ERASMUS AND THE BOHEMIAN BRETHREN
(A paper read before the third International Historical Congress, in London, April 1913.)
Whatever may still be the troubles of the great, amongst men of learning at any rate visits of ceremony are mercifully no longer in fashion. At first sight one is inclined to find the cause of this in an improved sense of the value of time. Modern inventions have taught first the business man and then the world in general that time is money. Improved communications with time-tables that may be relied upon enable us to arrange our days in such a way as to be at least more busy, if not more useful; and we have acquired a wholesome respect for the time of others. But I do not think we should be right in accounting for the change in this way. At all ages the scholar, looking round him at tasks which exceed the capacity of a lifetime, has been avaricious of the hours—'labuntur anni', 'pereunt et imputantur' ever in his thoughts: and though the world of old moved slower, the man of business has rarely belied his name. A more plausible explanation is that the custom has died of surfeit. As increased facilities of travel made the world smaller, the circle of those that might be visited and saluted by the active grew boundless; so that on both sides limits were desired. Another consideration is that with new facilities came increased opportunities and hopes. To-day we live in the happy consciousness that friends, however distant, may be brought across the world to our doors by the urgencies of business or pleasure; and thus no one knows what the coming year may bring forth. In the sixteenth century men knew that opportunities lost might never recur, and that they must seize or make them as best they might.
At that time visits of ceremony were in great vogue. Officials and scholars alike groaned under them. After a visit to the Court Erasmus writes: 'If Pollio (a disguised name, as he was writing of a man who afterwards became an intimate friend) has been with you, you will understand what I suffered at Brussels; every day hosts of Spanish visitors, besides Italians and Germans.' A little later he apologizes to a correspondent for having given him a chilly welcome: 'just then I had escaped from Brussels, quite worn out with the salutations of these persistent Spaniards.' The custom was widespread. An English graduate, studying for a time at Louvain, congratulates himself on having escaped from it at Cambridge. Clenardus found it thriving at Salamanca; Casaubon complained of it at Montpellier; in Oxford it was even obligatory for intending disputants in the schools to pay formal visits beforehand to their examiners.
In 1517 Erasmus' fame was at its zenith; and in consequence visitors came to him from every side, some to seek counsel, others to adore. His correspondence gives us many instances. In the spring of 1517, when the Cardinal of Gurk attended Maximilian to the Netherlands, his two secretaries, Richard Bartholinus of Perugia and Ursinus Velius, a Silesian, prepared panegyrical verses with which to greet Erasmus if they should have the good fortune to meet him. For some reason Bartholinus alone came, and, presenting both the poems, elicited a complimentary letter in reply. A more distinguished visitor received less attention. In the summer of 1518 Erasmus was at Basle, printing the notes to his second edition of the New Testament. The Bishop of Pistoia, nephew of one of the most influential cardinals, and Papal nuncio in Switzerland, also came to Basle. Wishing to see the great scholar, he asked him to dinner. But Erasmus could not spare the time. He declined, and in his place sent his friends, Beatus Rhenanus and the young Amerbachs. Three times he made excuse; and at length the Nuncio went on foot to seek in Froben's press the scholar who would not come to him. What their conversation was we do not know; but before leaving, the Nuncio ordered a copy of the Amerbach-Froben Jerome to be sent to the binders and equipped with his arms and adornments.
Later in the year the enthusiastic Eobanus of Hesse appeared in Louvain. He had come from Erfurt where he was teaching, and the main purpose of his journey was to see Erasmus. His Hodoeporicon, printed on his return, describes his course in detail. With a young companion, John Werter, also from Erfurt, he entered Louvain in the evening. Next morning early they sent in their 'callow' verses to the great man, and followed shortly themselves. Erasmus came down to greet them at the door with a kindly welcome, and Eobanus describes a banquet to which he invited them, entertaining them with serious talk and light-hearted jest. But it was at no light cost to Erasmus' time: for when his admirers left five days later, he had been cajoled into writing six letters of compliment, two to the travellers themselves and four more to friends at Gotha and Erfurt. But this was not the only cost. Eobanus imbued others of the Erfurt circle with his hero-worship; and next year came two more, Jonas and Schalbe, to trouble Erasmus' leisure, when he was taking a spring holiday at Antwerp, 'by the sea', and to bear off more letters to Erfurt. The spirit that animated these visitors is shown in a letter of John Turzo, bishop of Breslau, a man of Erasmus' own age. In 1518 Ursinus Velius, the disappointed secretary of the Cardinal of Gurk, had become canon of Breslau on Turzo's presentation; and had doubtless talked to his patron of Erasmus' attractive gifts. 'I am most eager to visit you' wrote the Bishop, from Breslau. 'If ever I had heard that you were anywhere within a week's journey from here, I should have rushed over at once: indeed I would have gone as far as Belgium, if only the business of my office allowed. The men of Cadiz who journeyed to Rome to see Livy were not more eager.'
