he met Aleander, on Sunday, October 26, 1521, at the Inn of the Wild Man and had a long conversation in which mortal hatred on both sides was masked under a show of courtesy and even of old friendship. Indeed, while more than one evening was thus spent in apparently amicable chat, many subjects of discourse were brought up, the pleasantest of which was the news, communicated by the legate, that Pirckheimer, recently smitten by the ban of excommunication, had submitted and had been absolved by special breve of the pope.2 After this smooth introduction the talk soon fell upon rapids and whirlpools, when the subject of Erasmus's own position was broached. Aleander not only pointed out objectionable passages in the humanist's acknowledged writings, and demanded recantation, but accused him of writing several anonymous pamphlets—as, of course, he had done-and thus threw him into "mortal confusion." Contemporary gossip reported that when the nuncio offered the humanist a fat bishopric if he would write against the heretic, he had replied: "Luther is too great for me to write against. . . . I learn more from reading one page of his books than from the whole of Aquinas." The cautious Dutchman would certainly never have expressed himself thus bluntly before a wily opponent, but the report that he admired Luther's exegesis was very persistent, and the offer of

1 To Laurinus, Lond. xxiii, 5, col. 1214; LB. ep. 650; Paquier: Humanisme et Réforme, pp. 280 ff. Allen, iv, 591.

2 November 29, 1521, Erasmus to Pirckheimer. Allen, ep. 1244. To Pirckheimer, January 26, 1521, Allen, ep. 1282.

3 Aleander to Sanga, Brussels, December 30, 1531, in Lämmer: Monumenta Vaticana, 1861, p. 93; cf. Pastor-Antrobus, v, 423.

4 "Narratio per Henricum Priorem Gundensem," Lutheri Opera latina varii argumenti (Erlangen), v, 249. This was attributed to Ecolampadius, see Ecolampadii judicium de M. Luthero, sine loco et anno (British Museum); Hübmaier sent this to Beatus Rhenanus, in an undated letter published in Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus, no. 192. It has been conjectured that the name Henricus Prior Gundensis concealed a double authorship, referring to Henry of Zutphen and Melchior Miritzsch, Prior of the Augustinian convent at Ghent. Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1920-21, p. 289 f.

5 Melanchthon, in Corpus Reformatorum, v. 74.

the bishopric is intrinsically probable and is testified by certain expressions of his own. But Aleander did not disdain threats, observing that the pope, who often destroyed counts and dukes, could easily destroy some lousy men of letters, and could even treat the emperor as a cobbler.1

Notwithstanding the apparent friendliness of the legate Erasmus continued to believe, and to write to his friends, that the latter was going about to traduce and to destroy him. He was also much alarmed at the arrest of a heretic at Antwerp, who, on being examined at Brussels, implicated him in aiding and abetting the illicit sale of Lutheran books. He therefore decided to leave at once, and put himself under the protection of Francis von Sickingen, now captain of the army on the Meuse, with whom he spent his birthday, October 28th, at Brussels.* Under his powerful shield, he made his way up the Rhine, arriving at Basle on November 15th.5 Meeting Capito at Mainz, he learned that this old ally had been negotiating with Luther in hopes of patching up a truce between him and the Church, and especially between him and the Archbishop of Mainz, a wily Hohenzollern who did his best to run with the hare and to hunt with the hounds at the same time. As Capito's efforts were not kindly received by the Reformer, on October 14th he wrote Erasmus for instructions. The Lutherans, he said, were both curious and insolent, and boasted that they had Erasmus's support. The

1 A. Lauchert: Die Italienischen literarischen Gegner Luthers, 1912, p. 299 f. Lond. xx, 40; LB. ep. 644; Erasmus to Choler, 1531, Horawitz: Eras miana, i, no. 18, and a letter to Wolsey published by A. Meyer: Les Relations d'Erasme et de Luther, 1909, p. 163.

3 Vives to Erasmus, April 1, 1522; LB. ep. 619; Vivis Opera, vii, 164. 4 Lond. xxiii, 6, and xx, 40; LB. epp. 644, 650. H. Ulmann: Franz von Sickingen, 1872, p. 226.

5 Allen, iv., 598 ff; Vadianische Briefsammlung, ii, no. 292.

6 Capito to Erasmus, October 14, 1521. Allen, ep. 1241. The letter is unfortunately badly mutilated. As it was first published by Merula in 1607 from a MS. now lost, there is little hope of restoring its contents, which would certainly be most interesting. Cf. L.C. ii, p. 56 n.

humanist's answer was probably given in the interview at Mainz, early in November, but what it was can only be inferred from the sequel and from his growing coldness to the evangelical cause.

