This was not confined to the unlettered, whom Erasmus never deigned to notice, but chiefly excited the learned. The warning of Dorp had been in vain, and the first man who attacked his work on the New Testament was a dear friend, James Le Fèvre of Etaples, or, as he was better known to scholars, Faber Stapulensis. The friendship between them had been formed years before, while Erasmus was at Paris; and, although Faber was many years older than he, there subsisted a bond of friendship between them based on similarity of tastes, which made the younger man very tender of the feelings of Faber. It is possible that the reason for this lay in some sentimental association of ideas, for Faber, like himself, was of illegitimate birth, which had proved a bar to his preferment. France was quite as unjust and devoid of pity for these unfortunates as other nations, and no man could be promoted to benefices in the Church nor take a Doctor's degree in the University if he bore the bar sinister. On account of some connection, either of blood or patronage, Faber was much helped by the Briçonnet family, one member of which was William Briçonnet, Cardinal of St. Malo (Meaux), and another the Superior of the Benedictine monastery of St. Germain des Prés. Although not a monk himself he made his home in this monastery for many years, and from it issued most of his writings. He was a well-trained Latin and Greek scholar, having studied under some of the best teachers of Italy, and at the University of Paris. In his simple abode in the monastery of St. Germain he had delved into patristic literature, and in 1508 had issued his Psalterium quintuplex, followed in 1512 by his Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, and several similar works later on. Erasmus, who had differed from some of the views expressed by Faber in his work on the Scriptures, was much surprised to see the latter attack him with acerbity for the translation which Erasmus had made of the words 'HλáttooRS αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ' ἀγγέλους which occur in St. Paul, Hebrews, iii. 7. The Vulgate version of this is Minuisti eum paulóminus ab angelis, which Erasmus changed to Fecisti eum paululo inferiorem angelis. We need not go into the matter involved, but we feel that we should insert Erasmus' letter of appeal to Faber asking him not to force their differences to extremities, especially before a public which was perhaps not too friendly to either of them:

My dear James Faber, best and most learned of friends. Already in two letters I have evidenced to you how regretfully I regard the opportunity given to slanderers of gossiping about us. I plainly foresaw that this evil would ensue. But, because it was out of my power not to reply, I have chosen the lesser of two evils, as it seems to me. Now that only one remains, I implore you by Christian charity, by our common love for sacred studies, by the good reputation of us both, which, according to the laws of friendship, it is our duty to hold most dear, that for our mutual affection we apply a remedy to this evil as much as we are able, lest the fire spread insidiously far and wide. You perceive that men who are prone to evil seize eagerly on the causes of such dissensions everywhere.

There is hardly a social gathering in which there is not a dispute, here in favor of Faber as against Erasmus, there in favor of Erasmus as against Faber, and especially among such are are completely ignorant of the matter at issue. Various reports are spread around in your behalf, some declaring that you are getting ready some recriminations, others denying this on the ground that you do not consider Erasmus worthy of a reply. Again some say that you do not hold it against me for defending myself, while others say, on the contrary, that you blame my temerity. As far as I myself am concerned, I do not much care whether you reply or not, provided that you abstain from the sort of hateful remarks which are unbecoming to you when directed at a friend, and which are out of my power to disregard. Moreover, it is unpleasant that on our account dissensions should be sowed amongst Christians, and that those should exult in our differences to whom our studies are displeasing. I do not ask you to retract, although I have been assailed in many ways; but only to testify, by some sort of a letter, that you are differing with me only out of a zeal for ascertaining the truth, and that between ourselves there exists entire concord of hearts. If you are not agreeable to this, I would prefer you to make a reply rather than to exasperate both sides by your silence, provided that you adopt that moderation of utterance which is in accord with your old time custom. No man has ever heard me speak of Faber except lovingly and honorably; and I confess I was much surprised that you could write such things against me, and marveled what were the reasons that induced you to do so. As Christ is my witness I am speaking just as I feel. Farewell, best of men. Louvain, April 17, 1518.12

Such a letter does honor to Erasmus and manifests a truly Christian spirit. However, Faber did not respond in kind, but kept a profound silence which disturbed Erasmus more than ever.

