C O L L E C T E D W O R K S OF E R A S M U S

V O L U M E 83
This page intentionally left blank
COLLECTED WORKS OF

ERASMUS
CONTROVERSIES

APOLOGIA AD F A B R U M
A P P E N D I X DE S C R I P T I S C L I T H O V E I
DILUTIO
RESPONSIO AD D I S P U T A T I O N E M
DE D I V O R T I O

edited by Guy Bedouelle

University of Toronto Press

Toronto / Buffalo / London
 The research and publication costs of the
Collected Works of Erasmus are supported by
University of Toronto Press.
www.utppublishing.com
© University of Toronto Press 1998
Toronto / Buffalo / London
Printed in Canada

ISBN 0-8020-4310-0

Printed on acid-free paper

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Erasmus, Desiderius, d. 1536
[Works]
Collected works of Erasmus
Partial contents: v. 83. Controversies / edited by Guy Bedouelle.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8020-4310-0 (v. 83)
i. Erasmus, Desiderius, d. 1536. i. Title
PA85001974 876'.04 C74-oo6326-x rev

University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its

publishing programme of the Canada Council for the Arts
and the Ontario Arts Council.
 Collected Works of Erasmus
The aim of the Collected Works of Erasmus
is to make available an accurate, readable English text
of Erasmus' correspondence and his
other principal writings. The edition is planned
and directed by an Editorial Board, an Executive Committee,
and an Advisory Committee.

EDITORIAL BOARD

Alexander Dalzell, University of Toronto

James M. Estes, University of Toronto
Charles Fantazzi, University of Windsor
James K. Farge, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies
John N. Grant, University of Toronto
Paul F. Grendler, University of Toronto
James K. McConica, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Chairman
John O'Malley, Weston Jesuit School of Theology
Mechtilde O'Mara, University of Toronto
Jane E. Phillips, University of Kentucky
Erika Rumrnel, Wilfrid Laurier University
R.J. Schoeck, Lawrence, Kansas
Robert D. Sider, Dickinson College
James D. Tracy, University of Minnesota

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Alexander Dalzell, University of Toronto

James M. Estes, University of Toronto
Charles Fantazzi, University of Windsor
Paul F. Grendler, University of Toronto
Bill Harnum, University of Toronto Press
James K. McConica, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies
George Meadows, University of Toronto Press
Mechtilde O'Mara, University of Toronto
Jane E. Phillips, University of Kentucky
Erika Rummel, Wilfrid Laurier University
 R.J. Schoeck, Lawrence, Kansas
R.M. Schoeffel, University of Toronto Press, Chairman
Robert D. Sider, Dickinson College
James D. Tracy, University of Minnesota

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Maria Cytowska, University of Warsaw

Anthony Graf ton, Princeton University
Otto Herding, Universitat Freiburg
Jozef IJsewijn, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Robert M. Kingdon, University of Wisconsin
Paul Oskar Kristeller, Columbia University
Maurice Lebel, Universite Laval
Jean-Claude Margolin, Centre d'etudes superieures de la
Renaissance de Tours
Bruce M. Metzger, Princeton Theological Seminary
Clarence H. Miller, Saint Louis University
Heiko A. Oberman, University of Arizona
John Rowlands, The British Museum
J.S.G. Simmons, Oxford University
John Tedeschi, University of Wisconsin
J. Trapman, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie
van Wetenschappen
J.B. Trapp, Warburg Institute
 Contents

Introduction
by Guy Bedouelle
xi

Apology against Jacques Lef evre d'Etaples

Apologia ad lacobum Fabrum Stapulensem
translated by Howard Jones
and annotated by Guy Bedouelle
1

An Appendix on the Writings of Josse Clichtove

Appendix de scriptis Clithovei
translated and annotated by Charles Fantazzi
109

Refutation of the Accusations

of Josse Clichtove against the Suasoria of Desiderius Erasmus
of Rotterdam in Praise of Marriage
Dilutio eorum quae lodocus Clithoveus scripsit
adversus declamationem suasoriam matrimonii
translated and annotated by Charles Fantazzi
116

The Reply of Erasmus to the Disputation

of a Certain Phimostomus on Divorce
Responsio ad disputationem cuiusdam Phimostomi de divortio
translated and annotated by Ann Dalzell
149
 Works Frequently Cited
179

Short-Title Forms for Erasmus' Works

182

Index
187
COLLECTED WORKS OF ERASMUS

V O L U M E 83
This page intentionally left blank
 Introduction

i
'It would be preferable to devote our energies to resolving our differences
rather than to providing seed-ground for new disagreements through biased
inquiries.' Erasmus made this appeal for dialogue with his colleagues, both
humanists and theologians, in the last lines of his Appendix written to answer
the criticisms of Josse Clichtove. It has a rather paradoxical ring, if one
considers the 1444 quarto pages of the ninth volume of his Opera omnia
(Froben 1540) * containing the texts that Erasmus wrote to deal with his
various critics - and in which, whatever he says, he took a certain amount of
pleasure.2 The polemical works therefore occupy an important place in the
CWE English edition.
This present volume of the Controversies contains, first of all, the Apologia
that Erasmus addressed to his friend Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples in 1517,
and, second, three short treatises refuting the accusations made against his
writings on Christian marriage. Before turning to them, however, the reader
will find it helpful to consider briefly the different terms used by Erasmus
in his own defence - a defence which can at times go on the offensive
as well. The first term, apologia, is frequently seen in classical texts; the
second, dilutio, is rare; the third, responsio, is commonplace. The noun dilutio,
derived from the verb diluere (to dissolve reproaches) and connoting the act
of justifying oneself, is not found in classical Latin, although St Jerome uses
it.3

1 The absence there of the Dilutio, written as a refutation of Clichtove, should,

however, be noted.
2 A1522 edition (Basel: Froben) includes seven of Erasmus' Apologiae and consists
of nearly four hundred pages.
3 Contra loannem Hierosotymitanum ad Pammachium 5 PL 23 375A
 INTRODUCTION Xll

Erasmus wrote twelve treatises which bear the title Apologia, some of
which likewise appeared from time to time under the title Responsio. The
best known of these constitutes one of the prefaces to his edition of the
New Testament.4 But he also refuted under this rubric the attacks of Jacques
Lefevre d'Etaples (edited here), of Jacobus Latomus, of Diego Lopez Zuniga,
and of others. One short, previously unedited Apologia has only recently been
published.5
The term apologia has been made famous by such ancient works as Plato's
Apology for Socrates and the Apology of the late second-century rhetorician
and philosopher Apuleius, and by modern ones such as the Apologia pro vita
sua of John Henry Newman (1864). In Greek, the term designates a pleading,
and such was certainly the aim of Apuleius, who was obliged to clear himself
of accusations of magic in order to marry a wealthy widow. Indeed, the most
common title for Apuleius' text is Pro se de magia liber. Just as with Newman,
Apuleius' goal was the justification of his personal behaviour, of a way of
life. This personal connotation is never absent from Erasmus' mind in his
controversial writings, but his main concern in them is always to defend his
reputation for orthodoxy.
Another semantic component of the word apologia is to be sought in the
writings of those Greek Fathers known as 'apologists/ who used this literary
genre to defend and justify the Christian faith to their contemporaries,
especially their philosopher colleagues who had remained pagan. Eusebius
of Caesarea mentions Quadratus and Aristides of Athens as among the first
who engaged in this exercise; but St Justin Martyr (c loo-c 165), who gave
the name Apologia to two of his works, is the most famous of the apologists.
Nevertheless, Erasmus' model is first and foremost St Jerome, whose
skill in disputing with St Augustine Erasmus so greatly admired. Did he
not go so far as to compare his minor quarrel with Lefevre d'Etaples to
the disagreement over Sacred Scripture which brought the two Latin Fa-
thers into conflict?6 The title Apologia alludes above all to the work which
Jerome wrote against the books of his friend Rufinus on the subject of

4 Des. Erasmus Roterodamus Ausgeioahlte Werke ed H. and A. Holborn (Munich

1933; repr 1964), and Les Prefaces au 'Novum Testamentum' ed Y. Delegue and J.P.
Gillet (Geneva 1990)
5 Erika Rummel 'An Unpublished Erasmian Apologia in the Royal Library of
Copenhagen' Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis I Dutch Review of Church
History 70 (1990) 210-29, a refutation of four Dominicans from Louvain who
had attacked him under the pseudonym Taxander'; published in CWE 71113-31,
165-71 as Manifesta mendacia
6 Ep 778:252-3
 INTRODUCTION Xlll

Origen.7 Some manuscripts give the title as Defensio, but that of Apologia
prevails. In Erasmus' Apologia against Lefevre, one can discern the famous
exclamations - the cries of a friend betrayed - drawn from the opening lines
of Jerome's Apologia against Rufinus.
In addition to the patristic references, Erasmus clearly has the New
Testament in mind, especially Paul's defence in the court of Agrippa (Acts
26:2-3). Erasmus indicates this in the first lines of the Apologia published with
his edition of the New Testament, where his approach is characteristically
pre-emptive: T want now, with my Apology, to anticipate objections ... But
my situation is completely different from that of Paul, because, if I need an
apology, it is to answer those who understand nothing of my work and its
controversial subject matter and who criticize it for the one and only reason
that they do not understand it.'8 A little further on, Erasmus declares that he
is perfectly ready to be corrected, but not before being heard by those from
whom one expects sound judgment - in this case, the theologians.
Thus an Apologia (like a Responsio) is clearly a discourse through which
one defends oneself against the accusations of others, whom one intends
to refute. But its pedagogical function as a vehicle of learned dialogue, of
an exchange of ideas, of a clash of opinions must not be underestimated.
Certainly the tone may become sharp, vehement, and even biting, because the
two dimensions of self-justification and explanation are constantly in play.
The cries of dismay and lament over supposedly false accusations are likewise
part and parcel of the literary style of the Apologia. As always happens with
Erasmus, there is an element of give and take that allows even the modern
reader to study with pleasure very detailed arguments which have become
somewhat obscure and which can certainly be tedious. Nevertheless, in these
relatively unknown works, as we shall see, Erasmus puts his finger on vital
issues of theology and the Christian life.

ERASMUS v. LEFEVRE: A DISPUTE BETWEEN THEOLOGY AND

PHILOLOGY
In the minds of their contemporaries, the two humanists Erasmus and Lefevre
d'Etaples, who both died in 1536, were indissolubly linked, be it through
admiration or reprobation, and were even, at times, confused with each
other. Even the king of France, Francis i, fell into the latter trap. Wishing to

7 Already in 1498 Erasmus was reading this Apologia and asking Robert Gaguin
for information about it (Ep 67:2-5).
8 Apologia 1.1 Les Prefaces au 'Novum Testamentum' ed Y. Delegue and J.P. Gillet
(Geneva 1990) 128-9
 INTRODUCTION XIV

promote good learning in France and urged to endow an institution similar

to the Collegium Trilingue in Louvain, the king was persuaded to summon
the prestigious Erasmus, who, in turn, requested a letter of safe conduct for
entry into France. The king willingly granted the request. Then when he
saw Guillaume Bude, the jurist-humanist whom he received as an intimate
friend among the nobility at court, he told him: ' "I say, Bude ... we shall
soon have Lefevre in this France of ours." When Bude replied that Lefevre
was in France all the time, the king realized he had got the name wrong and
said, "Erasmus, it was Erasmus I meant to say. For the passport is ready,
so that he can get here safely."'9 To such a sovereign, caught up in the
affairs of state, the right to be mistaken should be granted; but the anecdote
illustrates the generally accepted idea that the two men were engaged in
the same cause of reviving the humanities. We need not postulate a total
affinity to acknowledge this. Thus Geoffroy Tory in his Champ fleury (1529),
a famous work on the proportions of elegant printer's fonts, praised those
who 'eradicate the inveterate barbarisms of the unlearned, as Erasmus the
Dutchman, Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples in Picardy, and Bude are engaged in
doing.'10
To their detractors, the two men - 'humanistae theologizantes/ as Noel
Beda described them11 - were in league with all those who encroached upon
the fiercely guarded territory of the doctors of theology by commenting on
the Bible and by considering and pronouncing on exegetical questions.12
Lefevre, an editor of and commentator on Aristotle, was certainly never a
doctor of theology; and, although Erasmus received a doctorate in theology
from the University of Turin on 4 September 1506, he did not take much pride

9 Ep 1342:607-13
10 'mortifiant les inueterees barbaries des indoctes, comme nous voions auiour-
dhuy faire trois nobles personnages, Erasmus le Hollandois, laques le feuure
Destaple en Picardie, et Bude'; Geoffrey Tory Champ fleury au quel est contenu
Lart et science de la deue et vraye proportion des lettres Attiques ... (Paris: Gilles de
Gourmont and Geoffrey Tory 1529) book i fol vm verso
11 'Lefevre was once cleverly described by one of his enemies from the Faculty of
Theology of the University of Paris as a humanista theologizans, a humanist who
dabbled in theology. The phrase catches rather well the transitional character of
his thought, the uneasy jostling of barbarism and classicism in his Latin style,
the complex play of tradition and innovation in his work'; Eugene F. Rice, Jr
'Humanism in France' in Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy n
Humanism beyond Italy ed Albert Rabil, Jr (Philadelphia 1988) 109-22, especially
115.
12 There is an echo of Beda's influence in a letter by Zwingli dated 4 July 1521;
Huldreich Zivinglis Samtliche Werke vm (Leipzig 1911) 462.
 INTRODUCTION XV

in his degree, which was not highly regarded - even if he was informally co-
opted by the faculty of theology of the University of Louvain when he arrived
there in 1517. Adversaries like Diego Lopez Zuniga were not ashamed to call
him a 'factitius theologus.'
In any case, the controversies and refutations of the two humanists go
together. Zuniga and Beda linked them in the titles of their works/3 and both
were the target of vicious attacks like those of Nicolaas Baechem, known as
Egmondanus, prior of the Carmelites in Louvain, who treats them as heretics
and associates their names with that of Luther.14 Frans Titelmans, another
theologian at Louvain, denounced the 'curiositas' and the 'amor novitatis'15
of the two humanists.
Luther himself regarded the two men as similar in their attitudes, but
preferred Lefevre to Erasmus: 'I fear that Erasmus does not give enough
importance to Christ nor to God's grace, about which he knows considerably
less than Lefevre d'Etaples.'16

L E F E V R E AND E R A S M U S AS SEEN BY EACH O T H E R

But what did the two great men think of each other? Before entering into
the controversy that was to divide them for some time, let us first examine
what they wrote about each other in their correspondence and other writings.
On the part of Lefevre d'Etaples, aside from the quarrel to be considered
below, there was almost complete silence. With the exception of his own
teachers and followers, Lefevre seldom mentioned his contemporaries at all.
Eager for compliments, he avoided controversial discussions.17 Unless we are
mistaken, Lefevre never even alludes to Erasmus in any of his prefaces or in

13 Annotationes lacobi Lopidis Stunicae contra D. Erasmum ... et in lacobum Fabrum

(Alcala: Arnao Guillen de Brocar 1519, 1520; repr Paris: Pierre Vidoue for
Konrad Resch July 1522); and for Beda, Annotationum ... in lacobum Fabrum
Stapulensem libri duo et in Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum liber unus (Paris:
Josse Bade 1526). In his letter to Erasmus, dated 29 March 1526, Beda insists,
'You have many errors in common with Lefevre' (Allen Ep 1685:57-8).
14 Ep 1144:35-6
15 Prologus in Collationes quinque (Antwerp 1529) sig Aiv recto
16 'Sed timeo ne Christum et gratia Dei non satis promovet, in qua multo est quam
Stapulensis ignorantior'; letter to Johann Lang i March 1517 WA Briefwechsel 190.
Luther was very conversant with Lef evre's works and had carefully annotated
his exemplar of the Quincuplex psalterium (Bedouelle Quincuplex psalterium 2.2.6-
40), but was a harsh critic of Lef evre's interpretation of Scripture; see the letter
to Spalatinus of 19 October 1516 WA Briefrvechsel 170.
17 It is this fact of being singled out which so struck and vexed Erasmus when
their quarrel erupted; see Ep 794:60-1.
 INTRODUCTION XVI

the few extant letters to third parties. There is no catalogue of his letters; and
even in the magnificent edition of Lefevre's dedicatory epistles and prefaces
published by Eugene F. Rice in 1974, Erasmus7 name is strangely absent. Thus
we know very little about the Parisian humanist's opinion of his younger
colleague, who, as the years passed, became more famous than he.
We do have one short letter written by Lefevre to Erasmus on 23 October
1514. Laudatory in tone, it gives the strong impression of being primarily a
stylistic exercise: Erasmus is compared to the sun, which diffuses its light.
Yet one sentiment undoubtedly rings true: Lefevre declares that he knows
Erasmus to be working not for himself alone but for the good of all.18 This
observation is too close to Lefevre's understanding of his own vocation to be
impersonal.19
Lefevre chose instead to express his full esteem, affection, and admi-
ration for Erasmus through intermediaries, as demonstrated in a letter of 5
August 1516 from Thomas Grey to Erasmus. Grey protests that, far from
holding a grudge against Erasmus for his criticisms of his Pauline commen-
taries, Lefevre would remain grateful to Erasmus for them. Grey adds that
Lefevre had noted them carefully but was prevented from writing by ill-
ness.20 But Erasmus soon had occasion to observe that things were more
complicated than they appeared. Just when the first signs of the disagreement
were appearing and when Erasmus had mentioned in passing his bitterness,
Pierre Barbier assured his friend, on 12 August 1517, that both Lefevre and
Josse Clichtove praised him to the skies and approved of all his works.21
Some years earlier, a more formal mention of Erasmus than that found
in private letters had been made by Lefevre's Alsatian student Beatus
Rhenanus, who addressed his preface to the works of Gregory of Nyssa (ac-
tually Pseudo-Gregory) in March 1512 to Lefevre. Here we see Rhenanus
engaged in an exercise much appreciated at that time: drawing up a list of
respected humanists. To be included in such a list and thus to acquire fame
among one's peers was at times the only recompense for the thankless task of
the scholar. There, in a text dedicated to him, Lefevre would have read that
Erasmus, this 'utriusque linguae callentissimus/ had been snatched from
France by Upper Germany.22 However trite and marginal, that is the only

18 Ep 315:9-12
19 Bedouelle Lefevre d'Etaples 17-20
20 Ep 445:31-51
21 Ep 621:22-4
22 Eugene F. Rice, Jr The Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples and Related
Texts (New York 1974) 263 Ep 87
 INTRODUCTION XV11

direct mention of Erasmus made by a member of Lef evre's camp prior to the
great debate.
For his part, Erasmus frequently mentioned the Parisian humanist in
his correspondence with all those who counted - or wanted to count - in the
world of learning. He did so with great warmth and persuasion up until 1516,
sometimes even likening Lefevre to Lorenzo Valla - a comparison which,
coming from the editor of Valla's Adnotationes in Latinam Novi Testamenti
interpretationem - was no small compliment: 'I have the highest opinion of
Lefevre as a scholar of uncommon erudition, I respect him as a man of
high character, and I wish him well as a close friend.'23 This also furnished
Erasmus with an occasion to cite the famous phrase from the Nicomachean
Ethics, which turns up in his writing from time to time, 'Amicus Plato sed
magis arnica veritas/
Erasmus and Lefevre met on at least two occasions, the first in Paris
several times between April and June 15H,24 and once again in Basel in
1526. Indeed, in 1511 they had 'the most intimate conversations' in the abbey
of Saint-Germain-des-Pres, where Lefevre was living at the invitation of its
abbot, but nevertheless omitted to discuss the exegetical projects they had in
common.25 This was a great pity, because it was between these two occasions
that the debate took place which would bring them into conflict and reveal
their agreements, their differences, and their true feelings about each other.

THE DEBATE BETWEEN ERASMUS AND LEFEVRE

A short review of the career of Lefevre prior to this debate will help to situate
and explain Erasmus' dismay at the sudden and - to Erasmus - unwarranted
attack on him by Lefevre. Born c 1460 at Etaples in Picardy, Lefevre became a
student and then a professor in the faculty of arts at the College du Cardinal
Lemoine in Paris. One of the earliest figures of French humanism, he was
eager to publish the fontes of philosophy, spirituality, and patristics that he
considered necessary for a unified spiritual theology. On his return from
Italy, where in 1492 he met the Aristotelian Barbaro, the Platonist Ficino,
and Pico della Mirandola, Lefevre began to annotate the whole corpus of
Aristotle's work. Then, assisted by students and colleagues - among them
Josse Clichtove - he moved on to publish hermetic and mystical authors such
as the Pseudo-Dionysius, Richard of Saint Victor, Ramon Lull, Ruysbroek,
Hildegard of Bingen, and Nicholas of Cusa. He gradually moved away from

23 Ep 326:104-6
24 See Apologia 8.
25 Ep 337:887-9. This is the famous letter to Maarten van Dorp of May 1515.
 INTRODUCTION XV111

this set of interests to devote himself exclusively to the Bible, doing so in three
stages in which he successively became a commentator, a translator, and a
preacher. It was in the early stages of the last phase that his disagreements
with Erasmus arose.
A brief chronology will help to clarify the debate. In 1509, Lefevre pub-
lished his Quincuplex psalterium, which was to be republished in 1513 and
almost universally acclaimed in the intellectual world of that time.26 In De-
cember 1512 (Paris: Henri Estienne) he brought out an important commentary
on the Epistles of St Paul in which he naturally included the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Erasmus, in his Novum instrumentum (1516), ventured to criticize
Lefevre's interpretation of Hebrews 2:7, which cites Psalm 8:6. Lefevre, how-
ever, slipped his response to Erasmus into the second edition of his Pauline
commentaries, dated 1515 but actually published in 1516. In July 1517, Eras-
mus noticed what he would call Lefevre's 'disputatio.' Gripped by anger
or indignation, he wrote his Apologia ad lacobum Fabrum Stapulensem in two
weeks.27 This work appeared in Louvain between 23 and 28 August 1517.
There would be six editions of it in Erasmus' lifetime.28
Let us now broach the crux of the controversy.29 Looking first at Lefevre,
we see that in his Quincuplex psalterium he insists very strongly that the tradi-
tional reading 'Minuisti eum paulo minus ab angelis' ('Thou hast made him a
little lower than the angels'), which was found in both the Psalter (8:6) and the
Epistle to the Hebrews (2:7), should be corrected to read 'Minuisti eum paulo
minus a Deo' ('Thou hast made him a little lower than God'). Lefevre held the
traditional reading to be theologically incorrect on the ground that the abase-

26 Bedouelle Quincuplex psalterium 207-15

27 In December 1517, Erasmus mentioned 'fourteen days' to Wolfgang Capito (Ep
731:4), but a month later he changed the number to twelve when addressing
Johannes de Molendino (Ep 755:17).
28 Louvain: Dirk Martens 1517; Strasbourg: Matthias Schiirer 1517 or 1518; Basel:
Johann Froben 1518; Louvain: Dirk Martens 1518; Basel: Johann Froben Novem-
ber 1521; and Basel: Johann Froben February 1522 (Apologiae omnes). Andrea W.
Steenbeek has provided a critical edition of it, 'with an Introduction, Critical
Apparatus and Explanatory Notes,' ASD ix-3- In Froben's edition of the Opera
omnia from Basel, 1540, the Apologia ad Stapulensem is found in volume ix 19-57
with Erasmus' annotation on Heb 2:7 and Lefevre's Disputatio (59-68).
29 The controversy has been studied many times, eg by Margaret Mann (Phillips)
Erasme et les debuts de la Reforme franc, aise, 1517-1536 (Paris 1934) 16-46, and,
more recently, by Helmut Feld 'Der humanisten Streit um Hebraer 2:7 (Psalm
8:6)' Archivfiir Reformationsgeschichte 61 (1970) 5-33, and John B. Payne 'Erasmus
and Lefevre d'Etaples as Interpreters of Paul' Archivfiir Reformationsgeschichte
65 (1974) 54-83-
 INTRODUCTION XIX

ment of the Son at the Incarnation occurred solely with respect to the Father
(John 14:28). To the objection that the phrase referred only to the humanity of
Christ, Lefevre replied that when Scripture speaks of the 'filius hominis' (the
'Son of Man'), as in Psalm 8:4, it refers to the single person of Christ, not to his
two natures. He further asserts that, although the Hebrew word used here for
God (Eloim) is plural, its Latin equivalent is best rendered in the singular - thus
maintaining an idea important to the Christian Cabbala that the plural 'Eloim'
confirms the three-person Trinity within the affirmation of a single divinity.30
After the first edition of his Pauline commentaries (1512) and the second
of the Quincuplex psalterium (1513), Lef evre maintained his position in the
Corollarium that he added to his notes on the Epistle to the Hebrews, in
spite of the observations which Erasmus had ventured to make. Erasmus
then countered with Psalm 22 (21 Vulg):7: 'Ego autem sum vermis et non
homo' ('But I am a worm, and no man'). This time Lef evre, deeming the verse
unsuitable for attribution to Christ, revealed his hermeneutical principle that,
for the believer, the literal sense becomes spiritual. As demonstrated by the
hymn in the Epistle to the Philippians (2:6-11), of which he made a verse-by-
verse comparison with Psalm 8,31 the humbling of Christ, for the Christian,
goes hand in hand with his exaltation.
Erasmus had suggested that the Hebrew adverb Meat (Latin paulo minus)
used by the author of Psalm 8 could have a temporal sense which would
resolve all the difficulties: it was 'for a little while' that Christ was made
lower than the angels. Lefevre refuted this philological position with the
argument that neither the Hebrew nor the Greek Septuagint carries this sense
of duration, even if Athanasius and Chrysostom, deceived by the standard
translation of the psalm, were compelled to understand it in a temporal sense.
Lefevre concludes his Corollarium with a defence of the Pauline authenticity
of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Thus Lefevre's exegesis begins fundamentally with his intuition as a
believer, his sense of the Christological dimension of Scripture. It is from this
position that one must begin, if one is to present an interpretation worthy of
Christ and of that which has been revealed to us about him. Philology and the
harmony of the Scriptures have only to be brought together to corroborate,
or rather manifest, the theological intuition. Every other interpretation is,
according to Lefevre, 'heretical and most unworthy of Christ and God ...
contrary to the spirit and adhering to the letter which destroys/32

30 Quincuplex psalterium (1513) f ol lov

31 Ibidem fol 10. Cf Bedouelle Quincuplex psalterium 124-6.
32 Commentarii in S. Pauli epistolas (1515) fol 2a6v
 INTRODUCTION XX

It is obviously this sentence which most unsettled Erasmus. He could

not bear being treated as a heretic, for such is the implication of the word
impius, so inopportunely applied by Lefevre.33 The Apologia ad lacobum Fabrum
Stapulensem therefore gives us Erasmus' position as he refutes Lefevre's
thesis step by step, whereas successive editions of his Annotations on the New
Testament would clarify his arguments in a more irenic manner.34
The tone of the Apologia is that of a man appalled. This helps to explain
why this very repetitive work is not exempt from cruelty. Erasmus finds a
certain pleasure in noting the weaknesses in Lefevre's knowledge of Greek,
especially throughout his last section. The same accusation would be repeated
by Erasmus' partisans in Louvain, who would insinuate that in Greek, as in
Hebrew, Lef evre could not have done without his young colleague Francois
Vatable.35
Erasmus' method in the Apologia is completely different from that of
Lefevre. More 'critical' and developed, it carefully distinguishes theology
and philology, traditional arguments, patristic references, and grammatical
considerations - not in the design of the work, which more or less follows the
disordered thesis of his adversary (69), but none the less in the intention and
spirit of the polemicist. The style is brilliant and, as usual, filled with adages
and with quotations from ancient authors, all of which provide some relief
in a text which might otherwise be tedious.
In fact, the gist of his argument is that there is no basis for a quarrel.
Erasmus had never wished to censure Lefevre on the point in question, but
simply to say that all the Fathers of the church except St Jerome followed
the 'ab angelis' reading, and even St Jerome did not exclude it. Lefevre's
mistake was to be so uncompromising and to accuse him so 'atrociously'36

33 For an analysis of pietas and thus of impietas in the sixteenth century, see Massaut
Critique et tradition 63-6, and John W. O'Malley's Introduction to CWE 66 (Toronto
1988) xv-xxi.
34 Reeve in 706-13 (on Hebrews 2). Erasmus composed the definitive text for this
annotation in 1519, by going back to the Summa, already published with the
Apologia, and ending up with a veritable case of fifty-seven points. This text was
included in all subsequent editions up to 1535.
35 Letter of Wilhelm Nesen to Bruno Amerbach 9 August 1518 Die Amerbach-
korrespondenz ed A. Hartmann (Basel 1943) n 121. Francois Vatable, a Picard
like Lefevre, was a skilled Hebraicist who studied and then taught in Lefevre's
circle in the College du Cardinal Lemoine. In 1530 he became the first royal
professor in Hebrew named by Francis I.
36 Reeve m 708
 INTRODUCTION XXI

in a matter that is equally difficult whichever side one takes. Which is easier,
to say that Christ was made less than God or that he was made less than the
angels, since there is no proportion between human and divine nature? The
version proposed or, rather, imposed by Lefevre on the ground that it avoids
heresy (citra haeresim) lends itself to as many theological difficulties as the
other reading upheld by tradition.
After a number of preliminary remarks in which he discusses his oppo-
nent's disagreement with St Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers of the church,
Erasmus enters into an examination of Lefevre's Christological doctrine. If
one can in fact apply this psalm verse to Christ, one is equally free, he
asserts, to apply it to created man. Already, the differences in the hermeneu-
tical approaches of the two men are seen to be quite marked; but Erasmus
lays claim none the less to have a view of the person (hypostasis) of Christ
that is as orthodox as Lefevre's, and to be as competent as Lefevre to dis-
course upon an 'exchange of idioms' (communicatio idiomatum) which allows
for the application of divine as well as human attributes to Christ, the incar-
nate Word of God. Aware nevertheless that there are two ways of speaking
about Christ, Erasmus tells his opponent: 'You prefer to extol the sublim-
ity of Christ; someone else may prefer to contemplate the lowliness which
he assumed; and though it would be difficult to say whose zeal is more pi-
ous, it is the latter perhaps from which more profit is to be gained for the
present' (35).
This is the crux of the debate. Erasmus stresses the humanity of Christ to
such an extent that, for him, the mystery of Christ's incarnation and passion,
which so humbled him, is the very source of our redemption. His commentary
on the hymn in Philippians (2:6-11), which Lefevre likewise cherished, is
imbued with a fine theological inspiration (60-1). Lefevre, however, leans
much more towards the Platonic or Dionysian tradition, which emphasizes
the divine nature of Christ. This twofold Christological approach is an
integral part of Christian theology.
Compared to this issue - which is, in a way, Erasmus' defence of
the reality of the Incarnation (27-8), in which what is 'most pious' is not
necessarily 'most sublime' - the other points of contention are insignificant.
Erasmus enters into philological discussions of certain terms, especially the
meaning of the Hebrew term Meat, which he interprets to mean 'for a little
while.' In addition, he questions the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews
and its Pauline authenticity. Finally, overlooking not even a single verse,
Erasmus demonstrates to Lefevre his lack of critical judgment, his ingenuous
positions, and his errors in translation, all the while inviting him not to
make a laughing-stock of himself. Even if this process is interspersed with
 INTRODUCTION XXii

protestations of friendship, and even if the theological points were weighty,

it was a harshly administered lesson.
Erasmus did not doubt his victory. As soon as the Apologia was published,
he claimed to be considered everywhere the uncontested winner. The differ-
ence in the temperaments of the two humanists, however, will become clear.

