mission from a superior of his Order. At last he sent forth the asinine monstrosity secretly and under a false name. The book was a trifling affair, but you could never imagine a more ignorant, insipid, or crazy thing than it, for I counted therein seventy manifest lies, and the identity of the authors did not escape me.

21

He brought them to trial and won the case, so that they were forbidden by the magistrates to sell the book; but he states that they per versely sent some Dominicans, with their saddle-bags well stuffed with the books, to distribute them furtively here and there:

Was not that a fine trick, and worthy of so holy_an Order? Having accomplished their plan they vanished, one to Zealand, one to Gueldres, and a third I know not where. The leader alone held his ground, until a little while afterwards he was taken from the land of the living. But one such deed was sufficient to render his name immortal. And this man, the artful plotter of such carryings on, was particularly angry with me because I did not love his Order, of which he was so great an ornament, forsooth.**

Then he goes on to relate how another monk from the pulpit accused him of heresy, and on coming down therefrom was met by one of Erasmus' learned friends who demanded to know one heretical passage.

Where do you think that he has erred? As buffoons are wont to do, he declared that he had never read any of my lucubrations, that though he had tried to read my Praise of Folly he had found therein such profound Latinity-for these were his words-that he feared that I might have fallen into some heresy.'

23

Of course, as Erasmus does not name any of these remarkably stupid monks, he was perfectly safe in writing about them to Lipsius, who lived afar off and had no means of ascertaining the truth or falsity of the charges had he been so inclined. There may have been some basis in fact; but, knowing as we do Erasmus' inability to refrain from exaggeration, we are inclined to be skeptical. It is a matter which we shall leave to each reader's judgment. We will give another example of what to us is incredible:

When first the Epistolæ obscurorum virorum appeared, it was received with great applause by the Franciscan and Dominican monks in Great Britain, who persuaded themselves that it had been written in all seriousness to abuse Reuchlin and to favor the monks; and although a certain one of their number, who was remarkably well educated but very censorious, pretended that he was very much offended by its style, they consoled the fellow by saying, "Don't mind the style, old chap, but look at the opinions expressed therein." Nor would they have perceived that it was a joke to this very day, had not someone added an epistle declaring that the thing was not to be taken seriously."

21 Idem., E-F.

** Ibid., col. IIIOA.

23 Idem, B.
14 Idem, B-C.

This was a joke on the English people, and intended to make Lipsius, who was a Brabanter, smile; but to us of to-day it is entirely incredible that the English monks were so dense that they innocently swallowed as Gospel truth the contents of a work which had made the monks all over Europe furious. The source of Erasmus' information on this point was undoubtedly More, who phrases the matter very differently:

It is worth a good deal to see how greatly the Epistolæ obscurorum virorum pleases everybody, the learned taking it as a joke, and the unlearned accepting it in all seriousness, who, while we are laughing, deem it is only the style we are laughing at, and while they do not defend it in that respect declare that this is made up for by the importance of the sentiments expressed therein, and that in this rusty scabbard there hides a most excellent sword. I would that they had given another name to the book; for, indeed, not in a hundred years would men dull by inclination perceive the nose [wit, satire] of the work were it even longer than that of a rhinoceros."

25

There is nothing here about monks, even if we admit that More had some of them in mind, which is possible. But there is certainly nothing in it about the Franciscans and Dominicans of England, and the mention of them in this connection is due entirely to Erasmus' riotous imagination. However, if the English of to-day are ready to admit that the English monks of the time of Erasmus were too dense to see a joke, they must not be surprised if the rest of the world seeks to hide a smile. Although we cannot insist that these stories of Erasmus anent the monks are beneath his dignity if we ourselves dignify them by admitting them to our pages, yet we will insert at least one more. He says:

I will relate another instance still more stupid. In a certain monastery of Dominicans the prior had divided my lucubrations amongst his brethren, so that he might collect therefrom my mistakes. To one of them there chanced to fall my Jerome. This monk, to whom Jerome was no less unknown than Erasmus, began to note promiscuously whatever offended him, either in Jerome, or my notes thereon, with the result that he amassed a huge pile of errors from Jerome. Now, when each brought forward in the assembly what he had marked down, this fellow was expecting great praise because none had detected more mistakes than he. However, one of the more prudent monks perceived that the fellow of whom I am speaking had made no distinction whatever between Jerome and Erasmus, and so, instead of the hoped-for praise, he received only ridicule."

