Steven Avery
Administrator
The censorship of the church of Rome and its influence upon the production and distribution of literature; a study of the history of the prohibitory and expurgatory indexes, together with some consideration of the effects of Protestant censorship and of censorship by the state (1906)
by Putnam, George Haven, 1844-1930
George Haven Putnnam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Haven_Putnam
Page n196
The entry in the Index of 1559 under the name Desiderius Erasmus is noteworthy. The name is placed in Class I, comprising authors all of whose writings are prohibited. After the name of Erasmus however, there follows a specific prohibition as follows; Cum universis Commentariis, Annoiationibtis, Scholiis, Diologis, EpistoUs, Censuris, Versionibtis, Libris et Scriptis suis, etiam si nil penitus contra Religionem vel de Religione contineant. This specific condemnation, in addition to that expressed under the term opera omnia, vi<av3d appear to have included the edition prepared by Erasmus of the Greek Testament. It may be borne in mind, however, that the latter had secured the approval and very cordial commendation of Pope Leo X, to whom the work had been dedicated. The Pope wrote, in 1516, a letter in which he emphasises the exceptional service rendered by Erasmus in this work to the study of sacred theology and to the maintenance of the true faith. A curious conmient made upon this action of the Pope, in the Spanish Index of 1612, may be inserted here. In the expurgatory division, under the article devoted to Erasmi Roterodami Opera, at the beginning of the censures on the sixth volume, is printed: Ad marginem Epistolae Leonis P, P. X. ad Erasmum, quae incipit, Dilecte Fili, saltUem, et adscribe: Dulcibus encomiis pius Pater nutantem ovem allicere conatur ("With gracious commendations the Holy Father endeavours to attract [win back] the wandering sheep ") .*
https://archive.org/details/censorshipchurc02putngoog/page/n190/mode/2up?q=Erasmus
p. 207
A letter from Bologna dated February 11, 1559, says: "The prescriptions of the Index are obeyed here. Nothing is permitted but the Thesaurus linguae laUnae and the Commentaries of Dolet. Of the writings of Erasmus, one is permitted to retain nothing but one or two of the translations [of the Fathers] and in these the name of the translator must be cancelled." *
Page n207
BuUinger writes to Ambrose Blaurer: " In Rome, Paul IV is burning books, and among others, all the writings of Erasmus. Even the works of C3rprian, Jerome, and Augustine are included because they have been rendered pernicious through the notes of Erasmus."*
Page n227
Paul's editors had placed the name of Erasmus in Class I (authors all of whose writings were condemned) and had added a specification which is connected with no other name, not even those of Luther and Calvin: "with all his commentaries, criticisms, scholia, dialogues, letters, translations, books, and writings, including those which have nothing to do with the subject of religion." In the Index conmiission of Trent, after sharp discussions, this Draconian judgment was materially modified. The name of Erasmus was placed in Class II, in connection with the titles CoUoquia, Encomium Moriae^ Chrisiiani Matrimonii Institution and the Paraphrasis in Matteum (as printed in an Italian version imder the name of Bemardine Tointano The other writings, including those that had already been condemned in Paris and in Louvain, were left free. For the Adagia, sl specific authority was given to Paulus Manutius for the publication of an edition. Until this edition should be in readiness, permission was given for the use of the existing editions (the most noteworthy was that printed in 1498 by Aldus), after certain reprehensible or doubtful passages had been eliminated imder the authority of the Inquisition or of a theological faculty. In 1590, under the authority of Sixtus V, Erasmus was again placed in Class I, and all of his writings "whatever their subject-matter," with the exception of the expurgated Adagia, were condemned. In iS96» Clement VIII again confirmed for the writings of Erasmus the classification of Pius IV. In the 1612, retained in Class I. In 1575, the expurgated edition of the Adagia was issued in Rome under the authority of the Church, without the name of the author. It would be a little difficult to secure from these varying pronoimcements a trustworthy impression as to the final conclusions of the Church authorities in regard to the seriousness of the heresies contained in the writings of this scholarly Catholic or as to the actual value of the books.