It was probably this very effort of Capito and Erasmus to induce Luther to write more gently that finally alienated him altogether. When he left Worms for the Wartburg he still had the highest hopes of the great humanist. In a letter to Spalatin of May 14th he referred with approval to the Consilium cujusdam, which he attributed to Erasmus. Again in the preface to his work against Latomus (June, 1521), the Louvain professor who had previously attacked Erasmus, Luther refers to Latomus as Ishbi-benob, the giant Philistine who thought to slay David, and to Erasmus as Abishai, who defended the man of God, "and," he adds, "this Ishbi-benob yields to the might of our Abishai."2

The next reference, in September, shows an entire change of attitude, and hints at the cause of it:

The judgment of neither Capito nor Erasmus moves me in the least. They accomplish nothing, but they make me fear that I shall sometime have trouble with one or the other of them, since I see that Erasmus is far from the knowledge of grace, as one who looks not at the cross, but at peace in all his writings. For this reason he thinks that all can be accomplished with civility and benevolence, but Behemoth does not care for such treatment, nor does he amend himself in the least on account of it.

1 So at least I interpret the reference to "Erasmi bule” (ẞovλń) which puzzled Enders, though Luther's reading of the Consilium, “that Erasmus said the people would no longer bear the yoke of the pope," is somewhat strained. Enders, iii, 153, L. C. ep. 483.

2 Rationis Latomiana Confutatio. Werke (Weimar), viii, 36, and De Wette, ii, 18.

• Enders, iii, 229. L. C. ep. 506. Cf. Richter, 30-32. There is an undated letter from Capito to Luther (Enders, iii, 238) exhorting him to mildness, put by Enders in October. I should be inclined to put it in September. Capito was at Wittenberg on September 30th, to consult with Melanchthon and Jonas on the way to prevent Luther attacking Albert of Mayence. Archiv für Reformationsgesch., vi, 172, 178 (1910). Cf. letter of Ulscenius to Capito, October 21st, ibid., 206.

Job, xl:15. Luther's favorite expression for Satan, following Jerome.

The breach was made complete by the publication of the Epistolæ ad diversos, in November, 1521. This was intended to correct the indiscretions of the last collection of letters (the Farrago of 1519), and to give the impression that the Dutch scholar stood entirely aloof from the combat. None of the letters here published are favorable to the Reformers, and many protest that the writer had nothing to do with Wittenberg, but is still a true son of Rome. He himself feared1 that it would excite the hatred of the Reformers, and he was right. Luther saw the volume a few months after it was published and wrote Spalatin: "In this book of letters Erasmus now at length shows that he is the hearty enemy of Luther and his doctrine though with wily words he pretends to be a friend."

1 Lond. xxi, 16. LB. ep. 624.

2 Enders, iii, 360.

A

CHAPTER X

LIFE AT BASLE 1521-29

RELATIONS WITH FRANCE AND ENGLAND

FTER his return to Basle, on November 15, 1521, Erasmus lived for ten months with Froben, paying 150 gulden for his board. He was sensitive lest it be thought that he lived on Froben's bounty, a rumor which he took pains to deny, though acknowledging the constant kindness of his friend the publisher.2 In September, 1522, he took up his residence in a separate house. His life was so little private that he said of it that the veil of the temple was rent in twain and the most sacred secrets of the confessional published abroad.3 At this time he speaks of his annual income as a little more than four hundred gulden, which, by the way, was equal to the salary of a professor at the leading German and English universities.

As there was no general copyright, he received comparatively little for his manuscripts, which to-day would have made him a rich man. Nevertheless, an author's good will was worth something to the publisher, and the humanist showed himself a good business man in exploiting this. Doubtless one chief reason for the noticeable fact that every new edition of each work differed somewhat from the last was to give the publisher and author the benefit to be derived from the desire of readers for

1 December 16, 1524. Lond. xx, 24. LB. ep. 719. A gulden was intrinsically worth fifty-six cents. Erasmus therefore paid eighty-four dollars, worth at that time ten times as much in purchasing power as now.

2 Catalogue of Lucubrations, Allen, i, pp. 40-45.

Lond. xx, 24. LB. ep. 719.

4 Allen, i, 42 ff.