Frederick the memorable epigram: "Luther . . has touched the crown of the Pontiff and the bellies of the monks." Then also he wrote the axiomata for Spalatin. In these acts he went farther in his support of Luther than ever before or after; and we may wonder why. It is to be remembered that he had just come from the coronation of Charles V, driven from Aix, as Professor Smith has carefully ascertained, by an outbreak of the plague; there in Cologne, whence the court had moved, there was an air of independence and confidence, an intensely Teutonic feeling of power and Bruderschaft, which made the members of the Roman Curia seem weak and petty schemers, and their machinations matters of small importance, easily attended to by the powerful emperor. Exalted to a false assurance by this pervading sense of power, and flattered by the fact that the Elector had definitely sent for him to discuss his protégé, Erasmus dared to let himself go in the writing of these axioms for Spalatin. Here the author in him came to the front. The axioms were to the following effect: that the best minds of Europe were with Luther; that, although two universities had condemned Luther's works, a condemnation was not a confutation; that all the harassed monk asked for, and rightly, was a trial by impartial judges; that Luther was right in objecting to real abuses, and that reform was necessary in the Church; that many things in Luther's doctrine were true, but that a certain amount of moderation was needed; and, finally, that no man could be more disinterested in the matter than Luther, who sought the glory of God rather than the approval of Church authorities. Furthermore, that the papal Bull was probably extorted from Leo and was of too cruel a nature to emanate from a Pontiff of so mild and generous a disposition; that the pernicious power of the Roman Curia was behind it all; that corruption and not religious zeal was the impelling motive behind those who sought Luther's annihilation."

These dashingly written axioms he handed to Spalatin for his use and benefit. Almost immediately, however, Erasmus was appalled at his own temerity. Away, for a moment, from the feeling of power surrounding the newly crowned emperor, away from the air of Teutonic supremacy, Erasmus began, very probably, to recall the devious and tremendous power of the Roman Curia, the all too well-known craftiness of papal diplomacy, the real might of Rome. In a momentary fit of enthusiasm he had flung away his customary caution and had put into the hands of others a dangerous statement of opinion on this vexed and growing world question. No longer could he maintain the attitude. of strict neutrality that had thus far served him fairly well: now he must relinquish his own friendships and assume Luther's enmities, and for what? Only the possible chance that if things became too hot for him he might have a friend in the Elector Frederick. And beside the Roman Curia's devious connections, beside the curious and appalling For the exact axioms, see D. Martini Lutheri opera latina, ut supra, Vol. V, pp. 236-42.

weapons of interdict and the like, the power of the Elector seemed a very frail buckler. In a fit of fright he realized what he had done and hastened to send an immediate messenger to Spalatin, earnestly entreating him to return the axiomata, alleging his fear that if the papal legate Aleander should get hold of them he might do him a mischief. One recognizes here the true Erasmian touch.

But Spalatin had already dispatched a copy of the axiomata to Luther, and perhaps to some others; and when this became known to Erasmus he very probably made things hot for the overzealous Spalatin. As a matter of fact, Spalatin at once wrote to Luther about the matter, doubtless expressing some regret at the leaking out of the affair (for, true to Erasmus' fears, the axioms were promptly published). Luther replied to Spalatin's letter as follows:

It distresses me no less than yourself that those axioms of Erasmus, and the replies of our Sovereign have appeared in print at Leipzig. I do not know how this has been brought about, not having the slightest knowledge whence they got their copy, and being much surprised thereat. Mine is still in my possession; there is no reason, therefore, why you should blame me in the matter, for their publication is most disagreeable to me since it renders me suspect of fear and vainglory."

To the Pope's legate.

DeWette, op., cit., Vol. I, p. 562.

CHAPTER XII

THE STORM INCREASES: ANOMALOUS POSITION OF ERASMUS

As if to atone for the comfort he had given Luther's friends by these "axioms," Erasmus now seemed to react vigorously against him; and we are not surprised to see him consorting even with the hated Dominicans, so eager is he to avert from himself any suspicion of disloyalty to the Church. Let us read a little of his letter to Conrad Peutinger, a fellow Imperial Councilor, and also a close friend of Luther:

I was aware that you have very little time for reading anybody's letters, honored sir, nor have I myself much more time for writing any; but I am induced thereto by John Faber, a theologian of the Dominican Order, whom the more I observe the more I find to be a man far different from some others of his Order. For, besides his solid learning, his integrity of character, and his gentlemanly demeanor, I find him to be a man of great influence on account of his wisdom and good judgment. Frequently have we discussed between ourselves a method of putting an end to this tragedy of Luther without causing widespread tumult. . . . That affair has gone to greater lengths than I like, but I think the evil can still be remedied, and certainly it will be more amenable to cure than if it be any longer drawn out by additions to those by whom it was begun. I very much desire to see it remedied, lest the evil, which has been suppressed for a time, may break out again with greater virulence hereafter, as is wont to be the case with doctors, who drive away a fever with a draft without previously having purged the parts from which the fever originated, or who allow a wound to close without having sufficiently evacuated the pus. To some it would seem that it were best to quell the whole difficulty by violent measures, and from this Faber does not much dissent, only that he fears that severity might not be successful. He says that it is not enough to strive vigorously in the direction whither our desires invite us, but that many things are to be well considered. First, we must have such regard for the dignity and authority of the Roman Pontiff, whom all who love sincerely Christ rightly revere as His Supreme Vicar, so that the truth of the Gospel may suffer no loss. Nor do I doubt that it is the desire of our Leo at length to consider himself happy when he shall everywhere behold the teaching of his Leader flourishing. He [Faber] claims that what Luther deserves, or those who are his admirers, is not the sole consideration, but rather what is conducive to the restoration of public tranquillity. Who will put their hands to work against this evil, and with what