Page n228
In the preface to the Trent Index, it is stated that those writers are to be placed in Class I who are known as heretics or who are suspected of heresy (nota haeresis suspecti). This phrase is capable of var3ring interpretations and would appear to have been worded in order to cover the cases of writers like Erasmus, who while refusing to class themselves with the Protestants, had written or spoken with sharp criticism of the Church. As a result of such an instruction, writers like Staupitz, Pirckheimer, Hamer, and Billicanus find place in Class I. There also were included by Paul, Rhenanus and Zasius, who were by the Trent editors transferred to Class II.
by Putnam, George Haven, 1844-1930
George Haven Putnnam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Haven_Putnam
Page n196
The entry in the Index of 1559 under the name Desiderius Erasmus is noteworthy. The name is placed in Class I, comprising authors all of whose writings are prohibited. After the name of Erasmus however, there follows a specific prohibition as follows; Cum universis Commentariis, Annoiationibtis, Scholiis, Diologis, EpistoUs, Censuris, Versionibtis, Libris et Scriptis suis, etiam si nil penitus contra Religionem vel de Religione contineant. This specific condemnation, in addition to that expressed under the term opera omnia, vi<av3d appear to have included the edition prepared by Erasmus of the Greek Testament. It may be borne in mind, however, that the latter had secured the approval and very cordial commendation of Pope Leo X, to whom the work had been dedicated. The Pope wrote, in 1516, a letter in which he emphasises the exceptional service rendered by Erasmus in this work to the study of sacred theology and to the maintenance of the true faith. A curious conmient made upon this action of the Pope, in the Spanish Index of 1612, may be inserted here. In the expurgatory division, under the article devoted to Erasmi Roterodami Opera, at the beginning of the censures on the sixth volume, is printed: Ad marginem Epistolae Leonis P, P. X. ad Erasmum, quae incipit, Dilecte Fili, saltUem, et adscribe: Dulcibus encomiis pius Pater nutantem ovem allicere conatur ("With gracious commendations the Holy Father endeavours to attract [win back] the wandering sheep ") .*
https://archive.org/details/censorshipchurc02putngoog/page/n190/mode/2up?q=Erasmus
p. 207
A letter from Bologna dated February 11, 1559, says: "The prescriptions of the Index are obeyed here. Nothing is permitted but the Thesaurus linguae laUnae and the Commentaries of Dolet. Of the writings of Erasmus, one is permitted to retain nothing but one or two of the translations [of the Fathers] and in these the name of the translator must be cancelled." *
Page n207
BuUinger writes to Ambrose Blaurer: " In Rome, Paul IV is burning books, and among others, all the writings of Erasmus. Even the works of C3rprian, Jerome, and Augustine are included because they have been rendered pernicious through the notes of Erasmus."*
Page n227
Paul's editors had placed the name of Erasmus in Class I (authors all of whose writings were condemned) and had added a specification which is connected with no other name, not even those of Luther and Calvin: "with all his commentaries, criticisms, scholia, dialogues, letters, translations, books, and writings, including those which have nothing to do with the subject of religion." In the Index conmiission of Trent, after sharp discussions, this Draconian judgment was materially modified. The name of Erasmus was placed in Class II, in connection with the titles CoUoquia, Encomium Moriae^ Chrisiiani Matrimonii Institution and the Paraphrasis in Matteum (as printed in an Italian version imder the name of Bemardine Tointano The other writings, including those that had already been condemned in Paris and in Louvain, were left free. For the Adagia, sl specific authority was given to Paulus Manutius for the publication of an edition. Until this edition should be in readiness, permission was given for the use of the existing editions (the most noteworthy was that printed in 1498 by Aldus), after certain reprehensible or doubtful passages had been eliminated imder the authority of the Inquisition or of a theological faculty. In 1590, under the authority of Sixtus V, Erasmus was again placed in Class I, and all of his writings "whatever their subject-matter," with the exception of the expurgated Adagia, were condemned. In iS96» Clement VIII again confirmed for the writings of Erasmus the classification of Pius IV. In the 1612, retained in Class I. In 1575, the expurgated edition of the Adagia was issued in Rome under the authority of the Church, without the name of the author. It would be a little difficult to secure from these varying pronoimcements a trustworthy impression as to the final conclusions of the Church authorities in regard to the seriousness of the heresies contained in the writings of this scholarly Catholic or as to the actual value of the books.
Page n228
In the preface to the Trent Index, it is stated that those writers are to be placed in Class I who are known as heretics or who are suspected of heresy (nota haeresis suspecti). This phrase is capable of var3ring interpretations and would appear to have been worded in order to cover the cases of writers like Erasmus, who while refusing to class themselves with the Protestants, had written or spoken with sharp criticism of the Church. As a result of such an instruction, writers like Staupitz, Pirckheimer, Hamer, and Billicanus find place in Class I. There also were included by Paul, Rhenanus and Zasius, who were by the Trent editors transferred to Class II.