He continued to make enemies for himself to the last day of his life, some wittingly, others unwittingly; but he never failed to express surprise and regret whenever they showed him their more or less just resentment. This is characteristic of many people of neurasthenic tendencies to expect from others a tolerance of speech and act that they are by no means willing to render in return, and to demand a strict observance of the courtesies of life to which they themselves are unwilling to conform. Louis Ber, also a particular friend of Erasmus, did not hesitate to tell him that he did not need to inject such asperity into his replies and so-called apologies, in which advice Ber was seconded by Budé, who thought it lamentable that two such men as Erasmus and Faber Stapulensis should use a style of writing against each other that could only give joy to the unregenerate. By the efforts of Budé they were eventually reconciled; but the old cordiality never quite returned.

John Eck of Ingolstadt, a fine scholar and finished theologian, also objected to some of the conclusions that Erasmus had inserted in his 13 Eras. Ep. 814.

annotations, and wrote to him very courteously for a solution of his difficulties. Erasmus replied rather peevishly, and we can perceive that the reason for this was an access of his frequent suspicions of men and their motives. It appears from his letters that this was true of his feelings towards Eck, who, he thought, was prejudiced against him. It seems that one day in a company where Erasmus was present, Eck was speaking of a "certain learned man who in theology was a mere child." Erasmus immediately jumped to the conclusion that Eck was aiming at him, and assumed as a reason for Eck's remarks that Erasmus had not praised him sufficiently for his attainments. But Eck, who seems to have been a man of generous mind, wrote to Erasmus on hearing of the latter's amazing suspicion and assured him that, far from deeming him a child in theology, he always spoke of him as the most eloquent of theologians.

John Briard, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Louvain, perhaps better known by the title of Atensis, and one of those whom Erasmus thought to be behind Dorp in his criticism of the Praise of Folly, did not hesitate to appear in person as a critic of the New Testament in Erasmus' Latin version. They were very great friends hitherto, so much so that Erasmus, who was just then preparing for a second edition of the work, asked Briard his opinion of it. Now we have only Erasmus' side of the story and must regard what he says attentively, for men are at times self-deceived. He says that Briard read the first edition very closely and then assured him that he considered the work to be "pious, learned, and quite free from anything blameworthy." But, when the second edition appeared, Briard experienced a complete change of heart and proceeded to attack the work, an act which would certainly serve to stultify Briard's judgment, and does not seem plausible without explanations, which unfortunately are lacking. That he was not so unreasonable as this is shown by Erasmus' own action in the matter: for, instead of being angry, as he would have had good right to be under the circumstances, he was sufficiently convinced of the sincerity and good faith of Briard that he asked him specifically to name his objections. This Briard did, and suggested that Erasmus should make such explanations in future editions of the work as would remedy any scandal that might arise from what Briard had conceived to be indiscretions of statement or comment occurring in it. This Erasmus conceded, and so the incident was closed between them by a touching and sincere reconciliation brought about by their common friend Dorp. So strong was the reëstablished friendship that, when Erasmus was reported, some time after, to have brought back with him from Basle to Louvain the dreaded plague, and was in the utmost danger of death, Briard courageously went to visit him, bringing with him, we may assume, the spiritual consolation of the last rites of the Church. Shortly afterwards he himself died, and Erasmus expressed genuine regret.