It seems to us that this probably happened; but Erasmus, with his usual indefiniteness, fails to tell us who this monk was, what was the name of the monastery, what menial position the monk occupied in the monastery, or what claims he made, if any, to the right to criticize 26 Eras. Ep. 481. ** Eras. Ep. (LB) col. 1112A-B.

Erasmus. The prior had placed a duty on the brother, and he performed it in obedience and to the very best of his ability. If he had not the acquirements of Erasmus, none possibly felt his deficiencies more than himself, or was sorrier therefor. And, after all, why should the mighty Erasmus mind what this obscure little monk had either said or done about him? It was using the club of Hercules on an inoffensive dormouse. Both Lipsius and Erasmus were Augustinian canons, and we know from many sources that there was much jealousy existing between the various Orders at times.""

When Erasmus chose Lipsius to listen to this tirade against the Franciscans and Dominicans, with an occasional thrust at the Carmelites, he had probably found a ready listener, for Lipsius has left on record evidence to show that he somewhat agreed with Erasmus in his estimate of these Orders. But, supposing that the most of these incredible things of which he speaks contained in them a modicum of truth, how are we to condemn these several monks whom Erasmus thus marks out for their ignorance, their grave superstition, their belief in the impossible, when we see him lending himself to spreading the same belief in the miraculous? Writing to the Bishop of Liège just at this very time, he tells him the following strange and improbable story, which, however, he seems himself to have believed religiously:

... In a district which is called the Old Town, a certain countryman suddenly fell dead in the inn while making sport of the Eucharist. Witnesses have testified that it happened as follows. A certain rustic sacristan was carrying about with him a box of unconsecrated wafers which are called hosts, and with him as companion was another countryman who had formerly been a sacristan. When they arrived at the village already mentioned, they decided to have a drink. At the inn his companion asked of the sacristan to let him 27 The acquaintance of Lipsius with Erasmus dates from the time when he was about eighteen years old, and as he was very much younger than Erasmus his boyish admiration for him lasted all his life. He was always ready to assist the great writer in his literary work, and was of particular help in getting out his St. Augustine for the Frobens, as also the edition of St. Ambrose which Erasmus had entrusted to the same press at Basle. After the death of Erasmus, Lipsius continued to do work for the Frobens. He survived Erasmus about nineteen years, but always dwelt with his Order, spending his last years as chaplain of a nunnery at Lens, but making an occasional visit to the University of Louvain. As showing the intimate relations in which they stood to each other, I deem it proper to insert here the following details which were kindly furnished me by P. M. Barnard, M.A., of Tunbridge Wells, Eng. This gentleman had in his possession a copy of the Gregorii Nazianzeni Carmina, 4to., Venetii, ex Aldi Academia, 1504, which had once belonged to Erasmus, but which he had afterwards presented to Lipsius, as is evident from the inscription on the title page. At the bottom of the title page Erasmus had written, "Sum Erasmi, nec muto dominum." (I belong to Erasmus, and I do not change masters.) Under this Lipsius wrote, "Fui Erasmi, et mutaui dominum." (I did belong to Erasmus, and have changed masters.) At some later date Erasmus wrote under Lipsius' entry the following, "Imo non mutaui, cum amicus sit alter ipse." (Nay, I have not changed [masters], since a friend is a second self.) Lipsius had sent Erasmus a present, and this book was sent in return, accompanied by a letter, which may be seen in the Brussels MS. 4850-7, folio 142 vo (a).