Page n251
During the reigns of both Pius and Gregory, however, attention was given to the production of expurgated editions of the works of a number of authors, such as Erasmus, Boccaccio, Polydorus, Vergilius, Zasius, Harphius, etc. Under Pius, condemnation was ordered for the teachings of Bajtis, but this did not bring any new titles into the Index. In 1569, Gxiido Zanetti de Fano was put under arrest for heretical teaching. The Senate of Venice demanded that the trial should take place in Venice. The Pope Pius replied that the civil authorities had no proper concern with matters of heresy, except to carry out in due cotirse the verdicts or judgments given by the Church.*
Page n255
In 1583, the famous treatise of Scaliger, De EtnendaHone Temporum, received the honoxar of a special condemnation from Gregory XIII. Gregory had some years earlier authorised the publication, without the name of the author, of an expurgated edition of the Adagia of Erasmus. In 1575, at the instance of the Congregation, Gregory ordered that all works by heretical authors which had been authorised for publication in expurgated editions should be printed without the names of their authors.
Page n263
The larger part of the work of preparing the expurgated text came upon the theological faculty of Louvain. In May, 1570, for instance, the Louvain divines took up the task of correcting the notes and comments of Erasmtis on Irenaeus, Jerome, and Augustine. Their report was presented in November of the same year. Later in the year, they were engaged upon the complete works of Erasmus, a more serious undertaking. The list of expurgations for Erasmus covers twenty-three pages. Among the divines who took part in this work was Henry Boxhom who afterwards became a Protestant. The writings of Reuchlin and Bertram were confided to the faculty of Douai. The latter gave special trouble to the expurgators in connection with his book, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, which called for a full measure of analysis and elimination. The critique upon this book takes the ground that, " It was in order," in judging of the ancient Catholics, **to bear with many errors, to extenuate, excuse, and even by some ingenious device to deny" (what the old author has afiSrmed) " and to fabricate a convenient interpretation for any statements which could be objected to in controversy as unsound." Reusch speaks of the convenient form in which the expurgated texts were presented by these Antwerp editors, who in a number of cases printed in full (properly indicated by the type) the sentences which were to be cancelled, while the Spanish editions give of these sentences only the first and last words. A copy of the Antwerp Index was submitted in due course by Duke Alva to the Pope, Pius V. Montanus writes from Rome, in November, 1571, that the work was not favourably received by the authorities, who inclined to the opinion that the Antwerp editors had taken undue liberties with the classification and conclusions arrived at by the Fathers of Trent.*
Page n265
At the close of the alphabetical schedule, is given a list (without alphabetical arrangement) of twenty-one heretics. The list fails to present certain of the assured heresiarchs, such as Luther, Calvin, and ZwingU, but does include Melanchthon, Erasmus, and the Paris publishers, Henri and Robert Estienne.
Page n266
The edict of the Inquisition announces the imposition of the penalty of the excommunicatio latae senlentiae for any disobedience of the regulations. The new lists comprise about 160 titles. A nimiber of these new titles became of more than local importance as they were taken over by Quiroga and also by Sixtus V. The work of the Lisbon compilers was in part based upon Valdes. Among the new names may be noted: Jerome Cardan, Georgius Venetus, Crinitus and Amatus Lusitanus. Ariosto's Orlando Furioso^ Bocardo's Orlando Imamoraio, and Dante's Divine Comedy are grouped together in Gass II. These three titles were, however, not repeated by the compilers of Sixtus. The Utopia 6t Thomas More and the Praise of Folly of Erasmus are placed together in Class II. Quiroga, in repeating the Utopia, places it with books to be permitted if corrected.
Page n308
The title-page of an edition of Augustine, printed in Venice in 1570, contains a notice that the text has been carefully revised and freed from all the corruptions and scholia introduced into the previous editions by Erasmus and other heretical and condenmed writers. Thomas James ^ points out that the edition of Gregory the Great printed in Rome in 1585 contains no less than 1085 passages in which the text varies from that of the authoritative manuscripts. Calandrini speaks of 13,000 such variations. Retisch is, however, of opinion that these charges of corruptions in Roman editions are exaggerated.^
Page n314
The second and third classes present in separate alphabets the titles of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Flemish, and German publications. In Class I, the only Spanish names are Constantino de la Fuente and Joan Auentrote. In this class is placed also Erasmus, with the memorandum that all of his writings are prohibited as printed in the vernacular. A similar specification is made in connection with the names, given in the same class, of Petrus Ramtis and of Macchiavelli.
Page n317
The text of S. Augustine is also handled at length. Among the propositions condenmed and cancelled is: Quae de carne sua manducanda Christus proposuit, spiritualiter sunt intelligenda. Erasmus receives the largest measure of attention, no less than eighty pages being devoted to the oondenmation of reprehensible
Page n349
" A number of the books which were prohibited in the Tridentine Index, such as the works of Erasmus and Molin&us, have been corrected in the Antwerp Index expurgatorius. It may therefore be assiuned that the later editions of these works have been printed with the approved text."
