66

was

sons who thus greeted him, particularly Cardinal Grimaldi and his nephew, "who, although very young," says Mr. B., archbishop." Erasmus, indeed, had just quitted another juvenile archbishop, Alexander, the natural son of James the IVth. of Scotland, and who was pursuing his studies at Sienna in Italy, leaving his archiepiscopal see of St. Andrew's to its own superintendence. " He was," says Erasmus, and Mr. Butler after him, " a YOUTH of great hopes, and, although he had not reached his TWENTIETH year, possessed the virtues of the perfect." Unfortunately, this young metropolitan perished in battle at Flodden Field! At Rome, Erasmus witnessed another triumphal entry of Pope Julius into the capital, and was, according to his learned biographer, no less scandalized than before: but here he seems to have been a little imprudent, for some of his censures and reflections becoming public, he was reproached with them, " as insults to the Church."

In 1509, on the death of Henry VII., his pupil and patron, Lord Mountjoy, earnestly invited him to return to England, to greet and compliment his friend and correspondent, the new King. He returned, pressed and encouraged and assisted to do so by many other distinguished personages, particularly Archbishop Warham and Sir Thomas More. Passing through Canterbury, he visited Becket's shrine, made fun of the pilgrims, lamenting that the value of the jewels and other ornaments had not been rather bestowed on the poor. "But was it not much better," says Mr. B. "both for the poor and for society, that the artisan should have been employed in the workmanship of them?" Certainly, if Erasmus meant only idle poor, which does not appear. This time, England appeared to have lost some of its charms, for Erasmus longed to return to Rome, especially after Leo had mounted the throne there. It was, however, during this visit to England, that Erasmus got released by the new Pope Leo from his monastic engagements at Stein, having written a letter to Rome, to expose the artifices used to entrap young persons into monasteries, which, to the credit of the Pope and Cardinals, received due attention, and procured him his dispensation. (p. 114.)

Erasmus's life was a very wandering one; he visited many countries, and was almost domiciliated in England, where he received attentions which he was always careful to acknowledge. By his own country he felt neglected. He refused, at various times, proffers of settlement and provision, not only from our English monarch, Henry VIII., but from Charles V., Francis I., and Ernest, Archbishop of Saltzburgh; from King

NO. VI. VOL. III.

Bb

Ferdinand, the Queen Dowager of Hungary, the Cardinal of Trent, and Fugger, the richest merchant in Europe.

The 8th Chapter is occupied entirely with the catalogue and notice of Erasmus's works, preceded by a Section on the rise of Italian literature and modern latinity. This is a very entertaining and interesting chapter, in Mr. Butler's best style and manner. We shall submit to the reader but a very few observations upon it. His book of adages, or Proverbs, it seems, had the honour of being taken in hand by the Council of Trent, and delivered over to Manutius for correction! Of his "Encomium Moriæ," or Praise of Folly, 20,000 copies were sold in a few months; and of the reprint of his Colloquies, 24,000 almost immediately. But there was some trick in this latter case, the printer (Colinet, of Paris) having, before its publication, caused it to be generally understood, that the sale of it would soon be stopped, and the reading of it prohibited, printed, in a very elegant type, an immense number to answer this excited avidity for prohibited writings, and thus produced the rapid and extravagant sale described. We have this account from Erasmus himself. "Præcesserat nescio quis rumor, forte a typographo studiose sparsus, fore ut hoc opus interdiceretur, ea res acuit aviditatem emptorum." However, the printer was not quite wrong after all, for it had the honour of being condemned by the Sorbonne and Inquisition. His "Encomium Moriæ" had a place allotted it in the Index Expurgatorius, though Mr. B. is careful to inform us, that no Pope reproached him with the work. Erasmus himself, nevertheless, it should be observed, made some apologies for the irreverent introduction of the Redeemer of the world into so light a work. Of his "Ciceronianus" Mr. Butler gives a very entertaining account. The rage and anger of Scaliger are quite laughable,-his rudeness and abuse shameful. But we regret them not now, since they have led Mr. Butler himself to lay down some rules applicable to such controversies, which are highly deserving of attention. (pp. 161, 2.) Erasmus himself might have profited by them; for though Scaliger's abuse of him was most foul and unjustifiable, yet even the mild and peaceable Erasmus was not free from this foible of the age: he so ill-treated Lee Archbishop of York, for venturing to correct his annotations on the New Testament, which he had expressly put into his hands for that purpose, that Lee was quite shocked. "Rogo Te Erasme. Hæccine sunt verba te digna, qui videri vis solus theologus, ac Censor orbis? quid potuit dici spurius, odiosius, virulentius? Aut quis rabula,

quis scurra, quis mimus, quis latrinarius tum fæde expurgasset, &c."

Chap. 9 is devoted to Erasmus's edition of the Greek Testament, and new Latin version of his controversy with Stunica on 1 John v. 7. His Greek Testament was dedicated to Leo X., who commended it highly, persuaded, as he says in his brief, 1518, that it would be "very useful to the orthodox faith," which appears to have been so much the wish and design of Erasmus, that at the close of his preface he is careful to observe, that "he never had intentionally departed from the decisions of the Church; desiring, that if any thing not exactly conformable to them should be found in his writings, it should be considered as having escaped from him contrary to his intention." Burigni had assuredly good reason to account so submissive a subject of the court of Rome" no heretic."

