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.

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.1 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

18 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 Éras. 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."

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 Ibid., 1099. (That Batmanson was anything but unlearned may be easily seen by referring to Allen's note to line 17 of this letter.)

15

voice of Paul, which in my estimation has not yet been satisfactorily explained by any of the old commentators.

I am not unaware that there are many rumors being spread around concerning me. The friends of ignorance feel that honorable studies are reviving, and on that account leave no stone unturned to hinder; but truth will conquer as time goes on. For that reason I earnestly beg your lordship not to believe too readily what these scourges of Erasmus say. At present, by some unlucky chance, they are out of their minds; but in a short time, when they have begun to know better, they will be ashamed of their malady, just as happened to Ajax. Farewell, most generous father, and continue to show yourself the same kind friend that you always were. Antwerp, May 25, 1519.

16

Like Foxe, the Bishop of Durham made no response, or, if he did, it was so displeasing to Erasmus that he omitted it from all collections of his letters. So the continued attacks of Lee, which were particularly dangerous at the moment because of the general alarm which Luther had caused the prelates and clergy generally, had weakened the hold which Erasmus had obtained on the majority of his English friends. This feeling of coldness was increased by his constant repetition that Luther was an exceedingly worthy man, of good personal character, and that his critics had better let him alone. And this at a time when the Pope had issued his bull against him and had summoned him to Rome for trial. The letters of affection and admiration which used to come to Erasmus from England had ceased almost entirely; and he had to recognize the fact that Lee, on the one hand, and his own laudations of the Saxon monk who was in open rebellion against the Holy See, on the other, had for the present alienated from him the regard of most of the old friends and patrons. We may include in the number Warham, Wolsey, Foxe, Whitford, Ruthall, Urswick, Linacre, William Latimer, Grocyn, and many others. More's letters, too, became less warm for a time, as also those of John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester. Of Colet's attitude towards him at this juncture we cannot speak definitely, as he had died during this year, a fact to which we shall revert more at length presently. That More and Fisher did not entirely fall away from him. like the rest is due, no doubt, to their particular turn of mind. Both these men, who afterwards suffered death rather than betray what they considered their principles, had reveled in the fierce joy of controversy, More in behalf of Erasmus, and Fisher in behalf of Reuchlin, and had the openness of purpose and fearlessness of consequences that are characteristic of really great minds. But even they became strangely silent when they saw, long before it had made itself apparent to Erasmus, whither this rebellion of Luther against the constituted authority of the Church was going to lead; and, when they saw him, as it were, clapping Luther on the back, they would not follow him further along this road which to their acute minds must necessarily end in an impasse. It took some time for Erasmus to recognize that he had thus alienated from 1 Eras. Ep. 974.

himself these loyal and generous English friends; and it was only after he had unwillingly consented to write against Luther that any of them became again cordial towards him.

We do not feel that Drummond has given a fair presentation of the case as between Lee and Erasmus. Great names are apt to sway our judgment in their favor; and we feel that in his flippant treatment of Lee this biographer has been somewhat unjust to a man deserving of better usage, especially at the hands of an English writer. By this we do not mean that he should have overlooked Lee's faults, but that he should have looked at them with the same degree of forbearance that he was forced to exercise in observing those of Erasmus. They were both to blame in varying degrees; and the best thing that Erasmus said in the whole discussion was to advise his readers not to lose their time either in perusing Lee's charges or in reading his own justification. And after all, Lee was not entirely in the wrong, as Erasmus many years afterwards confessed, saying that he had learned many things from him.1 But where Drummond has been unjust to Lee, even more so than Erasmus was, is painfully evident where he charges Lee with treachery in the matter of the Three Heavenly Witnesses in the First Epistle of John v. 7. Lee had declared this passage authentic, but Erasmus had omitted it in his first and second editions of the New Testament, on the grounds that he did not find it in any of his Greek manuscripts. Erasmus very magnanimously agreed to restore it in his third edition if it could be found in any Greek original. Lee accepted the offer and found it for him in an English codex which Erasmus calls the Codex Britannicus. Erasmus was as good as his word, and the disputed matter appeared in the next edition. Not to do Drummond any intentional injustice, we shall quote his own words.

It might seem that there could be no doubt with whom the victory would remain in a contest of this kind between learning and capacity upon the one side, and ignorance and dullness on the other; but, unfortunately, treachery supplied the place of knowledge, and Lee carried away the most substantial fruits of a conflict in which he was otherwise completely defeated. Erasmus in his reply had twice professed his willingness to insert the testimony of the Three Witnesses if a single manuscript could be produced containing it. Lee must in due time have satisfied himself that none such could be found at Oxford or Cambridge, nor probably anywhere else. But what then? Were there no amanuenses living? Was it impossible to have a manuscript written on purpose, which should contain the disputed words and satisfy the scruples of this troublesome Grecian? That the Codex Montfortianus was written under the direction of Lee, with the express object of deceiving his opponent and exacting from him the fulfilment of his promise, there is indeed no positive proof; but its opportune appearance at this particular juncture lends a countenance to the supposition, and there was nothing in the character of Lee to make it probable that he would have hesitated to commit 17 See Apologia versus Sutorem, in the dedication.