A picture of the interruptions to which Erasmus was exposed is given in a preface written in Froben's name for the new edition of Erasmus' Epigrammata combined with More's and with the Utopia, March 1518. 'Most of these verses' Froben is made to say 'were written not for publication, but to give pleasure to friends; to whom he is always very obliging. When he was here bringing out his New Testament and Jerome, heavens! how he worked! toiling away untiringly day after day. Never was any one more overwhelmed in composition; and yet certain great persons thought themselves entitled to come and waste his time, coaxing out of him a few lines of verse or a little letter. So compliant was he that they made it very difficult for him. To refuse seemed uncivil when they pressed him so. But to write when his mind was intent elsewhere, and not a minute to spare from his labours——! However, he did write, on the spur of the moment, turning aside for a little to the groves of the Muses.'
Some other visitors can be traced in this period. John Alexander Brassicanus, poet laureate, came from Tubingen in September 1520 and saw Erasmus at Antwerp; whence in reply to a letter of self-introduction he bore away a complimentary letter that he afterwards printed, and the sound piece of advice, that if he wished to become learned, he must never think himself so. More distinguished was Ferdinand Columbus, the explorer's natural son and heir, who in October 1520, on one of those journeys on which he gathered his famous library, received at Louvain a copy of Erasmus' Antibarbari, with his name inscribed in it by the author. A visitor to whom we must pay more heed was John Draco, one of the Erfurt circle, who in July 1520 came to pay homage at Louvain.
In the autumn of 1518 the agent of a Leipzig bookseller trading to Prague received a letter to carry back with him and forward on to Erasmus at Louvain. The writer was a certain Jan Slechta, a Bohemian country gentleman, who was living at Kosteletz on the upper waters of the Elbe, a few miles to the North-east of Prague. He was a man of education and position. After taking his M.A. at Prague in 1484, he had served for sixteen years as a secretary to King Ladislas of Bohemia and Hungary; but about 1507, disgusted with the turmoils of court life in that very troubled time, he had retired to his home, to give his later years to the education of his son and the personal management of his estates. The world of affairs had not extinguished his love of learning. He was an intimate friend of Bohuslaus of Hassenstein, scholar and traveller, and corresponded with him in elegant Latin. Attracted by the reputation for eloquence won by the notorious Hieronymus Balbus, he had persuaded him c. 1499 to come and teach in Prague—a step which in view of Balbus' bad life he afterwards deeply regretted. He was also the author of a dialogue on the relations of body and soul, entitled Microcosmus; which with characteristic modesty he kept for more than twenty years known only to his intimate friends—indeed it was only in the last year of his life that he composed a dedication for it, and it seems never to have been printed.
The tone of Slechta's thoughts in his later years was grave and serious; as well it might be. The two kingdoms, then but loosely united, were torn with internal factions and racial jealousies; while in church towers and over city gates the bells hung ready to proclaim to the countryside the advent of that ever-present menace, the Turk. In the priesthood men could mark much that was amiss; and the seamless robe of Christ was rent with schism, the candle that Hus and Jerome had lighted a century before, still burning clearly among less sober heresies, which drew down on it, as upon themselves, spasmodic outbursts of retributive violence. Uneasy sat the crown on Ladislas' head; and when Death, coming as a friend, took it from him in 1516, it was only to thrust this sad office upon a ten-year-old boy, who after ten more years of childish government was miserably to perish at Mohacz. No wonder that Slechta and his friends looked anxiously upon the future. 'The times of Hus and Wycliffe which our grandfathers detested, seem golden beside our own' wrote Bohuslaus to Geiler of Kaisersberg—a member of that grave circle of Strasburg humanists, with which, it may be noted in passing, our Bohemians had much in common. The letters of Slechta contain two disquisitions, one on the frailties of a celibate clergy, the other on the duties of a parish priest; advocating reforms by which he hoped to check the continuous growth of 'those unutterable heretics, the Pyghards': by whom he meant the Bohemian Brethren.
What moved Slechta to correspond with Erasmus we do not know; possibly a slighting reference in one of the latter's printed letters to 'those schismatic Bohemians, who have infected most of Europe'. Slechta's letter is unhappily lost; but from Erasmus' reply, dated 23 April 1519 from Louvain, its general tenor may be gathered. It began, of course, with eulogies of Erasmus and his work; and then, after some account of the writer's life and fortunes, it proceeded to assure him that there were persons in Bohemia who were not merely interested in good learning but prepared to advance it. Finally it invited him to come to Prague. Erasmus' answer to his unknown correspondent was courteous, but firmly declined the invitation. 'What I can do at Prague I do not see. It is considerate of you to offer me an escort for my journey; but I confess I do not like regions where such company is necessary. In this country one can go about wherever one likes, alone. I am sure that, as you say, I should find among you plenty of learned and pious men, who are not contaminated with the errors of schism. But how is it that this division is suffered to remain? Better unity with some hardship than to hold one's own at the cost of discord. I fear it is money that stands in the way. Paul suffered the loss of all things that he might win Christ. The world is full of cardinals and princes and bishops; if only one of these would take up this matter in a truly Christian spirit! If Paul were on the Pope's throne, I am sure he would allow not only his revenues but his authority to be diminished, if his loss would purchase unity.' Erasmus concludes cordially: 'If we cannot meet, at any rate we can write. I will walk and talk with you sometimes beside your Elbe, you shall come and dwell with me in Brabant. Friendship can flourish without actual contact.'
