be copied the annotation which he had made on the genealogy of Christ according to Luke, a thing which was somewhat long, and which I had not the leisure to read up at that time in Annius, Philo, Ambrose, and Jerome. And even this was of no use to me, although I wish it had been, for the reason that it had become hidden among the sheets and was never found until everything was printed and I was planning my return."

And thus the Apology goes on through thirty solid pages, wherein he denies that he got any help from Lee, and then, consistently inconsistent, admits that he had carried off one sheet, but says that it was unimportant, and immediately unsays this by stating that he did not have time to read up in Annius and others on what this sheet contained. He proceeds to say that when he got back to Louvain he heard a report that Lee had attacked innumerable passages in his annotations. When Erasmus asked him why from a friend he had become an enemy, he gave these three reasons: first, that somebody in England had written to Erasmus and told him to beware of a certain theologian, and that Lee felt that he was the person meant. Secondly, that Erasmus had challenged him to a show of dialetics and that he had spoken disparagingly of his ability, which wound was still smarting. Thirdly, that Erasmus had despised his criticisms, calling them scribblings and trifles. Erasmus denies the first charge, partly admits the second, and explains away the third. Next he heard that Lee had incorporated all his criticisms of Erasmus' annotations into a book, which he was circulating from hand to hand, and that he was going to print it and show by it where Erasmus in six hundred passages of his annotations had made palpable errors. This thoroughly alarmed Erasmus. He asked Lee to let him see this manuscript book, which request Lee promptly refused. Lee made several attempts to have his work printed, but claimed that Erasmus suborned each printer to whom he applied not to touch the book. Erasmus denied this, but admitted that, when he heard that Lee was negotiating with printers in Antwerp, Cologne, Bonn, and eventually in Paris, he got into communication with each of these printers in order to secure in this way an early copy for his own perusal. After a delay of a year it was eventually printed at Paris; but whether Erasmus was responsible for this delay by influencing the German printers let each reader judge for himself.

Although it was a writers' quarrel, we must not assume that pure petulance moved either of them. It was now 1519, and the feelings of men were somewhat acidified by the happenings in Germany, where the learned were divided into two camps, one frankly Lutheran, and the other and larger camp frankly anti-Lutheran. The utterances of public men were being scrutinized for indications of their leanings in matters theological; and so it is not strange that Lee charged Erasmus specific

Apologia Erasmi Roterodami, nihil habens, neque nasi, neque dentis, neque stomachi, neque unguium, qua respondet duabus inuectiuis Eduardi Lei, nihil addo qualibus, ipse iudicato, lector. Antwerp, 1520. This, having been suppressed by Erasmus, however, is rare. See in Jortin, Erasmus, Vol. III, Appendix LI, pp. 186 sqq., where it is quoted.

ally with omitting the passage in St. John's Epistle, v, 7, about the "Three who give testimony in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost," thus giving comfort to Arianism. But it is not only the errors of Erasmus that stirred Lee to action, but the dread he felt that, by thus dissecting the wording of the sacred volume and showing wherein it differs from Greek originals which may or may not be correct, the whole sacred writings might come into doubt and contempt with the unlearned and the unthinking. This may or may not have been a wellfounded fear on the part of Lee but, so far as Erasmus was concerned, it was a pure question of scholarship, let come what might as a result. It is a knotty question, which we will not attempt to discuss here.

In replying to Lee, Erasmus at first made use of the delicate shafts of his cutting wit. He asks him why this sudden turning of a friend into an enemy; why this writing behind his back; why this criticizing of the first edition of the New Testament when he knew that he (Erasmus) was getting out a second; why Lee had scattered copies of his manuscript throughout every monastery, especially when he knew that there was very little love for Erasmus in those places; why he asserted that there were six hundred passages in annotations which were blameworthy, yet had never drawn their author's attention to one. Then he resorts to satire:

If you had straightway published your manuscript, everyone would have admired the felicity of your mighty genius which enabled you in a few short months to devour so much Greek and Hebrew, that, in your opinion, Erasmus knows nothing of Greek, or Jerome of Hebrew." . . Nay, they say that, three days after you had begun to study Hebrew, you found many things to condemn in Reuchlin, and not a few in Capito.10 It may be that the Supreme Pontiff, admiring this almost divine genius of yours, will hand over to you the rod, and entrust to you the censorship of the entire world; and no longer shall any book be either published or read unless it shall have merited the approval of Lee, the Aristarchus, forsooth, of all literary matters. There are many who are now saying that you are keeping your renowned criticisms under cover with this design, that, when I am satisfactorily disposed of, then at length you will publish them and be sole victor; that is, you will win an inglorious victory when there is no one to fight against you.'

