a pious fraud which he thought so important to the orthodox faith. One only wonders that he should have gone such a long way round to accomplish his purpose instead of simply affirming the existence of the manuscript; but no doubt he had a tender conscience, and found it more agreeable to equivocate than to lie; and besides, how did he know but Erasmus would run over to England to have a sight of this newly discovered treasure? Erasmus, however, was very easily satisfied. It does not appear that he ever even saw the Codex Britannicus, as he calls it. He desired peace, and shrunk from the clamor that was raised against him on all sides. Having been informed, therefore, that a manuscript had been found containing the testimony of the Heavenly Witnesses, although he suspected, and with great reason, that it had been corrected after the Latin, he inserted the spurious words in his third edition, which appeared in 1522. There the text corresponds exactly with the reading of the Codex Montfortianus, which is now deposited in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, proving its identity with the Codex Britannicus of Erasmus. In the subsequent editions it was altered into better Greek.18 And the above quotation has been offered and accepted as history. Bluntly stated, Drummond here accuses Lee of forgery. By implication he brands with stupidity and dullness Erasmus, Melancthon, and all the German scholars, not to speak of More, Warham, Fisher, and all the English scholars. Is it for a moment to be thought that all these great minds would allow themselves to be circumvented by such a cheap and vulgar trick? The thing is preposterous, and never entered the minds of even such sturdy champions of Erasmus as LeClerc, DeBurigni, or even Jortin. What is more, the passage in question is accepted as genuine by Luther, by the Sixtine and Clementine editors, the editors of the King James Version, and even the editors of the last Revised Edition. How in the face of such evidence Drummond could make this astounding charge of forgery against Lee we cannot understand; but since it is his own and unsupported by any proof whatever, we leave it with him, reminding the reader, however, that Erasmus was a proud spirit and exceedingly hard to convince. He would take no man's word on a point of scholarship; and with so many of his own acquaintances in England there is no reason to doubt that he had the Codex Britannicus investigated thoroughly before yielding to Lee's victory over him. Drummond would have had much more reason to doubt the existence of the Rhodian manuscript which Stunica quoted against Erasmus, for that manuscript has not been seen since shortly after it was made use of in compiling the Complutensian Polyglot. And yet exegetes do not doubt that it was at one time in existence, although Erasmus never saw it. But men of the standing of Erasmus, or Lee, or Stunica, would not compromise their reputation by any such means. A dispassionate survey of the controversy up to this point shows that Lee is fairly entitled to the credit of having maintained his position in 19 spite of Erasmus' utmost efforts to dislodge him. Erasmus saw himself compelled to bring on his heaviest armament, and issued his Apologia.1 This certainly was a masterpiece of satire, invective, and plain insult. Apparently not having full confidence in his ability entirely to crush Lee with his own pen, he conceived the fell plan of making him a target to be pierced and riddled by the arrows of all the friends whom he could enlist in the task. Here is the plan as disclosed in a letter from Erasmus to Jodocus Jonas: I received your last and most welcome letter. I have replied to Lee in such a way that he cannot open his mouth hereafter, unless he chooses to load me with abuse like any strumpet. Now there remains another thing to be done; that is, that my friends write condemnatory letters against Lee, but in such a manner that, while censuring Lee, they will praise the learned men of England and all the nobility of that country who favor learning, and that they will subject him to ridicule as a fool, a boaster, and a hypocrite of no importance, rather than to attack him directly. I would like to obtain many such letters the better to overwhelm him. Let them be gotten from the learned, and sent to me by safe hands, and I will revise them and see that they are printed. Let there be a great variety in them. I have given one such to William Nesen for your instruction. April 9, 1520.** The result of this plan, malignant in its inception and disastrous to Lee in its results, lets in more light on the character of Erasmus than possibly any other thing which we have brought forward in this study of the great humanist's make-up. His intent was now to isolate Lee from his English friends that he might destroy him utterly. Fortunately for Lee, the plot was successful only in the cases of Lupset and Pace, and then but temporarily. 