Chapter XV: Erasmus and Luther in the Index

=1. Erasmus in the Index.=--The treatment accorded by the compilers of the Indexes of the 16th century to the writings of Erasmus is entitled to separate reference, if only because the variety of the successive prohibitions and classifications gives evidence of the difficulties experienced by the authorities of the Church in maintaining any consistency of policy in regard to the supervision of critical literature. The position of Erasmus among the leaders of thought of his time was, of course, in many respects exceptional. His varied and comprehensive attainments placed him among the first scholars of the world. He united with scholarship a keen sense of humour, an incisive and forcible literary style, and a courage of opinion which were not hampered by any large measure of reverence for authority or tradition. His writings, in their original Latin form, found their way in the first place to the educated circles of the upper classes and of the more liberal-minded of the ecclesiastics, while the versions in the vernacular which speedily followed, in both authorised and unauthorised editions, were taken up with cordial appreciation by all classes of readers throughout Europe. In fact, in popularity, as far as popularity is to be gauged by the extent of circulation, the books of Erasmus were surpassed only by the writings of Luther, while the range of their distribution --that is, the extent of the territory reached and the variety of the circles of readers by whom they were welcomed--must have been much in advance of anything attained by the writings of Luther.

The attacks of Erasmus on the abuses which had grown up in the Church were of course a most important factor in bringing about the conditions that made the Reformation possible, and in fact inevitable; but Erasmus fought for reform within the Church of which he always held himself to be a dutiful son. He refused from the outset to take part with the Protestant assault on the authority of the Church universal, and his scholarship and influence were undoubtedly a most important influence in helping to maintain this authority against the fierce antagonism of the Lutheranism of Germany and the Calvinism of Geneva. And yet at the very time when the reformers of Wittenberg, in their keen disappointment that they were not to have in their long fight the co-operation of the great scholar who had so fully realised and so trenchantly assailed the evils against which they were revolting, were condemning the writings of Erasmus as unchristian and time-serving, the censors of Rome were placing these same books on the Index as constituting serious heresy. From Wittenberg, were hurled fierce denunciations of the trimmer, the time-server, the man who was sinning against the light; while from Rome came bitter charges of heresy against the insidious enemy of the true Faith, against the man who, trained in the Church, was using his scholarship to undermine its authority.

Erasmus stood practically alone in the world of belief and of disbelief. He had no sympathy with the doctrines of either Luther or Calvin. He could not accept the theory of individual interpretation of religious truth. He believed in a Church universal. He looked and worked for the time when this world’s Church, shaking off the corruption, the worldliness, and the vulgarity by which it had become demoralised, should, under the leadership of scholars, wise, sane, tolerant, and pure-minded, resume its authority over all Christian believers. To this end, he continued to denounce and to hold up to ridicule, as the worst enemies of the Church, the intolerant bigots and the vulgar corruptionists whose actions were bringing it into disrepute and strengthening the hands of the reformers.

An English scholar presents as follows the position of Erasmus:

“It is the conclusion of Erasmus that the Bible, learning,
criticism, humanism, are each and all incomplete as guides to
man without the permanent interpretative power and historic
witness of the visible institution ordained by Christ Himself.
His appeal is always to Christ; but it is inconceivable to him
that Christ should be apart from His Church or the Church from
Him.... As critic and as historian, Erasmus found it impossible
to say that Christ was right and that the fundamental principles
of the continuous Church were wrong. Thus, what the Church
had regarded as essential doctrines were and must remain the
permanent, unalterable bases of loyalty to the Lord.... Erasmus
believed in the Church not as a congeries of disintegrating
elements, not as a rigid and inflexible machine, but as a
sacred institution divinely instituted and divinely inspired,
and because it was ever in touch with divine life continually
growing and developing into the knowledge of the truth.... The
Church was to him the body of Jesus Christ, and in Christ he
profoundly believed; and, so believing, he was not impatient,
not afraid to wait for light.”[207]

It is not surprising that the Congregation of the Index found difficulty in classifying the writings of Erasmus. The predecessors of Paul IV had held these writings in favourable consideration, and to certain works had given distinct approval; and they had in various instances extended to the author protection against attacks.[208] In 1516, Leo X praised his “sound morality, his rare scholarship, and his distinguished services,”[209] and had accepted the dedication of his New Testament. The second edition of the New Testament contains an appreciative letter from Leo, dated September 10, 1518. Adrian VI, writing in December, 1522, assures Erasmus that he gave no credence to those who described him as a follower of Luther, and exhorts him to continue the work of writing against the heretics. In January, 1523, the Pope thanks him for the gift of the _Arnobius_.[210] Paul III, in a brief of May, 1535, speaks of “having always held in esteem the honoured name of Erasmus,” and refers to his great learning and eloquence, and to his contests against the pernicious new errors.[211]