TWO K I N D S OF R E A C T I O N
From July 1517 to the end of 1518, Erasmus' correspondence was virtually
taken up with his dispute with Lefevre, of whom he had no direct news
other than the contradictory rumours that reached him. Even if Erasmus'
first reaction was to enter not into a quarrel but rather into a debate, even
if he remained more or less calm during the writing and distribution of
his Apologia, the tension mounted with respect to his correspondents, who
ventured to comment on the tone he had adopted. He had been persuaded
by the numerous testimonies received from his correspondents - mostly
laudatory, but some ambiguous - that the intellectual world was entirely
bound up with this affair.
Generally speaking, the republic of letters watched with great conster-
nation as its two most prestigious members proceeded to tear each other
apart.37 An exchange of lengthy missives between Erasmus and Guillaume
Bude turned rather sour, and the tone of both men became bitter.38 Few
risked dealing with the heart of the issue besides Symphorien Champier, a
member of Lefevre's circle, who reckoned that both interpretations could be
sustained.39
It is clear that the exegetical and theological debate is not without
interest, even if the occasion for it is trivial. The psychological attitude of the
two parties in the debate also comes to light. Erasmus churns out repetitive,
almost obsessive explanations, vacillating between the distress of a bad
conscience and a sense of the Tightness of his cause. Lefevre remains silent.
Erasmus did not abandon his affirmation of esteem and friendship
for Lefevre. It was indeed the thought that he was betrayed by a friend
that wounded him the most. He even went so far as to reproach Cuthbert
Tunstall for having been too biased in his favour and too disparaging of
Lefevre!40 The term which most often recurs is invitus: reluctantly, in spite of

37 For an analysis of the reactions, see Rummel Catholic Critics 152-8.

38 Epp 744,778,810,906. See Marie-Madeleine de La Garanderie La correspondance
d'Erasme et de Guillaume Bude (Paris 1967).
39 Ep 68oA 13-15 September 1517
40 Ep 675:13-15
 INTRODUCTION XX111

himself, he has been obliged to defend himself. The whole business was so
distressing that it had to be attributed to 'fate' or some 'evil genius/ either
his own or Lefevre's, or to some 'demon/ His correspondents sometimes
echoed this theme,41 not without bombast, in comparing this dispute to the
Homeric quarrels or to the controversies between Jerome and Rufinus and
even Jerome and Augustine. Erasmus himself, as we have seen, goes so far
as to recall the dissent between Paul and Barnabas recounted in the Acts of
the Apostles (i5:39)-42
On the whole, Erasmus believed that slandering theologians had pushed
Lefevre to criticize him;43 but he was at times so exasperated that he did
not hesitate to accuse Lefevre of imbuing his remarks with hate.44 He calls
him vain and reproaches him for a kind of Parisian pride.45 Still, we must
recognize that he then sought to enter into dialogue with his opponent,
whom he still considered his friend. Erasmus wrote three letters to Lefevre,
diminishing each time the bitterness of his tone.
The first letter, written on 11 September 1517, accompanied the delivery
of the Apologia.46 Undoubtedly trying to soften the blow, he entrusted the
book and the letter to a theologian at the Sorbonne for personal delivery to
Lefevre.47 As in other places, Erasmus repeats here all the remarks, or, rather,
'the monstrous accusations/ of Lefevre that had most wounded him:' "words
most unworthy of Christ and of God," "words self-destructive from every
point of view, and from every aspect exhibiting their own falsity," "words
which are hostile to the understanding of prophecy," "words which support
the case of those pestilent Jews and treat Christ with contumely as they do,"
"words worthy of Bedlam," "words which, if obstinately adhered to, would
make me a heretic," and plenty more of the same kind.'48 Yet Erasmus, having
now defended himself, proposes to put an end to the polemic, which could
please only those adhering to the old ignorance.49 A pure and truly Christian
sincerity has to be maintained.

41 See eg Bude's letter of 12 April 1518, Ep 810.

42 Ep 855:63-5
43 See Ep 800:16-21.
44 See Ep 627:18.
45 Ep 663:71-2
46 Ep 659
47 See Epp 724:2,778:322-3.
48 Ep 659:6-12. 'Bedlam' is literally 'Anticyra/ where the cultivators of the helle-
bore whom the Apologia mentions on numerous occasions had the reputation of
being touched with madness.
49 See Ep 659:26-7.
 INTRODUCTION XXIV

Erasmus counted the passing months while awaiting the response,

which never came. On 30 November 1517, he decided to write again.50 This
time it was only a short note which, although still on the defensive, solicits a
response while requesting that its tone be 'what befits' a man like Lefevre, a
man who was 'truly dear' to him.51
But still no response came from Paris. Rumours abounded that Lef evre,
after the publication of his treatise on Mary Magdalene and the Triduum
of Christ, was much occupied in drawing up a response, which he would
also have printed.52 As the time continued to pass, on 18 January 1518 with
some irritation Erasmus requested Henricus Glareanus, who had studied for
a while with Lefevre, to caution his master and convey to him, along with
Erasmus' friendly greetings, his desire to receive at least a response.53
When yet another three months had passed, it was Erasmus who took
the initiative to write to the still silent Lefevre. This time, on 17 April 1518,
Erasmus requested a private letter of reconciliation - 'I do not suggest that
you recant [palinodia] ... Do just publish some letter which will make it clear
that you entered the lists from zeal to pursue the truth, and that in other
respects we are personally in agreement [concordia]'54 - adding that silence
could only inflame the discord.55
Now silence was precisely the reaction which Lefevre chose to maintain
in the matter, as he would do later in connection with more weighty issues.56
Guillaume Bude attested that Lefevre had never spoken to him of his quarrel
with Erasmus, even when it was clearly known to everyone.57 Certainly,
Erasmus received some indirect echoes of Lefevre's reactions through his
friends and the theologian who performed the good offices of a messenger
for him. Lefevre did not withdraw his friendship for Erasmus, but he had
been wounded by the vehement tone of the Apologia. Upon receiving it,
however, he was reported to have remarked that Erasmus was 'inconstant'
and 'not serious' (levitas).58

50 Ep 724
51 Ep 724:7
52 See Ep 775:20-1.
53 Ep 766
54 Allen Ep 814:21,24 / CWE Ep 814:26-8
55 Allen Ep 814:25 / CWE Ep 814:30-1, and Allen Ep 826:13-14 / CWE Ep 826:18-19
to Henry Bullock. In this last letter, of 23 April 1518, one senses that Erasmus
has reached his saturation point.
56 See Bedouelle Lefevre d'Etaples i2off.
57 Ep 896:61-2
58 Allen Ep 778:297 / CWE Ep 778:229, and Allen Ep 796:25-6 / CWE Ep 796:25-6
 INTRODUCTION XXV

Of a rather stubborn temperament himself and no doubt also taciturn,

Lefevre used his silence, in any case, both to defend himself and to manifest
his deep desire to avoid great controversies. On the rare occasions when
he did enter the fray, he was content simply to justify himself. He did
not recant, but neither did he endlessly pursue the quarrel in a public
forum. This was especially the case in his dispute with John Fisher and
several others on the subject of Mary Magdalene.59 The French humanist
maintained that three separate followers of Jesus could be distinguished
in the gospel narratives, contradicting the liturgical tradition that conflated
them into the single disciple Mary Magdalene. Erasmus made no very explicit
pronouncement on the subject; but, paradoxically, he believed that Lefevre
took the reproaches against him too much to heart, and considered that
Fisher, for his part, took too much trouble to make this affair a question of
faith.60
Yet to all things there is an end. In August 1518, a year after the original
wound, Erasmus told Willibald Pirckheimer that he hoped it would heal
over.61 It did, and on both sides, probably because the issues no longer
seemed so divisive in the face of the turbulence which Luther was unleashing
in Germany. Even if the main points had been enough to elicit a debate,
they did not touch upon fundamental questions. Contact was re-established
between Erasmus and Lefevre.

A R E D I S C O V E R E D PEACE
A change in tone is perceptible throughout Erasmus' correspondence in
1520. He sharply reprimands Juan Luis Vives, who had taken the liberty
of criticizing Lefevre indirectly,62 remarking that in his current mood 'my
feelings are such that I should listen impatiently to anyone who spoke of him
otherwise than one would of a most upright and most learned man.'63
What had happened? Wearied by this quarrel, Erasmus wanted to
persuade himself that he could interpret Lefevre's silence as an admission of
his guilt, and wrote in this vein to Bishop Jacopo Sadoleto on 25 February

59 Anselm Hufstader 'Lefevre d'Etaples and the Magdalen' Studies in the Renais-
sance 16 (1969) 31-60; Massaut Critique et tradition 67-70; and Bedouelle Lefevre
d'Etaples 191-6
60 Ep 936 to Fisher 2 April 1519, in which he considers the English theologian the
winner; and Ep 1068 to Fisher 21 February 1520. These judgments occur after
the controversy between Lefevre and himself.
61 Ep 856:73-4
62 Ep 1108:175-80 4 June 1520
63 Ep 1111:99-101
 INTRODUCTION XXVi

1525-64 Admittedly, this statement came more than six years after the dispute
between the two humanists. But much had come to pass in the meantime to
demonstrate to Erasmus how harmful such indulgence in this type of quarrel
could be to their common cause. For example, the conservative theologians,
distressed by the rapid diffusion of Luther's ideas, were multiplying their
attacks and associating the names of Erasmus and Lefevre in their suspicion
and condemnation. Several times, notably in a letter written on 13 March 1521
to Alexander Schweiss, secretary of the count of Nassau, Erasmus cited a
sermon by a Carmelite who, in the presence of Francis i, had announced that
'the coming of Antichrist is at hand, and that he already has four precursors:
some Minorite or other in Italy, Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples in France, Reuchlin
in Germany, and Erasmus in Brabant.'65
But the most distressing part for Erasmus was the way these adversaries
used his disagreement with Lefevre as an example of the schisms which
always divide heretics.66 In the letter to Schweiss just mentioned, Erasmus
cites in this context his Louvain opponent, the Carmelite prior and theologian
Nicolaas Baechem.67 Jean Lange, a disciple of Lefevre who lived near him
in Meaux after having previously been his pupil at the College du Cardinal
Lemoine in Paris, spoke of his sorrow when he saw this 'slight' disagreement
between Erasmus and 'that excellent man Lefevre' used by the factious 'tribe'
of theologians 'as a handle for false accusations.'68
Certainly when faced with the disdain and criticism of Noel Beda, Eras-
mus did not deny his solidarity with Lefevre.69 Nevertheless, he took care
to distinguish a difference in style that is important for any comparison
between the two men. In his long letter of 15 June 1525 to Beda, Erasmus de-
clared: 'You understand, I hope, that there is an immense difference between
Lefevre and myself: he boldly asserts his position, I merely put the case and

64 Ep 1555:89-91
65 Ep 1192:29-33. The Franciscan may have been Bernardino Ochino. Erasmus
alludes to the same event in a letter to Louis Guillard, bishop of Tournai, on 17
June 1521 (Ep 1212:29-33).
66 Pierre Cousturier (Petrus Sutor), a Carthusian theologian, a graduate of the
Sorbonne, alludes to it; De tralatione Bibliae ... (Paris: Josse Bade for Jean Petit
1525)fol 86v.
67 Ep 1192:56-8. Baechem's remark is echoed several times in one form or another,
eg to Thomas More Ep 1162:143-6 and to Vincentius Theoderici Ep 1196:618-
20. For further information on Baechem, see Rummel Catholic Critics 152-8 and
135-43-
68 Ep 1407:23-8. For Lange, see Michel Veissiere L'eveque Guillaume Brigonnet
(Provins 1986) 234.
69 Allen Ep 1685:57-8
 INTRODUCTION XXV11

leave the decision to others/70 This protest in his own defence71 reflects the
two temperaments rather well.
In any case, it is clear that the combined attacks against the two estranged
humanists brought Erasmus round to a friendlier disposition towards his
opponent. We even have some evidence, though inconclusive and generally
unnoticed by historians, for a possible intervention by Erasmus in favour of
Lefevre with the authorities in Rome.
This occurred in 1525, a year that proved especially difficult for the
old man working with Bishop Guillaume Bric.onnet in Meaux. After Em-
peror Charles v defeated French forces at Pavia in February and took King
Francis i captive, the Parlement of Paris and the theologians at the faculty of
theology enjoyed a freer hand to move against humanists and reformers. In
August, they condemned Lefevre's French translation of the New Testament
and the collection of homilies Epistres et evangiles pour les cinquante deux sep-
maines. Both books were strategic parts of the reform Bric,onnet and Lefevre
were attempting at Meaux. With some of his collaborators, Lefevre fled to
Strasbourg under a false name - a ruse which Erasmus found amusing.72 But
a letter from Gian Matteo Giberti, bishop of Verona and datarius and coun-
sellor of Pope Clement vn, furnishes evidence of Erasmus' intercession on
behalf of Lefevre. Writing to Erasmus on 27 November 1525, Giberti makes
his position clear with regard to the two humanists' difficulties. He expresses
pleasure with a plan, apparently disclosed to him by Erasmus, to defeat the
heretics: 1 shall be with you and your friends as I have always been; I shall do
what I can to let Jacques Lefevre know, if I am approached by his agents, that
your support was no less significant than his own merits/73 Had Lefevre's
enemies plotted to pursue him in a Roman court? We know nothing more
definite about this; but the testimony of Bishop Giberti places Erasmus in a
generous light.
Reconciliation between the two men was now possible. It was to take
place at Basel in mid-May 1526,74 after Lefevre quit his exile in Strasbourg
and set out again for France, where he had been restored to favour after the

70 Ep 1581:864-7. For the context, see James K. Farge Orthodoxy and Reform in Early
Reformation France (Leiden 1985) 256ff.
71 A little later, on 23 June 1526, Erasmus complained to the faculty of theology in
Paris that Cousturier treated it less tactfully than Lefevre (Allen Ep 1723:38-9).
72 Allen Ep 1674:70-2. For more about these episodes, see Bedouelle Lefevre
d'Etaples 103-10, and Veissiere L'eveque Guillaume Brigonnet 317-68 (see n68
above).
73 Ep i65OA:i6-i8
74 Allen Ep 1713:19-21. Lefevre, having been misinformed, announced Bude's
death to Erasmus.
 INTRODUCTION XXViii

liberation of King Francis i. The following year, on 24 March 1527, Erasmus

wrote a short, very serene and conciliatory letter to Lefevre concerning a
translation of St John Chrysostom's commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles.
Erasmus says that he had intended to undertake this work himself, but that,
having heard Lefevre and Gerard Roussel were to take it on at the behest of
the king, he now left the field open to them. To Lefevre, Erasmus wished the
happy tranquillity which his grand old age merited.75
From that time on, Erasmus' correspondence mentioned only hearsay
accounts of Lefevre. In 1528, he was astonished not to have had any news/6
That was at a time when in his Ciceronianus Erasmus was passing judgment
on the Latin style of his contemporaries. In quest of true 'Ciceronians' of
the past and present, Bulephorus, one of Erasmus' interlocutors, declares,
'Jacques Lefevre is thought very distinguished/ His fellow, Nosophonus,
replies, 'A pious and learned man, but he prefered to express himself as a
theologian rather than a Tullian.'77 There was no animosity in that.
Conversely, in the following years Erasmus repeated some disquieting
gossip, which he did not however take very seriously: had he not heard a
rumour that Lefevre had been burned?78 But he thought that there must
have been some confusion with Berquin. Indeed, several months before this
Lefevre had left Blois, where he had served as the private tutor of the royal
children, and found his final refuge at Margaret of Navarre's court in Nerac.
On 9 July 1533, Pierre Barbier, the dean of Tournai, wrote to Erasmus
about a conversation he had had with Girolamo Aleandro: 'He spoke quite
a bit about Lefevre, whose reputation has been tarnished for several years.
May it please God that it be groundless! He is a man whom I have always
venerated as a father.'79 Indeed, Lefevre's final years, when he had retreated
into silence, are shrouded in mystery. He died sometime during the first few
months of 1536. Erasmus was not to survive him by much, since he in his
turn passed away on 12 July of the same year.
Silence concerning the person and work of Lefevre was to prevail, how-
ever, even after the reformers in Geneva at the end of the century named him
as a forerunner of their Reformation. In contrast, the renown of Erasmus suf-
fered hardly at all, even when the Roman Index condemned part of his work.

75 Allen Ep 1795:18
76 Allen Ep 2052:15-16
77 Ciceronianus CWE 28 421
78 Allen Epp 2362:20 11 August 1530 and 2379:466 5 September 1530
79 Allen Ep 2842:30-1. On the relationship between Lefevre and Aleandro, see
Bedouelle Lefevre d'Etaples 126-7.
 INTRODUCTION XXIX

II
ANALYSIS AND OUTLINE OF THE APOLOGIA

Composed rapidly and in the grip of anger, the Apologia against Lefevre
follows no harmonious plan, despite disclaimers of Erasmus. He was in fact
well aware of this, but imputes the responsibility to his opponent: 'Since your
whole treatise lacked order, because you were tearing away at individual
parts of my treatise as they came, and in my reply I was forced to follow
your sequence, the reader may find my own presentation rather unfocused
and for this reason less than clear' (69).
The reader may nevertheless find it helpful to refer to the following
sequence of the Apologia's principal arguments, each followed by the page
reference in the present volume.

INTRODUCTION: WHY ERASMUS FELT OBLIGED TO WRITE THIS

APOLOGIA
- Erasmus discovered almost by chance the second edition of Lefevre's
Commentaries on the Epistles ofSt Paul and the passage which concerned him
(4)-
- He complains about the hostile behaviour manifested by Lefevre, and
repeats the view of certain people that "you seem here to be a different
person' (5).
- Men of reputation like Lefevre and Erasmus ought to avoid contradicting
each other publicly (6).
- Meanwhile, there is still room for discussion 'in those matters which do
not properly bear upon articles of faith' (7).
- Erasmus refutes Lefevre only in order to redress an error and in the interest
of truth (8-9).
- Erasmus has always spoken honourably of Lefevre and wonders why
Lefevre did not respond to the sensitive points in his letters, where he
warned 'that in making my emendations I would in certain places take a
different view from yours' (9).
- Erasmus raises the question of the backdated edition of Lefevre's Pauline
commentaries, but prefers to see it 'as a result of an error on the part of the
printers' (10-11).
- Why has Lefevre never thanked Erasmus for his remarks, even when he
has clearly taken account of them? (12).
- Erasmus was forced to intervene by Lefevre's accusation of sacrilege
(13)-
- Perhaps Lefevre's exaggerated reaction is due to the influence of his sup-
porters, who cannot tolerate criticism of their master (13).
 INTRODUCTION XXX

P A R T i: D I S C U S S I O N OF THE T R A D I T I O N A L I N T E R P R E T A T I O N
- Erasmus' task is not easy because Lefevre's treatise 'spreads out in all
directions' (14).
- Nevertheless, it is possible to synthesize the debate as Lefevre has done:
'Our friend Erasmus does not accept my opinion ... nor does he approve
of St Jerome's interpretation of the sixth verse of the Eighth Psalm, namely:
"You will make him a little less than God"' (15).
- But is that not an artificially fabricated disagreement? (15).
- There has from the start been a misunderstanding as to the nature of the
annotations made by Erasmus: 'I simply record two opinions, neither of
which constitutes a heresy' (16).
- Lefevre claims to defend Jerome's interpretation, but does not cite his
commentaries (16).
- In fact, Erasmus supports neither of the two opinions; on the contrary, he
might even be closer to that of Lefevre, for which he offers a valid solution
(17)-
- Erasmus discusses the reproach of contradicting Aquinas: in itself one can
do it, but not without having studied what he said (18-19).
- Generally speaking, the Fathers of the church favour the reading 'less
than the angels,' 'with the single exception of Jerome, though even he is
ambiguous' (19-20).
- Giustiniani's eightfold Psalter, that 'heaven-inspired ... work you refer to'
(20), is no great help in this matter (20-1).
- Erasmus reaffirms that as far as he is concerned, theologically speaking,
'the same difficulty remains whether you say 'than God' or 'than the angels'
(22). In fact, Erasmus had said 'seems to remain' (25).
- Erasmus examines St Paul's authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
which he believes was not originally written in Hebrew, and his use of the
Septuagint (24).
- Erasmus summarizes his personal position: 'I favoured ... the opinion
which you share with St Jerome; but at the time I decided not to accept one
reading if it meant that I would be repudiating the other as impious and
heretical' (24-5).
- What does the exegetical preference signify in relation to Christology, with
which Erasmus is as familiar as anyone else? (26).

PART 2: T H E O L O G I C A L D I S C U S S I O N
- Erasmus interprets Psalm 8:6 to refer to Christ's humanity, or to 'Christ
incarnate/ a mode of expression which he justifies (27-8).
- Erasmus uses the well-known and legitimate procedure of the 'exchange
of idioms' only when speaking of the person of Christ (28-9).
 INTRODUCTION XXXI

- Erasmus discusses the vocabulary used for Christ. In Catholic tradition,

it is perfectly acceptable to speak of Christ as a 'man/ as Augustine does
(29).
- It is just as legitimate to speak of the 'mingling' of the two natures of Christ
as to speak of their 'union' (30-1).
- What does it mean to say that 'the Son of Man was diminished'? (31).
- Erasmus holds firm to what he wrote: 'Christ, both on account of the human
form which he assumed and on account of the disadvantages of the human
condition, was made lower not only than the angels but even than the
lowliest of men' (32-3).
- Christ 'took upon himself almost all the misfortunes of this life' (34).
- Erasmus begins to discuss the two Christological perspectives, wherein
his own orientation distinguishes him from his opponent. For Erasmus,
the weakness of Christ 'has more relevance for us.' 'You prefer to extol the
sublimity of Christ/ he tells Lefevre (35-6).
- In this context, the hymn in Philippians 2 assumes profound significance:
the kenosis of Christ seems to be the condition of his exaltation: 'by em-
ploying the word "exalted," Paul admits that Christ humbled himself to
the greatest degree possible' (36-7).
- This is the interpretation of Ambrose and Hilary (38-40).
- By emphasizing the abasement of Christ, Erasmus compares him to martyrs
(40), who like him obtain the crown (41).
- There is no contradiction between the cross and glory: 'In the one we see
what we must imitate, in the other what we may hope for' (41).

PART 3 : L O G I C A L A N D P H I L O L O G I C A L D I S C U S S I O N
- All the foregoing remarks, says Erasmus, were 'a preparation for my
main point, namely, that the expression ppayv TL is to be given a temporal
reference' (42).
- How can Christ be called 'a worm and no man' (Ps 22 [21 Vulg]:/)? (42-4).
- One must never weaken the cry of Christ abandoned upon the cross
(45)-
- One must not fall into that heresy which says, 'Christ suffered not in reality
but in his imagination' (45).
- There is 'no reason why anyone who worships his eminence should be
offended by a reminder of his lowliness' (48).
- Erasmus discusses the problem of the relation between the human and
divine natures of Christ. What does this term relation signify? (49).
- There is neither contradiction nor heresy in saying that 'as the Word Christ
is the creator ... while as a man he is a created thing' (51).
- Lefevre's Christological language is not exempt from weaknesses (52-3).
 INTRODUCTION XXX11

- In this case, how does Lefevre dare to accuse Erasmus of using a language
'most unworthy of Christ and God, contrary to the spirit' (54), and of being
associated 'with the Jews who have an ill opinion of Christ'? (55).
- This leads us necessarily to Erasmus' solution that 'for a time Christ was
made lower than most.' That is the meaning of fipaxv n (57).
- This solution is 'consistent with either of the two readings, "than God" or
"than the angels"'(58).
- Digression on Philippians 2:7 (60-1).
- Examples from classical philology and Greek grammar (61-5).
- Discussion of the Hebrew term Meat (65).
- Discussion of the Latin expression paulo minus or paululum (66).
- In a digression, Erasmus refutes the presumed translation of the Epistle to
the Hebrews by St Luke (67).
- Discussion of the Hebrew Eloim (68).

EPILOGUE: SUMMARY AND REMAINDER OF THE DISCUSSION

- 'By way of an epilogue, it may not be out of place to draw the main threads
of the argument together into a summary' (69):
i/ 'There is no argument between us.' There are two readings; 'each is in its
own way acceptable' (69).
2/ The adverbial expression paulo minus, or paululum, causes a problem,
though it is one which is more acute if we choose the reading which you
regard as the only possible one' (70).
3/ The true matter at issue here is Christological (71-2).
4/ The proper use of uTroordo-eGo? (73).
- The discussion resumes with a development of the Christological interpre-
tation of the prophetic texts, in particular the Psalms (74-5).
- 'Indeed, it is not at all a case of doubting whether this psalm applies
to Christ, but whether it applies to him exclusively/ which seems to be
Lefevre's narrow interpretation (76).
- Erasmus embarks upon a discussion of the Pauline attribution of the Epistle
to the Hebrews (79), in which he intends to respond to the triple charge
that Lefevre has laid against him.
i/ According to Lefevre, this problem was not relevant to the matter under
discussion. Erasmus' intention, in fact, was 'to offer a reminder that there
had long been some dispute as to the author of this letter' (80).
2/ Lefevre reproaches Erasmus for having declared that the Epistle to the
Hebrews was accepted by the church at a late date (81). Erasmus replies,
'The only point I make is that there is uncertainty as to the author' (81), and
justifies his position (82-6).
3/ 'Your final charge, that of ignorance, I hardly took seriously' (86); Lefevre
is not justified in mocking a friend (88).
 INTRODUCTION XXX111

In conclusion, Erasmus once again laments the damage that this kind of
controversy between humanists does to the cause of good learning: 'We shall
turn out to be the talk of the world' (90).
- Erasmus does not at all like this exercise in which Lefevre has compelled
him to engage (91), but he was forced to defend himself (92).
- In the controversies of the early church, certain hasty assertions made by
some of the Fathers of the church like Augustine or Chrysostom demon-
strate that one can be mistaken, yet remain sincere and devout (93-7).
- One should follow the example of Augustine On the Trinity 1.3, who agreed
to be corrected (97).
- Lefevre should not have been annoyed: 'I corrected your mistakes with
the hope of receiving your thanks, as anyone who corrected mine would
receive thanks from me' (98).
- Erasmus then recalls in detail all the minor corrections which he proposed
to Lefevre for his Pauline commentaries (98-105).
- As for the reproach made by Lefevre that Erasmus was 'a would-be
theologian' (106), Erasmus is not worried about it: 'Where in my writings
do I boast of being a theologian?' (106).
- Erasmus hopes that Lefevre will never attack him again. 'I am confident
that you will do what I most dearly hope will be better for both of us and
more pleasing in the end to Christ' (107).