This letter was handed to Slechta on 11 September, four and a half months after it was written. Nearly a year had elapsed since his letter had been dispatched and he had given up hopes of a reply: so that these amiable and encouraging words were the more welcome, and he at once proceeded to act upon them. Within a month he had composed a letter of some elegance, in which while subscribing to Erasmus' prayers for unity, he pointed out the difficulties of the task. To the remarks about coming to Prague he rejoined regretfully: 'I can quite see that there is nothing for you to do here. There are many of us who would have been glad of your coming; but I understand that we must hope to see you at another time and elsewhere. That travellers in our country need an escort you would not wonder if you could see how the roads run, among lofty mountains shrouded in impenetrable forests. These give cover to hordes of brigands, who prey upon travellers and merchants, robbing and killing indifferently. Almost every month there are punitive raids made from the towns, and brigands are captured and put to death. But the pest seems ineradicable.'
Slechta then proceeds to the religious troubles, and after expressing general agreement with Erasmus, describes the three main parties into which the life of Bohemia and Moravia was cloven. First the orthodox Romanists, loyal to the Church and in unity with Germany and the rest of Christendom; finding their adherents amongst the upper classes, together with some of the King's cities and the monasteries, many of which, though once rich, had now fallen into decay. Secondly, the Utraquists, otherwise orthodox but practising communion in both kinds, and at their services reading the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular: with some supporters among the nobility, a good many gentry, and nearly thirty royal cities. After tracing their history from the Council of Basle and briefly stating their views, he adds that no one in the kingdom is able to propound a solution of the difficulties existing. Thirdly, the Bohemian Brethren, whom he styles Pyghards. This name, from the opprobrious sense in which it is generally used, is now thought to be derived from the Beghards, a mediaeval sect whose vagaries drew down upon it frequent persecution; but Slechta traces it to a foreign vagabond who came from Picardy in 1422 and infected with his pestilent doctrines the army of John Ziska, the Taborite, an army of those that were in distress, in debt, in discontent.
This sect, Slechta tells us, lasted continuously down to the times of the late King Ladislas († 1516), and indeed increased considerably under him; for his thoughts were much occupied with Hungary, and he was content if Bohemia could be maintained in an outward appearance of peace. Then follows a description of their opinions. 'The Pope and all his officials they regard as Antichrist. They choose their own bishops, rude unlettered laymen, with wives and families. They salute one another as Brother and Sister; and recognize no authority but the Bible. Their priests celebrate mass without vestments, use leavened bread and only the Lord's Prayer. Transubstantiation they deny, and the worship of the host they regard as idolatry. Vows to the saints, prayers for the dead, and confession to priests they ridicule; and they keep no holy days but Sundays, Christmas, Easter and Whitsun.' 'I will not waste your time with more of these pernicious views. My feeling is that if the two first-named parties could only be reconciled, this nefarious sect might, with the aid of the King, be exterminated or at any rate reduced to a better state of faith and religion.'
The roads in Bohemia might be dangerous, but the distance to Louvain was not so great as it had seemed at first; for Erasmus' reply is dated 1 Nov. 1519, only three weeks after Slechta's letter. He begins again with the roads. 'Prevention is better than punishment. It would be wiser if, instead of these avenging raids, the more frequented roads could be cleared of forest on either side, and held by block-houses and armed posts at intervals. Indeed it is somewhat discreditable that the great towns and princes of Germany cannot achieve what the Swiss do by co-operation and local action.' He then turns to the religious dissensions, and in his passion for concord exclaims that it would be better that a nation should be united in error than so numerously divided: experience shows that there is no opinion so wild but that some one will be found to embrace it. Of the orthodox party he has nothing to say beyond extolling the system by which the Pope might act as judge and father of all, and as supreme court of appeal. To the Utraquists he would counsel conformity to the practice of the majority; although unable to understand why the Church should have allowed a practice instituted by Christ to fall into disuse.