In August, 1535 (a year before the death of Erasmus), Paul appointed him Provost of Deventer, by reason of his learning, his piety, and the great services he had rendered to the Curia in his sturdy fight with the apostates from the Faith.[212] Later, the Pope spoke of wishing to make him cardinal.[213] The chief opponent of Erasmus among the prelates of Rome was Aleander. Aleander prides himself on having, as he believes, disposed Erasmus favourably towards himself, because he hopes thus to be able to check Erasmus’s opportunities for working further mischief.[214] Another antagonist of Erasmus was Edward Lee, who, in 1532, became Archbishop of York. He wrote three treatises in criticism of the Erasmus edition of the New Testament. On the other hand, Erasmus found bitter assailants among such German Reformation leaders as Luther, v. Hutten, Bucer, Corvinus, and others. Some of the anti-Erasmus treatises of these writers find place in the Index. The ninth volume of the works of Erasmus is made up of the replies to his Protestant critics. From France, also, came sharp criticisms against the writings of Erasmus, but these were the work of orthodox authorities such as the theologians of the Sorbonne, and the inquisitor-general. The Sorbonne sent out, between 1525 and 1530, a number of condemnations of different books of Erasmus, but these continued to come into print in Paris, with or without “privilege.” In 1531, appeared, under the permission of King Francis, editions of the _Paraphrases_ and of the _Colloquia_.[215] In 1542, after the death of Erasmus, the Sorbonne issued a general condemnation of his writings, the list comprising fifteen titles.

In the Netherlands, Erasmus had the protection of the Emperor Charles V. No one of his books finds place in the Louvain Indexes of 1546 and 1550. In that of 1558, is printed only the title of the French version of the treatise _De Sarcienda Eccl. Concordia_. In the Indexes of Italy, the name of Erasmus appears first in 1559, in the Index of Paul IV. In Spain, Quiroga repeats, in the Index of 1583, the titles given in the Index of Trent. In 1576, Paul Manutius printed in Florence, under a “privilege” of Gregory XIII, an expurgated edition of the _Adagia_. The privilege carried with it a prohibition of all other editions. The Index of Sixtus V specifies this edition as permitted, all others as condemned. The Index of Benedict XIV repeats the authorisation for the Manutius edition, and confirms the prohibition of the others unless expurgated.

The editors of the Index of Paul IV (1559) took a very serious view of the evils of the writings of Erasmus. His name is placed in Class I, and is connected with a condemnation more sweeping than that given to Luther or to Calvin; “with all of his Commentaries, Remarks, Notes, Dialogues, Letters, Criticisms, Translations, Books, and Writings, including even those which contain nothing concerning Religion.” This judgment was, however, materially modified five years later by the Tridentine compilers, by whom, after some heated discussions, the name of Erasmus was transferred to Class II. _The Colloquies, Praise of Folly, Institution of Christian Matrimony_, and the _Paraphrases_ (of the Gospel of Matthew) were condemned, as also certain of the _Letters_. Others of the _Letters_ were restored to the class of permitted literature, but only after such eliminations and alterations that (as the chronicler remarks) they would not have been recognised by their author[216] (Erasmus had died in 1536). The record of the discussions in the commission is given in a letter written from Trent, in 1563, by the Archbishop of Prague to the Emperor (Ferdinand I). The Archbishop states that he had himself contended for the freeing of the works of Erasmus from condemnation on the ground that he had always submitted himself to the judgment of the Church; that his literary undertakings had received the approval of Leo X; that he had been engaged in many sharp contests with the heretical assailants of the Church; that he had devoted to the editing of the writings of the Fathers a scholarship of which the heretics might well envy the Church the possession, and that he had died in the Faith. The Archbishop goes on to say that the majority of his associates were of another way of thinking, and had overborne the views of the few who wanted to secure the preservation of the works of an author who had done such signal service for the Church. He closes by asking the Emperor to relieve him from service on the commission. He finds it difficult to work in harmony with the churchmen from Spain and Italy who have no personal knowledge of the heretics who are trying to destroy the Church. The Emperor replied that the Archbishop, as the only German on the commission, had been continued at his post to do what he might find possible to prevent the condemnation of any further works and authors of excellence.[217]

The introduction of the Tridentine Index orders placed in Class I all authors who may have come under suspicion of heresy (_nota haeresis suspecti_), a description which may be called elastic, and which would naturally be subject to varying interpretation on the part of different persons in authority. Among the associates or correspondents of Erasmus who were placed by the Tridentine editors in the first class and who have since remained under this general condemnation, are Staupitz, Pirckheimer, Hauer, and Bellicanus. Rhenanus and Zasius were transferred in the Trent lists from Class I, where they had been placed by Paul, to Class II, where they have since remained.