Ill
CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

The theology and what we would now call the spirituality of Christian mar-
riage occupied Erasmus for almost his entire life. To this end, he used almost
all the literary genres familiar to him, and showed much ingenuity in ex-
ploiting the stylistic rules proper to each. He sometimes utilized his stylistic
skill to evade, as well as to respond to, the objections raised against him
(see the Appendix written against Clichtove, 112-15 below, on what consti-
tutes a Declamatio). The diversity of his approaches somewhat undermines
the clarity of his position.
First, there is the eulogy, the Encomium, a hybrid genre which Erasmus
uses frequently. His Declamatio in favour of marriage, later known as the
Encomium matrimonii, was published in 1518 but had been composed around
1498 or even earlier.80 Erasmus took up this text again in his De conscribendis

80 The Encomium was translated into English, as part of a program of ecclesiastical

reform, by Richard Taverner in 1532 from the edition and translation which
 INTRODUCTION XXXIV

epistolis in 1522 (CWE 25 129-45) but paired it amusingly there with De genere
dissuasorio, an exercise in dissuasive rhetoric on the marital contract, in which
some readers hoped in vain to find a praise of virginity (CWE 25 145-8).
Furthermore, since comparison, if not opposition, among celibacy, virginity,
and marriage is obligatory in any discourse upon the seventh sacrament, it
is appropriate also to mention here the Virginis et martyris compamtio of 1524
(LB v 589-600).
Next come the scriptural commentaries, the Annotationes and the Para-
phrases on the New Testament. Whenever the Gospels or St Paul treats the
question of marriage and divorce, Erasmus enters into the discussion, giving
his opinion by means of philological or exegetical remarks upon the passages
from Sacred Scripture.
Then there is the formal treatise such as the Institutio christiani matrimonii
of 1526, a work dedicated to Queen Catherine of Aragon, the wife of Henry
vin of England, whose marriage, in point of fact, would trigger 'The King's
Great Matter,' with its immediate and long-term consequences (LB v 613-724).
De vidua Christiana of 1529, dedicated to Mary of Hungary (CWE 66 177-257),
can also be added to this category.
Neither should the Colloquia be forgotten, where the characters some-
times speak in an amusing way the ideas of Erasmus himself, even if, as a mat-
ter of principle, he denies it. Among others of this kind, the Virgo jmuoyajuos
(The Girl with No Interest in Marriage' CWE 39 279-301) and the Coniugium
('Marriage' CWE 39 306-27), both published in 1523, and the "Aya/xos yajmos,
sive Coniugium impar ('A Marriage in Name Only, or The Unequal Match' CWE
40 842-60) of 1529 may be mentioned.
We come finally to the polemics and controversies, which might rather
be called debates were it not for the bitter remarks and even insults they
contain. Erasmus is always concerned to defend his writings and his reputa-
tion for orthodoxy, especially in regard to his views on marriage or divorce.
From May 1519 onwards he had to confront successively and sometimes si-
multaneously Jan Briart of Ath (Apologia de laude matrimonii, 1519, CWE 71
89-95), Edward Lee (1520), Diego Lopez Zuniga (Stunica) (1521-2), Sancho
Carranza (1522), Noel Beda (1527), the faculty of theology in Paris, and still
others.81 The two important controversies concerning marriage involve the

Thomas Cromwell favoured: A n/ght frutefull Epystle in laude of matrimony,

translated by R. Tavernour; and published with De conscribendis epistolis (1532).
This text is so rare that it is not found, for example, in the Bodleian Library in
Oxford, although the British Library possesses an exemplar of it.
81 For further information on these attacks, see Rummel Catholic Critics.
 INTRODUCTION XXXV

objections raised by Josse Clichtove and Johann Dietenberger, the refutation

of which takes up a large portion of the present volume of the cwE.82
Before examining the details of these controversies, and in order to un-
derstand them better in the light of the themes developed there, it seems de-
sirable to explore briefly the position and, at times, the evolution of Erasmus'
thoughts on the exegetical, theological, and spiritual and canonical problems
involved.

THE H I E R A R C H Y OF STATES OF LIFE

It is a theological commonplace, almost a rhetorical device in the Christian
tradition, especially in the patristic and medieval periods, to classify the
states of life of baptized Christians according to the degree of merit that
one may acquire in each. Let us examine Erasmus' position on this matter,
beginning with the texts published in this volume but also looking more
broadly throughout his work, to see whether or not he departs from the
received tradition. How did he rank the merit or honour of the consecrated
life in comparison with that of the married life and of celibacy?
It is immediately apparent that when Erasmus criticizes Josse Clichtove
for a certain semantic confusion, his own choice of words is no more rigorous.
In any case, his usage differs from the modern one whereby virginity,
continence, and chastity have decidedly different connotations. In the moral
theology of our day, Virginity' applies to the person who has never had
sexual relations, 'continence' to whoever abstains from them, and 'chastity' to
those whose behaviour is motivated by modesty, self-control, and propriety,
even when marriage is involved. Thus a person may be continent even though
no longer a virgin, just as one can be both married and chaste. Erasmus,
though, seems to apply the word Virginity' to a consecrated state of life
which implies continence - a word which, in turn, pertains to the vocabulary
of chastity. Erasmus does a better job of distinguishing three different modes
of civil status: celibacy (the unmarried state), marriage, and widowhood.
In accordance with the orthodox opinion and tradition, Erasmus offers
a hierarchy of the states of life which gives pride of place to virginity over
marriage, and to marriage over celibacy. These three ways of living the
Christian life still require some further clarification, since they are crucial
to an understanding of Erasmus' position. When he uses these terms in the
Dilutio against Clichtove, Erasmus puts in first place the state of Virginity
entered into voluntarily through love of a holy life' (117) - in other words, the

82 For a description of the reactions to the Encomium matrimonii, see ASD 1-5 353-81.
 INTRODUCTION XXXVI

monastic vocation espoused without any psychological or social pressure.

He puts in second place, marriage lived in the spirit of chastity that ought to
pervade even the conjugal sexual relations of the Christian married couple.
He puts in third place, finally, the celibate or single state, which is not the
same as consecrated celibacy lived chastely.
We must note as well that what is important for Erasmus is the way
any state of life facilitates the practice of the Christian life. Only in this way
can we understand what he means when he uses the word 'piety' - as we
saw in his debate with Lefevre. For Erasmus, the states of life are neutral,
as it were, 'unless the purpose is that a man may have more time for piety'
(128). This is how we must understand his expression 'Monachatus non est
pietas,' which was so attacked by his opponents in the mendicant orders.83 In
fact, if there was an evolution in Erasmus' view of monastic life when he was
experiencing his own difficulties with it, his insistence upon the distinction
between pietas and religio remains essential to it. In order to be evangelical -
even Christian - the monastic 'religio' must spring from an interior source,
in the hearts of those who profess it out of 'piety.'84
Fully aware of the behaviour of certain religious in the cloisters he
frequented, Erasmus considered a married life lived chastely preferable to
one of monastic 'virginity' accompanied by dubious moral behaviour. As in
Matthew 19:12, he would reserve the vocation of Virginity out of love for the
gospel' to 'eunuchs' who are perfectly happy to have received this gift - we
would say, this 'charism' - of continence.85
Even then, however, Erasmus does not wish this rare gift to be so valued
as to detract from the ideal he proposes to the Christian, the chaste marriage.
In this he reverses the age-old vision of the superiority of the religious
state over marriage, which, for example, Bernard of Clairvaux constantly
preached. The allegory which Erasmus develops in his treatise De vidua
Christiana elucidates his position: 'Virginity is not to be preferred to marriage
as gold is to bronze but rather as a precious stone is preferred to gold ...
If you compare gold to emerald, it is possible to doubt which you should

83 'Being a monk is not a state of holiness but a way of life, which may be beneficial
or not according to each person's physical or mental constitution' (Enchiridion
CWE 66 127).
84 In response to his opponent, the Franciscan Carvajal, Erasmus defined pietas
as a 'spiritual predisposition which witnesses to the love of God and one's
neighbour' (LB x 16756).
85 Pamphrasis in Matthaeum LB vn 1043. It is possible to understand this text with
reference to those who practise chastity in every walk of life.
 INTRODUCTION XXXV11

choose; if you surround an emerald with gold, it is wondrous how beautifully

each sets the other off. In this way each of the three states has some special
characteristic in which it excels the others/86 One can easily discern Erasmus
saying here that the chaste marriage is like an emerald embedded in gold.
In fact, Erasmus seems to exalt Virginity' to such an extent - for exam-
ple, by applying to it the traditional metaphor of martyrdom 7 - that he turns
it into something 'angelic.'88 He could certainly find support for this position
in allegorical and exaggerated expressions drawn from certain Fathers of the
church, especially Jerome.89 But such exaltation - which his opponents held
suspect - prompted certain commentators to see this as double-talk and, fi-
nally, as 'a brilliant exercise in demonstrating the impossible.'90 It certainly
led Erasmus to disapprove of the celibacy of those priests who were unable
to remain continent.91 It should be added that, especially towards the end
of his life, when faced with the radical depreciation of monastic life in the
regions won over to the Protestant Reformation, Erasmus reconsidered his
position. In October 1527, for example, he regretted certain excesses of ex-
pression he had fallen into earlier, and highly praised the life consecrated to
prayer and study, 'provided that it is totally dedicated to Christ.'92 In a pref-
ace of 1533, he takes care to distinguish good monks from mediocre or bad
ones, all the while retaining the angelic metaphor.93
Meanwhile, with a certain logic too subtle for his opponents, who
saw in it, above all, a depreciation of the religious state, Erasmus blamed
a canonical provision that rendered the religious vow, with its commitment
to continence, a potential impediment to marriage in cases where there was
no carnal consummation. This regulation should be seen in the context of
a time when the marriage or betrothal of minors, who sometimes deferred
consummation for several years, was a common occurrence. Erasmus explains
that when a man pronounces solemn vows of religion, even against the will of
his spouse, the latter cannot remarry for a year.94 He condemns this provision,

86 De vidua Christiana CWE 66 202

87 Virginis et martyris comparatio LB v 589-600
88 Appendix 114; Dilutio 128; Apologia adversus monachos (Contra coelibatum) LB ix
io89F
89 'God dedicated paradise to virginity and the earth to marriage' (Adversus
lovinianum PL 33 246ff)
90 Telle Erasme 255
91 Exemplum epistolae suasoriae (De conscribendis epistolis) CWE 25 137
92 Allen Ep 1887:59
93 Allen Ep 2771:97-9
94 Institutio christiani matrimonii LB v 6340
 INTRODUCTION XXXV111

not for the inequality of the sexes, which it assumes, but because the monastic
vow, which has no obvious scriptural basis and which the church has never
considered a sacrament in the strict sense, should not take precedence over
the sacrament of marriage.95 In short, Erasmus' concept of the Christian states
of life is closely related to his doctrine of marriage.

MARRIAGE
It is generally known that, in his reform treatise of 1520 On the Babylonian Cap-
tivity of the Church, Martin Luther reacted against the conception of marriage
as a sacrament.96 In his view this seemed to be a late and abusive outgrowth
of the systematization of medieval scholasticism. The following year, King
Henry vm defended all seven sacraments of the Catholic church in his As-
sertio septem sacramentorum. These instances underline the importance which
Erasmus' position could assume in this area, both before and after the contro-
versy initiated by the Protestant reformers. Already in 1516, in the course of
translating Ephesians 5:32, a key text in the theology of Christian marriage,
Erasmus had substituted the term mysterium for that used in the Vulgate,
sacramentum.97 For Erasmus, the text did not seem a particularly apt basis
for the doctrine of marriage as a sacrament conferring grace.98 In any case,
there followed a series of disputes which we need not repeat here, but which
permitted Erasmus to clarify his position.
While protesting his obedience to the church in this respect,99 but no
longer appealing to the authority of that text in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
Erasmus did not personally call into question the sacramental character of
marriage. Still, he saw no reason to view the opposite opinion as a cause of
scandal.100 What he could not accept was the contract, the mutual exchange
of consent between a man and a woman, as the foundation of marriage,
even though Catholic theology ratified this belief and practice. For Erasmus,
marriage should arise from a mutual love which he so aptly calls 'the conjugal
sympathy of souls/101

95 Institutio christiani matrimonii LB v 6470 and F

96 WA vi 550-60
97 Georges Chantraine' "Mysterium" et "Sacramentum" dans le "Duke Bellum"'
in Colloquium Erasmianum (Mons 1983) 33-45; 'Le musterion paulinien selon les
annotations d'Erasme' Recherches de science religieuse 58 (1970) 351-82
98 John B. Payne Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments (Richmond, Va 1971)
109-25
99 Ad notationes novas Ed. Lei ad Philippenses LB ix 2718
100 Ad notationes Ed. Lei ad Ephesios LB ix 227E-F
101 'connubialis animorum consensus' (Institutio christiani matrimonii LB v 6i8A)
 INTRODUCTION XXXIX

We can readily discern the importance of the consequences of Erasmus'

view, particularly for the indissolubility of marriage. Just as in canon law
there is no real marriage if there is no contract (for example, in cases where
there is lack of consent or no carnal consummation to ratify it), so for Erasmus
no valid union between a man and a woman could exist if the element of true
affection, of mutual love, were lacking.
Erasmus considered marriage a means of salvation in which, moreover,
women have a particular role to play.102 How, in his view, did they carry out
that role? By the procreation and Christian education of children,103 by conju-
gal love,104 by the piety they teach in living Christian lives,105 and, finally, by
prayer - as is revealed in a beautiful orison composed by Erasmus himself.106
Thus, in a time of arranged and negotiated marriages, Erasmus placed
a very high value on conjugal love, the affectus coniugalis. In this light, one
should not be astonished by his mistrust of dynastic marriages based upon
self-interest. Although, in principle, such marriages were concluded in favour
of a peace whose praises the humanist sang, they appeared suspect to him
because they rested upon a false foundation. Their political function was
equally distorted: 'It may be true what they say, that a good man is not
automatically a good prince, but it is plain that he who is not a good man
cannot possibly be a good prince.'107
Erasmus made no public pronouncement on the 'divorce' of King Henry
vin of England. Still, one can discern his thoughts on the subject in the words
of his disciples, as, for example, in the theological and juridical counsel of
Bonifacius Amerbach in 1530 that Gilbert Cousin repeated after the death of
the master.108 But it is characteristic of Erasmus, in his rare comments on what
he somewhat impertinently called the affair of Jupiter and Juno,109 to mention
the lack of affection of the king for his wife, Catherine of Aragon.110 Amerbach
would reply that, in this case, any husband grown tired of his wife might
simply invoke lack of true love.111 Nevertheless, Erasmus' young friend used

102 Institutio christiani matrimonii LB v JO^E

103 Puerpera CWE 39 606
104 Institutio christiani matrimonii LB v 686B
105 De vidua Christiana CWE 66 228
106 Precationes: sub nuptias LB v 12O5D-E
107 De vidua Christiana CWE 66 194
108 Guy Bedouelle 'Le milieu erasmien' in Le 'divorce' du roi Henry vm: etudes et
documents ed G. Bedouelle and P. Le Gal (Geneva 1987) 299-307
109 Allen Ep 2040:41
no Allen Ep 2256:35-44
111 Allen Ep 2267:4-6
 INTRODUCTION xl

his arguments from the annotation on i Corinthians 7:39 when refusing to

allow non-consummation to be a decisive factor in determining the validity of
a marriage. One can nevertheless well understand how the Erasmian concept
of the valid marriage, which places conjugal affection at its centre, could
encourage the humanist to be generous in his understanding of 'divorce.'

DIVORCE
In Erasmus' time, the word divortium described what canon law still calls 'a
declaration of the nullity of the marital bond.' But Erasmus uses it in its mod-
ern and secular sense: the severing of a valid marriage after disagreements
and conflicts.
Reviewing the scriptural texts used by the church, first, to formulate its
doctrine of the indissolubility of the conjugal bond and, second, to determine
cases where separation can legitimately take place, Erasmus notices two bases
for 'divorce' (aside from cases of nullity, where a marriage is judged never
to have taken place). The first and majority position reaching back to the
authority of St Augustine envisages an actual separation of the married
couple, the abandonment of their cohabitation without any possibility of
remarriage. The second position, based on Matthew 19:3, recognizes the
possibility of a divorce after adultery of one of the parties. In his annotation
on i Corinthians 7:39, which, of all his editions, constitutes a veritable treatise
on how to understand the indissolubility of Christian marriage, Erasmus
proposes some new solutions.112
Armed with his concept of mutual love as the foundation of Christian
marriage, Erasmus pleads for a broader understanding of 'divorce.' Ground-
ing his opinion in Origen, Tertullian, and Ambrose, he accepts adultery as a
ground for divorce because it violates the very nature of marriage.113 But he
also argues that, in certain cases, separation should allow remarriage in the
church, at least for the innocent party.
In such a case, can one still speak of the indissolubility of marriage?
Following his own logic, Erasmus gives his definition of it. A true marriage, a
union worthy of this name which comes from the Holy Spirit, is indissoluble.
'Death breaks the chains of the marriage; but true love has no bounds and
alone remains even after death/114 But what harm would come were the

112 On i Cor 7:39, see LB vi 692-703; cf Reeve n 46off. The debate with Phimostomus,
edited in the present work, focuses upon this text. Based upon certain patristic
interpretations, the theology and discipline of the Eastern Orthodox church
have maintained adultery as a ground for divorce.
113 LBVI698
114 De vidua Christiana CWE 66 224
 INTRODUCTION xli

church to allow divorce 'as a relief for the unfortunate parties in a marriage
which has come to grief? Such a judgment would in no way compromise the
solemn nature of marriage.115 Erasmus views in this light many more cases
that would permit the separation of married couples without proscribing
their remarriage: certainly that of adultery, but also cases involving deceit,
sorcery, parricide, and infanticide. Anticipating the Council of Trent, Erasmus
also denounced clandestine marriages.
Erasmus' approach actually contains a rather pastoral element, in so
far as he regularly recommends vigilance against contracting marriage too
hastily, and places great emphasis on the spouses' psychological maturity
and freedom of choice. Citing the text of Deuteronomy 24:1, which allowed a
man to send his wife away because he has 'found some uncleanness in her/
Erasmus demonstrates that the soul's vice is worse than the physical fault
which warranted the repudiation at that time."6
In this way, as usual, one can discern the liberties taken by Erasmus with
respect to the legal tradition or its contemporary application. He sees possible
adaptations of church doctrine in matters not pertaining to definitions of faith,
and above all he shows compassionate understanding of the human failures
and difficulties of the Christian life. Marriage aims at personal happiness; and
certain characters in the Colloquies, who act as 'true guide[s] to the Christian
life/117 witness to the fact that, rooted in piety and conforming with the
spirit of the gospel, Christian marriage does bring happiness. Such is the case
with Eulalia, a character with a well-chosen name in the Coniugium. Erasmus,
however, even in his most complex arguments remains completely faithful to
the simplicity of his Christocentric vision as he had expressed it in the Enchiri-
dion: 'If you love [your wife] above all because you perceive in her the image
of Christ, for example, piety, modesty, sobriety, and chastity, and you no
longer love her in herself but in Christ, or rather Christ in her, then your love
is spiritual.'"8 True conjugal love resembles that of Christ for the church.119
It is understandable that in an age of contention about the sacraments
and the authenticity and validity of the monastic life, these Erasmian ideas

115 Ep 1126:215-17 to Hermannus Buschius

116 The standard English translations (King James, Douai, RSV) translate the Vul-
gate foeditatem by 'uncleanness' or 'impurity/ The English translation of the
Jerusalem Bible has 'impropriety.' These all connote some moral fault rather
than a mere physical fault ('blemish'), as the Bible de Jerusalem's 'tare' (and
Erasmus) interpreted it.
117 Franz Bierlaire Les Colloques d'Erasme: reforme des etudes, reforme des moeurs, et
reforme de I'Eglise au xvie siede (Paris 1978) 149-99
118 CWE 66 53-4
119 ASD 1-3 731; cf Eph 5:25-33.
 INTRODUCTION xlii

would be contested by the champions of orthodoxy, who were often skil-

ful. Erasmus refuted the objections raised against him with great zeal, by
attempting in a more or less convincing way to show that his ideas on the hi-
erarchy of the states of life, on marriage, and on divorce were in harmony
with the theology of the church, and, above all, to demonstrate that he had
been misunderstood.
His first refutation answers a work by Josse Clichtove, who, in opposi-
tion to the growing influence of Luther's writings, proved himself a staunch
and intelligent defender of Catholic theology.

AGAINST CLICHTOVE
After Erasmus' Encomium matrimonii was reissued in 1522, a scathing re-
sponse came from one of the most solid theologians, Josse Clichtove, a doctor
in the Paris faculty of theology, who was not without humanist credentials,
having been a friend and supporter of Lefevre d'Etaples in Paris for more
than twenty years.120 Clichtove wanted, above all, to contribute to the re-
form of the church by promoting a renewal of discipline in the Latin church,
beginning with priestly austerity121 and celibacy.122 He was involved in the
faculty of theology's pursuit of Lutherans, and he participated in its 20 May
1525 condemnation of the French translations of Erasmus' Encomium matri-
monii and of a mishmash of other Erasmian and Lutheran works made by
Louis de Berquin, who would eventually be burned at the stake, in 1529-123
The title of Clichtove's treatise - Propugnaculum ecclesiae adversus Luthe-
ranos124 (1526) - was, if not aggressive, at least defensive, proposing to erect

120 Massaut Clichtove; James K. Farge Biographical Register of Paris Doctors of Theology
(Toronto 1980) 90-104
121 De vita et moribus sacerdotum (Paris: Henri Estienne 1519 among many later
editions); Massaut Clichtove n 159-71
122 Massaut Clichtove u 172-209. See also, by the same author, 'Vers la Reforme
catholique: le celibat dans 1'ideal sacerdotal de Josse Clichtove' in Sacerdoce et
celibat ed J. Coppens (Gembloux and Louvain 1971) 459-506.
123 Le Chevalier de Berquin Declamation des louenges de manage ed E.V. Telle (Geneva
1976). See also ASD 1-5 354-8 and 372-4. The other two books condemned were
excerpted by Berquin from the Paraphrases and Colloquia of Erasmus, but Berquin
had mixed in passages from Luther and Guillaume Farel. It is important to
note that the faculty condemned these works 'sic translata/ ie 'translated in this
way': see James K. Farge ed Registre des proces-verbaux de lafaculte de theologie de
I'Universite de Paris, de Janvier 1524 a novembre 1533 (Paris 1990) 96-7 no 94A.
124 In editions of this work, one finds indiscriminately both adversus Lutheranos and
contra Lutheranos in the title. Clichtove published an Antilutherus in the same
year, while Noel Beda wrote an Apologia adversus clandestinos Lutheranos in 1529.
 INTRODUCTION xliii

a fortification or bastion against Luther and his supporters. In it he sets out

three reproaches against Erasmus - 'accusations/ Erasmus will call them:
first, against certain declarations contained in the Encomium; second, against
certain declarations regarding Erasmus' position on ecclesiastical celibacy;
and finally, against Erasmus' attitude towards the practice of abstinence in
the church.
The first book of the Propugnaculum considers only Luther and his inno-
vations in the mass. But the second harshly analyses the Encomium matrimonii
and Erasmus' Apologia de laude matrimonii of 1519 (CWE 71 85-95), with which
chapters 31-4 are entirely concerned. First having asserted that Erasmus min-
imized the glory of coelibatum only to exaggerate his praise of marriage,
Clichtove launches into a long discussion on whether the sexual appetite
(stimuli libidinum) pertains to human nature itself or to the concupiscence in-
troduced by original sin. However, in the dedicatory preface to Bishop Louis
Guillard, Clichtove had clearly stated that the aim of the book was first and
foremost a refutation of Luther, and had omitted all reference to Erasmus.
Erasmus quickly answered Clichtove in that same year, although he
cites the title erroneously, and declares he has been able only to flip through
it in haste. In fact, however, even in the few pages which constitute this
Appendix, one can discern the major points of the reply to Clichtove which
Erasmus was to develop some years later. Erasmus asserts that Clichtove has
misjudged the literary genre: the Encomium matrimonii was a Declamatio, not
a theological discourse; one cannot submit a fictitious, persuasive speech to
the rigours of a theological examination. Moreover, the question put forward
was not a general one, involving the superiority of marriage or celibacy,
but a particular one, touching upon an individual case. Besides, the kind
of marriage he advocated was chaste to a degree approaching continence.
Finally, if he made some unfavourable comparisons to the monastic life, he
was concerned only with the glaring abuses that anybody can see, and not
with the very purpose of a life consecrated to continence.125
Having announced, at the end of the Appendix, a fuller response based
upon a closer reading of Clichtove's objections, Erasmus fulfilled his promise

125 Erasmus, in fact, does not change his assertions. Already in 1526 he had written,
'It is true that I prefer a chaste marriage to an impure celibacy/ and again, 'I am
not recommending that priests and monks should marry, but I do say that in this
crowd of priests and monks, marriage should be allowed to those who cannot
live a continent life'; Erika Rummel 'An Unpublished Erasmian Apologia in the
Royal Library of Copenhagen' Netherlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis I Dutch
Review of Church History 70 (1990) 226-7. See n^ above.
 INTRODUCTION xliv

in 1532 with his Dilutio. As discussed above, the term indicates simply the
action of clearing oneself of false accusations. With no attempt to avoid
repetition, this text develops the answers which had arisen in response to his
first reading of the Propugnaculum.
Straight away Erasmus insists upon the fact that he had not wished
to make a systematic comparison between the state of celibacy and that of
marriage. He will argue repeatedly that Clichtove got all worked up over
nothing, and that he mistook the literary genre. What Erasmus had wished
to do was to engage in a rhetorical exercise, an example of persuasive dis-
course, with the text aimed at a particular case: someone sincerely ponder-
ing the problem of whether or not to marry. From this point of departure,
Erasmus displays the different facets of the argument. His discourse is not
general but particular, and he does not express himself absolutely, or sim-
pliciter (a word that turns up frequently), but in response to an individual
situation which is that of the person addressed. Furthermore, since a liter-
ary fiction is in question, there is no justification for identifying Erasmus
himself with the person arguing the case. One should never, he argues, at-
tribute to an author the opinions of his characters. In this regard, the Collo-
quies and even the Moriae encomium spring to mind: amid so many paradoxes
and quips, it would be very difficult to determine exactly who speaks for
Erasmus.
To put it in more modern terms, Erasmus reproaches Clichtove for
lacking a sense of humour. Twice he tells him that he should put some distance
between himself and the text, and that he has taken it too seriously (116,128).
Erasmus had been engaged in a literary game, a declamatio, which, in the
manner of a lawyer's argument, ought to embrace all the possible arguments,
but which Clichtove submits to a rigorous theological examination.
Then Erasmus demonstrates with considerable irony how one ought to
maintain this distance even when engaged in the most serious and dialec-
tical genre possible, the scholastic question. Could one not make St Thomas
Aquinas say practically anything, if all the objections which he proposes, in
order the better to refute them, were to be imputed to him? 'That is no more
fitting than if one were to combat the arguments of Thomas or of Scotus in
which they impugn vows or defend fornication, while neglecting to men-
tion the rebuttal that follows' (121). Obviously, Erasmus' argument is weak,
because the very structure of the scholastic question - the objections, the
sed contra arguments against each, and their rebuttals - offers no ambiguity
concerning the final position. But the idea is amusing.
Erasmus cogently summarizes his arguments concerning the literary
form he employed: 'that it is a declamation; that it is the first part of a set
 INTRODUCTION xlv

theme to which an opposing argument must be made; that these things are
said not by Erasmus, but by a young layman; ... that a virtuous action is
being recommended and one that in a certain way is necessary for him; that
there is not a licentious word in the whole speech; that even in theological
disputations it is permitted to use false reasoning in order that the listeners
may learn how to refute it' (143).
With regard to the substance of the problem - its theological or, more
precisely, its moral and spiritual implications - Erasmus uses his Dilutio
to reassure Clichtove of his deep-seated orthodoxy: yes, in absolute terms
virginity is preferable to marriage, as Catholic tradition affirms; yes, marriage
is a sacrament; but all this must be considered with moderation and, above
all, with a precision of vocabulary and a feel for words which Clichtove does
not have. He confuses continence with celibacy, a term to which he attributes
a whimsical, arbitrary, even ridiculous etymology.
As to the controversial question of ecclesiastical celibacy, Erasmus feels
that his position was distorted by Clichtove. He thus takes up the issue again
by stating more clearly than in his Appendix of 1526 what he had really wanted
to say there: 'In view of the present status of those who profess celibacy,
Erasmus wonders whether it would be a lesser evil for the church to permit
wives for those who after making every effort still do not lead continent
lives' (Appendix 112). He does not repudiate the law of the western church,
but faces up to the reality that the law has always been violated by certain
priests and monks. The historian senses here a hint of Erasmus' personal
bitterness about his own birth as the illegitimate son of a priest.
Without questioning Erasmus' orthodoxy (as a whole tradition of com-
mentators has done)126 the reader nevertheless cannot fail to notice in the
Dilutio, as Clichtove surely did, a series of little attacks, none essential to the
central question; these were sure to unsettle the conservative theologian of
the sixteenth century. Scholasticism is not attacked head on but by way of
its rhetorical questions or, worse still, by presenting those questions as use-
less and indiscreet.127 Its syllogistic form is subjected to ridicule (136); and

126 See Telle Erasme and Telle Dilutio.

127 '... a certain Parisian theologian of some renown wonders whether the mother
of Jesus felt the first stirrings of nature, especially before she gave birth to
Christ, although in my opinion it would have been more seemly not to raise this
question' (Dilutio 134). Undoubtedly this question, superfluous in fact, should
be understood in the context of the quarrel over the Immaculate Conception of
the Virgin Mary (Massaut Critique et tradition 37-45).
 INTRODUCTION xlvi

Erasmus cannot resist slight cutting remarks against theologians who rely
too much on Aristotle. But even here, Erasmus would warn us not to take his
subtly ironic barbs too seriously.
We can perhaps detect a slight hint of anti-Semitism in this tract. We
can likewise wonder whether, after Luther's De votis monasticis, written in
the wake of the great Reformation treatises which began to appear in 1520,
Erasmus' descriptions of violations in clerical continence, or even his simple
investigations into Catholic discipline, did not do a disservice to the church.
The assaults of the reformers explain the lively sensitivity of theologians like
Clichtove amid this great hodgepodge of ideas.
Erasmus seems not to have realized, however, that in this Dilutio, as
in several of his works, regardless of the way he saw it, his positions could
appear harmful. In fact, in placing virginity on such a pedestal ('perfection
belongs to the few/ Dilutio 129) or in calling it 'angelic/ even if he is using
traditional vocabulary ('I compare virginity to the angels while I attribute
marriage to men/ Appendix 114), was there not a danger of reducing it to
a practically unattainable ideal? Did Erasmus not in this way risk calling
consecrated celibacy into question while, conversely, idealizing Christian
marriage, for which he prescribed continence?
All these discussions notwithstanding, the emphasis of this text, so en-
gaging and so characteristic of Erasmus' manner and concerns, is placed
on the truth of the Christian life experienced as much in the married
state as in the celibate. Affirmations of this pietas are found in the body
of the discussion: 'Neither celibacy nor virginity nor continence is praise-
worthy in itself unless the purpose is that a man may have more time for
piety' (128). This appeal for pietas is repeated at the end, when Erasmus
warns his reader against placing too much importance on exterior things
while neglecting 'what is more directly concerned with evangelical piety'
(147).
From this attitude also arose Erasmus' rejection of verbal injury and the
clearly excessive language to which Clichtove had resorted in demanding
that texts like those of Erasmus be burned (144). 'Were you sober when you
wrote this, Clichtove?' And what are we to say, he continues, 'if similar
impartiality is used in making judgments by those whose verdicts determine
whether men are to be burned at the stake?' (144). Far better to seek unity
and further the practice of understanding differences than to yield to these
petty attacks, Erasmus insists: 'It would be preferable to devote our energies
to resolving our differences rather than to providing seed-ground for new
disagreements through biased inquiries' (last lines of the Appendix). But was
this fault to be imputed only to the theologians?
The following analysis may facilitate the reading of the two texts.
 INTR xlvii

An Appendix on the Writings ofjosse Clichtove (i^26)128

- Erasmus was able only to skim through Clichtove's Bulwark of the Faith. In
this work, Clichtove misunderstood some of Erasmus' statements.
- How could Clichtove, no stranger to the literary arts, fail to grasp the genre
to which a declamation belongs?
- If it be permitted to speak 'as a philosopher,' as theologians concede to
their beloved Aristotle, can one not speak as an orator?
- Erasmus has been using the example of continence since 1498, when he
wrote his On the Writing of Letters, which has nothing to do with theology.
- Scholastic disputation likewise uses preliminary arguments which do not
limit the author to those positions.
- When the orator says that it is better for incontinent monks to marry, he
thinks that these monks can be released from their solemn vows as readily
as from their simple vows.
- Erasmus returns to the distinction between rhetoric and theology.
- He has already replied to the objections raised by Jan Briart and Noel Beda
to the Encomium matrimonii.
- Erasmus concludes with a declaration of his own orthodoxy and recalls
that he has also responded to the questions of abstinence and fasting.