Then he comes to the Brethren, and after admitting that they have strayed further than the Utraquists from the rule of Christian life, he continues: 'If they go on still in their wickedness, they must be restrained; but this is not the duty of any one who likes, nor must violence be used, lest the innocent suffer with the guilty. Their practice of electing their own priests and bishops has authority in antiquity; but it certainly is unfortunate if their choice falls on men bad as well as unlearned. With the titles of Brother and Sister I see no fault to find: it is a pity they are not more widely used among Christians. To prefer God's word in the Bible to the judgements of Doctors is sound: though to reject the latter altogether is as uniform an error as to embrace them to the exclusion of everything else. To celebrate the mass in everyday dress is not contrary to the truth; but it is a pity to abandon customs sanctioned by use and authority: though perhaps the Pope might be persuaded to concede to them the use of their own rites, as he does to the Greeks and the Milanese. The Lord's Prayer is, of course, part of our own use; and though it seems narrow to confine themselves to this, I doubt whether they do worse than those who weave in long strings of intercession from any source. Their opinions about the sacraments are certainly impious; but at any rate they are under no temptation to exploit these holy mysteries for the sake of gain or futile glory or tyrannous imposition. I do not see why they should reject vigils and fasts in moderation; but these are matters for encouragement rather than positive command. About festivals they seem to follow the usage current in the days of Jerome: better, I think, than the modern calendar, full of saints-days which end in riot and carouse, and on which the honest journeyman is forbidden to work for his children's bread.' As Slechta read these words, he must surely have felt as did Balak, the son of Zippor, when he listened to the seer from Mesopotamia taking up his parable upon Israel in the plains of Moab. The man whose eyes were open, had blessed the Brethren instead of cursing them; and literary Europe might well follow his lead.
The history of the Bohemian Brethren is of exceptional interest, affording an example of a community professing a plain, simple faith and ruling their lives by modest conceptions of ordinary goodness, who, guided by leaders almost unknown to the world, through the trials of good and evil repute, through tribulation and prosperity, kept serenely upon the path they had marked out for themselves, living and growing into one of the most flourishing and devoted missionary bodies of the present day. As is natural under such conditions, their origin is not free from obscurity. Men connected them with the Waldensians of Southern France, or traced them, as we have seen, to a leader from Picardy. Through the fifteenth century they grew steadily in strength and unity, sheltered by the toleration which Rome unwillingly granted to the Utraquists as a result of the Compacts of Basle; and as compared with other dissentient bodies their name was singularly free from gross imputations. Throughout that age such imputations were freely made and believed against heretics. This was not unreasonable. In the low state of public and private morals faith was regarded as an indispensable bulwark to conduct, the faith which taught indeed that a man should love God and his neighbour, but stablished him into practising what he professed, by lurid pictures of the fate awaiting him if he did not. Without this bulwark it was not thought possible that a man could lead a godly, righteous and sober life; and so he was considered capable of every form of vice, if he ventured to doubt the truth of those opinions on which the Church had set its seal, in realms into which it now seems that human knowledge cannot penetrate.
At the beginning of the sixteenth century fresh attempts were being made to win back the Brethren to orthodoxy; and in this work the ardour of the Dominicans burned bright. In 1500 one of them, Henry Institor, a Doctor of Theology, procured from Alexander VI bulls which recognized him as 'Inquisitor into heresy throughout Germany and Bohemia', and empowered him to collect heretical books and send them to the Bishop of Olmutz, the chief see of Moravia, to be burned; also to join to himself two or three other Masters of Theology and preach against the heretics. These bulls are printed at the head of a great volume written by Institor, with the title 'A shield for the faith of the Holy Roman Church against the heresy of the Waldensians or Pickards, who on all sides are infecting with virulent contagion certain races in Germany and Bohemia, to hatred of the clergy and enervation of the ecclesiastical power'. In 1501 the volume appeared at Olmutz, with an enumeration of thirty-six erroneous articles in which the Pickards denied the authority of the Church; followed of course by a vigorous refutation. At the same time one of their own countrymen, Augustine Kasenbrot of Olmutz was writing a series of open letters on the Brethren and their views.
But the most succinct account of the position is contained in an attack made upon them by a learned and fair-minded Dominican, Jacobus Lilienstayn. His book, 'a Treatise against the erroneous Waldensian Brethren, commonly known as the Pickards, without rule, without law, and without obedience, of whom there are many in Moravia, more than in Bohemia', was composed in 1505 and is dedicated to the Dean of Prague. It begins by setting forth five general and twelve special errors of the Waldensians. The former are as follows:
1. They call the Gospels, the Epistles and the Acts, together with the Old Testament where it agrees with the New, 'the Law of Christ'; and they attack and deride the Doctors of the Church.
2. They say the Pope has no more power in administering the sacraments of the Church, and in other ecclesiastical matters, than a simple priest has.
3. They say that in the practice of the Church nothing is to be added to what Christ and the Apostles taught and did.
4. They hold the pure text of the Gospel without any gloss.
5. They allege that the Church is in error, and that they themselves are the brethren of Christ and the true imitators of the Apostles.
Amongst the special errors are denials of the validity of indulgences and of the efficacy of masses for the dead; and the general simplicity of their conduct is shown in their practices at birth and death, baptism requiring only pure water, not holy oil and the chrism, and extreme unction banished from the death-bed.