21 In a firm and dignified manner, without any attempt to evade the points raised by Erasmus, Lee proceeded to answer Erasmus' Apologia categorically. He agrees with Erasmus that disputed points are proper subjects of discussion between scholars without any need of endangering friendship thereby, and hence is surprised at Erasmus' attitude towards him. He coincides in the former's remark that, in so many thousands of his annotations, there was always the chance of an error creeping in, but cannot understand his resentment in having them pointed out to him." To the assertion of Erasmus that Lee had suddenly turned enemy, Lee replied that he was no enemy to him but only to his errors; and when Erasmus charges him with writing against him behind his back, he gives it a straight denial and shows his proof." To the charge of Erasmus that Lee communicated his manuscript of criticisms to everyone who happened to be an enemy, Lee succinctly answers that only two men have yet seen it, namely, More and Latimer, who were friends of them both. Erasmus then asks him, "If you wish to profit others, why do you not publish your manuscript?" To which Lee counters with the charge that Erasmus had so tampered with the printers in various cities that he had so far been unable to have it printed;" and when Lee pressed this point on him, Erasmus admitted it on the plea that he only wanted to secure an early copy. To Erasmus' question why, if Lee had no confidence in his book, he boasted about it everywhere; or, if he did not rely upon it, why he was so anxious that no one should read it except the professed enemies of Erasmus, Lee replied: I leave my book to the judgment of the reader. I do not at all lack confidence in its worth. I do not trust to my own judgment enough, nor do I deem the work so important, that I should boast of it everywhere. Never so far have I been so wrapped up in selfesteem that I objected to the judgment of others: if you had done the same, we should not now be acting out this tragedy." 26 To the allegation of Erasmus that Lee was infecting scholars with error in thus traducing him, Lee replied that none of the learned was being misled by him, for no man could judge other of Erasmus than he merited; and he puts this question to him: "If I am right in disagreeing with you, why should not the learned agree with me in my opinion? But if in dissenting from you I am in the wrong, I am not such a Suffenus as to demand that everyone should side with me against you.' Then Erasmus becomes personal and claims that Lee is not adding any glory to himself, which is really what he is seeking. To which Lee answers: 99 27 If I had a thirst for glory, the quickest way to it would be not to dissent from you, but to act the part of the comedian in the play: "He says it is so: I say it is so; he denies it: I deny it." That is what you, the bestower of immortality, in our first conversation, and many times afterwards, promised me, that you would make my name immortal if I would assist you in this work [the New Testament]." 39 28 Erasmus We can perceive that they are now becoming venomous. goes on to ridicule Lee by saying that the Pope, filled with admiration at Lee's almost divine intellect, has decided to hand over to him his own rod of censure, and constitute him the Aristarchus of literature. This sarcasm stings Lee, and he in turn rises to the occasion by retorting: Thus you please yourself (as usual) by turning me into ridicule. I, knowing my own littleness, do not deem myself worthy of the honor of being the Pope's confidant. But who is ignorant of the fact that long ago you wilfully arrogated to yourself the office of literary Aristarchus, sparing neither ancient nor modern writers, censuring all as if imperially and cathedratically, and condemning even those things which you have hardly looked into; nay, more, attacking the dogmas of the ancients, suffering not even the decrees of the Church to go untouched, seeming, on the face of it, not to me alone but to all, to be supporting the delusions of heretics, claiming 25 Ibid., 11. 108 sqq. 20 Ibid., 11. 138 sqq. 27 Ibid., 11. 145 sqq. 28 Ibid., 11. 159 sqq. theology for your own peculiar province, and despising all except yourself, as I have learned from people who in theology are more learned, if I mistake not, than even yourself. Am I so insane as to desire that office, when you preoccupy it in such a manner? I have always cultivated the erudite. I have never looked down on even the most trivial work of any author. And I certainly do not despise yours, even though at times I may dissent from you. I have never criticized your studies as such. I could only wish in you a little more discretion and moderation, and perhaps, in certain matters, a little more judgment.' 