Dilutio: Refutation of the Accusations ofjosse Clichtove (i^2)129

i/ A Misunderstanding of the Literary Genre (116-23)
- Erasmus was amused by reading Clichtove's book, in which the latter
enters the fray armed with the entire arsenal of theological weaponry
against a fictitious theme.
- Clichtove is an honest man, but Satan can use everything, even devotion,
to his own advantage.
- In order not to take what was a mere diversion too seriously, Erasmus
does not intend to respond to all the arguments at this time, but only to
those which seem truly excessive to him and which do no honour to the
renowned faculty of theology in Paris.

128 The Latin text is found in LB ix 811-14.

129 The Latin text is edited in Telle Dilutio 69-100, following Froben's 1532 edition
and constituting the second part of another text: Dedamtiones ad censuras Lutetiae
vulgatas ... The Dilutio is found neither in the Opera omnia of 1540 nor in the
Leiden edition (LB). A modern French translation with an introduction exists:
Erasme La philosophic chretienne ed Pierre Mesnard (Paris 1970) 359-99. A single
allusion to the Dilutio (Telle 57) is found in Erasmus' correspondence in a
letter written on 8 February 1532 to Viglius Zuichemus: 'I also responded to
Clichtove's empty old phrases' (Allen Ep 2604:38-41).
 INTRODUCTION xlviii

- Clichtove reproaches Erasmus for not having repudiated - as did Pope

Pius ii - or at least amended a work written as a youth; but does one have
to reject an encomium of chaste marriage?
- Although better informed than others among Erasmus' opponents, Clich-
tove does not really understand the literary genre of the Dedamatio, which
is not to be debated as before a judge.
- Furthermore, Erasmus did not intend to measure the state of marriage
against that of celibacy, but merely to pose a clearly determined question
in a genre which the art of rhetoric would call the Suasoria.
- Against Clichtove's reproach that he had not exhorted the reader to that
which is best, Erasmus points out that in several places he did just that.
- Why is Clichtove interested only in the second part of the declamation
(arguments against marriage) and not in the first (arguments in favour of
it)?
- It is not a question of a real case, but of an example, as Aristotle recom-
mended for use.
- Clichtove, having misunderstood the genre employed, accumulates argu-
ments of a general nature. To make Erasmus say more than he said, even
when he does apply common arguments to a specific case, is the basis of a
false accusation.

2/ Celibacy and Continence (123-9)

- Celibacy must be carefully distinguished from continence. One can be
celibate and not at all continent. Erasmus prefers marriage to celibacy, not
to continence. Monks take a vow of chastity, but, according to Erasmus, the
same is demanded of all Christians.
- Some of Jerome's etymologies and scriptural citations in defence of celibacy
cannot be trusted.
- As for himself, Erasmus prefers to use Latin precisely and to distinguish
his terms, as he demonstrates with several citations from his text.
- Why does Clichtove not recognize the similarity between his methodology
and the scholastic disputation? Have not many authors praised the vices in
jest?
- One ought not reproach Erasmus for using false arguments in the same
way theologians themselves do, since their approach is as much a work of
artifice as the declamation.
- In the text, one layman attempts to persuade another, who has a weak
character, that a chaste marriage is better than celibacy. There is no question
here of continence.
- As for virginity, Erasmus praises it as a heavenly state for a chosen few.
 INTRODUCTION xlix

3/ The Consecrated Life (129-39)

- In the declamation, a layman ventures a simple, personal opinion that in
certain circumstances priests and monks ought to be able to marry as a
lesser evil.
- Erasmus cites examples from the Old Testament and from the early days
of the church, and also less edifying examples in his own time.
- Moreover, a religiously motivated celibacy, which can lift someone above
the human condition, must be distinguished from a renunciation of mar-
riage on account of grief.
- But a religious motivation does not imply the impossibility of living a holy
life in the state of marriage. Is marriage not a sacrament?
- One can struggle against nature for the sake of the kingdom of God, but
what has that to do with someone who is influenced by purely human
sentiments?
- Does the stimulus to procreate not belong to nature, even if corrupted?
- To counterbalance Clichtove's idealization of the religious life of the day,
Erasmus gives a few examples of its depravity. In this he is in the tradition
of St Jerome and St Bernard.
- In what way and manner can one say that the celibate person sins against
the propagation of his race?
- Erasmus argues against certain statements and citations used erroneously
or in too absolute a manner by Clichtove.

4/ Marriage and Nature (139-43)

- Sexual instincts are natural, even if the corruption of nature sometimes
makes them rebellious to the spirit; but indecency is a function more of the
human imagination than of reality. Yet Erasmus admits that this is not a
very convincing argument.
- Nature's role is to preserve and propagate itself. The example of the incest
of Lot's daughters is used in the declamation only to demonstrate this
instinct.
- To this end, Erasmus justifies his use of so-called prurient language.

5/ Conclusion (143-8)
- Erasmus summarizes his argument once again and vigorously refuses to
allow his 'little treatise' to be compared with the works of a Poggio or a
Valla.
- Final summation of Clichtove's reproaches and Erasmus' answers con-
cerning ecclesiastical celibacy, fasting and abstinence, and the laws of the
church. Erasmus' aim is to bring about a rediscovery of true, spiritual, and
 INTRODUCTION 1

evangelical piety; he suggests that counsel can sometimes be more effec-

tive than obligation, but always avoids accusations of Lutheranism. Since
Clichtove once repented of his impudent words against the Exsultet,*30 he
would do even better to retract the slanderous things he wrote against a
friend.

Do we have here an anti-monastic treatise? A manual on naturalism or on

the Epicureanism for which Jerome attacked Jovinian? Praise of the sex-
ual impulse, relativization of ecclesiastical celibacy, freedom from the hi-
erarchical view of the states of life sanctioned by tradition? All of these
can be found in the Dilutio, where they seem to worsen Erasmus' case
rather than justify it. What is more, does Erasmus not emphasize na-
ture over grace? Could not the accusation of Pelagianism made against
him by Luther in his De servo arbitrio be taken up again by the Catholic
theologians? By presenting the consecrated life as something exceptional,
heroic, even unattainable, did not Erasmus minimize the role of divine
grace?
In fact, the faculty of theology in Paris did condemn the Dilutio. Al-
though Clichtove had not attended sessions there since 1526, the solidarity
of the doctors with him was assured by the leadership of the faculty's syn-
dic Noel Beda, who was as active in 1532 as he had been in 1525, when
Berquin's translations were condemned. The debate is mentioned in the con-
clusions recorded between 3 April and 2 May 1532.131 The book was pro-
scribed because it did not furnish 'a declaration of truth but a cover for
and defence of error.' The term involutor, used here against the author,
gives the impression that the theologians felt caught in a web of Erasmian
dialectic.

AGAINST DIETENBERGER
In September 1532, Erasmus joined to his Epistolae palaenaeoi (Freiburg im
Breisgau: Emmeus) a short work entitled Responsio ad disputationem cuiusdam
Phimostomi de divortio (LB vm 955-65). Erasmus drew the name Thimostomus'
from the title of his antagonist's polemical work132 proposing to impose a
phimostomus - a bit or bridle, or more precisely a muzzle - of Catholic rectitude
on the new commentators on Scripture, whom he called 'Scripturalists.'

130 Clichtove recanted in his Elucidatorium ecdesiasticum of 1516. See Massaut Cri-
tique et tradition 101-5.
131eR
tsFarge
gre
F
rai Registre des procte-verbaux 263-4 nos 339A-342A (see n123 above)
132 Phimostomus scripturariorum
 INTRODUCTION ll

The opponent, Johann Dietenberger (c 1475-1537), a German Dominican and

friend of Johannes Cochlaeus, was just beginning to teach at Mainz in that
same year.133
Dietenberger's text, presented as having been originally produced (ae-
ditus) in Augsburg at the imperial diet of 1530, is made up of fifteen chapters
written for the use of Johann von Metzenhausen, legate of the archbishop of
Trier at that diet. We know it, however, only by Petrus Quentel's 1532 Cologne
edition. Like the majority of Catholic works dealing with the controversies of
the time, it consists of short accounts of questions disputed between Catholics
and Protestants - for example, the interpretation of Scripture, prayers to the
saints, free will, and the celebration of the Eucharist. A supplement in the
form of a sixteenth chapter is a special (specidis), brief treatise on divorce
which attacks Erasmus' interpretation of i Corinthians 7:39. This addition
is dedicated to Valentin von Tetleben, coadjutor of Albert of Brandenburg,
the archbishop of Mainz, for whom Tetleben acted as vicar in spiritualibus in
1532. Tetleben was to become bishop of Hildesheim in 1537, a date which
corresponds with that of Dietenberger's death.
Dietenberger cites and refutes the 1519 edition of Erasmus' Annotationes,
and ignores the lengthy addenda of later editions.134 Erasmus maintains here
his usual position that, in certain circumstances, the remarriage of a divorced
person is legitimate. Jacob of Hoogstraten had already criticized him for
that position in his Destructio Cabalae of 1519, written in the course of the
Reuchlin affair. By August of that year, Erasmus had responded to his critic
in a personal letter/35 and he developed a more elaborate defence in his
additions to the Annotationes published in 1522 and 1527, which Dietenberger
appears not to have known.
Just as Erasmus, adhering to the convention of the time, follows the
order of the objections raised by his opponent, so shall we here examine
Erasmus' response to Dietenberger point by point.
Addressing himself to a doctor in canon and civil law like Tetleben,
Erasmus informs him that he has read the treatise on divorce written by a
certain Phimostomus. It seemed to him that this text was not without merit,
although the style of it may have been a bit hard on the 'Scripturalists/ After

133 Hermann Wedewer Johannes Dietenberger (1475-1537), Sein Leben und Wirken
(Freiburg im Breisgau 1888; repr Nieuwkoop 1967); Nikolaus Paulus Die
deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfegegen Luther (1518-1563) [Freiburg im Breisgau
1903]186-9
134 Rummel Catholic Critics 125-6, and on this point n 163 n95
135 Ep 1006:52-3
 INTRODUCTION Hi

all, other theologians hardly even mention Scripture or, worse still, they
apply philosophical criteria to it.

The Reply to the Disputation on Divorce (1532)

I/ Considerations of Vocabulary (152-60)
- Dietenberger wants to refute Erasmus' annotation on i Corinthians 7,
where he took up the question of marriages contracted without discern-
ment. Unlike Erasmus, the Dominican understands the words divortium
and repudium in the Bible as the separation of the married couple, whose
marriage has been consummated, without a dissolution of the marriage
bond. But can one alter the meaning of the words in this way? In 'sending
Mary away privately' Joseph had resolved to seek a divorce (Matt 1:19).
- It is the same forfoeditas (foulness) in Deuteronomy 24:1. Who told Phi-
mostomus that this text necessarily implied the wife's adultery? It might
instead be a question of a 'hidden blemish of body and mind.' According
to the Jewish law, the 'bill of divorce' was not concerned with a woman
who was adulterous, but with one who was specifically permitted to re-
marry. This proves that divorce is not merely a termination of the couple's
cohabitation.
- The divorce for which Scripture provides must be considered a benevolent
law. In the New Testament, Christ explains only the meaning of the
Mosaic law and not the interpretation which the Pharisees make of it.
Unlike human law, divine law does not permit a lesser evil in order to
avoid a greater one. Thus one cannot imagine how the Mosaic law could
stipulate adultery as ground for divorce when in fact it legislates a stoning
for it.
- A ground for divorce in the Old Testament could be a strong aversion
felt by the husband at a given moment for his wife, which permits him
to dismiss her. If Dietenberger can cite Paul of Burgos, Erasmus can
refer to Cajetanus! Does not the great Dominican theologian believe that
remarriage was permitted to the Jews only because of their polygamy?
Jesus, however, does not interpret the law in this way (Matt 19:9). The time
of the patriarchs must be distinguished from that of the Law.

2/ The Question of Divorce in the New Testament (161-76)

- Christ prescribes a stricter law than that of Moses by allowing divorce for
one reason only, adultery. This astonishes the disciples (Matt 19:10). In fact,
Jesus' recommendation not to 'put asunder' that which has been joined by
God goes even further if one interprets it strictly: it would not even allow
their living apart. The position taken by Phimostomus on Romans 7:2-3
cannot stand because the context is different.
 tique et tradition 101-5. liii

- The next passage (Rom 7:10-11) demands further explanation, since it does
not recognize adultery as ground for divorce, even if Ambrose (Ambrosi-
aster), to whose authority Dietenberger had appealed, presupposes that it
does. In Erasmus' opinion, Paul proffers here a counsel of perfection: the
husband will not resort to divorce, even in the case of his wife's adultery.
That is how Ambrosiaster and Pseudo-Jerome also understood it. Erasmus
notes that, on the question of divorce, Paul gives more rights to the hus-
band than to the wife, even though he considers the couple to be equal in
the married state (i Cor 7:4).
- After a syntactic discussion of Matthew 19:9, Erasmus confronts Augus-
tine's opinion head on by distinguishing a remarriage after a divorce
caused by adultery (and not permitted by church discipline) from a di-
vorce 'in accordance with the law.' Certainly canon law details all that; but
does not Dietenberger claim that his arguments are based upon Scripture?
- Gratian's Decretum, while firm on the principle of no remarriage, seems to
admit exceptions on the ground of the infirmity of the flesh. The Decretals
contain contradictory opinions. After all, the apostles had their disagree-
ments, just as the church has its hesitations and reversals - as, for example,
over ihefilioque or sacramental theology. It is therefore not inappropriate
for Erasmus to turn his attention to a disputed question.
- Furthermore, both the pope and the church enjoy great latitude in their
power to interpret Scripture, even in such matters as these, as exemplified
by the exceptions in canon law known as 'the Petrine privilege.'
- Erasmus then explains his way of understanding the prescriptions given in
i Corinthians 7. He demonstrates that, in fact, the church grants separation
for many reasons other than merely divorce. For example, is separation
not permitted when one spouse becomes a heretic, because it is inter-
preted as 'spiritual adultery'? What about the dissolution of the marital
bond when the husband makes a profession in the monastic life? Is that
mentioned in Scripture? The evangelical call to perfection also exists in
the married state. Such practices are admissible, but Phimostomus is mis-
taken in thinking that they are contained in Scripture, taken in its literal
sense.
- In his epilogue, Dietenberger wishes that Erasmus would accept the current
practice of the church concerning the separation of a married couple as
founded upon Holy Writ. He rejects the analogy which Erasmus drew from
pagan customs. Erasmus then cites some of his opponent's contradictions.
- Finally, because Phimostomus has aligned him with Arius, Luther, Karl-
stadt, and Zwingli, Erasmus devotes a few words to refuting the accusation
that he had called the sacrament of penance into question (176-7). Perhaps,
he hopes, his correspondent will be able to act as a mediator.
 INTRODUCTION Hv

It is clear that Erasmus, as is customary in his controversial or justificatory trea-

tises, makes no effort to organize his discourse systematically. Instead he re-
sponds point by point to the objections raised by his opponents, which more or
less follow the order of his original discourse. If one adds to that the subtlety,
skill, and artful parrying and ironic thrusting that are the hallmarks of the
Erasmian style, then the humanist's thought revealed to us in these polemical
treatises might appear not only complex but also susceptible of new interpre-
tations. Thus, by way of a conclusion to the introduction of these texts, rather
than catalogue manuscript exemplars and ancient editions, we shall highlight
some impressions which the modern reader is likely to get from reading them.

IV

Although separated in time, these four texts - the Apologia addressed to

Lefevre d'Etaples (1517), the two refutations of Clichtove (1526 and 1532),
and the treatise on divorce against Phimostomus (1532) - all demonstrate the
pugnacious nature of Erasmus' theological opinions and show that he ex-
pressed them in a consistently argumentative manner throughout his career.
Modern readers' reactions to Erasmus the theologian and exegete, who is jus-
tifying his positions to Lefevre on issues that hardly matter any more, will
be different from their reactions to Erasmus the moralist, who is reflecting
upon marriage in ways that seem quite current.
In the polemic triggered by Lef evre's interpretation of Psalm 8, Erasmus
had a more nuanced and flexible vision of biblical hermeneutics than his
opponent. He was more sensitive than Lefevre to the different levels of
interpretation that a biblical text may carry. Thus a psalm need not always
be applied directly to Christ, but may be legitimately related to the psalmist
or the reader. This contradicted the strictly Christocentric hermeneutic of
Lefevre, which shackled him to such a degree that he was at times obliged
to twist the texts to make them fit. Nevertheless, Lefevre, basing his exegesis
upon the 'harmony of the Scriptures,' attached a much greater importance
than Erasmus to the concordance between the Old and the New Testaments
- as shown in the manner in which the two authors treated the relationship
of the hymn in Philippians 2 to Psalm 8.
Underlying this hermeneutical debate and at stake in the quarrel be-
tween the two humanists is, in fact, their Christology. Erasmus, careful to
guard the equilibrium between the two natures of Christ, refuses to sacrifice
his humanity. Beyond exegetical methods or varieties of interpretation among
the Fathers of the church, it is this view which Erasmus defends against the
'sublimity' of Lef evre's interpretation. For Erasmus, the abasement of Christ
the man is the logical end of the Incarnation, whereas Lefevre, without deny-
 INTRODUCTION lv

ing that humiliation, wants to minimize it in order to preserve the divine dig-
nity of Christ. Did Erasmus detect in Lefevre a sort of latent monophysitism?
If he did, he did not accuse him of it, because he was not one to root out
and systematically denounce heresy as did, to his dismay, his theological
opponents. For all that, he could not abide a charge of impiety against himself.
This notion of impietas, for which not only Lefevre but also Luther
reproached Erasmus, is crucial because it touches upon the very heart of
the Christian vision of humanism, either denying or misapprehending that
which is its exact opposite, pietas. We need not repeat here the analysis of
Erasmus' concept of pietas, of which John W. O'Malley has so aptly revealed
the components, connotations, and sources;136 but, following him, let us agree
that 'Erasmian pietas might then also be described as "principled" rather than
"prescriptive," to use an old distinction . . . Erasmus was not trying to reduce
affairs to lowest common denominators, but rather to moderate prescriptions
that inhibited the full flowering of varietas and the manifold expressions of the
Spirit in the life of Christians of all states and conditions/137 One can see how
essential Erasmus' notion of pietas was to debates on marriage and divorce.
The modern reader may be astonished to discover how close the prob-
lems that preoccupied Erasmus are to his or her own concerns today. With
regard to the validity of marriage, the separation of the married couple,
and the indissolubility of the marital bond, the Roman Catholic church has
maintained canonical prescriptions more akin to those of Clichtove or Dieten-
berger than to those of Erasmus. In his debate with Lefevre, Erasmus shows
how audacious he can be and how much freer he is in regard to ecclesiasti-
cal tradition - certainly where the sacrament of marriage is concerned, but
above all in its canonical prescriptions - than in the strictly dogmatic domain
of Christology.
One might aptly designate his approach as 'pastoral.' The Erasmian doc-
trine of marriage is founded upon the love and reciprocal affection which
grounds the sacrament (which he has no difficulty in accepting as such) in the
very heart of the New Testament. His 'matrimonial evangelism' ("evangelisme
matrimonial/ in the words of Emile V. Telle, who pushes his interpretation to
extreme conclusions) is inspired by his reading of the Pauline Epistles. More
generally, it is consistent with his 'philosophy of Christ/ Erasmus has in mind
the good 'of the greatest number'138 when, reacting to problems of his day, he
proposes solutions, supports them, and explains them to his correspondents.

136 CWE 66 xv-xxxiii

137 CWE 66 xix-xx
138 Institutio christiani matrimonii LB v 6510
 INTRODUCTION Ivi

Another striking element is the lucidity, indeed the severity and irony
with which Erasmus judges the customs of his time, as much when he
considers the monastic life and its infidelities as when he reflects upon
the marriages of his contemporaries. This, too, constitutes an aspect of his
pastoral vision - this making use of an analysis of the society and church that
encompass his contemporaries' weaknesses. One must intelligently recognize
their faults, and, in the spirit of the gospel, denounce them and work to blunt
their force. With a realism that one could call 'theological/ Erasmus reminds
us repeatedly that state of life - whether the consecrated or the married - is
valuable only to the degree to which it fosters virtue. This is precisely the
stance of Rabelais, who often treated the question of marriage by endowing
it with the comic aspect of an existential question - as, for example, in the
case of Panurge.139
Certainly Erasmus was conscious of the canonical and even theological
difficulties which his positions raised. With a certain relativism or distance
afforded by his culture and familiarity with the texts - above all the patristic
ones, so keenly assimilated by him - he believed that change within the church
was possible, since the history of Christianity attests to many developments.
Erasmus was always careful to distinguish between matters of faith that
were defined and theological opinions that can vary. For him the folly
of the scholastics was their desire to pose questions on every topic and
reach a verdict on everything in the most definitive possible way.140 One
can understand how his relativism stirred so much indignation and unrest
among his contemporaries at a time when church dogma and traditions were
being called into question.
The subtlety of style, rhetorical devices, ironic allusions, and constant
recourse to paradox - above all when deployed in a genre as distinctive as
the Apologia and the austere polemical treatises - do not make these works
a route of easy access to Erasmian intuitions. The intuitions are displayed
more felicitously in the great treatises like the Enchiridion militis christiani. But
they are indeed present in the battle waged step by step, verse by verse, and
phrase by phrase against those who had the misfortune to question Erasmus'
pietas, for in that pietas lay his real commitment to Christ.

GB

139 M.A. Screech The Rabelaisian Marriage: Aspects of Rabelais' Religion, Ethics, and
Comic Philosophy (London 1958) 126
140 Allen Ep 1976: 64
 INTRODUCTION Ivii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to Janet Ritch of the University of Toronto for her translation
from the French of the introduction to this volume and of the notes to the
Apologia ad Fabrum. For their advice and assistance with various matters
the following are acknowledged gratefully here: James K. Farge, H.J. de
Jonge, John Langlois, James K. McConica, and Nelson Minnich, and the staff
of the Toronto Renaissance and Reformation Colloquium, E.J. Pratt Library,
Victoria University, University of Toronto. We are indebted to Mary Baldwin,
Lynn Burdon, Penny Cole, Theresa Griffin, and Philippa Matheson for their
indispensable contribution of preparing the text for publication and bringing
it into print.
This page intentionally left blank
 APOLOGY AGAINST
JACQUES LEFEVRE D'ETAPLES

Apologia ad lacobum Fabrum Stapulensem

translated by HOWARD JONES

annotated by GUY BEDOUELLE
 I N T R O D U C T O R Y NOTE 2

The controversy between Erasmus and the Parisian humanist Jacques Lefevre
d'Etaples, which culminated in the publication of the Apologia ad lacobum
Fabrum Stapulensem, had its origin in a critical comment by Erasmus on
Lefevre's interpretation of St Paul's reference to Psalm 8:6 in the Epistle to
the Hebrews 2:7. At issue was whether the meaning should be 'You have
made him a little lower than God/ as Lefevre contended, or 'You have made
him a little lower than the angels/ as Erasmus maintained. Lefevre first
declared his view in his annotation on Psalm 8:6 in his Quincuplex psalterium
of 1509, and he repeated it in 1512 in his annotation on Hebrews 2:7 in his
translation of and commentary on the Epistles of St Paul (Epistolae xiv ex
Vulgata, adiecta intelligentia ex Gmeco, cum commentariis). Erasmus' criticism
of Lefevre's position came in his annotation on Hebrews 2:7 in his Novum
instrumentum, which appeared in March 1516. Lefevre responded with a note
of some eight folio pages which he included in the second edition of his
commentary on St Paul's Epistles, which was published sometime between
November 1516 and July 1517 but bore a date in the colophon of 1515.
It was not until July 1517 that Erasmus' attention was drawn to Lefevre's
'disputatio/ as Erasmus called it. Incensed by its harsh tone, and dismayed
by what he regarded as a betrayal of friendship on Lefevre's part, Erasmus
lost no time in striking back, composing the present Apologia in a space of
two weeks or less.
The first edition was published by Dirk Martens at Louvain. It bears no
date, but appeared sometime between 23 and 28 August 1517-1 Four more
editions were published before the death of Erasmus (and Lefevre) in 1536.
Corrected copies of the editio princeps were sent by Erasmus to Matthias
Schiirer in Strasbourg and to Johann Froben in Basel. Schurer published what
was the second edition between the end of October 1517 and February 1518,
indicating on the title page that the edition incorporated revisions by the
author. In addition to the text of the Apologia the edition contained Erasmus'
annotation on Hebrews 2:7 and Lefevre's 'disputatio.' Froben followed with
a third edition in February 1518, which contained only the Apologia and a
brief prefatory letter by the publisher outlining the history and nature of
the dispute. A fourth edition was published by Martens in Louvain between
February and 6 March 1518. This edition contained, in addition to the text
of the Apologia and a commendatory letter from the publisher, a summary
of Lefevre's 'disputatio' together with refutations of its main points, and an

i The translator's brief account of the history of the printed text of the Apologia
is indebted to the comprehensive and detailed treatment given by Andrea W.
Steenbeek in ASD ix-3 46-58.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE 3

explanatory letter by Erasmus addressed to Guillaume Bude. A fifth edition

was issued twice by Froben - in November 1521 and in February 1522. Each
formed part of slightly differing editions of Erasmus' apologetical writings.
In each case the text of the Apologia was followed by an adaptation of the
prefatory letter which Martens had included in the editio princeps. A sixth
edition of the Apologia appeared in 1540 in volume ix of Erasmus' Opera
omnia, published by Froben in Basel. Martens' original prefatory letter was
appended, as were Erasmus' 1516 annotation on Hebrews 2:7 and Lefevre's
'disputatio.' This sixth edition also contains a few additions to the text of the
Apologia prepared by Erasmus prior to 1536, which make it 'the most recent
edition of the apologia for which Erasmus was responsible.'2
The present translation is from the text of the Apologia in the Leiden
edition (LB). It appears in volume ix, columns 17-66 (with columns 65/66
wrongly numbered 49/50) and reproduces the 1540 Froben text.