have a host, which request the latter, after some hesitation, granted. On receiving it began to consecrate it in jest, which the landlady, perceiving, strenuously objected to. But the fellow retorted, "It is none of your affair; go, bring us some wine." When the woman returned, she beheld the man stretched out on the floor, and demanded to know what had happened. Those who were drinking at a neighboring table replied that perhaps he had fainted. The woman brings vinegar; they apply it, but in vain : he was stone dead. This is not a fable. Other rumors are about, but I do not want to write concerning what I have not fully ascertained.2

28

We have already quoted many instances of his firm belief in the supernatural, and could readily amplify the list. He was just as superstitious as Luther. They who have written of Luther tells us that he firmly believed that all misfortunes, diseases, pestilences, earthquakes, and every kind of disaster, were the work of Satan. Shooting stars, comets, and the Northern Lights, were always objects of dread to him, and indicated to his mind the near approach of the end of the world.

If Erasmus could have freed his mind from his personal antipathies, his faults of exaggeration, and his tendency to clandestine detraction, the evening of his life would have been much pleasanter; but his suspicious nature misled his judgment in many ways. With advancing years he seemed to grow more peevish, more easily offended, and more wrapped up in his favorite obsession of the monks. It angered him that they should resent his aspersions and give him blow for blow. They could not and would not forget that he was one of themselves, and that, while they had lived up to the obligations which they had assumed, he had sought to loosen the ties which he had fastened upon himself, acting from motives that were not at all of a spiritual order. And so the contest went on between them until he died, but we shall not refer to the subject any more, since it is unpleasant and serves no purpose, except to show us a side of his nature which seems narrow and undignified.

28 Eras. Ep. (H) p. 784, 11. 27-36.

CHAPTER XXI

RESIDENCE AT BASLE NO LONGER POSSIBLE: DEPARTURE TO FREIBURG

The letters which he wrote at the opening of 1529 include a eulogy of his friend Jacob Wimpfeling, who had just died. Since Wimpfeling seems to have exercised a great influence over Erasmus by the ideas that he had early advanced in his various writings, some mention of him is necessary here. He was born at Schletstadt in Alsace in 1450, and, like Erasmus, received the foundations of his education at the hands of the Brethren of the Common Life. Thence he entered successively the Universities of Freiburg and Heidelberg, and was ordained a priest in 1483, after which he was made preacher to the Cathedral of Spires. The University of Heidelberg offering him a position in the faculty of arts, he left Spires; but, after only two years, he was attracted by the growing fame of Geiler von Kaisersberg, and joined him at Strassburg, where he assisted him in editing the works of Gerson. From his close connection with Geiler von Kaisersberg it is not to be wondered at that Wimpfeling imbibed also a taste for the unconventional, and we soon find him assailing the failings and errors of his contemporaries with startling vigor. His first work was entitled De integritate, treating mainly of the irregular lives led by some of the clergy, and particularly of those who, like Erasmus' father, had formed illicit connections. Then he attacked the Monastic Orders, especially the Augustinians, and essayed to prove that St. Augustine had never been a monk. Erasmus had used the same argument so often in his letters that we can readily set down Wimpfeling as the source of his inspiration. Wimpfeling's book started a controversy on the subjects treated therein which was waged with much acrimony, until Pope Julius II commanded silence on all concerned, and it was only when Luther appeared that Wimpfeling felt he was going to be vindicated at last. When, however, he beheld the lengths to which Luther's violence had led him, when he heard Bucer preaching justification by faith alone, and when he saw Capito rejecting all claims of the Mother of Christ to our pious regard as the mother of the Redeemer, he dissociated himself from all the reformers.' Wimpfeling, like Reuchlin, seems to have suffered from the overofficiousness of some of the minor Church authorities, who, as Erasmus tells us, "summoned him to Rome

. to answer to the charge which he had made in his book, that St. Augustine was not a monk, or, at least, not such a monk as the Augustinians then were, since these latter depict him in their records and writings as having his beard long, and wearing a black cowl with See Schmidt, Historie litéraire de l'Alsace, Vol. I, p. 52. Paris, 1879.

1