CHAPTER II

THE "NOVVM TESTAMENTVM": QUARREL WITH LEE

But a far greater source of anxiety and annoyance to Erasmus was Edward Lee, a friend of More and of many other English acquaintances of Erasmus, who had dared to write against our subject. There seems to have grown up in England a party which looked with suspicion on a man who could utter the sort of statements about monks, divines, bishops and Popes, that Erasmus had sent forth in his Praise of Folly; not that some of these statements did not contain a germ of truth, but that they were so woefully exaggerated that the unthinking might legitimately infer from them that there were no longer any good monks, that sincere divines were remarkable by their absence, that bishops and Popes were men to be held in abhorrence. And, when they reflected upon the person who made these sweeping and indiscriminate charges, and thought of his own errors of commission and omission, his lack of all the qualities, save scholarship, that should characterize a selfappointed censor of the morals of others, of the fact that he was at that moment, and had for many years, been living on the bounty of several English bishops who overlooked his idiosyncrasies of character in consideration of his vast potentialities for the advancement of the cause of learning, they felt they were justified in judging his motives by his utterances, and in closely scrutinizing his writings as well as his conduct. We perceive from this time forward that, instead of adding to his many English well-wishers, he seems to have cooled the regard of many of those he already had. This is observable in the attitude. of King Henry, Wolsey, and some others who will be mentioned in their proper place, and was in our estimation the essential cause of his eventually leaving England for good. Moreover, Luther had just startled the world by nailing up his ninety-five theses on the church door at Wittemberg, and hence it was a bad time for Erasmus, or anyone else, to advance what did not bear on its face all the earmarks of strict orthodoxy. The Catholic world was rent in twain, and dispassionate judgment no longer ruled the minds of men. Generation was to succeed generation and bitterness of feeling and prejudices were to be handed down from father to son, to the almost total destruction of Christian charity. Some of the earlier biographers of Erasmus, notably LeClerc and Knight, lived too near to the times of which we speak to write without some feeling natural under the circumstances; and Jortin, who was otherwise well fitted to write the life of Erasmus by virtue of his high scholarship and admirable industry, was totally unsuited for the task on account of his temperament and heredity. Now, unfortunately, these three writers seem to have dominated the

minds of all succeeding Erasmian biographers until we come to Professor Emerton's analytical study of Erasmus, in which he accepted their facts but entirely and rightly disregarded their logic. This was a wise departure, and the result shows us that the perfect Erasmus of LeClerc, Knight, and Jortin was neither so impeccable nor so invulnerable as they had represented him.

Now, though Lee was really no minor character in the history of the English Church of those days, Jortin seems to have spared no pains to discredit him as a critic of Erasmus, taking up their quarrel where Erasmus had laid it down, and exceeding Erasmus in the virulence with which he pursued this unsparing critic of his idol. Where Erasmus declared that "the world had never so far produced anything more arrogant, more virulent, or more foolish than Lee," Jortin did not think this strong enough and proceeded to translate the words Erasmus had used as follows: "The earth never produced an animal more vain, more arrogrant, more scurrilous, more ignorant, more foolish, and more malicious than he." "

Anthony Wood had declared Lee to have been "not only profoundly learned, and an incomparable divine; but a pious Christian, an able and assiduous preacher, extremely charitable to the poor, and universally lamented when he departed this life." Thereupon Jortin, with an indignant snort, says, "It is very well; but whence came our antiquaries to know all this? Why, even from his epitaph. As if stones could not exaggerate! Thus much is certain, that he was always an enemy to the Reformation." And then he proceeds to weaken the testimonies of men whose sources of information as to this matter were indisputable. For instance, Sir Thomas More's great-grandson Cresacre More, and Thomas Stapleton, both testify that Lee was an excellent man. Jortin while admitting their testimony says, "but the question is, whether they were excellent judges. Their uncharitable zeal is indeed unquestionable." Then he adds:

99 2

Thus our Lee, who, if he had kept the fool indoors, might have passed off for a tolerable divine, chose rather to purchase renown, such as it was, by heading the clamorous, unlearned, or half-learned censurers of Erasmus, and of all reformations. Amongst these indeed he might hope to make a figure, though not amongst more eminent persons; and it is no wonder, that an ambitious man should choose rather to be the leader of a paltry sect, than to be lost among scholars of the second or third class."

How unjust all this was to Lee a short sketch of his life and activities will show.

Edward Lee was born in 1482, and was thus four years younger than More, and sixteen years younger than Erasmus. He was the son of Richard Lee of Lee Magna in Kent, and grandson of Sir Richard Lee, who was a predecessor of John Colet's father in the office of Lord

1 "Quo vno nihil vnquam adhuc terra produxit, nec arrogantius, nec virulentius, nec stultius." (Eras. Ep. 1103.) • Ibid., p. 93.

2

Erasmus, Vol. I, p. 92.

s Idem.