The chief associate of Erasmus in the contest in Germany against the opposition of a large group at least among the ecclesiastics, in behalf of what may be called higher scholarship, was Reuchlin, who gave years of his life to the work of securing for the German universities the privilege of instruction in Greek and in Hebrew. After 1518, when a number of the works of Erasmus had already found place in the Index, the printers issuing editions of these within the territories controlled by Church censorship found it convenient to omit from the title-pages the name of their author. Such editions were issued, for instance, in 1520 by Paul Manutius, the son of Aldus, bearing on the title-page and in the catalogue, in place of the name of Erasmus, the words, _Batavus quidam homo_.

In the Index of 1559, the name of Erasmus is placed under the class of _Auctores quorum libri et scripta omnia prohibentur_. After the entry of the name, however, comes the following specification: _cum universis Commentariis, Annotationibus, Scholiis, Dialogis, Epistolis, Censuris, Versionibus, Libris et Scriptis suis, etiam si nil penitus contra Religionem, vel de Religione contineant_. Mendham refers to this as an illustration of the term _De omnibus Rebus et quibusdam aliis_. It may be recalled, in this connection, that as a result of the dedication to Leo X printed by this condemned writer in the first edition of his annotated Greek Testament, issued in 1516, the Pope addressed to Erasmus a letter published in the second, and in every subsequent, edition of the work, highly commending this production of his dear son. The letter contains the following expressions: _Quas nuper a te recognitas, et pluribus editis annotationibus, locupletatas, illustratasque fuisse certiores facti, non mediocriter gavisi fuimus, ex prima illa editione quae absolutissima videbatur, conjecturam facientes, qualis haes futura, quantumve boni, sacrae Theologiae studiosis, ac orthodoxae fidei nostrae sit allatura_.[218]

If, at this stage in the history of the Church, the utterance of the reigning pope was already to be accepted as infallible, it is somewhat difficult to understand how to bring into accord with these conclusions the condemnation of half a century later, issued under the authority of the no less infallible Pius IV. A similar instance had occurred earlier in the reign of Pius II, who found occasion to include in the list of writings by Catholic ecclesiastics to be condemned a treatise written by himself eighteen years earlier under the title _Aeneae Sylviae commentaria de actis et gestis Concilii Basileen_. This condemnation is confirmed in the Tridentine Index in the following words: _In actis Aeneae Sylviae prohibentur ea quae ipse in Bulla retractationis damnavit_. Mendham speaks of this Bull as an example of a change of opinion similar to that described by another pope confronted with a similar difficulty, who explained that “when he was raised higher he saw things more clearly.”[219]

In 1522, the sale and the perusal of the _Colloquies_ of Erasmus, an authorised edition of which had been printed by Colines, were interdicted by the censors of the Sorbonne. Erasmus reports that before the date of the prohibition, no less than twenty-four thousand copies of this Paris edition had been sold.

In 1528, Erasmus made application for a privilege for the publication in France of his edition of the works of St. Augustine, but the influence of the Sorbonne was sufficient to prevent the permit being given. The reason why Erasmus considered it important to have this work issued from Paris was that the Paris University was at the time the centre for theological undertakings, as the University of Bologna was for instruction in jurisprudence.

Erasmus was able to write in regard to the _Praise of Folly_ that the pope “had read it through from beginning to end and that kings, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals were delighted with it.”[220] The favour given to the book by the pope and by not a few of the scholarly ecclesiastics did not prevent its prohibition in many of the universities, including Paris, Louvain, Oxford, and Cambridge.

The prohibition of the _Praise of Folly_ carried with it the condemnation of the previous writings of the author. This is the literature, cried the clergy, that comes from a knowledge of Greek.