Finally the good Dominican gives a brief account of the life of these Brethren 'without obedience'. In his preface he expresses his difficulty in gathering the truth about them: 'for they are as inconstant as the moon, and the practices alleged against them in the past are denied by them to-day.' But he concludes honestly that though their faith is 'abhominable' to true Christians, their life is good enough. His good sense is further shown by his refusal to accept an absurd story about their method of choosing their leaders. 'When one of these is to be chosen', so ran the tale, 'the community meets together. And as they sit in silence, the windows being open, a great fly enters and buzzes over them, settling at length on the head of one; who is then set apart for a season. And when he is brought back, he is found to be learned in Latin and theology and whatever else is necessary, though he were rude and ignorant before.' This Lilienstayn finds clearly false: the simple life of the Brethren he illustrates by their practice. 'They have Bibles in Bohemian, which they read. Their women wear veils, and no colours, only black, white and grey. They all labour with their hands.' Thus their life to him was 'good enough'. It may remind us in many points of the Quakers.
The attacks upon them led the Brethren to reply. In 1507 they composed an Apologia addressed to the King, to show that they were not without rule, without law and without obedience, and to defend the manner of their life. This was printed at Nuremberg in 1507, and again in 1518; but of the original editions I have not been able to see a copy. The attacks continued. In 1512 another ponderous volume appeared, composed by Jacob Ziegler, the well-known Bavarian scientist, to demonstrate the falsity of their opinions. What finally impelled the Brethren to court countenance from Erasmus is not clear; possibly the cool reception the Utraquists had had from Luther the year before, with the rather contemptuous suggestion that their style and opinions were more like Erasmus' than his own. The episode has escaped Erasmus' biographers; and I cannot find any mention of it except an allusion in one of his letters, and a description in a treatise on the Brethren by Joachim Camerarius the elder (1500-1574). Camerarius' book was not published till 1605; but we can perhaps trace the source of his information. From 1518 onwards he spent some years at Erfurt. In January 1521 Erasmus describes the visit of the Brethren's envoys as having occurred six months before; at Antwerp, according to Camerarius, where he may be traced in June 1520. If we recall that it was in July that Draco came from Erfurt to pay his visit of homage, it seems quite likely that on his return he may have given to Camerarius the detailed record which the latter has preserved.
By that time Erasmus' name was well known in Central Europe. 'Both from Hungary and Bohemia' he says in 1518 'bishops and men of position write to thank me for my New Testament.' Apart from the learned world there were others, too, who must have known him; for a Bohemian translation had just appeared of the new preface to his Enchiridion, a preface in which he had written with an almost Lutheran freedom about abuses in the Church, and had extolled the life of simple Christianity. This was a book to appeal at once to the Brethren. Another of his works which may have had its effect in attracting them was the Julius Exclusus. This exquisitely witty satire dealt freely with the Pope and his office, the Pope whom the Brethren accounted no more than a simple priest; and though its licence was too bold for Erasmus ever to admit its authorship—indeed, as we have seen, he consistently denied it—, it was attributed to him on all sides, in company with others, his secret being on the whole well kept. The Julius was translated into Bohemian, somewhere about this time: but from the nature of it, a kind of book to which publishers as well as authors were loath to put their names, it cannot be definitely placed. So it was, too, with the Moria, which had been translated by Gregory Hruby Gelenski, father of the scholar, Sigismund Gelenius; but of which no contemporary edition survives.
If the Brethren had seen Erasmus' final letter to Slechta, they might well have been encouraged to hope much from him. But of this there is no indication. Slechta was hardly likely to communicate it to them; and though such documents often leaked out against the owner's will, its first appearance in print was in 1521, in Erasmus' Epistolae ad diuersos. I cannot find any translation into a vernacular except a German version by John Froben of Andernach which appeared at Nuremberg in 1531.
Whatever was the motive attraction, the Brethren sent as their envoys, so Camerarius tells us, Nicholas Claudianus, a learned physician, and Laurence Voticius (Woticky), a man of many accomplishments, who died at a good age in 1565—a date, which, if it be not a later interpolation, is an indication as to when Camerarius composed his narrative.[1] They brought with them a copy of their Apologia, printed at Nuremberg in 1511—a date which appears to be wrong—and presented it to Erasmus at Antwerp with the request that he would read it through and see if there was anything in it that he would wish to have changed. If that were so, they would readily defer to his criticisms; but if, as they hoped, he approved of what they said, it would be a help and consolation to them if he would express that opinion.
He took the book and said he would be glad to read it; but when after a few days they came for his answer, he told them he had been too busy to do more than glance through it: so far as he had gone, he found no error and nothing that he would wish to alter. He declined, however, to bear testimony about it, as this would bring them no help, and only danger to himself. 'You must not think', he said, 'that any words of mine will bring you support; indeed, my own influence, such as it is, requires the backing of others. If it is true that my writings are of any value to divine and useful learning, it seems to me unwise to jeopardize their influence by proclaiming publicly the agreement between us: such actions might lead to their being condemned and torn from the hands of the public. Forgive me for this caution, you will perhaps call it fear: and be assured that I wish you well and will most gladly help you in other matters.' The envoys were disappointed, Camerarius records, but took his refusal in good part: for they relied not on the judgements of men to be the foundation of their heavenly edifice of truth. The good sense of his words no doubt appealed to them; for the Brethren were above all things moderate men, averse from violence, convinced perhaps by their own experience that a display of courage is unwise when it provokes opposition and raises obstacles to progress.