29 80 Then Erasmus insinuates that Lee must be awaiting his death so that he can then publish his book undisturbed; to which Lee replies that he will not interfere with the shade of Erasmus, and that, as far as he himself is concerned, Erasmus shall rest in peace." Then Erasmus intimates that others have assisted Lee in composing that work; to which the latter answers that, such as it is, it is his own, and he deems it not of that excellence that anyone will quarrel about its authorship."1 1 Then Erasmus generously tells him that he is not offended with him to the extent that he would wish him to lose the regard of his friends on his account; which stirs up Lee to explain: I wonder how you dare to say such a thing, when in every possible way you have been trying to bring down the whole learned world on my head, and have aroused some of my friends in England against me. You are sowing cockle between me and some of the best and most learned of men, who, however, out of their wisdom, will give no heed to your incantation, I trust. Then he goes on to give Erasmus a deserved castigation for the filthiness of some of his Colloquies," and finally takes up the threat about the ferocity of Erasmus' German friends who were meditating to do violence on Lee if he did not cease attacking him. This is too much for Lee's sense of what is fit, and he very neatly unhorses Erasmus by defending the Germans. He says: I could hardly be led to believe such a thing possible of the German soldiery, but I would never believe that the German scholars, whose probity I measure by their learning, of which in these days they are the leaders, would willingly lend themselves to such a shameful deed. I should be very loath to put such a disgraceful stigma on the learned men of my native England as you would seek to affix on the German men of letters; and, in spite of what you say, I shall still continue to believe that the German scholars are men whose judgment is not swayed by their passions, and whose verdict in literary matters is not enforced by the sword. If it has come to this, that such matters are to be settled by violent means, then let Erasmus sit alone in his official chair so far as I am concerned, and let him prescribe with impunity whatever he wishes, for I have not learned 81 Ibid., 11. 258 sqq. 20 Ibid., 11. 221 sqq. 80 Ibid., 11. 249 sqq. 32 Ibid., 11. 316 sqq. to fight with swords. Where now is that Christian soul of yours, which never breathes anything but charity, moderation, affability, and sincerity? . . . If anyone is lurking about to do me injury, Erasmus is plainly the author thereof. . . . I am not so stupid as not to perceive these wiles of yours. It is all your work, but you do not wish to have it known as yours. You are an enemy, but you assume the character of a friend; and you so act as if the onlookers were stones and you deemed yourself able to use sleight-of-hand tricks which none but yourself could understand. Oh, that you were really what you wish to be considered, for then there would be no dissension between us, and the affairs of the Church would go on more happily and peacefully.** After expressing some natural regret that this trouble should have arisen between two who were formerly so friendly, he returns again to the insinuation thrown out by Erasmus that in thus criticizing the annotations he was only seeking glory, and very neatly shows what he is sacrificing in abandoning the title of "Lee the friend of Erasmus and of all good literature," which Erasmus was trying to confer on him; and he ends his letter in the following few words: I have said what I have felt, openly and sincerely. I have used no deceit, nor have I ever taken counsel of hatred. But as it would appear most proper that I should cast back charges that I cannot admit, yet at the same time it has been very distasteful and unpleasant to contend with you, a man so generally famous, and whom I used to regard as a friend and the friend of my friends. But I ought not to be held responsible for what I cannot avoid. I had decided to keep absolutely silent in the matter and to enjoy my leisure, had you only permitted me: for surely never was a quarrel more disagreeable to me than this. February 1, 1520.* 34 If in this lengthy account of the quarrel between Lee and Erasmus we seem to have devoted more space than the matter deserves, our only justification is that the many lights and shades that it throws on the character of Erasmus make it exceedingly valuable to us as a biographer. The little things which frequently look to be unimportant are often more enlightening than a whole chapter of major happenings. So we will pass on, hoping that the impressions which we ourselves and our readers gained may be either strengthened or entirely eradicated by what is to ensue. In either case, we put the task of deciding this squarely on the judgment of our readers. 38 Ibid., 11. 159 sqq. 84 Ibid., 11. 820 ad fin. |