That Erasmus, and indeed all the world, applauded Luther's first "declamations," Mr. Butler (chap. 10) seems fully to admit: he also allows, that though every true Catholic believes that nothing can be wrong in the faith of the Church, much reformation was undoubtedly wanting in the head and its members, as to discipline and morals, when Luther first made his attack on the Church of Rome. This chapter sets in its full light the trimming character of the timid Erasmus, and the difficulty he found to keep well with either party. It seems, he expected Luther to do, what in reality he was not permitted to do, in the way Erasmus desired, and yet he could blame Luther for pursuing those good objects, in defiance of such hindrances. At first, says Mr. B. "Erasmus, by his own account, beheld in Luther an indiscreet and too ardent Catholic, whose writings teazed the monks and theologians, and whose zeal and talents, though they sometimes exceeded the bounds of moderation, might banish scholastic theology from the universities, and work in the Church that salutary reformation of manners and discipline which Erasmus so much wished for." (p. 183.) Now, unfortunately for the credit of Erasmus, he afterwards, in one of his letters against the Prince of Carpi, calls this an "error." But some of Luther's first steps towards the reformation of the Church were directed against some of the worst and most flagrant abuses of Popery: for what could be worse than the traffic of indulgences? And how was Luther met upon this point? Did the court of Rome show any disposition to stand corrected, when the abuse was pointed out? But if Luther's manners offended Erasmus, was the mild Melancthon, as he is so commonly called, no better than an " indiscreet and over-ardent Catholic?" In fact,

Erasmus was not disposed to trust either in their opposition to the papal see. Let us see, then, whom he would have trusted to accomplish all the good things he had in view. "We have a Pope," says he, in his honest simplicity, addressing Jodocus Jonas, a Lutheran, after the Diet of Worms,"We have a Pope (LEO X.) who in his temper is much disposed to clemency, and an Emperor (CHARLES V.) who is also mild and placable!" Now it is odd enough that Erasmus should have judged these two celebrated potentates to be so mild, placable, and benign after the Diet of Worms (1521) when, as Mr. Butler himself tells us, Erasmus thought the Bull of Leo X. against Luther in 1520 too violent, and "wished milder measures had been resorted to: Cardinal Sadolet ex pressed the same wish." (p. 186.) But this is not all, for it appears, that Erasmus, by only writing too mildly and moderately to Luther and the Archbishop of Mentz, incurred Leo's displeasure, who fancied on these accounts that he was becoming a partizan of the reformers. Erasmus soon undeceived him, by writing a letter of apology and explanation." This "satisfied his holiness," says Mr. Butler, "who immediately exhorted him to write against the Lutherans, and invited him to Rome." In the meanwhile, Luther was blaming him for his moderation, as "a dereliction of the cause of God," (p. 189); so that in truth his case was a hard one: but he was governed by two principles, that stood ready to help him at a pinch. " I follow," says he, "the decisions of the Pope and the Emperor when they are right, which is acting RELIGIOUSLY; I submit to them when they are wrong, which is acting PRU

DENTLY."

66

But we must draw to a conclusion. We should be sorry to seem to write ill-naturedly of Erasmus, or disrespectfully of his biographer; but these are times when we are called upon to look back pretty carefully upon the events and characters of the XVIth century. Of Erasmus as a scholar and friend to learning, all parties must think alike; but Catholics and Protestants, we imagine, will never be able to agree as to his real sentiments concerning the Reformation, prudence, by his own account, keeping a continual check upon him, even upon points of religion, and Truth itself being under no circumstances whatever worthy the price of martyrdom... So that, when Mr. Butler, recording the testimony of Erasmus's friends, in his last days, to the fact of his having been fixed upon for a Cardinal's hat, and declining so great an honour, observes, that "he was born with a love of independence and literary occupation; that it grew with his growth, strengthened with his strength, and dwelt in him to the last;" and that "LIBERTY above ALL THINGS, the motto of Selden, was also the motto of Erasmus," we can admire the spirit and elegance of the compliment, but scarcely subscribe to the truth of the sentiment, especially when we compare him with the great champions of the Reformation, and recollect his adherence to those who were for stifling all adverse opinions with fire and faggot, and could pretend to be the friend of learning and the patron of literature, while the blood-hounds of the Inquisition were following close behind, ready to be let loose and destroy any prey which might be pointed out to them.

It was on the 11th or 12th of July, 1536, that Erasmus closed, " with great piety and resignation," as Mr. Butler observes, his laborious life. Being at the Protestant town of Bâsle at the time, he did not receive, as it is added, "the spiritual helps of the Catholic religion." We shall not comment upon this event as others have done, because we still feel a difficulty in deciding what Erasmus might have been had he lived a few years longer; and know, from his own acknowledgment, that he was liable to be governed by principles of obedience and submission, which may have led him occasionally to conceal, if not to dissemble the truth. He made a will, which, considering the correctness of the date of his death, (p. 213,) 1536, is oddly enough dated, (p. 218,) 1540. Nor do we find the inconsistency noticed in any table of errata. There are other misprints and inconsistencies not common in such publications as Mr. Butler's: only a very few pages beyond the one we have pointed out, speaking of the first complete edition of his works, published four years after his death, it is said, that "it was dedicated to the Emperor Charles V., and that the dedicatory epistle bears date 1st June, 1516."To be sure Erasmus might have written an epistle to Charles V. when the latter was only sixteen years old, but then he was not Emperor,-nor could it be a dedication of all his works. It is surely a great mistake, but we do not quite know how to turn 1516 into 1540. The catalogue of his works is very surprising, considering the times in which he wrote, and which should always be taken into account in judging of this great man, as the author of the Dictionnaire Historique very justly observes.

Though Erasmus received higher honours and attentions among foreigners during his life, than in his own country, yet after his death the Hollanders began to be sensible of his great merits and extraordinary fame. They caused the house in which he was born to be distinguished by an in