The matter was not, however, allowed to rest. In the same year an appeal on behalf of the Brethren was made to Erasmus from another quarter. One of the features of their movement had been the number of the nobility who had become sympathizers, if not actual members of the community. One of these was Artlebus of Boskowitz, a kinsman perhaps of that 'nobilis virgo, Martha de Boskowitz' whom the Brethren in addressing the King had adduced as one of their supporters. From the castle of Znaim, his official residence as Supreme Captain of Moravia, Artlebus wrote, telling Erasmus of the steady growth of the Brethren, and of the futility of all attempts to withstand their doctrines by argument; and sending him a copy of their Rule, with the request that he would read it and frame thereupon a standard of Christian piety, which all men, including the Brethren, might follow. He turned then to praise Luther for the courageous fight he was making, and urged Erasmus to join with him in sowing the seed of the Gospel.
Erasmus' reply, dated 28 Jan. 1521 from Louvain, has no address but 'N. viro praepotenti'; and in consequence its connexion with Artlebus of Boskowitz has escaped notice. As was to be expected, he declined the proposal that he should set up a standard of Christian observance. He might criticize with all freedom the practices of monks and clergy and speak straightly of Papal iniquities: but the standard of the Church was still the life of Christ, and he would not arrogate to himself the right to draw the picture of this anew. He took the opportunity to lament, as he had done to Slechta, the discord prevailing in Bohemia, and to urge that a serious attempt should be made to reconcile the Brethren to the Church. But since his correspondence with Slechta the world had gone forward. Luther had burned the Pope's bull at Wittenberg, and Aleander at Worms was pressing the Diet to annihilate him. Erasmus has less to say to Artlebus in favour of the Brethren than he had said to Slechta: indeed, after the appeal for moderation, he goes no further than to condemn the attitude of the opponents of the Papacy, doubtless intending to include among them the Brethren. About Luther he would give no decided opinion. 'It is absurd how men condemn Luther's books without reading them. Some parts of Luther's writings are good; but parts are not, and over these I skip. If Luther stands by the Catholic Church, I will gladly join him.' Artlebus' reply is not extant; but a sentence in a letter of Erasmus to Wolsey a year later shows that the 'Bohemian Captain' was greatly vexed by the failure of his overtures.
This is the last trace of Erasmus' correspondence with Bohemia. But, uncompromising as he had been in his refusal to both appeals, his influence there was only just at its commencement, if we may judge by the list of his works translated into Bohemian, which the Ghent bibliography has brought to light. The translation of his preface to the Enchiridion was followed by his version of the Saturnalia of Lucian (first published in 1517) in 1520; the Precatio dominica (1523) in 1526; his version of the New Testament in 1533; some of the Colloquies in 1534; the De Ciuilitate (1530) in 1537; the Paraphrase on St. Matthew (1522) and the De puritate Ecclesiae (1536) in 1542; the De immensa Dei misericordia (1524) in 1558 and 1573; the Apophthegmata Graeciae sapientum (1514) in 12 editions between 1558 and 1599; the De praeparatione ad mortem (1534) in 1564 and 1786; and the Vidua Christiana (1529) in 1595. The envoys of the Brethren were perhaps wise enough to see that they had much to learn from the man who was courageous enough to preach caution and to let himself appear afraid.
Footnote
[1] L. Camerarius, in his preface, 1 Jan. 1605, describes the book as composed 'more than thirty years ago '.
INDEX
Aberdeen University, [103-4].
accuracy, new standards of, [258-61].
Adrian VI, [107].
Agricola, R., [14-21], [25-9], [31], [32], [63].
Agrippa, H.C., [143].
Aldus, [126], [128], [129], [135-6], [151], [253], [262-3].
Aleander, [112], [136], [209], [297].
Alexander of Ville-Dieu, [41].
alphabetical principle, [43], [47-9].
America, [92].
Amorbach:
Ba., [147-9]; Bo., [147-9], [151], [164], [193], [278]; Br., [147-51]; J., [77], [146-51]. Andreas, B., [129].
Andrelinus, Faustus, [113], [186]. Aquinas, [12], [255].
Arnold of Hildesheim, [24].
Arthurian legend, [93].
Artlebus of Boskowitz, [296-8].
Ascham, [156], [208], [256], [266].
Asperen, destruction of, [172].
astrology, [216-18].
Augustinian Canons, reformed, [81];
house at Oxford, [117].
Balbi, J., 43 seq., [49].
Balbus, H., [186], [281].
Bartholomew of Cologne, [63-5].
Basle, [146].
Batt, J., [115-16], [130].
Beatus Rhenanus, [154-8], [164], [278];
his Res Germanicae, [146], [156], [275]; extracts from his letters, [195], [210], [267], [268], [273]. Beheim, J., of Niklashausen, [220].