Page n358
I. Erasmus in the Index.—The treatment accorded by the compilers of the Indexes of the i6th 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
Page n359
Erasmus 329
Page n359
The attacks of Erasmus on the abtises 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 Erasmtis 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 Chtirch 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 f tdly 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. Prom 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 Paith^ against the man who, trained in the Church, was using his scholarship to undermine its authority.
Page n359
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 " 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 Chtirch 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 Chtirch 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." ^
Page n360
330 Hutton on Erasmus
Page n360
religious truth. He believed in a Church univeisal. 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 ridictde,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:
Page n361
Erasmus and the Pope 331
Page n361
It is not sttrprising 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.^ In 1516, Leo X praised his ''sound morality, his rare scholarship, and his distinguished services,"^ 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 Erasmtts 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.^ 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.^
Page n361
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. ^ Later, the Pope spoke of wishing to make him cardinal.^ The chief opponent of Erasmus among the prelates of Rome was Aleander. Aleander prides himself on having, as he believes, disposed Erasmus favotirably towards himself, because he hopes thus to be able to check Erasmus's oppor-
Page n361
> Schlottxnan, Erasmus redwwus^ i, 156, 171. s Erasmus, Episi., 193.
Page n362
33^ Opponents of Erasmus
Page n362
tunities for working further mischief.^ 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-Erasmtts treatises of these writers find place in the Index. The ninth volume of the works of Erasmtts 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 inqtiisitorgeneral. The Sorbonne sent out, between 1525 and 1530, a number of condemnations of different books of Erasmvis, but these continued to come into print in Paris, with or without "privilege." In 1531, appeared, tmder the permission of King Francis, editions of the Paraphrases and of the Colloquia,^ In 1542, after the death of Erasmvis, the Sorbonne issued a general condemnation of his writings, the list comprising fifteen titles.
Page n362
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 Manutivis printed in
Page n363
Editions of Erasmus 333
Page n363
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 ^ (Erasmus had died in 1536). The record of the discussions in the conunission 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 grotmd that he had always submitted him-
Page n364
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
Page n365
Erasmus and Reuchlin 335
Page n365
The chief associate of Erasmvis 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 tmiversities the privilege of instruction in Greek and in Hebrew. After 1518, when a number of the works of Erasmus had already fotmd place in the Index, the X>rinters 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 titlepage and in the catalogue, in place of the name of Erasmus, the words, Batavtis quidam homo.
Page n365
In the Index of i559f the name of Erasmus is placed under the class of Auctores quorum libri et scripta omnia prohibentuT. After the entry of the name, however, comes the following specification: cum untversis CommentartiSf Annotationibus, SchoUis^ Dialogis, EpistoliSf Censuris^ Versionibus^ Libris et ScripHs suis, eiiam 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 condenmed 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 annotcUionibus, locupletatas, iUustratasque fuisse certiores facti^ non mediocriter gavisi fuimus, ex prima ilia editione quae absolutissima videbatur^ conjecturam facientes, qualis hoes futura, quantumue boni, sacrae Theologiae studiosis^ ac orthodoxae fidei nostrae sit allatura.^
Page n366
336 Erasmus and the Pope
Page n366
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 thotisand copies of this Paris edition had been sold.
Page n366
In 1528, Erasmus made application for a privilege for the publication in France of his edition of the works
Page n367
Writings of Erasmus 337
Page n367
of St. Augustine, but the influence of the Sorbonne was suflBcient 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.
Page n367
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."* 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 tmiversities, including Paris, Louvain, Oxford, and Cambridge.
Page n368
33^ Erasmus and Reuchlin
Page n368
which proved diiBBcult of execution. Reuchlin was condemned by the universities of Mayence, Erftirt, 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 stattis 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. ^
Page n368
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.^ 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. Tlie writings of Erasmvis were condemned in toto, in 1550, in the Spanish Index of that date.
Page n368
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
Page n368
1 Drummond, i, a6i; Erasmus, Ep., xxi. s Eras., Op., iii, xz68.
Page n369
Erasmus and Charles V 339
Page n369
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.
Page n369
Among the cultivated Spaniards assembled at the court of Charles V, Erasmvis 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, Maorique, 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 everjrwhere in Spain and that no merchandise was more salable.^ In 1527 was published a Castilian version of the Manual of the Christian Soldier, and in the same year, tmder the leadership of Dr. Edward Lee, English ambassador in Spain, a session of the supreme cotmcil of the Inquisition was called to make thorough examination of the alleged heresies in the writings of Erasmus. A list of twentyone 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 con-
Page n370
340 Erasmus in Spain
Page n370
cltxsion. 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 Erasmvis 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 fiftyfive qtiarto 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 *'at€ctoris 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 Erasmvis 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, sa}^ (in 1899) (speaking to be sure informally):
Page n370
" 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."
Last edited:
