had made his previously lukewarm and materialistic, if not actually Epicurean tendencies, to become cold, selfish, and measurably egotistic. When he wrote on subjects unconnected with religion, as in his editions of the classics, Erasmus was at his best and was excelled by none; but, when his topics were related to religion, then the personal element rushed in impulsively and with disastrous effects for himself and others. This too was perceived by Luther when he said: "If Erasmus Roterdamus remained in his art, so were he a man; but in that he will be wise in every matter, he much deceiveth himself."

Theodore Beza, who as a young student of seventeen had written the admiring couplet quoted on a previous page, seems in his more mature years to have arrived at Luther's estimate of Erasmus; for in 1557 he accused him of having been at heart an Arian, which was about as bad a thing as one could say concerning his orthodoxy. As far as we have been able to judge, his accusation was not true, and can only be explained on the supposition that he may have been misled by what Luther stigmatized as "screwed and wavering words." Beza's charge came to the ears of Erasmus' friends Froben, Amerbach, and Episcopius. It was reported that he had made it publicly in the company of Farel at an inn, and that at the same time Farel had chosen this occasion to blacken the memory of Erasmus by calling him the worst of men, a most base, wicked, vicious and impure scoundrel. These loyal comrades rallied to the defense of their departed friend, and demanded a retraction from the offenders, failing which they would have recourse to the civil authorities for satisfaction." There had been bad feeling existing between Erasmus and Farel for many years past, but it does not appear that there was much chivalry in the composition of Farel to thus so grossly assail the private character of the dead writer.

20

Perhaps one of the fairest critiques of Erasmus is that of Roland Desmarets, who says of him:

Among the recent writers who have distinguished themselves, no one, in my opinion, has excelled Erasmus, whether you regard his judgment, his learning, or his eloquence; and I would not hesitate to compare him with any of the ancients. Had he not spent his whole life in conflict with certain theologians and monks, he would have been able to give to the world even better works than those he has published; and had he not been so caustic, or so pertinacious in advancing certain views, there would have been nothing left in that great man for this age to desire."1

Baillet made some selections from the writings of those who had commented favorably or unfavorably on Erasmus, and we shall give one or two of these extracts as we find them in Jortin:

None would acknowledge him as a person of their communion,

20 See Wetstein's Prolegomena to the New Testament, p. 129.

21 Epist. Philologica, Leipzig, 1686, as quoted in Jortin, Erasmus, Vol. II,

P. 144.

as Verheiden testifies, though a Protestant. . . . Therefore Bellarmin placeth him amongst the half-christians, Possevin and Salmero say that he ought not to be reckoned amongst the children of the Romish church, and several Catholics have treated him as a lover of novelties. . . . On the other hand the Protestants disown him, and either give him to us, or range him among the doubters. . . . But it is not so easy to excuse in Erasmus that excessive liberty which he assumed of delivering his sentiments concerning ecclesiastical discipline, and of censuring all the abuses and disorders with which he supposed it to be infected, as if he would have set himself up for the Aristarchus of the age.

22

Never was a man so praised, and never was a man so blamed. We must not omit, in speaking of the epitaphs which were made on him, the one perhaps most famous of all, but which, since it loses its force when translated, we are compelled to give in Latin:

Hic iacet Erasmus, qui bonus erat mus;

rodere qui solitus, roditur a vermibus.

While most of these epitaphs serve only to show the skill and ingenuity of their writers, this one causes us to ponder whether it did not contain even more of truth than of wit. In any case, they are proofs of the remarkable fame that Erasmus had acquired for himself; so that even kings were proud to own a specimen of his handwriting. The city of Rotterdam felt honored that Erasmus had called himself Erasmus Roterodamus, and sought out his birthplace, where ultimately his statue was erected. But unfortunately the dissensions which he had created did not rest in the grave with him, but continued to furnish further subject for dispute. For this first statue, which was made of wood, one of granite was substituted in 1557. Holland was at this time in the throes of the religious war which raged there for so many years, and Rotterdam came in for its share of the general disturbance. The Spanish garrison at Rotterdam, undoubtedly Catholic to a man, allowed itself to be led by the exhortations of a violent and injudicious monk to throw the statue of the great writer into the river; and it was not until 1622 that a bronze one took its place. This time it was not disturbed until 1672, at which time the Protestant clergy seem to have been the offenders. The occasion was a sort of mutiny of the inhabitants, during which period of anarchy some of the Protestant clergy represented that there were simple persons among the citizens who were in the habit of kneeling before this statue as one would before that of a saint, and that it might lead to scandal if some of the weaker brethren yielded to a desire to invoke the saints. While it was being deliberated what was best to do under the circumstances, some of the city officials took possession of it and carried it off to a safe place. The citizens of Basle, hearing of these events, thought it would be a good opportunity to get the statue for their own town, in which he had died, and had almost secured the purchase of it when the Rotterdamers returned to their 22 Erasmus, Vol. II, pp. 156-7.

senses, and the statue was restored to its pedestal. This proceeding is in some sort emblematic of Erasmus' whole life and career. He was a storm centre at all times, sometimes in favor, at others in disgrace. However, the two cities of Rotterdam and Basle rest content in the knowledge that he was worthy of honor, either because of, or in spite of, his faults, depending entirely on the point of view; and this is still the divided verdict of the world.