11

Though this is the most delightful satire, it is not argument, and Lee is entitled to hold his ground. Soon Erasmus changes his tactics, and essays to menace Lee with the anger of the German scholars. He intimates that he would not wish for worlds that anything bad should happen to Lee on account of having unfavorably criticized the New Testament, but feels it to be his duty to warn him:

To do Lee justice, he nowhere said so.

1o Erasmus is here working the on dit to extremes, for there is no evidence that Lee ever said a word about Reuchlin or Capito in their disfavor.

11 Eras. Ep. 998, 11. 27 sqq.

There is no nation in which my writings have not made me some friends, but in Germany there are many who show their affection for me even more than I could wish. And you are well aware of the courage of that people and the violence of their temper. For not yet have they entirely laid aside their native ferocity, although they are constantly becoming milder by reason of humanistic literature. You see for yourself with what sort of writing they slay those by whom they are injured. Already, as a matter of fact, I have stopped their pens, sometimes by personal appeal, and sometimes by letter, and will continue to do so as far as in me lies. But I hear that several are threatening worse things than those I have mentioned; and should anything of the sort happen, which may God avert, not even I could remedy your misfortune; and as the suspicion of men is directed towards me, the odium of it would fall on my head. Thus from your misfortune a double disadvantage would accrue to me: firstly, that I should grieve to see you injured on my account, for I wish nothing to happen to you; secondly, that there will not be lacking those who will suspect that it was done with my connivance. So that while I hope nothing of the kind will take place, on the other hand, I fear lest it might. If there is no danger, then my fear was that of a friend; but if there be, then I warned you even more like a friend so that you might, if you see fit, adopt any plan that may seem best to your prudence. Farewell. Louvain, July 15, 1519.1*

12

Whether he really thought that a man of Lee's calibre would take alarm on reading these mock heroics is a question; but the fact is that Lee refused to be frightened. We may add incidentally that it is not part of the English character to be thus easily frightened, but evidently Erasmus was not aware of this.

More and others were meanwhile laboring to bring about a reconciliation between them, and would have succeeded had it not been for a piece of sharp practice on the part of Erasmus which came to Lee's ears. He found out on undoubted authority that, while More was making sincere and strenuous efforts to bring about a reconciliation, Erasmus had been writing to Richard Foxe, Bishop of Winchester, and several other of his friends, asking them to stop his mouth if they could. This was naturally resented by Lee, and the quarrel waxed hotter, especially after Lee had perused the second edition of the New Testament and still found matter which he deemed erroneous. So he proceeded to make public his criticisms, expressing at the same time in terms of strong reprobation his opinion of Erasmus' duplicity. From questions of scholarship and theology they passed on to the arena of personalities, in which each sought to belittle the other. Each in turn wrote diatribes against the other; there were replies and counter-replies ad nauseam: so that the "tantaene irae animis coelestibus" of our schooldays recurs not unnaturally to mind. Although the friends he had made in England did not

entirely abandon him, Erasmus' popularity there visibly declined from this time on, so that his eventual departure might easily be predicated.13 Instead of hearing promising replies and inviting messages from England, he learned that hostile rumors were rife concerning himself personally and his writings generally. Bishop Foxe of Winchester, whose acquaintance with him was of long standing but whose real friendship had always eluded him, seemed to be the storm centre of these alarming reports; so to him he addressed himself in the hope of offsetting any harm that might ensue.