Benedictines, at Neuss, [70];
at Ottobeuren, 86 seq.; at Oxford, [124]; reformed, [61-2], [79-85]. Bergen, Ant. of, abbot of St. Omer, [165], [176], [205].
Bergen, Henry of, bp. of Cambray, [68], [102], [104], [176], [204].
Bessel, B., [113].
Black Band, [170-5].
Bohuslaus of Hassenstein, [281-2].
Bondius, J., [92].
books, supervision of, by others, [155], [159-61], [187].
Boys, H., [103].
Brassicanus, J.A., [280].
Breslau, [35], [58], [279].
Brethren of the Common Life, [69], [75];
as teachers, [9], [25-6], [34], [61], [66]. Briard, J., [108].
Budaeus, [122], [135], [210], [218].
Bursfeld reforms, [75], [80].
Burgundy, David of, bp. of Utrecht, II;
Philip of, bp. of Utrecht, [166]. Butzbach, [21], [56-62], [68-79], [113], [201].
Camerarius, J., [52], [293], [295].
Canterbury;
Christchurch, [123-4]; pilgrimages to, [209], [228-9]. Catholicon, [43-6].
Celtis, C., [265], [266], [269].
Château-Landon, [81-2].
Chezal-Benoît, [83-4].
child-marriage, [116].
Colet, [117], [127], [128], [130], [138], [141-3], [175], [203], [229].
Columbus, F., [280].
Complutensian Polyglott, [263].
Compostella, [231-2].
Cono, J., [147], [151].
Copernicus, N., [211].
Cracow University, [87].
Crete, labyrinth of Minos in, [92].
Cues, library at, [30-1].
Cusanus, N., [30].
Dalaber, A., [217].
Dalberg, John of, bp. of Worms, [19], [20], [31], [271].
Dederoth, J., [80].
Deventer school, [21], [30], [33-6], [39], [60-4], [69], [76];
plague at, [27], [34]; printers, [63]. Dominicans, [43], [52], [88], [146], [147], [238], [249], [290], [291].
'doole', [192].
Draco, J., [281], [293].
Drolshagen, J., [38].
Ebrardus, [36], [39-41].
Eck, J., [92].
Ellenbog:
B., [87], [95-6], [99]; J., [87], [96-7], [99]; N., [87-101], [209], [210]; U., [87], [92], [94-5], [201]; U. jun., [87], [94]. Emmanuel of Constantinople, [122].
Eobanus of Hesse, [278-9].
Erasmus, form of name, 39 n.;
early life, [11]; at school, [21], [11]; at Steyn, [66-8]; in Paris, [102-5], [114-15], [139-41]; in England, [116-17], [130]; at Oxford, [117], [128]; at Cambridge, [120], [134],137-44; in Italy, [135-7]; rumour of death, [145]; at Basle, [158-64]; death, [164]; labours for peace, [164-6]; indifferent to Nature, [207-9]; uses astrological mug, [218]; pilgrimage to Canterbury, [229]; appreciations of, [265], [267-8]; visitors to, [277-81]; relations with the Bohemians, xi. WORKS.
Adagia, [135-7], [144], [158], [165]; Antibarbari, [281]; compositions in Paris, [115]; early poems, [103-4], [132]; editions of the Fathers, [163]; Enchiridion, [293]; Epigrammata, [280]; Jerome, [138-40], [158], [280]; Julius Exclusus, [184-9], [294]; Moriae Encomium, [46], [143], [187], [294]; New Testament, [11], [140], [158], [160-2], [263-4], [280]; Paraphrases, [197]; Querla Pacis, [166]; Seneca, [144], [158-9]; translations into Bohemian from, [293-4], [298].
Fabri, F., [238-51].
families, length of, [202-4].
Fernand, C., [82], [84-6], [92], [177];
J., [82], [84]. Franciscans, [92], [144], [147];
at Jerusalem, [238], [245]. Frankfort, book-fairs at, [149], [153].
Froben, J., [151-3], [158].
Gaguin, [84], [102-3], [175].
Garland, J., [36-9].
Gebwiler, H., 26 n.
Geldenhauer, G., [15], [16], [17], [18], [21].
Gerard, Cornelius, [82], [165].
Germany, national feeling in, [264-75];
historical studies in, [268-75]. Goswin of Halen, [14], [31-2].
Greek, study of, [10], [11], [12], [16], [18], [27-30], [38-41], [43-8], [85], [88], [90], [91], [117], [120], [126], [127], [134], [137], [150], [151], [262-3]; manuscripts, [11], [18], [30], [31], [147], [160-1]. Grocin, W., [126-9], [263].
grossness, [205-6].
Grynaeus, S., [160].
Gueldres, [61], [165], [170-3].
Hebrew, study of, [11], [12], [29], [30], [47], [54], [90], [91], [92], [100], [117], [147],
151, [263]. Hegius, [16], [21], [25-30], [34-5], [41-2], [60], [61], [63], [69].