In 1515, Erasmus took time from his literary work to interest himself in behalf of his friend, the learned and high-minded Reuchlin, the greatest Hebrew scholar of the day. Reuchlin had fallen under the persecution of the Dominicans, led by the ignorant and bigoted Hoogstraaten, for his opposition to the diabolical proposal to destroy all existing Hebrew literature, the Scriptures alone excepted. He had defended himself in a book entitled the _Speculum Oculare_ (the Eyeglass), and on a mandate being issued by Hoogstraaten to burn this, Reuchlin had appealed from the Inquisition to the pope. The Bishop of Speyer, to whom Leo committed the case, gave judgment in favour of Reuchlin and imposed on his enemies perpetual silence, a sentence which proved difficult of execution. Reuchlin was condemned by the universities of Mayence, Erfurt, Louvain, and Paris, although there were at the time professorships of Hebrew both in Louvain and in Paris. The matter was in some fashion again brought before the pope, to whom an earnest and eloquent appeal was made by Erasmus on behalf of his friend. The support of the Emperor Maximilian was also secured for the aged scholar who had done so much to bring honour to the cause of learning in Germany and in Europe. The pope finally confirmed the previous decision in favour of Reuchlin, a decision which rescued from the status of heresy, in which it had been placed by the Dominicans and the learned faculties of the universities, the language of the Hebrew Scriptures and the literature of the chosen people of God. Reuchlin’s books were rescued from the ban and their learned author was saved from the risk of the stake.[221]

The _Colloquies_ of Erasmus were published in 1518, and were reprinted in a long series of editions authorised and unauthorised. One printer in Paris, learning that the university was about to condemn the work, brought into circulation no less than twenty thousand copies.[222] This constitutes a curious example of the influence that could be exerted by an official condemnation in bringing about for the work an immediate and extended demand for a book. The writings of Erasmus were condemned _in toto_, in 1550, in the Spanish Index of that date.

In 1539, the interest of Francis in scholarship, and the influence of Budaeus caused him to invite Erasmus to Paris to take part in the organisation of a royal college. The Emperor (Charles V) put an end to the negotiation by forbidding Erasmus (under the penalty of the stoppage of his pension) to leave the territory of the empire. It is interesting to think of the most Catholic Emperor on the one hand, and the “eldest son of the Church” on the other, contending for the services of the scholar whose writings had been condemned in Rome as heretical and were prohibited in Spain, and who could not at this time obtain from the Paris University a printing-privilege.

Among the cultivated Spaniards assembled at the court of Charles V, Erasmus became for the time the fashion. His writings secured the approval even of some of the highest dignitaries of the Spanish Church. The Inquisitor-General, Manrique, declared Erasmus to be another Jerome and Augustine. The Archbishop of Toledo wrote, when Erasmus was under criticism, assuring him of the protection and good-will of the emperor. The _Colloquies_ were used as a schoolbook and the _Praise of Folly_ was in the hands of all Humanists. In March, 1527, Valdes wrote to Erasmus that his books were everywhere in Spain and that no merchandise was more salable.[223] In 1527 was published a Castilian version of the _Manual of the Christian Soldier_, and in the same year, under the leadership of Dr. Edward Lee, English ambassador in Spain, a session of the supreme council of the Inquisition was called to make thorough examination of the alleged heresies in the writings of Erasmus. A list of twenty-one such heresies was framed by the examiners. The charges were finally referred to an assembly of twenty theologians and nine friars who gave to the investigation months of debate, but who arrived at no conclusion. Charles V was persuaded to write an imperial missive in favour of Erasmus, and Clement VII issued, in 1527, a brief imposing silence on all who should attack the writings in so far as these concerned Luther. Manrique issued, on behalf of the Spanish Inquisition, an absolute prohibition of any writings against Erasmus. The influence of the antagonists of Erasmus finally, however, prevailed. In 1535, a year before the death of the author, Charles V made it a capital offence to use the _Colloquies_ in schools, and in 1538 he issued a prohibition covering the _Praise of Folly_ and most of the other works, excepting, however, the _Christian Soldier_. In the Spanish expurgatory Index of 1584, Erasmus occupies no less than fifty-five quarto pages. By 1640, the list of the errors of Erasmus calls for no less than fifty-nine folio pages in double columns. By this time he had come to be classed with the incorrigible heretics, and the words “_auctoris damnati_” are ordered to be inserted after his name on all title-pages. This was the final judgment of the Spanish Inquisition on Erasmus. A different view of the nature and value of the work done by Erasmus is taken by Catholic scholars of the twentieth century, although I do not venture to say that this view is general, even among the scholars of the Church. Father Shahan, of the Catholic University of America, for instance, says (in 1899) (speaking to be sure informally):

“Erasmus rendered noteworthy service to the Church, to religion,
and to scholarship. He was the counsellor of moderation, the
upholder of scholarly standards, the pitiless critic and the
courageous antagonist of fraud and of folly.”