Most reverend Bishop. If ever my regard for you was pleasing, I ask only this in return, that you will not too readily believe any of the calumnies against me, which like a fatal pestilence are infecting everything. If Edward Lee shall demonstrate that he has a better understanding of things than I have, I shall never feel offended. But when here and among his own friends he is permeating everything with his hostile insinuations, whether these appear in his writings or in his conversations, whether they are disseminated by him personally or through his friends, he is not having due regard for his reputation. Long since he has plainly and openly manifested this more than unfriendly disposition towards me, though I have never injured him by word or deed. He is young and he burns with the desire for glory; but it had been better for him to seek it under better auspices. I know your prudence, which does not easily pronounce an opinion, especially an adverse one. Time will bring all things to light; the truth may have to struggle, but it cannot be overcome. If you by your authority will counsel Lee to desist from these calumnies which defame him more than myself, or that he contend with me by argument only, you will be protecting his reputation. Now, he is carried away by his hatred of me, like a man with a diseased mind. Long ago Erasmus sought for your favor, but did not succeed; now he asks not that you favor him, but that you consult the interests of your friend Lee. Farewell, your lordship, to whom I consecrate and dedicate myself entirely. Antwerp, May 25, 1519.**

14

The last two sentences sound very like a threat and show that Erasmus, notwithstanding his long intercourse with Englishmen, did not at all understand the English character, which does not easily yield to threats. Evidently he made but little impression on the Bishop by pronouncing Lee's statements to be calumnies; for, since Lee had lived in the Bishop's own household, the Bishop naturally had an ample opportunity to know

13 See Apologiae Eduardi Leei contra quorundam calumnias, Paris, n.d. Also, Annotationes Eduardi Leei in Annotationes Noui Testamenti Desiderii Erasmi, Paris, 1520; Des. Erasmi Roterodami liber quo respondet Annotationibus Eduardi Lei, quibus ille locos aliquot taxare conatus est in quatuor euangeliis, Basle, 1540. Also, Des. Erasmi liber alter quo respondet reliquis Annotationibus Eduardi Lei, Basle, 1520.

14 Eras. Ep. 973.

whether or not calumny was a trait in Lee's character. In any case, he did nothing in the matter, and left the letter unanswered.

So the battle continued with reply and counter-reply, as we have already set down, until about a year afterwards, when Erasmus in desperation again tried to have the Bishop draw Lee off his flanks:

Reverend Bishop. It is impossible to express how much it displeases all upright men that Edward Lee has assailed my good name with such manifest abuse. And indeed it is not so much myself he hurts as every lover of good literature, to the service of which I have hitherto devoted my talents. No letters from my friends, no admonitions from myself, have been of avail to deter him from inflicting this stain on his own reputation as well as on mine. His book has appeared under bad auspices, with great detriment to my fame, but with still greater injury to his own. To his abuse I have replied more temperately than some wished; to his arguments I have replied in such a manner that I feel sure he will never make any response. And yet in all this I have refrained from abusing him. Not content with this, Lee has prepared another pamphlet still more virulent, I am informed, which he has sent to Paris to have printed. He does not listen to the sound advice of his friends, nor will he ever cease unless he be coerced by your authority. And would this had been done before this conflagration had burst forth! At London he has secretly instigated a certain Carthusian monk, whose name, I think, is John Batmanson, a young man totally unlearned, as appears from his writings, but boastful to the point of craziness. Now, if your authority will restrain Lee from his furious brawlings, you will be consulting not only for the interests of my own literary work, but also for that of Edward's, since at present he is using up both his own leisure and my own. Farewell, Louvain, May 5, 1520.'

16

As far as we know, the Bishop took no notice of either of these letters, nor does there seem to have ever been any further correspondence between Foxe and Erasmus. The reason, therefore, that he winced so much under Lee's attacks was not that he was unable to answer them, but that Lee was calling attention to the irreverent quality of his writings, wherein appeared much that shocked, much that was calculated to awaken scepticism, much that was contrary to the traditional attitude of the Church. Fearing Lee's influence also with the Bishop of Durham, who had up to that time been friendly towards him, he had previously hastened to forestall any untoward action of that prelate by sending him a copy of his recently published Paraphrase on the Epistle to the Galatians, accompanied by the following letter:

Most reverend father. Since Aristotle has written that many friendships are severed by silence, I was unwilling that the same thing should happen to me, especially with regard to such a friend as yourself. I send you my Paraphrase on the Epistle to the Galatians, in which occurs the passage about Peter being reproved by the 18 Ibid., 1099. (That Batmanson was anything but unlearned may be easily seen by referring to Allen's note to line 17 of this letter.)