Heidelberg University, [11], [20], [28], [87], [97].
Helinand, [53].
Henry VIII, scholarship of, [184].
Herman, W., [21], [104], [165].
Hermonymus of Sparta, [122], [134].
Huguitio, [45].
humanists, attitude towards mediaeval romance, [93];
feeling towards Nature, [207-10]. Hungarian acrobats, [92].
Hus, [58], [179], [282].
Hyrde, R., [198].
India, religious condition of, [93].
interpretations, [114].
Irenicus, F., [272-4].
Jacobus of Breda, [63].
Johannisberg, Abbey of, [59], [60], [72], [74], [76].
Jouveneaux, G., [82], [84].
Kempis, Thomas à, [10].
Koberger, A., [203-4].
Kortenhorff, Gutta, [61].
Kratzer, N., [142], [197].
Kunig, H., [231-2].
Laach, [68], [73-81].
Langen, R., [21], [23].
Lascaris, C., [88], [150].
Latimer, W., [126-8].
Lily, W., [126], [129].
Limburg, burning of, [99].
Linacre, [41], [126], [129], [187], [218], [253].
Lollhard, [60].
London, scholars in, [128], [130].
Louvain University, [15], [107-8].
Loyola, [245].
Luther, [212], [267], [268], [275], [293];
at Worms, [179]; Erasmus' attitude towards, [186], [298]; love of nature, [210].
Mammotrectus, [53-5].
manuscripts, free lending of, [30], [136], [140-2], [160];
free access to, [82], [271]. Marchesinus, J., [53].
Mary, Princess, [193], [197], [198].
Mas, P. du, [83].
Mauburn, J., [81-2].
medicine, practice of, [218-19].
Meghen, P., [141-2].
Melanchthon, [212].
Merton College, Oxford, ejection of Warden, [176].
Milanese rite, [288].
morals, [204-5].
More, T., [127], [129], [143], [197-8], [205], [229];
Utopia, [187], [188], [201]; matrimonial relations, [194-5]; love of Nature, [209]. Mormann, F., [25-6].
news, dissemination of, [214-16].
Oda Jargis, [9], [200].
Oporinus, J., [193].
Ostendorp, [12], [69].
Ottobeuren, [86-101].
Paffraet, R., [29], [63].
Papias, [46-8], [49].
Paris University, [10];
lectures at, [104], [112]; life in, [112-15], [145], [148-51]; Montaigu College, [102]; Collège de la Marche, [112], [210]. Parr, Katherine, [192].
Paston, Sir John, [194], [205].
Pavia University, [16].
Peasants' Revolt, [99-101].
Pellican, C., [92], [147].
Peter, name of, [71].
Platter, T., [35], [58-9], [154].
Poncher, S., [265].
Praedinius, R., [31].
Prague University, [281].
press, early productions of, [254].
prisoners, redemption of, [175].
proofs, correction of, [159], [187].
Quakers, [29], [86], [292].
quodlibetical disputations, [105-11].
Reading Abbey, [123].
Rees, Henry of, [8], [12].
Reisch, G., [99], [147].
remarriage, [192-5].
Reuchlin, [31], [91], [122], [147], [195], [267].
Rode, J., [80].
Roper, M., [195], [198].
Rychard, W., [219].
St. Patrick's cave, [92], [226].
Santiago de Compostella, [229], [231-2].
Sapidus, J., [147], [206].
Schinner, M., [219].
Schlettstadt, [147], [154], [156-8], [206], [272].
schools, books used in, [62-5], [257];
numbers of, [154]. Selling, W., [123], [141].
Serbopoulos, J., [123].
Shirwood, J., [124-6].
Sion, near Delft, [66], [81].
Sixtus IV, [10], [11], [34], [122].
Slechta, J., [281-8].
Souillac, [177].
spelling, uncertainty in, [49-52].
Spires, libraries at, [18], [271].
Sprenger, [46].
Standonck, J., [102], [145].
Synthius, v. Zinthius.
Thomas of Illyria, [219-20].
Tournay, dispute over bishopric, [177].
Trithemius, [31], [59], [76-8], [214], [269], [273];
'In praise of scribes', [261-2]. Trivet, Nic., [50].
Turzo, J., [279].
Urswick, C., [142].
Utraquists, [285], [287], [289], [293].
Valla, L., [23], [24], [27], [28], [115], [140-1], [262].
Vaudois, [289];
crusade against, [180-1]. Veere, Lady of, [115], [131].
Vienne, Council of, [118], [266].
Vincent of Beauvais, [52].
visits of ceremony, [276-81].
Vrye, A., [22-5], [197], [201-2].
Vrye, J., [22].
Wesley, J., [13].
Wessel, [9-13], [29-32], [200].
Wimpfeling, [87], [269].
Windesheim, [81].
women, seclusion of, [196];
education of, [196-200]; position of, [200-2].
Ximenes, [263].
Zinthius, [34], [41-2], [63].
Zwingli, [204], [268].
Zwolle, [9], [10], [33], [34], [38].