HJ

2 ASD ix-3 57
 APOLOGY AGAINST
JACQUES LEFEVRE D'ETAPLES

DESIDERIUS ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM TO JACQUES LEFEVRE

D'ETAPLES, RENOWNED PHILOSOPHER/ GREETINGS
My most learned Lefevre, just when I was boarding the coach for my jour-
ney to Louvain, for I preferred to go there to live rather than accompany the
Prince [Charles] to Spain,2 one of my close friends3 apprised me of the sec-
ond edition of your Commentaries on St Paul, in which you have entered upon
a lengthy dispute with me, and at the same time he pointed out the text in
question, namely, the second chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews.41 was
delighted to be able to secure a copy from the bookseller on the spot. In the
meantime, since I never fail to take an interest whenever some new point
is raised, especially if it concerns myself, I spent the journey eagerly read-
ing your Apologia, though polemic would be a better term,5 since such is the
intensity and fervour with which you fight for hearth and home6 that you
are not satisfied with recovering the possessions taken from you, but carry
out a raid of your own against mine; and such is your manner of protect-
ing your forces that you do not stop at destroying my front line, but exulting
in the very moment of victory you storm forward into my camp in a wild

1 Lefevre was known for his commentaries on and editions of Aristotle. In October
1515, Thomas More designated him 'instaurator verae dialecticae veraeque
philosophiae, praesertim aristotelicae'; E.F. Rogers The Correspondence of Sir
Thomas More (Princeton 1947) 36.
2 Erasmus left Bruges for Louvain at the beginning of July 1517 (Ep 596), re-
sponding to an invitation from the theologians (Ep 551). He had declined the
invitation of Charles v to accompany him to Spain (Ep 694:6).
3 According to Allen, it was Gerard Godfrey (Garret Godfrey) from Graten in
Limburg who apprised Erasmus of the second edition (Allen Ep 777:29-30).
4 The edition dated 1515, f ols 225V-229V. See ASD ix~3 206-39.
5 Erasmus contrasts apologia with pugna.
6 arae and foci (Cicero Philippicae 8.8)
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 1/B / ASD IX~3 80 5

orgy of plunder, glorying in a twin triumph, your own standards recovered

and mine captured. Still, my good sir, I read your comments not with any
feeling of anger, but, to be frank, with some regret, not because I would be
aggrieved at receiving advice, or even a rebuke, from a friend, especially so
learned and sincere a friend as yourself, but because I would have wished
that in this dispute with someone who is, as you write, a dear friend you
had behaved in a somewhat more friendly fashion, and this not so much for
my own sake as for yours, or rather for others'.7 For I personally have no
doubt whatsoever that whether it was on your own initiative that you un-
dertook this business or at the prompting of some other party,8 you have
pursued it with sincerity and conviction. But, ready as most people are to
suspect the worst, there may perhaps be those who will infer that we have
been spurred on by rivalry, and they may hurl against us Hesiod's observa-
tion that 'craftsman envies craftsman/9 the more so since we have chanced
to light upon the same topic, and more especially since in your writing they
will read certain things expressed in a tone more bitter, more strident, and
more dramatic10 than either the topic itself or our friendship warranted, to-
gether with some remarks, and these I shall point out in their proper place,
which go beyond the matter in hand and have all the marks of obsession.
Indeed, I am even now assured that there are some who are offended be-
cause in the section concerned they claim to find quite lacking that genuine
frankness for which you are known and for which you have so often earned
my praise, a quality which up to now has complemented your learning in
singular fashion and protected you in very large measure from that envy
which always seems to assail the highest excellence. To these people you
seem here to be a different person, and, as the saying goes, they fail to
find the craftsman in the craftsman.11 For since in your many books to date
your pen has been free from spite and venom, they are surprised that you

7 The disputes between the humanists go beyond personal attacks to the very
principle of les bonnes lettres.
8 Was Lefevre inspired by the theologians? Cf Ep 800:16-21.
9 Hesiod Works and Days 50; Adagia n ii 25: Figulus figulo invidet, faber fabro.
This citation permits Erasmus to introduce a wordplay on the name 'Faber.'
Such corporate rivalry plays into the hands of the humanists' enemies (Ep
724:9-10).
10 Erasmus uses the word TpayiKwrtpov, which constitutes one of the points of the
debate. For Lefevre, the Christological debate is dramatically significant.
11 Here is a fine portrait of Lefevre's humanitas. Erasmus is still playing on his
family name, Faber (see n9 above), and thinks that Lefevre has failed to live up
to his own reputation.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX l8A / ASD IX~3 82 6

should have regarded me in particular as an appropriate victim for the first

stab of your pen, and that it should be with my blood that you stain for the
first time the weapon of your intellect, especially since you not only have
never been mistreated by me but actually have been commended on so many
occasions.12
But since true Christian love, which Paul calls unselfish/3 is such that
it is moved more by the discomforts of one's friends than by one's own, I
would rather that no excuse at all should have been given for even a single
person to think the worse of Lefevre. If in accordance with Paul's teaching
we are always to keep free not only from wrongdoing but also from all
appearance of wrongdoing/4 as far as is possible, it is especially incumbent
upon us when we are discussing the mysteries of the Scriptures, which
should be approached by minds which are as like as possible to those which
recorded them/5 Nor is it proper that the din of human passions should
obtrude where all is divine and heavenly; or fitting that we should appear
less than temperate and impartial in our treatment of these Books which
alone make us truly virtuous and worthy. This is something to which we of
all people should have paid attention, considering our years, when to strive
for the victory like young warriors in the battle16 is a sign of bad taste, and
given both the renown which your works, so many times republished/7 have
deservedly long established for your name and the more slender reputation,
far greater though it is than my merits deserve, which my humble industry
has lately gained for me. Both of us together, therefore, whether we wish it
or not, stand at centre stage, as it were, with the eyes of almost the entire
world upon us/8 and we are well aware how scornful is the judgment of the
multitude, no less so indeed than the look of the theatre-goers whom even
the finest performances barely satisfy. It is all the more important, therefore,
that we accommodate ourselves to the theatre in which we find ourselves,

12 This alludes to the controversy over Mary Magdalene.

13 Erasmus uses the Greek word avvTTOKpirov (Rom 12:9; 2 Cor 6:6).
14 i Thess 5:22
15 There ought to be a sympathy between Holy Scripture and the mind of the
reader (Augustine De doctrina Christiana 2.7.9-11 CCSL 32 36-8).
16 Erasmus uses two Greek verbs meaning 'to show ambition' and 'to behave like
a juvenile.'
17 Lef evre's philosophical, spiritual, and, later, biblical works were republished on
a regular basis; Eugene F. Rice, Jr The Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Lefivre d'Etaples
and Related Texts (New York 1974) 535-68.
18 The world of letters is also represented as a theatre. It is Lefevre who, according
to Erasmus, gave it this dramatic dimension (see mo above, and 90).
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX l8c / ASD IX~3 84 7

and that we make no unseemly or juvenile slip that could get us hissed or
laughed off the platform. I cannot help thinking that it would have been
best if we had avoided this particular production. But since some divine will
has brought us here, it remains only to accommodate ourselves to the script
which we have taken on.
But you will say that it was I who provoked you by taking issue with
you over so many points.19 If disagreement amounts to insult, then I offer no
defence and, however harsh may be your demand that I make amends, I have
nothing to say. But if in every area of discussion there has always been room
for disagreement,20 at least in those matters which do not properly bear upon
articles of faith, then it should not be counted a fault or an offence in my
case either. What is more, I would have you note how I have not acted from
any zealous motive;21 to the contrary, I have been drawn in unwillingly,22
but have acted respectfully even so. For what do you think I ought to have
done, when you had already brought out your work beforehand, and when
I realized that you had emended several passages wrongly, and when I was
aware of the degree of authority which you commanded in the eyes of both
the church hierarchy and the mass of the learned? The matter was too open
to be overlooked, and your book had by this time already been published.
What was I to do? Was I to allow you to be free to lead your reader into
error? Was I to permit the error to become fixed? I do not think that you
yourself would have recommended that, especially since the benefit given to
the public would not have been at the price of any disgrace to your reputation.
Indeed, to fall into error and stray on occasion in matters of this kind is so
much a part of being human that no mortal has yet escaped it, except for
those very few whose writings we do not scrutinize as human products but
venerate as divine.23 Again, it was not your publication which inspired me to
take up this task, in case anyone should jeer that my criticisms of you were
a deliberate plan. In fact, I had already completed my work and submitted

19 It was in point of fact Erasmus, in his Novum instrumentum, who had called
Lefevre's interpretation of Heb 2:7 into question, but he continues to cite the
Parisian humanist frequently (ASD ix-3 87:11711).
20 This is Erasmus' typical stance on theological matters which had not been
defined by the church and thus were still open to interpretation.
21 At this point, Erasmus emphasizes his scientific and even theological responsi-
bility. He did not seek the polemic and must insist upon friendship, truth, and
the public interest (ASD rx~3 84:91; 86:100,113; see 1^3 below).
22 Adagia in ix 33: Quod aliis
23 Biblical commentaries do not benefit from the inspiration which underlies
Scripture: they are human not divine works.
 A P O L O G I A AD FABRUM LB IX 196 / ASD IX~3 84 8

it to the printer before yours was published.24 As soon as yours appeared,

I wondered more than once how it happened that in the many lengthy and
intimate discussions and arguments which we had at Paris there had not been
even a chance mention of what my study or yours might finally give birth
to. If I had realized at the time, I would perhaps have abandoned what I had
started, and if I had chanced to have anything prepared which might have
contributed to your work, I would have passed it on as a colleague; not that
your talent stands in need of assistance from me when it is exercised in its
own field; but the fact is that when you were engaged in those 'examinations/
as you call them, you were out of your own arena and in territory where
I myself, however much I am inferior in other spheres, have your respect,
if I am not mistaken.25 But now that the affair had reached this point, I
do not think that you would have demanded that so much notice be taken
of your name that in scriptural matters feeling for a friend should weigh
more heavily with me than truth itself, and that I should place the public
good lower than one person's reputation, though, as I have said, your name
was not at stake. Rather, such was my judgment of your talent and your
character that I believed that your friend Erasmus would become a dearer
friend still if with my humble work I too should have assisted the public
good for which you had taken so much care, especially since I was coming to
the aid of truth in such a way as not to harm in the slightest the reputation
of a friend, and far from slighting his reputation was adding to its lustre
wherever I could. For you know yourself, if you have read my works, what
an amicable form my disagreement with you takes: in places I hide my true
opinion, I overlook certain mistakes, I do as much as possible to excuse
and minimize others, I refrain entirely from harsh criticism and sarcastic
comment, I press no point with insistence, even though there were some
glaring errors, and though some other person, more wedded to his own glory
than to Christian tolerance, might well have abused you soundly, especially
since your pronouncements carry such great weight. Nor is this all, as you
well know. For how often do I mention Lefevre with some expression of
honour? How often do I appeal with respect to your authority to support

24 Erasmus' chronology is hard to justify since he had already revealed his knowl-
edge of the Pauline commentaries in March 1515, well before the publication of
the Novum instrumentum (Epp 326:95-6,334:173-5,337:879).
25 This courteous assault does not mask the fact that in Paris in 1511 the two
humanists did not tell each other about their respective work on the New
Testament. In his Examinationes circa littemm, Erasmus believes himself more
qualified than Lefevre with respect to Greek philology.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX igE / ASD IX~3 86 9

my views? I pay to you while you are alive the kind of respect which some
do not enjoy after they have died, though the grave is supposed to bring all
malice to an end.26 And I do this in some places where I have no need of the
patronage of your name; for example, in the foreword to my commentary
on Paul's letter to the Colossians, where, although I had demonstrated from
so many authoritative sources that the Colossians to whom Paul writes were
not on the island of Rhodes, I none the less added you as an authority quite
gratuitously.27 Again, in the very passage under discussion, you go out of
your way to pick a quarrel with me, while I go out of my way to bring in
your name with great respect. I would rather be seen leaning in this direction
than the other, which for some reason has appealed to you more.
Beyond all this, take note how I have neither done nor undertaken
anything in a false or deceitful fashion but have been at all times open and
candid. First, when I was in the preparatory stages of my edition, and then
later, when I was in the midst of composition, I wrote to you to give advance
warning that in making my emendations I would in certain places take a
different view from yours, though I would do so in a friendly manner. That
you sanctioned my intention is clear from the fact that in your reply you
repeatedly commended my efforts but made no reference to this particular
aspect. Second, in a further letter, and again in a third, I gave you an account
of what I had done, and assured you that wherever in your second edition
you were prepared to change what I had brought to your attention, then in
the next edition of my notes I would in turn omit mention of the passage;
but that wherever you refused to comply, I would gladly accept your reason
if it turned out that you were justified in disagreeing with me, and if the
mistake was mine, I would regard your reproof as a benefit.28 But while so
many people have earnestly clamoured for your letters to me, including that
excellent and noble champion of the faith Etienne Poncher, bishop of Paris,
as well as the renowned dean of learning Guillaume Bude, there has been no
indication at all on your part as to what you approve and what you do not.29

26 Ovid Amoves 1.15.39

27 ASD ix-2 218:880-4. The words 'no need' and 'gratuitously' reveal the annoyance
which this whole passage expresses.
28 These letters seem to have been lost, but Josse Bade, the Parisian printer who
was a close friend of Lefevre, attests to their existence (Ep 434:18). Lefevre
himself mentions them at the end of his Disputatio (ASD ix~3 224 Appendix
IV).
29 No trace of these procedures seems to have survived. Etienne Poncher, to whom
Erasmus will refer again (33), was consecrated bishop of Paris in 1503. In 1505,
Lefevre had written the preface for one of Guillaume Bude's editions.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 2OB / ASD IX~3 88 1O

Meanwhile, naively trusting that we were of one mind, I could only assume
that your talents were being devoted to weightier matters. Moreover, in the
matter of your second edition as well there has been a silence on all sides
that is remarkable, seeing that the edition has been circulating widely now
for a year and a half, and with me the only one unaware of it despite being
the very person with the greatest interest in knowing of it. One could almost
apply to me that well-known quip about the house being the last to know of
its own disgrace.30 For quite without concern and trusting that all was well,
I was being made a fool of without knowing it, like someone going about
with a tail pinned to his back,31 and would be a helpless laughing-stock even
now had it not been for a certain bookseller, not a scholar but a friend, who
happened quite by chance to put me in the picture.321 assure you, I suffered
the same kind of shock as those who read their names on a blacklist when
they have had no inkling that a list even existed. In war, perhaps, it is a
matter for congratulation to swoop swiftly upon the enemy, to overpower
him unexpectedly, to take him unawares, to engage him before he has any
idea that a battle is upon him.33 But the rule in military matters is one thing,
the rule in scriptural studies quite another. Anyway, the best generals do
not even sanction deception against an enemy who is waging war by force
of arms. Not that I would say that there has been any manoeuvring on your
part; I suspect rather that we may look for the hand of someone who is less
open than we are.
Yet mention of your second edition does prompt me to say that I am
quite at a loss to imagine how it has happened that though my own edition
was published by Froben at Basel in 1516, yours bears the date 1515. If yours
came out first, or if the two came out simultaneously, how could yours cite
mine? If yours came out later, in what way could it anticipate mine, when
mine was already off the press? To be sure, it must have happened as a result
of an error on the part of the printers; they make mistakes so frequently
that they cause us to make them responsible for our own slips as well. Or it
may be that someone with your interests at heart thought he should make

30 luvenal Satires 10.342. That Lef evre would not answer the personal letters which
were addressed to him is one thing, but that he did not warn Erasmus of his
attack against him, which had been circulating in print, is quite another. The
words 'for a year and a half announce the following discussion of the date
when the second edition of Lefevre's Pauline commentaries appeared.
31 Horace Satires 2.3.53
32 See n3 above.
33 This military analogy is taken up again, in relation to the same controversy, in
a letter written by Erasmus to Fisher, Ep 784:40-2.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 2OE / ASD IX~3 90 11

sure in advance that you not appear to have included in your work anything
borrowed from. mine. Thus, while he was conscientiously looking out for
your reputation, he either did not remember or did not notice that in your
edition you made mention of my earlier one.34 But however all this may have
come about is not of great importance to me. For my reputation is not so
vulnerable or insecure that I would care to haggle in this fashion.35
As to your charge that it was I who gave you cause to keep the argument
going,361 admit that I encouraged you to disagree freely on any point which
seemed to you worthwhile, but on the understanding that your disagreement
would take the same form as mine, that you would plead your case in
courteous, not contentious fashion, free from sarcasm and rancour. Even if
I have not always set the example despite my desire to do so, it was still
your responsibility to exhibit what I could but aim for, seeing that you are so
much the better person, and not only better but a little more mature in years,
even though I have myself just seen my fiftieth birthday. If you thought the
responsibility was shared by us, at least your sense of what is fitting, which
I regard as not the least part of your reputation, required that you not only
match my politeness but give more than measure for measure, in accordance
with Hesiod's demand for 'better still'; nor could you excuse yourself with
Hesiod's 'would that I were able/ since for you it would be the simplest
matter. To be surpassed in learning and fine speaking is not always a disgrace,
since these are things which are inborn; but to be bested in the things which
civilized behaviour demands is a disgrace indeed, while to excel is especially
fine, since here each person excels only to the extent that his mind wills it, and
what is required is not ability but the right spirit.37 Accordingly, I introduce
a mention of my friend Lefevre so that I might be seen to have sought the
opportunity of honouring your name and to have been as lavish in praising
you as I have been sparing in rebuke, so that it is quite clear that when I offer
you advice it is out of good will, and when I take issue it is because I have
no choice. So, even if through human neglect something has crept into your
work which might cause me offence38 (if Christian love allowed for such a

34 Steenbeek believes that the hypothesis of a pure and simple misprint is the only
plausible one (ASD ix-3 60-2).
35 The Greek word used by Erasmus, juixpoAoyety, signifies to haggle, to make a
fuss about nothing (Adagia n x 33: Praemansum).
36 This is what Lefevre claims in the final lines of his Disputatio.
37 Thus Erasmus gives Lefevre a lesson in civilitas and humanitas with the aid of a
citation from Hesiod Works and Days 350.
38 The Latin expression nasum corrugare comes from Horace Epistles 5.23.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 21B / ASD IX-J 90 12

feeling), not only do I refrain from all reproof, but as far as possible I have
been careful not to blurt forth any remark which could be taken as a sign of
ill feeling or malevolence on my part. But if the fact itself that your name
has been mentioned at all in my books gives you offence, you may be sure
that such mention shall be erased as soon as possible if you cannot endure to
be named by just any writer, in the same way that Alexander refused to be
drawn by any painter but Apelles or sculpted by anyone except Lysippus.39
Perhaps the most charitable interpretation one might put on your action is that
you simply sought an opportunity to honour my name by way of returning
a favour. But if something like that was in fact your intent, there were so
many places where I pointed out a mistake on your part, and if you have
corrected them (for I have not compared more than one or two), then it was a
matter of simple gratitude, not to say duty, not only to give acknowledgment
but to make a special point of doing so; if you have not altered these places,
though some of them ought to be changed completely, then it is either a mark
of disdain not to read what concerns you, or a sign of stubbornness to refuse
to correct what you know stands in need of correction. If in these places
you accept my advice, why do you neither acknowledge the fact nor change
them? If you reject my advice, why do you not offer a refutation of someone
who disagrees with you and is correcting you openly and candidly? If it
was your intention to mention Erasmus, this was the time, when the matter
itself offered the opportunity. If any thanks is owed to one who either names
another with respect or offers advice in a sincere and friendly fashion, there
is certainly a fine reward stored up for me, while you in turn have handed
on to posterity a magnificent remembrance of our friendship.40
Why in one place only does the name of Erasmus, a friend and more
than a friend, come to your mind? Is it that I disagree with you in the one
place only? Why this incessant, urgent, and persistent seeking and striving to
show that the opportunity was not presented, but sought after? To come to the
point, why do you fabricate a quarrel where there is no quarrel, where indeed,
as I shall soon make clear, I am working on your behalf? Where you have made
undeniable errors I smooth them over or cover them up altogether, while you

39 Apelles and Lysippus are among the greatest artists of Alexander the Great's
period. The suggestion that Lefevre might be compared with them is highly
ironic.
40 Lefevre was not generous in compliments to his contemporaries in any of
his writings. Nevertheless, in his 1515 edition he had accepted a correction
proposed by Erasmus concerning a note on i Cor 5:4, with a word of thanks
(see Ep 607:2-9, and 11410 below).
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 21D / ASD IX~3 92 13

with your language stir up a mighty storm where there is calm. Nor do I have
any doubt that you are well aware in your own mind of my politeness. Though
I would rather my politeness go without others' recognition than risk losing
some part of their commendation by striving too earnestly to substantiate it
myself, since a good part of politeness rests in not claiming it. And I swear
by God who knows all that I would willingly have overlooked this matter
too, except that you imputed certain things too offensive for me possibly
to ignore, things which will soon be brought to light. To overlook insults
is a mark of tolerance and moderation; but there is a limit to everything,41
as the saying goes. To remain silent against a charge of sacrilege is itself
sacrilege. Not that you have acted with open intention; all the same, you do
cast certain aspersions which might give a less than partial interpreter reason
to think that you are making me out to be not only foolish and illiterate, but
sacrilegious as well.42 While the first two imputations I can tolerate, the last
I do not think it right for me to ignore. There is the added disadvantage that
in this I myself cannot speak in your defence, however much I might wish to.
For if I were to begin to put too positive an interpretation on those of your
comments which seem to be rather harsh, I could not help but appear to be
deluding myself. See in what a quandary you have placed me. But, I repeat,
we shall soon demonstrate that these things are so.
Yet, my dear Lefevre, despite the fact that I have not found this business
altogether pleasant, it has not mattered enough to cause me to change the
opinion I have always had of you as someone who is second to none in
learning and loyalty, though it has taught me that you are also human, and
made me wary of saying anything in too discourteous a fashion. You have
yielded to the passions of your supporters, and I cannot be angry with you
for that. For the highest and humblest natures alike are sometimes given to
falling into the mistake of allowing themselves to be led along by instincts not
their own. For I am well aware how many there are who are greatly devoted
to you and are bound to you as if they had sworn allegiance, and who honour
your pronouncements as though they were oracles.43 These people, perhaps,

41 Adagia in ii 10: Usque ad aras

42 Erasmus mentions two of the worst accusations which could be made against a
Christian humanist - those of illiteracy and disloyalty, which would amount to
impiety. It is true that Lefevre had also referred to impiety.
43 Throughout his career, Lefevre knew how to earn the trust, esteem, and admi-
ration of circles of disciples, whom Erasmus will call the Lefevrites (Fabristae)
further on. Some of these followers reacted very negatively to Erasmus' attacks
upon their master in the Apologia (ASD ix-3 93125in).
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 22B / ASD IX-3 92 14

regard it as a crime even to disagree with you and would go so far as to offer
combat to anyone who challenges what you say. Yet I am quite prepared to
forgive their enthusiasm, which has its roots in love and affection. But unless
I completely mistake you, I believe you are too sensible and fine a man to
demand that greater deference be paid to your Commentaries than Augustine,
Ambrose, and Jerome demanded for theirs, especially since, whenever it is a
matter of enquiring after truth, you would refuse to rely upon any support
which rested on human authority.44
Now it is time for me to reply to your Apologia with one of my own,
which I must frame in such a way as to protect my good name by making
sure that as far as is possible I do no harm to the reputation of a friend or
cause him distress. Although it would be an easy matter to give an answer
where there is barely any disagreement in the case, in this instance your
treatise has presented me with a considerable problem, since it spreads out
in all directions with loose threads everywhere, whether this is your usual
custom or whether you thought it a good idea to display on this particular
occasion your powers of eloquence and the richness of your style. So, since
it is no small task even to review your general argument, how much more
difficult it is to refute you point by point, so much do you expand and
amplify every one, for each making a mountain out of a molehill, as the
saying is.45 For who would not at the outset be anticipating some magnificent
tragic production when in the prologue he hears you so piously invoking
the aid of the heavenly spirit, and again at the end so scrupulously bringing
your prayer to a close, right up to the 'for ever and ever'?46 Then, following
the approved rhetorical procedure, for I do believe that you think you are
dealing with a rhetorician, you lay out what common ground you have with
your opponent and what remains in dispute, as though drawing up the battle
lines on this side and that. Then, as if a capital charge were being tried before
the Areopagus, you set down against each article of the charge my own
words. One would think you were Demosthenes submitting evidence against
Aeschines!47

44 Erasmus uses the same idea, also with respect to this matter, in a letter to Bude,
Ep 778:310-14.
45 Adagia i ix 69: Elephantum ex musca fads. In any case, Lefevre's Defensio or
Disputatio is much less prolix than this Apologia of Erasmus.
46 It is true that Lefevre's text, which was known for its liturgical piety, ends like
a prayer, but Erasmus overdoes this characteristic somewhat.
47 The Areopagus of Athens was the supreme court. Demosthenes (d 322 BC) had
pleaded against Aeschines (d 314 BC), who supported Philip of Macedon.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 22D / ASD IX~3 94 15

If I may be allowed to spare the reader trouble and save myself having
to spend more than the minimum of energy on this necessary but distaste-
ful business by replying selectively and by touching upon only a few points
rather than all, and those in particular which someone less favourably dis-
posed to me than to you might turn to my discredit, you set out the crux of
your case as follows: 'Our friend Erasmus does not accept my opinion in this
place, nor does he approve of St Jerome's interpretation of the sixth verse of
the Eighth Psalm, namely, "You will make him a little less than God, you
will crown him with honour and glory."' Now I beg you, in the name of
truth,48 are you not creating, I might almost say completely fabricating, a dis-
agreement where there is harmony, are you not stirring up a battle where
there is peace, preparing a defence when nobody is summoning you to court,
putting yourself on trial when there is no accuser? Read again that entire
section in my Annotations, search it through, try to detect a single word re-
jecting either St Jerome's opinion or your own: I merely point out that there
are two readings - St Jerome's, which you accept, and that of the Septuagint
and, as some assert, of the Chaldaeans,49 a reading which the Greek church
long ago accepted, which now the Roman church follows by universal con-
sensus, and which so many orthodox theologians of our faith accept, men
distinguished and respected as much for their learning as for the holiness
of their lives. I thought it legitimate, especially in 'annotations,' to rehearse
the different views of different people, and I chose to introduce my own
on the principle that each person should be free to make his own judgment
and that nobody's opinion should be condemned in advance. For since I saw
that this freedom is given to commentators and is a freedom to which St
Jerome himself appeals again and again and uses to defend his own prac-
tice, I thought the same right was owed to me all the more in a work which
professes nothing beyond some modest little notes which are hardly more
than grammatical points, particularly since I avow not once, but again and
again, that I am writing annotations not doctrine.50 St Jerome repeatedly sur-
veys the opinions of heretics without rejecting them or naming the author:

48 The expression is in Greek.

49 In his 1515 edition of the Pauline commentaries, Lefevre had praised the
eightfold Psalter of Agostino Giustiniani, which was published in Genoa in
1516, especially the Chaldaic version. A little further on, Erasmus is going to
ridicule the whole eightfold collection (21). In a new Latin edition of the Psalter
published in 1524, Lefevre would still refer to the Chaldaic version, which he
consulted in Felice da Prato's edition (Venice and Bamberg 1515).
50 Here is the first indication of the literary genre of Erasmus' Annotationes in
Novum Testamentum.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 236 / ASD IX~3 96 l6

let him be the first to be brought to court if it is not allowed to relate what
others have thought.51 For my part, I simply record two opinions, neither of
which constitutes a heresy; indeed, both have been approved by orthodox
persons. And I record them without seeking to diminish or discredit either,
merely pointing out what obstacle seems to stand in the way whichever of
the two readings is adopted, namely, that Jesus Christ, as far as his human
condition is concerned and the manner of life he lived on earth, would seem
to have been diminished not only below God, but below the angels and most
of mankind as well. Then I put forward some of the arguments which have
been used to remove this difficulty, maintaining throughout a neutral stance
and doing for the reader what a commentator, and even more an annotator,
ought to do by supplying him with the material for his own evaluation.
Therefore, not only do I not reject either of the two opinions, but
contrary to your claim, I seem in fact to favour yours, in as much as I record
it first and strengthen it with the authority of St Jerome, pointing out where
someone might look for further elucidation, if he so wished; while the second
opinion, which you do not favour, I bring forward quite on its own and
without support. In fact, I am in danger of appearing at this point to have
introduced your name with rather too much enthusiasm. For what was the
point of naming you as the author of this opinion when I well knew that
so many years ago St Jerome had translated thus from the Hebrew text and
had annotated the passage accordingly in his commentaries?52 If, that is, you
credit these commentaries to Jerome, seeing that, surprisingly, you make no
mention of them in your own, even though you were there most eager to teach
that the reading 'than God' should be adopted.53 For I do not believe that you
are so negligent that when you were writing on the Psalms you did not take
care to find out what so renowned a writer had said. In the circumstances,
my dear Lef evre, I beg you to see that you must acknowledge how wrongful
your denunciations are when you are not content with claiming that I have
rejected your opinion, but add the still more offensive charge that I do not
approve of the Jerome interpretation when, in fact, I show it favour, or at
least do not oppose it.
This, however, was not enough; you add something even more distaste-
ful. 'Meanwhile/ you say, 'we append what Erasmus has written on this

51 Jerome In Hieremiam prologue CCSL 74 1:9-11

52 Jerome Commentarioli in psalmos 8 CCSL 72 191
53 In his biblical commentaries, Lef evre is guided by the principle that Scripture
ought to be interpreted in itself (sui interpres), and thus cites few patristic
authors (Bedouelle Quincuplex psalterium 81-92).
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 2JE / ASD IX~3 96 17

passage in his Annotations in order that the reader may more easily under-
stand his mind and my defence of my assertion and of St Jerome's interpre-
tation, nay, his prophetic understanding/54 The result of this, of course, is
that you stir up against me not only all those who are your supporters, all
the Lefevrites,551 might call them, but also all those who regard St Jerome's
authority as sacrosanct, indeed all Christians everywhere who support a de-
fender of prophetic understanding against an enemy. But to be a defender of
St Jerome's interpretation and prophetic understanding, you must have an
enemy. So in this place you make me fit the bill, even though I am as far as
possible from being one.
This is the beginning of your argument, in which I think you see how
little, to use your own words, you deal in friendly fashion with a friend. You
make me your opponent when, in fact, I defend your opinion. For suppose,
as you wish, that the only possible reading is 'You have made him a little
less than God.'56 Is it 'a little' that he descends who comes down as God to
man, when human nature is by infinite degrees lower than divine nature?
And, though you do not have the decency to admit it, this is the difficulty
which I remove, and without insult to you, because it appeared to stand
in the way of your interpretation. Yet in spite of this you make out that I
am an opponent and that I impugn prophetic understanding. Having thus
informed the reader of the main point of your case, you challenge and assail
the separate parts of my annotation as though I had offered each one as an
authoritative statement, when in fact I include some things merely in passing
and, as it were, gratuitously, while others I add for the sake of argument and
do not claim that they are definitive. This kind of attack may seem clever and
shrewd, especially if the reader is not very well informed on the issue in
question. But if the same thing happens in debates as generally happens in
the lawcourts, that the one who brings a false accusation loses his suit, then
my case has already been made for me.57
Let me now proceed to show how the rest is in line with this friendly
opening. You frankly admit that I advised you that the reading in the Hebrew
version was 'You have made58 him a little less than God.' Yet you make the

