meeting from Seckendorf,1o who gives a Latin version of Spalatin's own German report from a manuscript of 1520.

11

When Emperor Charles V, having been crowned at Aix, arrived in Cologne, the Elector Frederick caused Erasmus to be earnestly bidden to come to him at his lodgings, which were in the Forum of the Three Kings. And so he came on the fifth of December,' and standing before the fire-place with the Prince, Spalatin being present, began to converse with him. The Elector desired that Erasmus should speak in his own language, that is, Belgian," but he preferred to use Latin; this the Prince understood, but replied through Spalatin. He then tells that the Elector sought the opinion of Erasmus concerning Luther; Erasmus (he says), first closing his lips with a smack, and hesitating, put off his reply. The Elector, as he had the custom of doing if he were engaged with some serious matter, regarded him with wide-open eyes, gravely; then Erasmus burst forth in these words: "Luther has sinned in two things: namely, because he has touched the Pontiff's crown and the monks' bellies." In the Commentary on the Elector Frederick, almost the same thing is told, with this addition, that Frederick laughed slightly when Erasmus said this, and recalled the very statement just before his death. In the History it is noted that Erasmus at that time thought so highly of Luther's doctrine that, when Spalatin took him, leaving the Elector, to the home of . . . Count Neuenahr feeling very daring, he immediately wrote out "axioms," as he called them, and gave them to Spalatin. . . . But soon he begged Spalatin in a letter to give them back to him, lest they should injure him with Aleander.1

16

99 13

15

Jortin and others, basing their information probably on a hearsay report of this meeting written long afterwards by Philip Melancthon,' held that Erasmus first told these orally to Frederick, and then wrote them down later. This is dubious even in Melanchon.' The account of the eyewitness Spalatin is probably rather to be trusted. That there was further talk on the matter between the Elector and Erasmus seems likely, but it was probably less to the point than these axiomata, with Erasmus, as Professor Smith phrases it, "satisfied with having planted the perfect epigram," pursuing his usual evasive tactics and offering wit in place of matter. Luther gives a similar account long afterwards in his Table-Talk. Although the witty remark made the Elector laugh, it 10 Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de Lutheranismo, I, sec. 34, § lxxxi, (6), (p. 125 in 1692 edition).

Seckendorf is mistaken as to the date. Cf. in Friedrichs des Weisen Leben und Zeitgeschichte, von George Spalatin, p. 164. Jena, 1851.

12 Dutch.

18 Given in D. Martini Lutheri opera latina varii argumenti ad reformationis historiam pertinentia, ed. Heinrich Schmidt, Vol. V, pp. 236-42. Frankfurt, 1868. Cf. Jortin, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 221, 222. Seen in this present work p. 180 of Vol. II. See p. 181 of Vol. II.

14

15 Chronicon Carionis, Lib. V, fols. 704, 705.

16 "Postea pertexuit suam sententiam, et dixit, etc." This might or might not have been orally. Quoted in Seckendorf, idem (8) (p. 126 in 1692 edition).

may be surmised that it was hardly accepted in lieu of solid advice, for Luther goes on to inform us that Frederick at the next meeting said to Spalatin: "What kind of a man is Erasmus? one can never tell where one stands with him." And Duke George of Saxony, the Elector's cousin, exclaimed testily on another occasion: "Plague take him, one never knows what he is at!"

In this matter, as in all others, Erasmus wished to speak occasionally, when it occurred to him, ex cathedra, as it were; but he grew irritated if, the inconsistency of his various remarks being flung in his face, he were forced to weave these diverse and hasty statements into a presentably consistent fabric of opinion. If at that solemn moment Erasmus had only given to Frederick the same common-sense advice he gave to Cardinal Campegio: "Whatever sort of man Luther might be, it would certainly be more humane to cure him than to destroy him." " If he only said to the Elector what he said shortly afterwards to Jodocus Jonas:

I marvel much, dear Jonas, what god has distracted the mind of Luther than he inveighs with such licence against the Roman Pontiff, against all the universities, against philosophy, and against the Mendicant Orders. Even though everything he said were true, which those writers who have censured his writings declare to be far from the fact, what other result can we expect than that which we now see, since he has provoked so many? ... For since the truth may be disagreeable to many, and since the shattering of belief in things sanctioned by long usage may in itself be seditious, he had been much wiser to have softened a thing naturally harsh by a gentle manner of treating it, rather than to add hatred to hatred. What benefit could be obtained by dealing in novel ideas, and so presenting certain things that they offended at the first glance much more than when observed close to? . . . What profit could he secure by reveling in savage invectives against those people, that even if he wished to cure them we should have to call him imprudent, but if he desired to provoke them by doing injury to the whole world, we should have to call him wicked. May 10, 1521.1 If it were not so serious a matter, it might provoke a smile to see Erasmus censuring the freedoms which Luther had taken with the Pope, with the Schoolmen, and with the monks, as if he had reserved to himself all rights in that province. But as biographers it is not our duty to point out what he might have done to prevent what followed, but to show what his own actions and their consequences really were.

18

Luther had been summoned, on August 7, 1518, to appear for trial at Rome within sixty days. As Sylvester Prierias, who had already written against him, was appointed one of the judges for this trial, Luther felt, and with some justification, that the case would surely go against him; so he appealed to the Elector to have the case tried in Germany instead. As it happened, the Imperial German Diet was just then sitting at Augsburg, at which the Emperor Maximilian, the Elector 17 Eras. Ep. 1167. (December, 1520.) 18 Ibid., 1202.

Frederick, and the other Electors and crowned heads of the Empire were present, together with Cardinal Cajetan, the Pope's envoy. On receipt of Luther's request, the Elector Frederick at once hastened to use his influence with the Emperor and the Papal Legate to the end that Luther might be tried in Germany instead of Rome. Frederick had his full share of the Teuton antipathy against the able but crafty Italians who constituted the Roman Curia at that time, and was loath to deliver up his subject into their hands. So, as would appear from one of Luther's letters to Lange, Frederick at length persuaded Cajetan to write to Rome for the necessary permission. However, from other sources we learn that Cajetan did not wait for word from Rome, but proceeded to summon Luther to appear before him at Augsburg at the close of the Diet. German craft was now pitted against Italian craft to hinder Luther from falling into the hands of the Roman Curia. Even before Frederick had acted in the matter at all, Luther and his friends had put their heads together in order to outwit Rome. Writing to Spalatin two weeks after he had received his summons to Rome, Luther tells him:

It seems best to our learned and prudent friends here that I should ask the Elector Frederick for a so-called safe-conduct through his dominions. When he shall have refused it, as I know he will, this will be a most excellent reason and excuse for not appearing at Rome.1

19

His

This was a masterly stroke, and served the purpose of informing the Church authorities that in disciplining Luther they had first to reckon with his sovereign. This was probably the reason why Cajetan took it upon himself to grant Luther a trial in Germany, irrespective of the desires of the Roman Curia. Besides, he was an able theologian and felt no doubt that he could overcome a simple but obstinate monk. confidence in his ability in this regard was shared by many of the Germans, for we read of a monk of Weimar named John Kestner who met Luther on his way to Augsburg and with great solicitude exclaimed, "My dear doctor, the Italians are very learned people. I fear you will not be able to gain your cause with them, and they will put you to the flames.'

99 20

This racial antipathy was frequently cropping up to mar good counsel. On Luther's arrival at Augsburg, and before Cajetan had seen him, he was visited by the orator of Montferrat, who, "with many words, and, as he saith, 'judicious counsels,' . . . endeavoured to persuade me to submit forthwith to the legate, and to return to the church by recanting my hard speeches.. To be short, he is an Italian, and will always be an Italian.' It is to the credit of the Roman Curia that they recognized this racial hostility as possibly entering to prevent a mutually. satisfactory settlement of the difficulties now existing between the Church government, on the one hand, and Luther backed up by his 19 De Wette, Luthers Briefe, Vol. I, p. 133.

" 21

..

20 Sears, Life of Luther, p. 234.

21 Ibid., p. 236.