CHAPTER XXVII

CHARACTER AND INFLUENCE

Thus far we have had to deal with the facts and activities of the life of Erasmus, concerning which there is very little difference of opinion; then followed a study of his character as far as it is possible to see it manifested in his writings and correspondence, taking also into account in this connection what light his friends and his enemies have left us on the matter, and using our own deductions to qualify their differing opinions. Now we approach the more difficult task of appraising the influence which he has exerted on his own and succeeding generations. As we have said so often, he was by nature intensely impressionable, morbidly sensitive, and physically timid. These three qualities are most important to be borne in mind in order to secure a proper understanding of his influence or the lack of it, for they explain at once his susceptibility to the influence of others, his abnormal reaction to criticism, and his many failures to rise to the necessities of the occasion.

In many ways his susceptibility to the influence of others was a fortunate thing for him, for it is very evident that he was more influenced by his English friends, who were his earliest, by the way, than they by him. And the true answer to the question so often asked, Why did not Erasmus go over to Luther? is that the influence of Colet, More, Tunstall, Fisher, and the rest of them was too potent and permanent with him, and, if not the only factor, was the main factor at least in preventing him from taking that momentous step. No doubt they agreed with him that there were abuses in the Church concerning the scandalous lives of some of the clergy that ought to be corrected; but they also seem to have impressed him definitely and finally with the fact that they believed firmly and absolutely what the Church taught and held as the deposit of truth left by Jesus Christ. Many times during his life. signs of wavering may be observed in this latter regard; but we feel that the remembrance of his English friends was always the North Star by which he eventually oriented himself.

Now what influence in return did he exercise over England? The stimulation of an ardor for learning: that principally. Not by any means that there was no love for learning in that country previous to his advent, but that he strengthened and revivified it both by word and example during his many visits there, that he held learned converse with its scholars, and that he aroused in them the spirit of emulation and achievement. And, passing from England to the Continent, we find the same is true in varying measure. His great contribution to the Renaissance, in addition to his own tremendous literary output, was this very

spirit of emulation, friendly rivalry, and encouragement, which he excited in all who would devote their time and their talent to the New Learning. And that this is so is proved by the fact that scarcely any writer of his day ventured to issue a work without applying to Erasmus for advice or suggestion, receiving thankfully, like Sadoleti for instance, what the great writer might give of his superior wisdom or experience.

În France his earliest influence was exerted by his Adages, which first attracted to him the notice of French scholars, five of the earliest editions being printed in that country before it made its appearance elsewhere. Of the Colloquies, however, the same cannot be said, since out of the first forty-six editions only one bears a French imprint. Similarly the Enchiridion did not meet with a cordial reception, thirty-six editions appearing elsewhere before the first one appeared in France. Of the Institutio principis christiani there was only one French edition out of the first twenty-two printed. The Moria encomium was fairly popular in France, as we find many editions published there. This is one of the books with which Erasmus was not very anxious to have his name associated. He saw too late that it contained too much of the spirit that afterwards gave birth to the ribaldries of Rabelais and Voltaire, and by common consent of the world these two French writers are held up as his legitimate offspring. Other writers have their masterpieces, the result of much midnight oil and toilsome labor. Erasmus pinned his faith on his version of the New Testament and the Works of St. Jerome as the two which were to immortalize him eternally, but, by the irony of fate, it was two of his minor works, which he penned in an idle hour and for the amusement of friends, which were destined to hand down his name to posterity, and against his will.

In Germany, and that part of Switzerland where the German language is spoken, we naturally find his influence, both for good and evil, most evident. There is not the slightest doubt that had Erasmus had the courage to go over to Luther he would have carried with him the greater part of the scholars of Germany at least. Almost all his books. found their greatest number of readers in Germany and the adjoining territories where that language was current; and when Luther broke away from the Church the first question on every lip was, "What does Erasmus think?" His myriad readers had imbibed from his Colloquies and the Moria that spirit of levity which is always disastrous when applied to matters connected with religion. He had spoken lightly of what they had always been taught to regard as most sacred and when they began to do the same on his authority he was dismayed at the result. The doubts that he had instilled into his readers had obfuscated their judgment and when they saw Luther pressing these matters to a logical conclusion they decided naturally that Erasmus was at heart a Lutheran. Such a result was unavoidable, and at times Erasmus shrieked aloud in impotent anger when he recognized the harm he had done and his inability to undo it. So his action in refusing to pass over to Luther was a personal and negative good, while his work in