54 This citation is taken from Lefevre's Disputatio ASD ix-3 207:31-3.

55 On Erasmus' use of the term Fabristae, see Epp 653:15-16 and 794:39-40.
56 Here the term used is minorasti. Cf Jerome Commentarius in epistolam ad Galatas
2.4 PL 26 4070.
57 In the passage which follows, Erasmus adopts the vocabulary of a legal action,
brought against him by Lefevre.
58 minuisti
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 246 / ASD IX~3 98 l8

admission as if I had brought a charge against you. If you had been the first
to point it out you could have taken the credit, and I would willingly have
granted you the honour. And yet, what frankness was there in admitting
something which, since it was published and known, you could not deny?
Then you admit, again as if it were another charge brought against you,
that what I had cited from the Jerome commentaries is indeed to be found
there, except that Jerome had made the point more clearly and the reader
ought to have been aware of this in passing. Here too you wish to appear
not only frank, though you are admitting only what is in open print, but
also polite and friendly by writing, 'This too we grant to our friend; it is a
fact.' What compliment to our friendship is there in this? If you were dealing
with an enemy of the faith you would have no choice but to admit as true
what is undeniable. Next, you treat as a third accusation my statement that in
bringing forward many arguments to support the reading 'than God' over
'than the angels' you were contradicting Aquinas.59 Splitting my statement
up, you acknowledge the one part, but plead that you were justified; the
other part you deny. 'I acted properly,' you say. But who is charging that you
acted improperly? No denial was called for, nor was any possible, since your
published writings stood ready to contradict you. I say that you brought
forward many arguments, not bad ones, with no thought of discrediting your
opinion or assailing your arguments; I simply point out to the reader where
he might find arguments should he desire them, at the same time declining
to offer the kind of lengthy review which is not in keeping with the role
of an annotator. As for the other part of your defence, you adopt a twofold
stance, as lawyers do. You first deny that you contradicted Aquinas, then, on
the assumption that you did, you argue that it is legitimate to do so. Now
in the first place consider whether someone contradicts when he adopts a
position different from someone else's without being aware of what that
other person's position is. Am I to be regarded as not different from Peter
just because I do not know what he looks like? Am I not to think that Plato
sometimes contradicts Cicero even though he did not know what opinion
Cicero would hold? To my mind, you certainly contradict Aquinas every time
you hold an opinion different from his and when I see that your views do
not coincide. There was no point in your straining to excuse the fact that
you disagreed with Aquinas, other than that it was meant, I suspect, to win
you points with his followers and to turn these same people against me.
Personally, I have never held it a fault in a man to disagree with anyone,

59 St Thomas Aquinas does indeed comment on the reading 'a little less than the
angels' in Heb 2:7; Super epistolas S. Pauli (Turin and Rome 1953) 361-2.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 2^E / ASD IX~3 1OO 19

no matter how great that person's name, provided he pay a proper respect
to those who deserve it; and I certainly place Aquinas among that number,
first because of his learning, and second because of his holiness. You claim
that at the time you had not consulted his opinion or his pronouncements
on the point. This is what you say. Yet at the time you were preparing your
commentaries it was of great importance for you to discover what his opinion
had been, a writer who was surely not to be ignored. I myself disagree with
him often, but always in a far more polite and respectful way than you
imply when you say, 'Neither does Erasmus agree with him, who assails
him on so many occasions/ just to make it sound more violent still.60 It
does not make sense that you should have failed to consult Aquinas on
the meaning of sacred texts when it might have been of benefit to your
writings.
I repeat, I had no intention of causing offence or arousing mistrust
when I said that you contradicted Aquinas. Had I wished to do anything
like that, I would have been more inclined to declare that you disagreed
with Augustine, and Hilary too, I am sure, except that that part of his
commentaries has been lost. Had I wished to heap ill will upon you, I
would have added Chrysostom, and Theophylact, and all orthodox writers,
with the single exception of Jerome, though even he is ambiguous; in short,
the general opinion of the entire church, publicly accepted and approved
through so many centuries.61 I did none of this. I merely pointed out that
just as your opinion coincided with St Jerome's, so it contradicted that of
Aquinas. I mentioned that Aquinas' opinion agreed with that of Chrysostom
and Theophylact,62 except that they take the reference to be human nature in
general, while he takes it to be the body which Christ assumed, only to show
the reader that neither opinion was unsupported by authorities. In pressing
your case against Aquinas you are prepared to see him acquitted only if you
are persuaded that he made a genuine mistake and truly believed that the
reading he adopted is found in the Hebrew texts. But I cannot think that
Aquinas was so careless and negligent that in preparing his commentaries
on this passage he failed to take note of St Jerome's interpretation or to

60 For the ways in which Erasmus differs from St Thomas in the Novum instrumen-
tum, see Apologia ASD ix~3 101:39411.
61 In point of fact, Lefevre's argument is different, because he starts from the
position that the authors who do not agree with St Jerome did not know Hebrew
(Disputatio ASD ix-3 217:350-9 and 220:457-76).
62 The passage from Theophylact recalled here is taken from his Commentarius in
epistolam ad Hebraeos PG 125 2o8B-c.
 A P O L O G I A AD FABRUM LB IX 256 / ASD IX-3 1OO 2O

search out his comment on this psalm.63 What is close to the truth is that in
this particular he attached greater weight to the general consensus among
all the churches and the remarkable agreement among orthodox authorities
than to Jerome's annotation derived from an unknown and foreign language,
especially since Jerome indicated the reading in the Hebrew only briefly and
in such a way as not to reject or impugn the alternate reading, as you strongly
imply. And would that you had found Jerome's example more appealing.64
For if you had been willing to imitate his modesty, you would have done
your reputation a more proper service, my dear Lefevre, and avoided visiting
this present disturbance upon a friend.
Now if Aquinas had seen that heaven-inspired eight-part work you
refer to,65 he would perhaps have ventured to change the accepted reading;
for you cite this new author, for want of a better word, with such great pomp,
you might be producing an oracle delivered right from the tripod at Delphi.66
Not that I would wish to disparage the man's zeal. By the same token,
however, I would not wish to be completely overwhelmed by the weight of
his authority. For as far as the usefulness of his work is concerned, there has
already been published at Basel a Psalter in three languages, a timely and
excellent work, in my opinion.67 And apart from these three languages there
is nothing else to turn to for assistance if something in the Psalms puzzles
us.68 For as no one is able to belittle the value of original sources, so all the
Septuagint translators have always enjoyed the weightiest authority, and the
church has not rejected what Jerome translated into Latin from the Hebrew,
even if it is not publicly used.69 What does it matter, then, if at some time

63 This sentence must be connected with the reproach made against Lefevre of
having failed to consult St Thomas when he was preparing his commentaries.
64 Lefevre ought to have imitated Jerome and left the question open.
65 'heaven-inspired': e caelo delapsum (Adagia i viii 86: Terrae filius). The author is
Giustiniani (see 1149 above). On Erasmus' position with respect to the Dominican
humanist, see Epp 878:2-3 and 906:530-1.
66 Pythia, the prophetess of Apollo at Delphi, delivered her oracles from a tripod
(Adagia i vii 90: Ex tripode).
67 This is the edition of Jerome's Psalter which Erasmus published in Basel in 1516,
assisted by Conradus Pellicanus. The three languages are Greek, Hebrew, and
Latin, along with two other Latin versions.
68 This is rather unkind to Lefevre, the author of the Quincuplex psalterium, which
was published in 1509, republished in 1513, and reprinted in 1515.
69 Jerome's 'Galilean' Psalter, which follows the Septuagint, was incorporated
into the Vulgate and used in the liturgy. It was therefore significant in this
controversy.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 250 / ASD IX-3 1O2 21

you bring before us a Psalter decanted into six hundred languages? For as
far as authority is concerned it does not make much difference whether you
offer me a Psalter in Suevian, Gaelic, Gothic, Arabic, or Armenian.70 As a
curiosity it may have a good deal to offer, but I see hardly any profit in
it, except, perhaps, that we might learn so many languages from it and be
prepared to declare Christ among those peoples. Yet if we are anxious for
the Christian faith to be spread and published abroad in this way among the
pagans, it would be more to the point to produce a history of the Gospels
or the Apostolic Letters in as many languages than to produce a Psalter.
A word too about the annotations which he brings forward out of Jewish,
cabbalistic, talmudic, and rabbinical authors: in the first place, they are few
in number, and in the second, most of them are feeble. I shall not take the
trouble to wrangle over them at length at this juncture, save only to say
that whatever I have so far seen derived from Jewish apocryphal writings
for the most part either is regarded as doubtful or appears insignificant and
having very little relevance to our Christ. Further, a word about the man's
learning. His level of proficiency in the Greek and Latin languages may be
discovered from his prefaces by anyone versed in both; how proficient he
is in the other languages I leave to others to judge. What point was there,
then, in our reading his preface in so many languages?71 So that we might
have instant faith in his proficiency in Greek and Latin? But, you say, two
brethren of his preaching community not only approve his work, but esteem
it and hold it in wonder.72 That is an argument better left on the street
corner - a clear case of one scratching the other's back.73 It would carry more
weight with learned people if there were some assurance that those who
have commended the work understand what they have commended. For I
do not think that we should admit into the republic of learning the kind of
arbitrariness that would allow this man or that to give a book a white mark
or a black one just as he pleases,74 even though he understands nothing of

70 See 1149 above. This is an ironic and gratuitous attack upon Giustiniani, whose
eightfold Psalter includes texts in Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic with a Latin
introduction to each, and the two Targums (Bedouelle Quincuplex psalterium
215-16).
71 Giustiniani's preface (sigs Aii recto-Aiv recto) is printed in Latin, Greek, He-
brew, Arabic, and Armenian (Chaldaean).
72 The two inquisitors who granted the imprimatur (sig Aiv recto) were Bernardus
Granellus and Caspar de Varazzo.
73 Adagia i vii 96: Mutuum muli
74 Adagia i v 54: Creta notare
 APOLOGIA AND FABRUM LB IX 26A / ASD IX-3 102 22

it. For what else is authority without judgment except a form of tyranny?
Yet I do not condemn the zeal of your Augustine, for anyone who tries in
any way at all to illuminate the Holy Scriptures deserves encouragement.
Likewise, my dear Lefevre, I admire and approve your frankness, though I
do wonder why you have shown it to all but Erasmus, especially since he has
been so often your friend and has been brought into this affair quite against
his will.
But I have pursued these matters further than perhaps is necessary. As
to your saying that it is wrong to claim that angels cannot be touched by any
evils, seeing that they have been guilty of sin and are afraid of punishment,
I quite fail to see what this has to do with me. As though I would compare
Christ with fallen angels, or when I use the word 'evils' I am thinking of
sins or punishment for sins. I am referring there to the evils to which human
nature is exposed: an angel cannot die, or experience thirst, or be crucified;
these examples are enough. Indeed, I repeat, I do not think that Christ is to
be compared with fallen angels, but rather with those whose happiness is
already assured, and of whom it has been said with perfect truth, I believe,
that they cannot be touched by any evils.
Up to this point, our skirmish has not drawn much blood, but now you
rush to the attack and give no quarter and spare your opponent nothing. So,
in what follows, there is no truce between us, the war trumpets sound, the
fighting gets bloody, I am beleaguered by weapons of every sort, and I am in
desperate straits.75 Where am I to turn? Upon whom of gods and men am I to
call - helpless, defenceless, a raw recruit to this kind of warfare, when such
a powerful and veteran warrior is bearing down upon me? This is no fight
over a donkey's shadow, as the saying goes;76 it is a matter of life and death,
the sword is aimed at the heart, and I am scampering to save my bacon.77
You assail my statement that the same difficulty remains whether you say
'than God' or 'than the angels' as though I have committed a great sin. What
difficulty remains, you say, if it is agreed that the proper reading is 'than
God'? If that reading is so widely agreed upon, my most learned Lefevre,
and if the other reading is false, impious, heretical, and contrary to divine
Scripture, why aren't you persuading the Christian world of this? Why aren't
you imploring the synod to erase so great an error from all the writings of

75 Here Erasmus takes up his military metaphor again. See 1133 above.
76 Adagia i iii 52: Non de asini umbra
77 The expression is in Greek. See Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon under
x/oe'as.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 260 / ASD IX~3 104 23

the church?78 Why aren't you lamenting the fate of St Ambrose/9 St Hilary,80
Augustine,81 Chrysostom,82 Theophylact,83 in short, all the theologians, with
the exception of St Jerome, in as much as they have adopted this reading
throughout the ages and incorporated it into their writings and teachings?
Christ, you say, was made lower than the angels neither by a little nor by
much. Yet this is what is heard and repeated in all the churches, all the
schools, and all the sacred assemblies throughout the Christian world. If I
had rejected your opinion and adhered to this reading, I would still not have
deserved your abuse simply for preferring to the unsupported annotation
of Jerome the authority of the Septuagint translator, which Hilary, Ambrose,
Augustine, and all theologians have long held in the highest respect, and
which even the Apostolic Fathers themselves often think worth following, as
does the Chaldaic edition, if this adds anything of importance, as well as the
general consensus of both the Greek and the Roman world on this point, a
consensus, in short, strengthened by the authority of so many centuries. If,
on the other hand, I had dared to go against universal and official opinion
and followed the isolated judgment of Jerome, weighty though it is on other
occasions, would I have been viewed as impious? No, respectful. Certainly, St
Jerome's translation and comment have not escaped the notice of the foremost
men of the church, and yet they have for so many centuries chosen a different
reading, and they do so publicly and in solid agreement. I fail to understand
what it means that in expounding this psalm you are as insistent as if you
were sounding the battle-cry and urging us forward to expunge errors from
the text.84 For I do not believe that you think this reading has been introduced
into the text as a result of a copyist's error, with the consequence that it
deserves to be called a corruption. Whatever the reading in the Hebrew, the
Septuagint has certainly handed down 'than the angels/ and to this date the
church has consistently adopted this, a thing which I think it in no way likely
to have done had it not determined that both readings are free from impiety,

78 Erasmus is referring to a general council (called ecumenical). The Fifth Lateran

Council drew to a close on 16 March 1517.
79 86638.
80 See 19 and 39.
81 See 24-5 and 37-8.
82 Chrysostom Enarrationes in epistolam ad Hebraeos horn 4 PG 63 38
83 See n62 above.
84 This is what Lef evre had asserted since 1509 in his Quincuplex psalterium at the
end of his interpretation of Ps 8.
 A P O L O G I A AD FABRUM LB IX 2JJA. / ASD IX~3 106 24

something which you persist in challenging.85 Unless, perhaps, there is no

impiety in speaking falsely concerning Christ in the open and in earnest, and
in reciting publicly and in temples things which are diametrically opposed86
to prophetic understanding and divine writings (which for some reason you
always refer to with the unusual term 'declarations') .8? Even if there were
such agreement, as you constantly maintain, that in the Hebrew version the
only possible reading is 'than God/ still, if the Holy Spirit has revealed
something different, either through the Septuagint translators, as most agree,
or through the church, then whatever it may be I do not think it should be
rejected in a hostile fashion by any Christian person. Certainly, St Jerome
himself did not do so, since he indicates in only two words what the Hebrew
text reads and does not condemn the Septuagint version.
But there is agreement, you say, that St Paul understood 'than God.' First
of all, I cannot agree that this letter of Paul was written in Hebrew, even if the
majority think so.88 Second, if Paul nowhere follows the Septuagint edition,
I shall perhaps acknowledge that it does not seem likely that he intended to
follow it in this instance. However, if it is known, as it is, that in other places
Paul does adopt the Septuagint version, it would not be miraculous if he
had done so here, especially since in the Acts of the Apostles, in examining
a passage of Isaiah with the Jews, he cites the following according to the
Septuagint edition and not the Hebrew version: 'Go to that people and say to
them, "You will hear with your ear and you will not understand," '89 and so
forth. But we shall examine this more closely in its proper place. Meanwhile,
let me continue what I had begun. I see no reason, my most learned Lef evre,
why you should have thought that I ought to be attacked because I make
note of both readings without rejecting either; for you are able to make no
other complaint against me. I favoured, as I still do, the opinion which you
share with St Jerome; but at the time I decided not to accept one reading if it
meant that I would be repudiating the other as impious and heretical, which
it has not appeared to be to the holy teachers of the church,90 St Augustine
in particular, who does not hesitate to translate this passage accordingly. For

85 Erasmus is insinuating that, in any case, the church's consistent adherence to

one translation saves it from the accusation of being heretical.
86 Adagia i x 45: E diametro opposita
87 Lef evre is using the word eloquia, which is often repeated in the long Ps 119.
88 Erasmus calls into question the authenticity of St Paul's authorship of the Epistle
to the Hebrews (LB vi 10230-1024?; CWE Ep 1171:9-12). See also n245 below.
89 Acts 28:26, citing Isa 6:9 according to the Septuagint
90 This is a very good summary of Erasmus' position.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 2yD / ASD IX~3 1O6 25

in case you require it, I shall cite his own words: 'Seeing that the angels too
are the works of God's hand, we accept also that the only-begotten Son has
been placed even above the angels, whom we have been told and believe was
made a little lower than the angels through the meanness of his physical birth
and suffering/91 Furthermore, in many places Jerome, upon whose authority
alone you rely, does not hesitate to follow this reading, as when he discourses
as follows on a chapter of Paul's letter to the Galatians: 'In as much as he
says, "You have received me as you would an angel, you have received me as
you would Christ Jesus," he shows that Christ is greater even than an angel,
Christ whom the Psalmist sang was made lower through his corporeal nature,
saying: "You have made him a little lower than the angels."'92 So Jerome's
authority could be refuted from Jerome himself, who devoted a mere three
words to his note that the reading in the Hebrew is 'than God/ and that in
a work whose authenticity scholars seriously question.93 Yet in those works
whose authenticity is not in question, the same Jerome embraces that reading
which you demand be rejected as unworthy of Christ.
Meanwhile, I pass over the fact that in presenting my comments, in
place of my mere statement 'The same difficulty seems to remain/ you
substitute 'The same difficulty remains/ as though there is no difference
between doubting or questioning, and asserting, between an inquirer and a
dogmatist.94 My procedure is to leave the reader free to choose between the
two readings according to his own judgment while pointing out a difficulty
which seems to defy understanding. For though it is clearly a true statement
that Christ was diminished, this must be understood either with respect to
his divine nature or with respect to his human nature. If the former, he was
not diminished in any of those respects in which he has always been equal; if
the latter, I regard the gulf which exists between the happiness which angels
enjoy and the wretchedness of human existence as being considerable. For
I do not think that he is said to have been diminished through assuming
human form as such, but through assuming all the disadvantages of this
life, a point which we shall discuss somewhat more fully in due course. You
have said other things too on this point which I regard as careless, but it is
not worthwhile to refute them at any length. For instance, the fact that you
proceed as though I thought the problem resides simply in whether we are

91 Augustine Enarratio in psalmum 811 CCSL 38 54

92 Jerome Commentarius in epistolam ad Galatas 2-4 PL 26 4070
93 This refers to Jerome's Commentarioli in psalmos 8 CCSL 72 191. Cf Allen Ep
778:184 and note.
94 By citing Erasmus, Lefevre has erased the nuance of doubt.
 A P O L O G I A AD FABRUM LB IX 28A / ASD IX~3 1O8 26

to read 'than God' or 'than the angels/ when I make it abundantly clear that
the difficulty lies in this, namely, how the Son of God can be said to have
'been made a little lower than God' when there is no relation between the
human nature, by assuming which he is said to have been made lower, and
the divine nature which assumed; or how he can be said to have been 'made a
little lower than the angels' when there is a considerable gulf between angels,
who are immortal, and flesh, which is subject to destruction and by becoming
which Christ is said to have laid aside his glory.
Furthermore, when you bring in the following, 'Who in the heavens
will be equal to the Lord, who among the sons of God will be on a level
with God?'95 this does not prove, as you erroneously deduce, that the angels
are much lower than God. For when someone is said not to be equal or on
a level with another, he is not thereby much lower, since it can happen that
someone be next to first and still be only slightly inferior. For example,
someone who is thirty years of age is admittedly not equal with someone who
is thirty-one, but he is not much behind. There remains the absurdity of the
conclusion which you then draw when you say, 'It makes a clear difference,
therefore, whether we read "a little lower than God" or "a little lower than
the angels."' Your entire treatise abounds with little gems of this kind. For
I did not say simply that it makes no difference which reading is adopted,
but that the reading makes no difference in the context of the distinction
between 'for a little while [paululum] lower' and 'a little [paulo] lower.' If
this opinion failed to meet with your approval, it should have been refuted
by stronger arguments before you brought forward a counter-opinion with
such authority. But there are countless things of this kind which I must pass
over if I am not to burden the reader with an excess of discussion, and if I am
not to appear more interested in being clever than in being sincere.
Yet, my dear Jacques, you assault me in places in a manner which may not
be altogether unjustified, but which is really too severe, if indeed your words
reflect your feeling. For you condemn and reject as impious my statement that
with respect to the attributes which belong to Christ as God and as man some-
thing can be predicated of Christ incarnate which need not be predicated of
him in his other form. Indeed, in this regard you rehearse many things con-
cerning the essential oneness of the substance of Jesus Christ. Yet I cannot be
persuaded that you think so poorly of Erasmus as to believe I am so dull-
witted or ignorant that I have never read in the theologians that Jesus Christ is
one person, the same as God and man; and that while he has certain attributes

95 Inspired by Ps 89:7
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 28D / ASD IX~3 1O8 27

by reason of his divine nature and others by reason of his human nature, yet
they are predicated of him under either title, on account of the oneness of his
hypostasis (if you allow me to employ the expression), to the extent that he may
be called God when he is said to have wept, and sorrowed, and died, and been
crucified as the Lord of glory, and in turn may be called man when he is said
to be equal to God the Father.96 Even if the holy Doctors Jerome, Hilary, Am-
brose, and Augustine had not taught me this, I would certainly have learned it
from the third book of the Book of Sentences, a work as widely published as any,
unless perhaps you think that I have never read it.97 So, you judge me to be ex-
ceedingly ill informed if you believe that I have failed to learn what every neo-
phyte in theology knows. Moreover, you regard me as exceedingly impious if
you believe that despite my awareness of all this I wish to undermine the one-
ness of the person or hypostasis which is Jesus Christ. If you do not believe this,
why do you go on wrangling at such length and assailing me in almost theatri-
cal fashion? We refute you, you say, and the same again a little later. Accord-
ingly, if I were to ignore the consensus of the divine Scriptures and the under-
standing of the spirit, and in that passage in Psalms were to take the words 'Son
of Man' and what the passage itself says to refer to Christ incarnate and not to
his substance, I would be acting irrationally, which must be avoided at all costs.
I have no doubt that upon reflection you are not so pleased with the
things you said as when your first enthusiasm and eagerness for writing
prompted them. For it is only human that the things which spring to mind
as we are writing have a great attraction as the offspring, as it were, of
our genius; for it is not given the same person to be both parent and
critic. In the first place, I was at that point not engaged in declaring the
reasons for what I was saying, and although I realize that in divine matters
one should speak scrupulously and with due care, I do not think that one
should use a contrived and affected manner, especially in discussion with
you, who generally despise that kind of sophistical language and logical
hair-splitting.98 Yet you must have understood clearly enough from what
had gone before what I meant when I said, 'Aquinas takes this passage
to refer to the humanity of Christ, who was made lower than the angels
not with respect to his spirit but with respect to the bodily form which he

96 This is what Christology calls the 'exchange of idioms' (communicatio idiomatum):

in theological and liturgical terms, one can speak of either divine or human
attributes when referring to Christ, the Incarnate Word. The epithet 'Lord of
glory' is reminiscent of i Cor 2:8.
97 The reference is to Peter Lombard's Sententiae.
98 A.oyo/Aa)(ias (i Tim 6:4)
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 2()A / ASD IX~3 11O 28

assumed/99 Now a little further on I use a different expression, and instead of

saying that the passage 'is taken to refer to the humanity of Christ/1 say that it
'is understood of Christ incarnate/ For what else does the expression 'Christ
incarnate'100 denote if not the humanity of Christ, so that we may sometimes
employ the term 'humanity' if it helps to make the matter clearer? What else
is understanding the passage in the psalm to pertain to Christ's humanity
than, as we have said, taking it mentally to refer to Christ's humanity? If
you are determined not to allow me to speak in this manner, why were your
ears not offended earlier, when I say 'is taken to refer to Christ's humanity'?
For to say, 'Christ's humanity was made lower than God,' is in no way more
proper than to say, 'Christ incarnate was made lower than God/
To take another point, when we ascribe something to one or the other of
Christ's natures, we do not do so as though this were his only nature, but with
the understanding that it is joined, or rather united 'substantially,'101 with his
other nature (if I may speak in this way for the time being). Yet in ascribing
various things to the same Christ we do focus upon them each in a different
way without at all dividing his oneness into several parts, but by virtue of
the diversity of his attributes we do not always refer to his same aspect. For
example, Nepotianus, with respect to one and the same Heliodorus, loved
him as his uncle, revered him as a bishop, and followed him as a monk,
not making several persons out of one, but isolating different aspects of
the one man.102 Why then are we prevented from making a pronouncement
concerning one or the other of Christ's natures just because the same thing
applies to him taken as a whole? Come now, I ask you, would anyone's ears
be offended if I were to say, 'Christ's humanity has taught us to despise the
affairs of man, his divinity will raise us up to things eternal'? Or again, 'From
Christ incarnate let us learn humility and endurance, from Christ divine
let us hope for life eternal'? Indeed, by the same token, what prevents us
from using something which belongs to Christ as a whole to apply to one
or other of his hypostases separately (for Augustine has employed the word
'hypostases' in this context)?103 For example, "The body of Christ was afflicted
with blows for our sins, the spirit of Christ sorrowed for our misfortunes, the

99 See 1159 above.

100 homo assumptus, an expression of which Lef evre disapproves. See Disputatio ASD
ix-3 209:95.
101 UTTOOTaTlKO?
102 Nepotianus would venerate his uncle Heliodorus, Jerome's friend. See Jerome
Ep 60 CSEL 54 548ff.
103 substantiae. See Augustine De Trinitate 2.11.20 CCSL 50 107:4-20.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 2QD / ASD IX~3 11O 29

divine nature of Christ conquered death.' I think that I will have spoken with
no less piety, and perhaps more succinctly, than if I were to say, 'With respect
to his body Christ was afflicted, with respect to his spirit Christ sorrowed,
with respect to his divine nature Christ conquered death.'
Nor should anyone distress you by saying 'Christ incarnate' rather than
referring to his 'humanity' or 'his taking on human form/ since common
usage by Latin writers lends approval to this mode of expression, the church
does not hesitate to employ it ceremonially, and the holy Doctors do not
reject it. For why should we say, 'He assumed Man,' and equally 'He laid
aside Man/ in place of, 'He began to be a man/ and 'He ceased to be a man'?
I admit that 'Christ is humanity' is not a suitable expression, since 'a man'
would be more correct, on the ground that 'humanity' is the designation of
his nature, while 'man' is that of his substrate,104 this being a word which
more recent theologians favour, though unheard of among the older ones.
You, it appears, are extremely fond of the term 'hypostasis/105 a word which
was mistrusted long ago by Jerome through hatred, I think, of the Arians,
with whom it seems to have originated. But you will find the term 'man'
frequently used by the most approved writers in both senses. For example,
'Christ as man is the son of the Virgin' or 'Christ as man is mortal/ as well
as 'Christ as man assumed/ meaning 'Christ in his human nature.' As well,
there is the ecclesiastical chant 'You are ready to assume man in order to set
him free.'106 What St Augustine says in book two, chapter six of On the Trinity
is even more straightforward: 'As the Son of Man was assumed.../ meaning,
as his human form was taken up.107 If 'Son of Man' is the name of Christ,
then St Augustine has clearly committed what you regard as a sacrilege by
employing it of Christ in one form rather than of his substance. St Augustine
again, in his third epistle to Volusian: 'Likewise, certain persons demand to
be given an explanation how God was so joined to man as to become the one
person of Christ/108 Has he not said 'man' in place of 'human nature'? Again,
in epistle fifty-seven: 'For on the very day he was about to be in heaven,
the man Christ Jesus did not ...'; did he not say 'the man Christ/ meaning
'Christ in his human form'? And a little later in the same letter: 'It remains
to know, therefore, whether it was of Christ as man that it was said, "Today

104 suppositum
105 'hypostasis': the word was canonized by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
106 This citation is taken from the Te Deum, which had been attributed to Ambrose
and Augustine since the ninth century.
107 Augustine De Trinitate 2.6 CCSL 50 93-4
108 Augustine Ep 137 CSEL 44:15-16
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 3<3A / ASD IX~3 112 30

you will be with me in paradise." '109 Furthermore, the expressions 'as man'
and 'as God' are found again later in the same work. And this manner of
speaking has been given such formal acceptance among theologians that you
will scarcely find them speaking otherwise.
Yet all that we have argued so far has no real bearing upon my meaning,
since in the place in question it was not Christ incarnate that I called the
human form in Christ as much as the very assuming of human form itself.
And I think that this manner of speaking is recognized by all those who
know Latin. I shall give an example to clarify what I mean. If someone praises
another because he has acted wisely, and some other person explains this to
someone else who does not quite understand it, and says, 'He has in mind the
war that has been averted/ he does not mean that the averted war is wise, but
that the praise for wisdom which he was granting him was rooted in the fact
that he had avoided war. Again, when we say, 'He complains at the emptied
flagon/ he is not finding fault with the flagon itself but with the emptying
of the flagon. Again, 'The lost book pains him/ meaning 'The losing of the
book pains him/ So when the Prophet says, 'Christ was made lower than
God/ I point out that this making lower was nothing other than the taking
on of human nature. And it was in this manner that St Jerome spoke in his
interpretation of chapter 4 of Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians when he said,
'Thus we confess one Son of Man and God, lest by believing in part the
dispensation of Christ incarnate, by which we have been saved, we cut it off
in part.'110
I think that it has been sufficiently proved that there is nothing in my
words to offend pious ears in any way. Yet even if I had said something too
candidly or with too little caution, it was not in keeping with your usual
fairness to attack me with such a storm of abusive language, especially since I
was writing only annotations; for, as Hilary neatly put it, 'What is meant, not
what is said, should bear the blame.'111 Besides, consider how many things
we could find in the works of Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory112
which one could cavil at on those grounds. For, to give but one example, who
now would be prepared to tolerate it if someone were to declare that there is
a mingling or a joining together of natures in Christ? Yet how many times
does Augustine do this in his third epistle to Volusian? 'How God is mingled
with man/ he says. And again, 'In that person there is a mingling of soul and