=2. Luther.=--It is with the work of Luther that there begins to be a large production and a wide distribution of books in German. Up to this time the undertakings of the German printers had been restricted almost exclusively to books in Latin. The immediate distribution, however, of the writings of Luther and his associates, not only among the trade folk and working people of the towns, but through the rural districts, constitutes an evidence that the general intelligence and the education of the mass of the people had reached a much higher development than the Protestant historians of the time have been willing to admit. It is to be remembered that the readers whom Luther was reaching belonged to the generation which had depended for its education exclusively upon the monastery schools, or upon schools which were entirely under the direction of the priests. The work of the reformers was essentially a work of argument, and it could have been carried on successfully only with people who were intelligent enough to understand arguments whether presented orally or in print. That the community was as intelligent and as receptive as proved to be the case, shows how exaggerated and ill-considered are the conclusions presented by Protestant historians represented by D’Aubigné, Robertson, and others in regard to the absolute ignorance in which the Catholic teachers had left their followers. Kapp reports that of Luther’s treatise on German theology no less than seventy editions were printed between the years 1518 and 1854. Of the _Address to the German Nobility_, four thousand copies were sold in five days. Of the first edition of the New Testament, printed in Wittenberg in 1522, five thousand copies were sold within three months. There seems to have been no question that the emphasis given by the imperial and ecclesiastical censorship to the importance of Luther’s writings constituted an important factor in bringing these to the attention of the public, and in securing for them the largest possible circulation.

Luther realised that, with hardly an exception, the scholarly divines of the university were antagonistic to him and to his work. He writes February 8, 1516: _Nec cessant universitates bonos libros cremare et damnare, rursum malos dictare, imo somniare_.[224]

In 1519, the doctors of Louvain published an edict ordering the burning of all copies that could be secured of the writings of Luther. A similar order was issued in 1520 by the divines of Cologne. Both orders were printed in Wittenberg, in 1520, by Melchior Lottherus. In 1521, the theological faculty of Paris issued an edict entitled _Determinationes Theologicae Facultatis Parisien. super Doctrina Lutheriana_. The edict, which was printed in Wittenberg in the same year, condemns a number of propositions from the treatise _De Captivitate Babylonica_. The theological facility of Cologne issued, in 1532, a censure against the _Epitome of Abuses by a Reformed Monk_.[225]

In 1520, Cardinal Wolsey (in consequence of the Bull of Leo X against Luther, issued July 17th of that year) directed the English bishops to require that all the books and writings of one Martin Luther (_cujusdam M. L._) should be delivered up by all persons possessing them, under pain of the greater excommunication.[226]

In 1522, Luther brought into print his famous German version of the New Testament; he printed of this a first impression of five thousand copies and three months later a second impression of the same number. The Bull of Leo X excommunicating Luther, issued in 1520, condemned his works individually and collectively. The existing copies are ordered to be burned and all persons are prohibited, under severe penalties, from printing, selling, distributing, or possessing any of Luther’s writings. The immediate effect of this Bull was to bring about a largely increased sale throughout Germany for everything that Luther had written, and to cause also a considerable demand for these writings in other countries. Köstlin estimates that by 1521 more than one hundred impressions had been printed of the German versions of Luther’s sermons and tracts. In 1564, the restrictions upon the publishers in regard to the printing of the Lutheran version of the Bible were removed and, at the instance of the Duke of Weimer, this version became common property (_literärisches Gemeingut_) for all Germany and was formally declared free of privilege.

The circulation of the Lutheran tracts was taken charge of not only by the book-pedlars and colporteurs but by a large number of travelling preachers, _Prädikanten_. These “preachers” were in part old-time priests, but in many cases laymen of varying degrees of education or of ignorance. During the troublous times of the war of the peasants, the progress of the Reformation was checked and the circulation of the Lutheran publications in the districts affected by the uprising was for the time brought to a close.

The downfall of imperial Rome which (irrespective of the internal causes) was brought about by persistent Teutonic onslaughts, terminated the period of the world’s history which is, for convenience, called classic or ancient. In like manner, the overthrow of the world-wide domination of ecclesiastical Rome was brought about by the Teuton Luther, an attack which, supported by the Teutonic forces of North Europe, developed into a revolution against Italian rule, and terminated the epoch of mediaevalism. For long periods to come, the questions raised by Luther and his fellow-Protestants were to bring anxieties and conflicts upon popes, emperors, princes, and people. These questions were also to provide issues and themes for innumerable writers, and to secure an apparently inexhaustible supply of material for the printing-presses and the booksellers. It is not surprising that at an early period in the development of printing, ecclesiastics who were fighting for the continued domination of the Church recognised the press as a most seriously antagonistic influence, and that, during a term of two centuries, they continued to attempt to put into force machinery for the supervision and restriction of its undertakings. A scholarly American Catholic (speaking in 1905) makes reference to “the distinctive service rendered by Luther in making clear to the Church the necessity for reform, for recurrences to the earlier Christian ideals, to the standards of Gregory the Great and of Benedict.”