109 le Augustine Ep 187 CSEL 57 84:13-14 and 85:13-14

no Jerome Commentarius in epistolam ad Ephesios 2.4 PL 26 5310
111 Hilary De Trinitate 7.38 CCSL 62 305:13-14 (this is not a literal citation)
112 The four Doctors of the Latin church, the fifth one being St Leo
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 3OD / ASD IX~3 112 31

body, in this a mingling of God and man/ And below, Tor when the Word of
God has been joined to a soul having a body, it takes on both the soul and the
body at once/ And yet again a little further on, 'And for this reason it ought
to be easier to believe in the intermingling of the Word of God and a soul than
of a soul and a body/113 Would it not be unfair to create a commotion over the
use of the word 'mingling' when we understand that Augustine's meaning
was correct, even if he used the word 'mingling' instead of 'union'? If the
theologians of old spoke rather clumsily, there are some today who speak
perhaps too subtly, while the clumsiness is in their lives and understandings.
Unless perhaps we idolize the man who is particular and sophistical and
similar to certain people the likes of whom nobody cares to do business
with, the kind of person one finds it almost impossible to mention without
giving offence and without being taken to task. For those who are truly
pious it ought to be a simple matter to agree in matters of terminology as
long as there is no dispute over substance, especially since St Hilary also
allows more than once for the fact that human discourse is inadequate for
explaining the sublimity of things of this kind;114 the older commentators do
not quibble over terms in this way, and even today there is far from total
agreement on them among theologians. Augustine, in his commentaries, had
called Christ 'a divine man,' an expression which he later corrected and
avoided.115 If this happened to so great a man as he, then in my case you
should have offered instruction rather than criticism, especially since mine
was an incidental slip and you knew all along what in fact I meant. For with
respect to the hypostasis of Christ my position is no different from yours.
I would have been prepared to overlook even something which really did
deserve criticism.
Let us pass on to other matters. You say that the point at issue between
us is not, to quote your own words, 'whether Christ as servant, or Christ
incarnate, was diminished in comparison with God to a small degree or to
a large degree, but whether the Son of Man was diminished in comparison
with God even to the slightest degree/116 You are quite correct. There was
certainly no dispute between us on this. I did not say that Christ incarnate was
diminished in comparison with God. The claim is yours, as I have pointed out
time enough. For if you regard the word 'diminished' as an element in the

113 Augustine Ep 137 CSEL 44 110:16-18

114 Hilary Liber de Patris et Filii unitate PL 10 885A-C
115 Augustine De sermone Domini in monte 2.6.20 CCSL 35 no and Retractationes
1.19.8 CCSL 57 59-60
116 Disputatio ASD ix~3 210:120-4
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 31A / ASD IX~3 114 32

verb, then it is the divine nature, which came down to man, that can better be
seen as having been diminished than human nature, which was raised up into
partnership with the divine. However, if you regard it as an adjective and
as the equivalent of 'lower than God/ then I am sure you will admit that the
human nature which Christ assumed was far inferior to his divine nature. If
you grant this, then it follows that Christ, to the extent that he was a man, was
far inferior to God the Father, indeed, as Augustine goes so far as to say, was
'far inferior to himself as God.'117 Now if he was far inferior, it would seem
right to reject the Prophet's statement that he was 'just a little diminished.'
Again, if you grant that human nature, in so far as it is subject to sorrows
and death, is far beneath the greatness and blessedness which belongs to the
angels, then it follows that Christ, to the extent that he was a man and subject
to the misfortunes which afflict a mortal nature, was to some degree inferior
to the angels, at any rate with respect to his body. If this is true, the two
readings pose an equal problem, which I attempt to resolve for you by taking
the Greek words ftpa-X^TL to pertain not to the degree of greatness but to
the length of time. If we accept this, and several distinguished and orthodox
theologians have done so, there will be nothing incongruous arising out of
either reading, and you will have an open choice as to which of the two
you prefer to adopt. In this I am not forcing an opinion on anyone, nor
am I approving or rejecting this opinion or that, as you repeatedly accuse
me of doing. 'Alternatively/ you say, 'there is the secondary reading, which
Erasmus seems to approve, namely, "You have made him a little lower than
the angels.'" And again, 'For according to the Septuagint version he says,
"You have made him a little lower than the angels," a reading which Erasmus
also approved/
Now it seemed to me that, when the words ^pa\v TL, if taken as referring
to a measure of time, could solve all difficulty, you were acting with too
little prudence in claiming a triumph and in taunting me as though such a
reference was impossible. Yet with what success you later try to attack my
position we shall soon see. Certainly, since you had left this point up in the
air, there was no reason for you to hurl at an opponent who was already
lying virtually prostrate at your feet such taunting comments as 'since the
Prophet will be undermined in one way or the other, whether we read "than
God" or "than the angels," this opinion of Erasmus destroys itself and shows
itself false in every part.' Then you make a great commotion over my writing
that 'Christ, both on account of the human form which he assumed and on

117 Augustine De Trinitate 1.7 CCSL 50 45-6

 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 31E / ASD IX~3 114 33

account of the disadvantages of the human condition, was made lower not
only than the angels but even than the lowliest of men/ And at this point you
say with remarkable arrogance, 'We shall refute this opinion with vigour as
heretical and most unworthy of Christ and God, as contrary to the spirit and
adhering to the letter which destroys.'"8
Your remarkable and friendly treatise contains many things of this
sort, my dear Lefevre, which forced me to take steps to clear a reputation
which you have so savagely attacked. I hope that I may be prevented from
knowingly paying you back in kind. But if through human weakness I let slip
anything out of keeping with the teaching of Christ, it was your responsibility
to give friendly advice to a friend in error. As it is, you wanted everyone to
be made aware of these things before me, to whom you did not think fit to
give so much as a hint, either by letter or through some close friend. Yet the
bishop of Paris, when he was fulfilling a commission here on behalf of his
king, mentioned in conversation that he had heard from you that although
you admitted to having received sound advice from me on many points, you
were preparing to take issue with me in print over several others.119 But if
the publisher's inscription is correct, your work had already been issued.120
Now I could easily allow myself to be charged with ignorance, or error, or
any human failing, but to be accused of heresy, irreverence towards God,
and other such things is something which I cannot endure, nor should I
have to. I shall make sure that mine appears 'the voice of Christian modesty,
not resentment/ as Cyprian said with an elegance equal to his piety.121 For
the present, I shall be satisfied to have cleared myself of the charge of so
enormous an impiety. I shall not trade mud for mud, but be happy enough
to have washed it off myself. I shall avoid being arrogant; otherwise, in the
process of removing one stain I should gain another, and by giving insult
for insult make the insult seem justified. I thought that it would redound
to the glory of Christ if I stressed as much as possible the lowliness which
he assumed of his own accord for our sakes. Paul, after all, went so far as
to say that Christ 'made himself desolate' [exinanivit semetipsum],122 and the

118 Citations from Lefevre's Disputatio ASD ix-3 210:137-40, 144-5, 146-8, 132-6.
Here, 'heretical' is a translation of impium. It is the only accusation which
Erasmus cannot endure. Cf 34 below.
119 Etienne Poncher. See n29 above.
120 See n34 above.
121 Cyprian Ep 59 CSEL 3 part 2 679
122 Phil 2:7. This hymn in the letter to the Philippians (Phil 2:6-11) arises frequently
in Lefevre's commentary. It will be cited later on by Erasmus in support of his
argument. See 36.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 32A / ASD IX~3 Il6 34

Prophet called him 'a worm/123 or, as some, among them Ambrose, translate,
'a beetle';124 and he is so depicted by Isaiah,125 and in the Gospel when Christ
himself says, 'Foxes have their dens, and the birds of the sky their nests, while
the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head.'126 Elsewhere too he compares
himself with a mustard-seed buried in the ground,127 and there are many
other expressions of this sort which make clear to us the extreme lowliness
of Christ. I repeat, whatever stress is laid upon this serves only as testimony
to the unspeakable love which he had for us.
Nor do I think, as you seem to conclude, that Christ was lower than God
in every way, or that he was lower than angels or men in the sense of being
worse than they; rather, that he was lower in some respect. Certainly, he
seems to have descended and cast himself down far below the angels to the
extent that he took on a body and a soul that were subject to death and torture
and pains. If this opinion is 'heretical/ if it is 'most unworthy of God and
Christ/ if it 'clings to the letter which destroys/ as you declare, then I confess
my error. It is what I have believed up till now, though I shall be prepared
to change my view when I have been instructed in a better one. Further,
in that the Son of God was not content simply to take on our nature, but
took upon himself almost all the misfortunes of this life - toil, pains, sweat,
hunger, thirst, tears, weariness, insults, bonds, whippings, and the cross -
misfortunes which most men escape, even though they might deserve them,
he seems to me to have descended to some degree far below even the lowest
of men; and not because he ceased for a while to be the highest and most
blessed, but because as a man he took these misfortunes of ours upon himself
of his own accord. You may pile up as many illustrations of Christ's dignity
as possible; there is no point in my trying to refute you.12 The amount of
space required to note down all the things which demonstrate the sublimity
of Christ would be enormous, and on the other side, to recount all those
which testify to his lowliness, or, as St Paul expresses it, his desolation.129

123 Ps 22:7
124 Ambrose Expositio evangelii Lucae 10.113 CSEL 32 Part 4 49$ and Expositio psalmi
118 verse 3 (Vulg) CSEL 62 45. Cf Apologia ASD ix-3 117:77711.
125 This undoubtedly refers to the songs of the Suffering Servant in Isa 42 and
following.
126 Luke 9:58
127 It is not Jesus himself who is described thus, but the kingdom of heaven (eg
Matt 13:31) or the faith (Matt 17:19).
128 On the principle of dignity in Lefevre's hermeneutics, see Bedouelle Lefevre
d'Etaples 207-10. See 37 below.
129 See ni22 above.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 32D / ASD IX~3 Il6 35

You know that there are several places in the Scriptures which proclaim for
us the boundless excellence of the Word of God; but if there were far more
even than these, we could still never comprehend in speech or thought his
loftiness. There are countless places as well which make exceedingly plain
the low estate into which the Divine Word130 cast himself down for our sake,
and this role too it is beyond the power of any human mind to fathom and
any human thought to grasp. Yet though Christ is wondrous in both these
respects, I am inclined to think that it is the latter which has more relevance
for us, in as much as wonder at his greatness seems to bear more upon the
life to come. You prefer to extol the sublimity of Christ; someone else may
prefer to contemplate the lowliness which he assumed; and though it would
be difficult to say whose zeal is more pious, it is the latter perhaps from which
more profit is to be gained for the present.131 Moreover, I am inclined to
think that Christ himself would prefer that we concentrate upon that aspect
of himself which he exhibited for us most, waiting to display the glory of
his majesty for the time to come. St Paul, certainly, takes pride in knowing
only Jesus Christ the crucified/32 that is, not the Christ who was raised on
high, but Christ in his humble state. I do not suggest that in this regard you
will be an enemy of St Paul because he looks upon Christ in this way, or
St Paul an enemy to you because you are held rather by wonder at Christ's
sublimity. Both of you revere one and the same Christ, each from a different
perspective. You on your part, in admiring Christ's loftiness and majesty,
do not shut out the praises of his lowliness; Paul on his, by focusing upon
Christ's humbleness, takes nothing away from his sublimity: both things
belong to Christ through his divine nature, in which he was always God, and
through his human nature, which he thought it worthy to assume for a while.
Others before me, men of proved holiness and learning, have not hesitated
to say that Christ was accorded a nature lower than that of the angels through
assuming a body subject to anguish and death, and you are the first and only

130 sermo divinus. In his 1516 edition of the Novum instrumentum, Erasmus had
modified the famous opening of the Gospel according to John by replacing
Verbum in 'In principle erat Verbum' with Sermo. Confronted with the general
outcry which ensued, he had to defend himself and retreat to the traditional
translation in subsequent editions.
131 Christology will always exhibit two tendencies, one more sensitive to the divine
nature of Christ as Lefevre is, and the other to his human nature. According to
Erasmus, however, the most pious approach and that which is most faithful to
the gospel is not necessarily the one which exalts his 'sublimity/ a term which
recurs several times.
132 i Cor 2:2
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 33A / ASD IX~3 Il8 36

person to be in disagreement with them, except that in their case, though you
are willing to allow that they have made a slip, you do your best to excuse
them, while abusing me savagely, even though the case is similar, not only
because I have dared to say the same thing but also because I have added,
'He was made lower than even the lowliest of men/133 This remark seems to
have given you real offence, as though it detracted from Christ's loftiness,
when in fact it makes his sublimity all the greater by exalting the goodness
and wisdom which make him great in our eyes no less than does his power.
You protest that Christ as the Son of God is greater by infinite degrees
than every creature. Though I would myself admit and hold to that, I do say
that the same Christ as son of the Virgin at one time descended for our sake
to a condition inferior to that of the angels; and not only this, but that he
descended to a condition inferior even to that of many men, since he took
upon himself not only a nature that was subject to thirst, hunger, weariness,
insults, pains, and death, but also so many of the injustices of human life;
in short, he took upon himself the penalties of our sins. Moreover, it is St
Paul who gives me the confidence to speak in this way, for he seems to point
to such levels in Christ in his Epistle to the Philippians when he says, as an
example of Christ's humility, 'When he was in the form of God he did not
think it robbery to be equal with God, but made himself desolate by taking on
the form of a servant, was made in the likeness of a man, and being found in
fashion as a man.. ,'134 To this point Paul shows that Christ descended below
the angels; but he goes on to reveal that Christ lowered himself even below
men: '... he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death
on the cross.' Few men humble themselves to the point of death, fewer still,
death on the cross. You so love Christ that you refuse to accept that he was cast
down any more than a little, and only below God; but Paul says that he was
'made desolate,' an expression which allows us to understand immediately
that he was cast down a great way. Then, by employing the word 'exalted/
Paul admits that Christ humbled himself to the greatest degree possible: 'On
account of this God exalted him and gave him the name which is above
every name/ He was exalted to the extent that nothing could approach his
divine glory; he was humbled to the extent that nothing could reach so low;
yet truly he was humbled and truly he was exalted. If someone humbles
himself, he casts himself down; and he who has been humbled is at some

133 Disputatio ASD ix-3 210:132-6

134 See ni22 above. Erasmus contrasts 'desolate' (Phil 2:7) with 'exalted' (Phil 2:9)
and demonstrates that the two terms are linked (see 41). The entire passage
gives the impression of a theological and remarkably spiritual inspiration.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 330 / ASD IX~3 119 37

point lower, otherwise he will not be said to have been humbled; and if he
is said to have been humbled for this reason, namely, because like a servant
he has been obedient unto death, even death on the cross, and has stooped to
receive those afflictions which no one among mortals has suffered, or could
perhaps suffer, then what impiety is there in saying that Christ degraded
himself below even the lowliest of men? Poverty is a heavy burden, yet he
was willing to be the poorest of all. Pain is harsh, yet he took upon himself
the severest tortures. Death is the most painful of things, still more death at
the hands of others and such a death as his, yet he took this too upon himself.
More bitter still than death is disgrace, yet he was willing to be spit upon and
be showered with insults. To the extent that he took on human form, he was
on a level with other men; to the extent that he was poor, that he lived in dire
hardship, he was beneath many men; in being mortal, he was equal with us;
in choosing to die such a death on our behalf, he cast himself down beneath
the great mass of mankind. All of this in no way detracts, I am convinced,
from the dignity of Christ, in which he is equal with the Father, any more than
his willingness to endure extreme tortures in mind and body takes away
from his happiness or, as some express it, his enjoyment of blessedness.135
Assuredly, we do not regard Christ as unhappy because he was willing to
do without the advantages which the mass of mankind takes as the criteria
of happiness, because he was prepared to suffer the misfortunes of our state
and tolerate those things by which we measure unhappiness, even if these
are the things in which your Aristotle places the greater portion of happiness
and its opposite.136
Now since most recent commentators relate the humiliation or deso-
lation of Christ to his assuming human nature, not to the pains which he
took upon himself,137 you may object perhaps that I have added this latter
point with absolutely no authority but my own. In case you do, I would have
you recognize that Paul himself makes a clear distinction between the form
which Christ took on and the misfortunes which he suffered, not only in
the passage which we have just cited, but also in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
when he says, 'But we shall see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the

135 According to St Thomas Aquinas, the Incarnate Word never lost its beatific
vision of the Father - visio Dei or beatitude. Here, Erasmus is referring to beatified
fruitio. The termfruitio is Augustinian, but it was also used by Aquinas.
136 Here and further on, Erasmus refers to Lefevre's work on Aristotle. The doc-
trine mentioned here resembles that of the in media stat virtus. On Aristotle's
conception of happiness, see the Nicomachean Ethics 1.7.8.
137 See eg Peter Lombard Sententiae book 3 dist 6 c 6.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 34A / ASD IX~3 12O 38

angels, crowned in glory and honour on account of the death which he suf-
fered'; and a little further on, Tor in that he was tempted and suffered he can
help those who also are tempted/138 You hear mention here not of his nature,
but of his suffering. Further, if one were to examine with particular care the
interpretation of St Ambrose, one would discover that he too relates Christ's
humiliation not simply to the nature which he assumed but also to the abuses
of this nature which he sustained. Witness what he says in commenting on
the passage which I cited a little earlier: 'Christ, therefore, knowing himself
to have the form of God, showed himself equal with God, but in order to pro-
claim the way of humility he not only did not resist when the Jews arrested
him, but debased himself, that is, withheld his power so as to appear weak
and helpless in his humiliation, taking on the form of a servant while he was
seized and bound and whipped; and making himself obedient, even unto the
cross, to the Father, with whom he knew he was equal, he did not claim his
equality but subjected himself. He teaches us to imitate this endurance and
humility so that we may not only not place ourselves ahead of our equals but
also lower ourselves following the example of our maker.' And a little later
on he says: 'Christ is said to have assumed the form of a servant while he was
humiliated like a sinner. But servants are made so because of their sins, like
Ham, the son of Noah, who was the first to deserve the name of servant.'139
In all of this you hear Ambrose unequivocally agreeing with me. He stresses
the humiliation of Christ in order to make clearer the model which Christ
held before us in himself and which he expressly commanded us to follow
when he said, 'Learn from me that I am meek and humble in heart/140
In wanting Christ to have been humiliated to only a small degree you
are, I think, a man of compassion who would not wish for him a harsher
treatment. What follows in Ambrose makes it clearer still that he agrees with
me. 'I do not think,' he says, 'as others do, that Christ received the form of
a servant simply by being born a man/141 I have related the diminution of
Christ both to his assuming human form and to the abuses he suffered in this
human life; Ambrose is prepared to relate it solely to the latter. St Augustine,
though he seems to focus more upon Christ's assuming human form, none

138 Heb 2:9 and 2:18

139 Erasmus is referring in this passage to Ambrosiaster, a name which he him-
self proposed when he called into question the attribution of these Pauline
commentaries to Ambrose (Ambrosiaster In epistulam ad Filippenses 2 CSEL 81
part 3 140).
140 Matt 11:29 (with a variant provided by Erasmus: 'that')
141 See ni39 above: CSEL 81 part 3 140.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 340 / ASD IX~3 121 39

the less adds mention of his suffering when he says, 'We have heard and
we believe that Christ was made a little lower than the angels through the
humiliation of his mortal birth and suffering/ By 'mortal birth' he means
his assuming human form, by 'suffering' he means the abuses which this
form sustained. A little earlier he says, 'On account of the weakness of the
flesh, which the wisdom of God thought it right that he should bear, and
on account of his humiliation through suffering, it is rightly said of Christ,
"You made him a little lower than the angels."'142 Again he links together
the form which Christ assumed and the affliction which he suffered, and his
'humiliation/ which you wish to be called his exaltation, he equates with his
suffering.
Now I do not deny that Christ's humiliation is a mark of his glory; as
Hilary said, 'Christ's humiliation is our nobility, his abuse is our honour/143
Do you see that on this point I enjoy the support of illustrious writers?
Even if I were completely without their support, I do not think it a crime
to have suggested something new, especially since it could reasonably be
inferred from the words of St Paul and contributes to Christ's glory, not
his abuse, and to our salvation, not our destruction. Accordingly, if I have
demonstrated support for my opinion, I do not think it right that you
should take offence at my saying that Christ 'degraded himself below even
the most worthless of men/ Perhaps the word 'degraded'144 has the ring
of abuse. Yet when commentators have employed terms like 'descended,'
'humiliated/ 'diminished/ 'inferior/ 'lesser/ and St Paul 'desolated/ why
should 'degraded' or some similar word offend us? Nor do I believe that
you are so inexperienced in the Latin language as to think that the terms
'worthless' and 'degraded' are applied only to those who are subjected
to misfortunes through their own fault. For when Ovid says, 'however
worthless and inferior to you I may be/ he is not finding fault with his
own conduct, but making known his harsh and grievous lot.145 I beg you,
therefore, not to imagine that I or any Christian has sunk to such a degree of
impiety, nay madness, as to ascribe imperfection, unworthiness, or disgrace
to Christ, and in terms of conscious misdeeds to compare him with the most
worthless, that is, the wickedest, of men. Do we not call the burdened poor
despised and worthless in the eyes of the world, and are they not to some

142 Augustine Enarmtio in psalmum 811 CCSL 38 54

143 Hilary De Trinitate 2.25 CCSL 62 61:16-17. Erasmus is referring to the use which
Lef evre makes of John 12:32; Disputatio ASD ix~3 214:253-4.
144 dejicere
145 Ovid Tristia 5.8.1-2
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 35A / ASD IX~3 122 40

extent truly lowly and worthless? When I compare Christ with worthless men
it is because he was worthless in this same way, except that their suffering is
often brought upon them through necessity, while his was borne willingly
on our account. I do not compare him with thieves, but with martyrs. And
even if I were to compare him with the thieves who were with him, because
he suffered more undeservedly than they, since they were not abused, even
though their offences were real, while he suffered insult upon insult despite
his innocence, I do not think that I would be guilty of impiety.
Now you protest that the things which Christ took willingly upon
himself are not evils, and render him not worse, but better. And you openly
desert your Aristotelians for the Stoics on this point when you say, 'If we
were to ask the philosophers whether a man who knowingly and willingly
subjected himself to beatings, wounds, and even death itself in order to
secure victory and safety for his people would be considered brave, or
rather inferior and more worthless, without any doubt they would say that
it increased his stature and made him far more worthy of honour.'146 You
would argue likewise in the case of martyrs. Now first of all, it makes no
difference to me to what class of evils those belong which, according to your
Aristotle, prevent a man from attaining true happiness;147 it is sufficient for
me that they belong to some class. Socrates was in no way a worse man when
he was drinking the hemlock and wearing chains in the prison than when
he stood in all his brilliance in the market-place/48 though I admit that in
the former state he was to some degree degraded and in the latter raised
up and held in honour. If some king were to clothe himself in a beggar's
rags and submit willingly to starvation, exile, or prison in order to serve his
state, would one not be right in saying that he laid aside his royal privilege
and lowered himself beneath even the most worthless of men? But, you say,
he is greater through the very fact that he has sunk to these depths. Yet if
you so much as admit that he has sunk, then by this token you must admit
that he has become inferior. The truth is that in one respect he is inferior,
in another better and more distinguished. If you focus upon his lot and his
suffering and compare these with his former glory, then he has debased
himself considerably; if you focus upon the excellence of his spirit, he is far
better than his former self. In the case of the martyr, in as much as he offers
his neck at a ruler's command and yields himself up to a tyrant, he is below

146 Disputatio ASD ix-3 214:261-4. The Stoics emphasized the nobility of man when
subjected to testing.
147 See ni36 above.
148 Adagia i viii 15: Aureus in Olympia
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 35C / ASD IX-3 124 4!

him, but in devotion he is far above. And just as the martyr humbles himself
to tortures through love of Christ and following Christ's example, so like
Christ he is crowned with glory and honour/49 since he who has been Christ's
ally when he was cast down is his companion when he has been raised up
and received his kingdom.
Now, in fact, we have never spoken of Christ as worthless, or more
worthless, as you keep repeating at this point in your argument, nor does
anyone reproach him with worthlessness, something which is the habit, as
you say, of the unbelievers and the Jews. To the contrary, we admire and
applaud the fact both that he was raised up above all things and that he
cast himself down as he did for our sake. In the one we see what we must
imitate, in the .other what we may hope for. We adore him sitting on high
at the right hand of the Father, and we adore him crying in the cradle; we
adore him when he was spit upon, we adore him when he was condemned
to an infamous sentence; we adore him then too when he bore the marks of
the cross and the blows which he received on our behalf. Why is the word
'exaltation' the only one that pleases you, since he cannot be exalted who has
not been in some way inferior? If a man of the highest worth is rightly said
to be lower than a completely worthless person simply because the one is
seated at the lowest bench at a banquet while the other is reclining on the
foremost couch, is he not in some way lower who took upon himself so many
of the misfortunes of human life? For whoever is lower only in some degree
is not thereby lower in a pure and absolute way.
'I do not speak of Christ incarnate/ you say, 'but of Jesus Christ who is
God and the Son of God.'15° I too speak of the same person, the Son of Man,
the man who was crucified and suffered so many misfortunes for our sake.
If Jesus Christ is only the Lord and the Son of God, how is he understood
to have been diminished? If the same person is the Son of Man, and is to
this degree lesser than his former self, what incongruity is there in referring
his diminution to this? Moreover, I am inclined to think that 'Christ/ or 'the
name of Christ/ to use your expression, though it signifies two natures, is
better taken of one only at a time, not two, as you wish, or, which is more
ridiculous, of Christ as an aggregate of his two natures; though when the
Son of Man is said to be 'diminished/ where a comparison is being drawn
between two states, the expression seems to be applicable to both natures,
the one which assumes and the one which has been assumed. Moreover,
when I say, 'Christ assumed human nature/ does the appellation 'Christ'

149 Heb 2:9, citing Ps 8:6

150 Disputatio ASD ix-3 209:96-7
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX $6A / ASD IX~3 124 42

seem to have been employed to cover both his natures, or one of the two,
that is, his divine nature? And when Augustine says, 'The Son of God has
assumed the Son of Man/151 though both, appellations are designations of
Christ's substance/52 none the less each is clearly taken of one of his two
natures respectively. Accordingly, you must admit that such terms as may
signify two things in some manner do not do so regularly when they are used
in statements. Unless, perhaps, you think that when I use the word album,
since it may denote a substance as well as the colour contained in it, it will
properly be said to be taken of the one as well as the other; or because in the
Scriptures the word Pater may signify two persons, the one when it is used
literally, the other when it is used figuratively, it may be taken of the two; or
because the word caecus may mean 'blind' as well as 'hidden/ it will be taken
to mean both.
Yet all that I have said so far has been no more than preliminary ground-
work and a preparation for my main point, namely, that the expression (3paxb
TL is to be given a temporal reference. Yet you attack this preliminary section
as though it were the crux of my argument. All the same, it is worthwhile
hearing with what effort you excuse the fact that in the Psalms Christ called
himself 'a worm' and not a man, as well as 'a reproach upon mankind' and
'an outcast from the people.'153 For I had happened to make reference to the
text in question. As though, indeed, there were a danger that Christ might
be thought to have been truly a worm if you had not come forward as the
guardian of his reputation! In no way does it offend the ears of the devoted
to hear him called a worm, any more than a stone, a lamb, a lion, a vine,
a mustard seed, or the like.154 You imagine that you have found the two-
edged axe of Tenedos155 with which to cut all knots of this kind, if all things
which are said of Christ in this way in the Scriptures have to do not with
fact but with the judgment or, as you say, 'the estimation of the Jews/ and if
almost that entire psalm which speaks of Christ's abandonment, his degra-
dation, and his helplessness is understood in the light of the 'estimation and
judgment of the priests, the Scribes, and the Pharisees.'156 Now if such an
interpretation was legitimate, why did you not interpret my words in that

151 Augustine De Trinitate 2.6 CCSL 50 93-4

152 hypostasis
153 Ps 22:7
154 Stone (eg Matt 21:42); lamb (John 1:29); lion (Rev 5:5); vine (John 15:1 and 5);
mustard seed, see ni2/ above.
155 Adagia i ix 29: Tenedia bipennis. Tenedos was a small island on the coast of Troy.
156 Disputatio ASD ix-3 211:165-7
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 360 / ASD IX~3 126 43

way, that in the estimation of the Jews Christ was made lower than the most
worthless of men? Is it a lesser thing to be more worthless than men than to
be called a worm, a reproach, an abomination? If a pious interpretation can
be put on these expressions, why do you look for impiety in what I say?
In fact, however, you must admit that it is not the case, as you claim, that
that entire psalm has to do with the estimation of the Jews, unless perhaps
you are prepared to accept that when he says, They will pierce my hands
and my feet/157 and likewise, 'All who look upon me will scoff/158 and so
forth, these statements too relate not to fact but to the estimation of the
Jews. Furthermore, what about the fact that even modern theologians say
that Christ would not have died had his divinity not in some way abandoned
his human body? If this is true, then he was forsaken in fact, not in opinion.
But since it is agreed that Christ's being called a worm signifies nothing
other than his utter humiliation, and this humiliation took the form of the
evils which he took upon himself for our sake, if he took these upon himself
and suffered them in fact, then he was humiliated in fact, and was to this
extent a worm in fact. Assuredly, that he was flayed with whips, spit upon,
bound, accused, condemned, abused with insults, and crucified between two
criminals, does all of this not belong to the realm of fact, not the estimation
of the Jews?159 Is it not on account of these things that he is called a worm,
humiliated, degraded, and desolated? But he did not deserve to suffer those
things, you say. I admit it. That they should happen to one who does not
deserve them makes them all the more unworthy.
A little further on you try to make out that the term 'worm' does not
refer to Christ but to us, because a worm is an earthly creature, whereas
in Paul Christ is called heavenly.160 In his interpretation of the passage,
however, St Augustine does not hesitate to refer the word to Christ: 'Why is
he called a worm? Because he was mortal, born of the flesh, and born without
union.'161 Since these were attributes of Christ in fact, not just in the judgment
of men, how is it that for you his being called a worm is a matter only of
'estimation'? At the same time, I do confess that with respect to this passage
I do not much approve of what follows in Augustine, where he argues that
Christ was not called a man because he was God: 'Why is he not called a man?

157 Ps 22:17
158 Ps 22:8
159 Erasmus is demonstrating that, in this controversy with Lef evre, he upholds the
realism of the Incarnation.
160 i Cor 15:48
161 Augustine Enarratio n in psalmum 21 CCSL 38 125
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX j6f / ASD IX~3 126 44

Because in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God/162 This seems to me to contain more cleverness than truth.
It was not because he was God that Christ was not a man, nor was he called
'not a man' in a figurative sense, although Ambrose, commenting on Peter's
denial in Luke, argues pretty much in such a way when he suggests that in
saying, 'I do not know the man/ Peter meant that he did not know God.163
But to return to the matter at hand, Augustine again, in his commentary on
the first chapter of the Gospel according to John, says: Tor if the Lord himself
says, "I am a worm and not a man," who can doubt that he is saying what was
written in Job, namely, "How much more is man a thing of rottenness and
the Son of Man a worm"?'164 St Augustine is referring the terms 'rottenness'
to us and 'worm' to Christ. Paul does not call Christ heavenly because he did
not have an earthly body, but because he was free from the earthly stain of
Adam. Indeed, in that passage he created two Adams, one the source of sin,
the other the source of innocence.165 Furthermore, in letter 147 to Consentius,
Augustine does not hesitate to refer to Christ as earthly when he says, 'The
Lord, although he was heavenly, was made earthly so that he might make
heavenly those who were earthly.'166 If Christ alone is heavenly, then all
others are earthly; therefore, the appellation 'worm' belongs to martyrs not
through an estimation of their misfortunes, but literally, in accordance with
your own interpretation. But if here too you wish to take refuge167 behind
your principle of 'opinion,' why do you add 'of the Scribes and Pharisees'?
Did the martyrs suffer only at their hands, were they despised only by them?
Let us now consider the nature of the fallacy which you introduce
concerning the expression 'not a man' when you add, 'For there is one God,
and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who is thus
a man because of all men he is most of all and truly a man.'168 If you were
dealing with a logician, see how you would be able to defend the statement
that Christ is most truly of all a man by following your Aristotle, according to
whom 'more' and 'less' do not fall in the category 'substance/ so that Christ
may be called 'more' a man even though he ought to be called 'better' than

162 Ibidem
163 Ambrose Expositio evangelii Lucae 10.84 CSEL 32 Part 4 4^7- The passage on which
Ambrose commented is Matt 26:72.
164 Augustine Tractatus in loannem 1.13 CCSL 36 7-8, citing Job 25:6
165 i Cor 15:45
166 Augustine Ep 205 12 CSEL 57 333
167 This passage uses the Greek word Kp^cn^yeroy.
168 Disputatio ASD ix~3 212:196-8
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 370 / ASD IX~3 128 45

all men.169 I shall not give like for like on this point, arguing with you to
the utmost letter of the law, as they say; nor shall I cavil over details, once it
is sufficiently clear to me what you meant. But why are you afraid to take
the expressions 'reproach upon mankind' and 'outcast from the people'170
as referring to Christ, but transfer them to other men, when St Paul is not
afraid to say that Christ was transgressed against and slandered?171 If it is
not impiety to say these things of Christ, what impiety is there in saying that
Christ was diminished below men, provided that it is understood that by this
we mean something which it is eminently pious to say concerning Christ?
If it is words that trouble you, then these ought to have caused you greater
offence; if you are concerned about intention, there is nothing impious here
unless someone interprets it so. If I had said that Christ humbled himself
beneath the most humble of men, I do not think you would be shocked; why
do you cry impiety because I have said he was made worthless beneath the
most worthless of men? For he who has humbled himself is rightly called
humbled, and worthless is no different from humbled. If it is only the novelty
of the language that offends you, St Augustine used it of Christ before I did
in his exposition of this passage in the psalm: 'Wherefore did he thus make
himself so worthless as to call himself a worm?'172 But, you say, Christ made
himself worthless only in speech. I admit that; but what he said was true,
not empty or imagined, so that it follows that he was in actual fact made
worthless.
Now when you write that it was in the estimation of the Jews that
Christ was abandoned by the Father/73 not only is this feeble, it differs
from the view of all the ancient commentators. As though Christ is there
complaining to the Father that the Jews, for whom he had prayed a little
before, thought evil of him! I am inclined to think, my dear Lefevre, that
it would be better to avoid touching this sore spot174 involving 'estimation'
altogether; otherwise, someone may find less to quarrel with in the heresy
of one Marcus, or Marcion, I think, which taught, so Augustine tells us, that
Christ suffered not in reality but in his imagination.175 As for your asking

169 Aristotle Categories 5 ^33-4)

170 Ps 22:7
171 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13
172 Augustine Enarratio n in psalmum 21 7 CCSL 38 125:3-4
173 Disputatio ASD ix~3 211:168 and 214:248
174 Adagia i vi 79: Tangere ulcus
175 Erasmus found in Marcus the Gnostic a heretic to whom he could, with the
usual precautions, compare Lefevre. Cf Augustine De haeresibus 14 CCSL 46 296.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 3/E / ASD IX~3 128 46

me how it is right that 'he who is the first-born of every creature and above
every creature' should be called a worm, and that he of whom the Apostle
says, Tor there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the
man Jesus Christ/176 should be said to be not a man, you would be better to
enquire of the Prophet himself, or rather Christ himself, who said through
the mouth of the Prophet that he was a worm. Moreover, I am not afraid of
Christ being angry with me if I employ his words in the sense in which, if we
may rely upon so many orthodox interpreters, he said them. Among these
is St Jerome, and he is one example out of many, who, commenting on the
second chapter of Paul's Epistle to Titus, clearly calls Christ a worm, and who
is with even more boldness prepared to. say that Christ was transgressed
against and slandered.177
As for your instructing us that Christ is called a man on St Paul's
testimony, I admit it, and I am amused at your officiousness, as though there
would have been a danger of someone denying that Christ was a man had you
not brought your single passage from Paul to our attention, even though in
the Gospel Christ so many times calls himself the Son of Man!178 Furthermore,
the passages which you cite from the Scriptures in your attempt to instruct
us that Christ was not truly abandoned work as much on my behalf as they
do on yours: 'God neither rejected nor disdained the appeal of the wretched
man': but he who makes an appeal, since he is asking for help, seems to have
been to some degree abandoned; otherwise, what would he be appealing for
if he lacked nothing? Again, 'And when I called to him, he heard me':179
why would he cry if he were in no way abandoned? Finally, since I have no
wish to prolong the matter by going through every one of your citations, the
passage 'For Mary the mother of Jesus was there, and his favourite disciple,
and Mary Magdalene, and the woman who followed Jesus, and with deep
sorrow and thankful devotion they wept to God and the angels over him;
but the heart of the Virgin was struck by his suffering as by a sword and her
soul was pierced through':180 this passage too works on my behalf. Whose
suffering do they share? To whom do they direct their pity? For this is what
is meant, I think, by 'devotion,' in common, if not in learned, speech. Were
they weeping over the Word of God who is always equal to the Father, or a
man who was suffering terribly for the sake of us all? Was he the one who

176 Lefevre is citing Col 1:15, then i Tim 2:5.

177 This is not in Jerome's Ad Titum but in his Ad Ephesios 1.2 PL 26 5010.
178 Eg Matt 8:20
179 This citation and the preceding one are taken from Ps 22:25.
180 Disputatio ASD ix-j 212:189-92
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 386 / ASD IX-3 130 47

is higher than all creatures, or a man who was abandoned and lower than
the robbers? Moreover, if Christ is one and unchanging, to whom do such
divergent references as these apply? You must admit that the passages which
you cite, far from standing in the way of my view, actually support it, not to
mention the fact that the passage in Luke where Christ calls himself a 'green
branch' speaks more of his innocence than his majesty.1 J I am surprised that
you thought it necessary to introduce it, unless perhaps you thought there
was a danger that someone might judge Christ to be a criminal. If it was your
intention to collect whatever passages declare Christ's majesty, why, when
there are so many, did you bring forward just a select few? If you wanted
to refute all the passages which seem to speak of Christ's humiliation, why
do you touch upon barely one or two? In short, I am justified in ruling the
whole of this section out of court.
You proceed to examine where Christ's descending to suffer these
misfortunes means that he was 'diminished in himself/ In heaven's name, a
fine proposal - as though I had ever suggested that "he was diminished in
himself/ though what you mean by 'in himself I am not at all sure! If by
'in himself you mean 'in reality/182 then I am prepared to say that 'he was
diminished in himself.' You admit that in assuming human form and taking
tortures upon himself Christ was diminished. But since he did both these
things in reality, it was in reality that he was diminished. If, on the other
hand, when you say 'in himself you mean it in an absolute sense, I admit
that in this absolute sense Christ is the highest. Indeed, in case you think that
I have derived nothing from your writings, he is more than infinitely the
highest. Further, I do not altogether understand your purpose in saying that
in the Gospel Christ does not call himself a worm, but the light of the world,
a green branch, and other things which are a mark of majesty, unless you
are intimating perhaps that the words of the Prophet do not have sufficient
weight with us, and that it is reasonable that they should give way to the
authority of the Gospel.183 Does the fact that Christ was called a worm by the
Prophet really not give us sufficient grounds for believing that he is rightly

181 Luke 23:31

182 The two expressions in se and vere are then contrasted with absolute, simpliciter,
and per se.
183 If they are not contradicted by the New Testament, the words of the Old Tes-
tament have a prophetic value. In the case of Christ's humiliation, further-
more, the New Testament abounds in passages which reveal the suffering of
Christ. Here, Erasmus is recalling Matt 21:18-19, lohn 11:33-5, an(i tne passion
narratives.
 APOLOGIA AD FABRUM LB IX 38E / ASD IX~3 130 48

called a worm? As if a good part of the gospel story does not speak again
and again of Christ's lowliness, and as if the Prophet does not elsewhere
venerate and express wonder at the sublimity of him whom here he calls
a worm and an outcast from the people. When you read of the crib and
the stable, of the babe crying, of his being circumcised, when you read of
Christ worn tired, driven by hunger to eat from the fig-tree, led up to the
mountain and tempted by the devil, when you read of the Son of Man with
nowhere to rest his head while the foxes have their dens and the birds their
nests, when you read of Christ weeping and groaning, his ears ringing with
insults, when you review the whole tale of his suffering, tell me of what else
you are reading than the Son of God made lower than all men so that he
might be exalted above all things. When you read that he was dishonoured,
despised, the lowest of men, when you read that he was mute like a lamb at
the shearing, are you not reading that he was in some small way diminished?
Since not a one of these things which are said of Christ is a mark against his
unspeakable majesty, which has always demanded the wonder of men and
angels alike, there was no reason why anyone who worships his eminence
should be offended by a reminder of his lowliness. For as St Hilary says, The
majesty of his power is not lost when the lowliness of his flesh is worshipped,
because the most divergent things are true of him on account of his different
natures/184 The fact that he was truly lord of all things185 did not preclude his
being rightly called a servant. If an inferior is one who carries out a humble
task, then Christ, in washing the feet of the disciples, was in some sense their
inferior, but their Lord all the same.186
As to your criticism of my conclusion as being based upon faulty
reasoning, I fail to see what you are aiming at. You say, The fact that there
is no analogy between human nature and God does not allow for Christ
to be called a worm, otherwise the Cherubim would have to be called
worms as well, since there is no analogy between God and them either/187
I ask you, do I anywhere argue in this fashion? To the contrary, in order to
show that Christ was made lower than the lowest of men I call upon the
testimony of the Prophet. What point was there in proving by argument what
Christ says himself through the Prophet? Further, when I add, There is no
analogy between a human creature and God/ this pertains to what had gone

184 This citation is not based upon a specific text but recalls the passage for which
ni43 above gives the reference.
185 Rom 10:12
186 John 13:1-20
187 Disputatio ASD ix-3 213:237-40
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 396 / ASD IX-J 132 49

before, namely, 'Christ was made not a little lower than God/ a statement
which you were not willing to accept. It is just that my method of treating
the material involved me in skipping about from one part to another. In
the name of friendship/88 do you really think that your criticism was an
example of arguing in friendly fashion with a friend, and not a clear case of
cavilling?
However, let us pass over this and return to the question that has been
raised. I shall employ the same reasoning to defend the assertion which you
attack, namely, 'There is no relation between human and divine nature.' 'But
there is a relation/ you respond, 'between Christ and divine nature, and this
is one of identity and equality.'189 Clearly, the very mention of relation has
drawn the cavalry onto the field, as they say/90 and I can see that on this
point I shall have no raw recruit in mathematics to contend with/91 Suppose
we grant, then, that there can be a relation which consists in equality, who
ever heard of a relation which consists in identity? Or who has ever proposed
a relation between infinity and infinity? For Aristotle, just as he denied the
existence of any relation between the finite and the infinite, thought, if we
are to place any trust in his interpreters, that there exists no relation between
two infinites/92 Further, Paul's remark that Christ is equal with God does
not, I think, establish a relation, but simply states that his power is not lesser
and is not greater.
However, so that we may put on one side what are more in the nature of
clever points than serious contributions to the business between us, employ
the term 'relation/ whether it be of identity or equality, as you see fit. Now,
do you wish this to be the only relation which applies to Christ, or are you
prepared to entertain some other? If this one only, then Christ was not made
lower than God, though you would argue the contrary, provided that it be
by only a little. For the concept of a relation of identity requires that he not
have been made lower to any degree at all. Furthermore, how can what Christ
himself says in the Gospel be true, namely, 'My Father is greater than I'?193
Wherever you hear the words 'lesser' and 'greater/ there must exist some

188 In Greek, this is vr\ TOV $l\iov [sic].

189 This is a proportional relation (proportio).
190 In Greek. Adagia i viii 82: In planiciem equum
191 Lefevre had been busy editing mathematical treatises like that of Jordanus
Nemorarius, a thirteenth-century author, whose Elementa arithmetica Lefevre
published in 1493 in an editio princeps.
192 Aristotle De coelo 1.6 (27437) and Physics 8.1 (2523)
193 John 14:28. This verse was much discussed during the Arian crisis.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 390 / ASD IX~3 132 50

other relation than one of equality. If you are correct in deducing a relation
of equality from the passage in the Gospel which says, 'I and the Father
are one/194 how am I any less correct in deducing a relation of inequality
from the passage which reads, 'My Father is greater than F? If this relation
is derived from a comparison between things which are infinitely different
one from the other, then either show me from your mathematics what the
relation is or admit with me that no such relation exists. Moreover, if in this
comparison Christ is said to be less than the Father, he is less either to a finite
degree or to an infinite degree. I do not think you would say finite, since you
yourself say that there is no relation between a thing created and the creator.
But if it is to an infinite degree, how would you defend your view that Christ
was made a little less, when you insist that the expression 'a little less' or 'less
by a little' must refer not to a length of time but to a level of dignity? Would
you not be guilty of referring to something infinite and immense as 'a little'?
On this reasoning, am I heretical for having written that Christ was made
lower than God not by a little but to a very great extent? I am convinced that
here if anywhere you are caught on the horns of a dilemma,195 though I shall
not press down hard upon you or taunt you now that you have been trapped,
even if you do seem to deserve it, who heap up abuse against an opponent
without any justification.
Meanwhile, to avoid giving the appearance of censuring you instead of
simply defending myself, I shall not examine in detail the words which you
employ in arguing that there exists a relation of identity between the Son of
Man and God. If there is a relation of equality between the Son of Man, in
so far as he is the Son of Man, and God, in what manner, tell me, is he less?
If to the extent that he is God he is said to be equal with God, what is new
in this, and who would deny it? I have no dispute with those who wish to
interpret the reference in the Gospel to the Father as greater than the Son in
such a way that the Son does not become less than the Father. For me it is
sufficient that Augustine was prepared to say, as he did in the third letter
to Volusian and in several other places, including On the Trinity, book one,
chapters seven and eleven, and book two, chapter nine, that the Son is less
than the Father and less than himself.196
The same is true of the following argument, namely, that the Word
and Son of God is of divine status and of the same nature as God, because

194 lohn 10:30

195 Adagia i iv 96: Medius teneris
196 Augustine De Trinitate 1.7, 1.11, and 2.1 CCSL 50 pages 45, 60, and 81; Ep 137
CSEL 44 111-12
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 406 / ASD IX~3 134 51

he is no more a created thing than God.197 Here again you distinguish the
Son of God from God, and you say that he is no more a created thing than
God, or the Father himself, to bring your words in line with Paul's. My
response is that if the Son of God is not a created thing, and I am speaking
in accordance with accepted idiom, how is he said to be lower than God,
something which even you do not deny? Yet John ventures to say, 'The Word
was made flesh,' and Paul that Christ 'was made from the seed of David/ and
again, 'God has sent his son, made from a woman, made under the law.'198 Do
you hear the expressions 'made flesh/ 'made from the seed' and still refuse
to acknowledge that Christ is in some sense a created thing? In any event,
this argument entails no risk for me, since I neither claim nor deny that Christ
is a created thing; you have added that of your own accord. But, you say,
Augustine, Hilary, and Ambrose all deny that Christ is a created thing. Yet
what if elsewhere these same persons do call him a created thing? For what
does Augustine mean when he says in one of his sermons for Christmas, 'It is
a remarkable mystery that the creator of the world was willing to be a created
thing/1" and again in his exposition of Christ's Sermon on the Mount, as
well as in letter fifty-seven, 'He who is the creator of the world was willing to
be a created thing'?200 What he is saying, in short, is that as the Word Christ
is the creator, 'for all things were made through him/201 while as a man he is
a created thing. St Jerome speaks even more openly in his exposition of the
passage from the second chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians:

For we are his work, created in Christ Jesus. Because once we came into the
name of a created thing, and wisdom in the Proverbs of Solomon says that she
was created as a beginning of the ways of God: and many, through fear of being
forced to say that Christ was a created thing, deny the whole mystery of Christ
and say that wisdom there represents not Christ but the wisdom of the world.
We freely proclaim that there is no danger in calling Christ a created thing
when in full confidence and hope we profess that he was a worm, a man, was
crucified and accursed, especially since in the two preceding verses wisdom

197 Disputatio ASD ix-3 216:324-6. Creatura does not exist in classical Latin.
198 John 1:14; Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4 respectively
199 This sentence does not appear to be borrowed from the works of Augustine
(Apologia ASD ix-3 135:1221^, but it recalls Sedulius' interpretation of Mary's
womb, which contained that which the world cannot contain. When this was
adopted into the Christmas liturgy, the reference to Christ as creatura was
nevertheless avoided.
200 Augustine Ep 187 CSEL 57 87:15-88:6
201 Eph2:io
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 4OD / ASD IX~3 134 52

herself promises that she will declare what will be in the future. But since
Christ has brought the future into being and the things which wisdom goes on
to say are those which she had promised to declare as things to come, the things
which follow must be taken as referring to the mystery of the Incarnation, not
to the nature of God.202

So Jerome. You hear how Christ, in as much as he was made incarnate, is

rightly called a created thing.
Incidentally, you should be advised at the same time that Christ is called
a worm by Jerome in the same way as he is called a man, and crucified,
that is, not in the estimation of the Jews but in reality, something which
you regard as blasphemous and heretical. St John Damascene speaks in like
manner: 'Christ is created and uncreated, capable of suffering and incapable
of suffering'; and again: 'He is not scandalized at the title "created thing"
who calls himself servant, worm, seed, born of a virgin.'203 Further, what
about the fact that the compiler of the Book of Sentences, in his treatment of this
question in book three, section eleven, does not deny that Christ is rightly
called a created thing, but prefers that it not be said unreservedly; that is, he
prefers that it be said of Christ as man but not of Christ as God?204 Moreover,
as to the fact that these same writers at other times deny that Christ is a
created thing when they are combating the Arians, they are denying that
Christ is a created thing only in the way that Arius maintained in teaching
that only the Father is the true God and only the Father is truly uncreated.
There is also the fact, which you have forgotten, that the very one who you
here deny is a created thing you elsewhere make a created thing, when you
say, 'There is no distinction between the man who is Christ and God, since he
enjoys an approximation and oneness with God which is as close as any could
be between a created thing and God.'205 If Christ is to be in no way called
a created thing, what does this statement mean? Unless you admit perhaps
that the human form is a created thing, but do not accept that Christ as man is
a created thing. But if we are to follow your example and be particular over
language, what do you mean when you say, 'Christ has a oneness with God'?
By 'Christ' here do you not mean Christ in human form? And may we say,
then, 'God became Christ'? If not, how is Christ united with God, since he

202 Jerome Commentarius in epistolam ad Ephesios 1.2 PL 26 501. The text to which the
citation refers is Prov 8:22-3.
203 John Damascene Defide orthodoxa 3.4 PG 94 998D-999A
204 Peter Lombard Sententiae book 3 dist 11 c i
205 Disputatio ASD ix~3 218:403-4
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 41A / ASD IX~3 136 53

is himself God? What grounds did you have for deriding me for appearing
to be substituting the name 'Christ' for his other nature? Again and again I
ask you, my dear Lefevre, to see how wide a window you have opened upon
yourself206 in attacking me for the language which I employ.
To move on to another point, what do you mean when you say that the
Word and the Son of God is of divine making, when all Christians would
deny that Christ was made, at least to the extent that he is the Word and the
Son of God?207 For who has said that the Son of God was made? Not that I am
unaware that you have used the word 'making' in the sense of kind or form;
but I wished to point out how easy a matter it is, if I were inclined to follow
your example, to criticize an opponent on points of language. And here again
you distinguish the Son of God from God as though the Son of God were not
God, not to mention the fact that when you say, 'For he is no more a created
thing than God/208 there is an ambiguity which ought to be avoided if ever
one should. For you seem to be saying that the Son of God is neither a created
thing nor God. If you allow yourself to say this in rhetorical fashion, or rather
in your own fashion, of God, why do you attack me so strenuously when I
speak with more precision than you? If you demand from me the carefulness
which is the mark of modern theologians, why do you display neither the
learning of the old school nor the acuteness of the moderns? Were you not
failing to realize what a dangerous standard a man sets for himself when he
sets himself up as a judge of others?
However, I have neither the inclination nor the time to pursue matters
of this kind. I admit that Christ is certain things and is not certain things,
since in his divine being he is the same as and equal with the Father, while in
his human form he is less than the Father. But as to his being less than the
Father, or, if you will allow, less than himself, I ask whether he is less by a
finite degree or an infinite degree. Not by a finite degree, you will say. Well
then, if it is less by an infinite degree, we will not be guilty of heresy if we
say that with respect to the form which he assumed Christ has no relation
with divinity. And if I succeed in carrying this point, what grounds do you
have for insisting so strongly that he was made lower only than the Father,
and this to only a very small degree? Unless perhaps you are going to rely
upon sophistical subtleties to argue that just as a man who has five coins also
has one coin, so someone who has been made a great deal lower can also

206 Adagia i iv 3: Fenestram aperire

207 Erasmus is playing on the words conditio (condition) and condere (to create, to
make).
208 Disputatio ASD ix~3 216:326-7
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 410 / ASD IX~3 136 54

be said to have been made a little lower. But if this kind of subtlety were
permitted, Christ would be said to have been neither diminished nor exalted.
For what degree of majesty could be added to one who is always equal with
the Father, or in what way could he have been diminished whose divinity
has lost nothing and whose humanity has even been raised up?
However, I have no intention of pursuing these things to the limit,209
since I would be happy enough for the moment simply to clear myself of
the charge of heresy. Moreover, whatever conclusion your endless treatise
reaches, it does not much matter whether Christ is said to be lower than the
angels or lower than men, that is, whether you think both views heretical,
since his very majesty demands equal worship in either case. But with respect
to his human form and suffering, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and
Augustine have made him, as you yourself admit, lower than the angels,
unless you think that to have been diminished is something different from
being made lower. Yet these writers, since you did not think they ought
to be exposed to criticism, you excuse by saying that they were deceived
by the Septuagint translation into thinking that this was the reading in the
Hebrew, and so have merely made a mistake.210 Very well, let us accept that
as men whose languages were Greek and Latin they did not know what the
Hebrew texts read. But how did it come about that such renowned leaders
of the Christian faith did not detect in this interpretation the grave heresy
which you claim is present in it? Why am I the only one to be criticized
as the author of this view when I was not the first to put it forward, when
I do so not to defend it but simply to make note of it, and when, if I am
leaning one way or the other, I appear to favour the opposite view? Am I
guilty of such a great crime because I have not committed myself totally
and unreservedly to your opinion, and because I do not approve one view
and attack, assail, and take up stones against the other? For it is nothing
if not to 'speak words as hard as stones/ as Plautus puts it,211 to use such
harsh language as 'most unworthy of Christ and God, contrary to the spirit,
subverting the meaning of the Prophet/ or 'This is the way the faithful
explain it, those who are led not by the letter but by the spirit.'212 What does
this imply? That those who explain it differently are led by the flesh and are
unfaithful? Who would not dread these words more than any stones? Yet
it is words of this kind and words even harsher that you heap upon your

209 Adagia n iv 13: Ad vivum resecare

210 See n6i above.
211 Plautus Captivi 593 and Aulularia 152
212 Lefevre's expressions; Disputatio ASD ix-3 210:134-5,216:329-30
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 42A / ASD IX~3 138 55

friend in this well-meaning treatise of yours, a work undertaken in a friendly

spirit.
Now, if I had hurled back at your head the stones which you unde-
servedly hurled at mine, who of our future readers would blame me? Instead,
I have been mindful of Christian modesty and been content merely to ad-
monish you, though, as I have said, I do not fully understand your meaning
when you say 'most unworthy of Christ and God/ If you mean God the Fa-
ther, I did not speak of him; if you mean the Son, how do you distinguish
God from Christ by joining them together? If you make me out to be stupid,
a rock, a brute, a pumpkin, a fool, or anything else you wish, I shall not be
perturbed in the least, I shall say not a single word in protest: but forgive
me, this is one kind of insult I cannot tolerate. For who would put up with
it when you write, 'Moreover, in the light of these taunts, and many others
as well, I would admit, even though the truth was otherwise, that Christ the
Lord was made worthless and greatly diminished in the eyes of the Jews and
has been also in the work of my opponent, who sees no merit at all in my
opinion.'213 In what spirit did you write this? How do you think those who
read it are going to interpret it? Me, a friend, you associate with the Jews,
who have an ill opinion of Christ, while you in the meantime take your place
in the ranks of the pious as a defender of Christ, and say that Christ has been
cast down by what I have said, and appear to be sounding a warning to me
not to cling to my words. You call me an opponent, when in fact I was taking
your side in this matter. Or perhaps you will make me out an opponent of
Christ, in order to make it more offensive, and call me Satan.214
I would not go over these things, my dear Lefevre, except to make it
clear to everyone that I undertook this Apologia unwillingly and my nature
shuns nothing more than confrontations of this sort. But there is more:
'Look, Christ calls his own suffering not dejection or disgraceful humiliation,
but exaltation.'215 What is the point here? Believe me, I am barely able to
suppress the anger I felt just now. Have I attributed dejection and disgraceful
humiliation to Christ, whom I worship as the source of all glory? Has your
treatise been sprinkled all over with fair and kindly remarks like this? Who,
indeed, in time to come will not applaud the friendly tone which you have
brought to your confrontation with a dear friend? What is more, in order to
make certain that these compliments should not be lost to view, you worked

213 Disputatio ASD ix-3 214:246-50

214 Lefevre only stated that the vision of the humiliated Christ is that of Christ's
enemies. 'Satan' signifies the adversary.
215 Disputatio ASD ix-3 214:253-4
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 42D / ASD IX~3 138 56

them into the middle of your commentaries, and as if this were not enough,
you did not think to give me the slightest word of warning in case I should
discover my error and cleanse myself in time, or apply an antidote before the
poison had had time to spread.216 For this is the interpretation which future
readers of your remarks are likely to put on them.
I shall not belabour here what lack of learning, indeed what impiety is
evident in your argument that Christ was not humiliated in his suffering on
the cross because his body was raised from the ground, that is, because he was
nailed up on the cross, even though Paul calls this a humiliation that glorified
the Father, and through the resurrection the Father in turn glorified the Son.
His humiliation earned him his glory, while our glory is the cross of Christ,217
unless, of course, when Paul says, 'wherefore God exalted him and gave him
a name above every name/218 it means that God raised him up again onto
the cross. But to return to our starting-point: if you are prepared to excuse
Athanasius, Chrysostom, Augustine, indeed all the learned theologians on
the ground that they were following the Septuagint, which was demeaning
to Christ, why do you bring a charge of blasphemy against me who follow
the authority of orthodox men, or rather merely review their opinions? If it is
sacrilege to say that Christ 'was made lower than men' because he has always
been owed the worship of men, it will be no less a sacrilege to say that Christ
'was made lower than the angels/ or 'placed beneath the angels' (for it does
not matter at this point what words we use to explain the matter), because
he has always deserved their worship. Moreover, if it is proper and true to
say that Christ was made lower than the angels by reason of the weakness
of our flesh and the misfortunes of this life which he took upon himself for
our sake, misfortunes to which no angel is subject, then I think it is not at all
heretical to say that for a time Christ was made lower than most, in fact all,
men, seeing that he took upon himself more afflictions than any man ever
suffered or would be able to bear. And what does it matter if you make one
out of three and treat Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Theophylact as a single
person? Suppose that Athanasius alone said this, would his authority alone
be light? However, if the number of votes adds weight, there is nobody who
does not adopt this view, with the sole exception of Jerome, though in fact he
too follows it when immediately afterwards he quotes this passage according
to the Septuagint version.

216 See n3o above.

217 This passage is reminiscent of Gal 6:14. Again Erasmus insinuates that Lefevre
could be accused of emptying Christ's cross of its significance (cf i Cor 1:17).
218 Phil 2:9-10
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 43A / ASD IX~3 140 57

Finally you come to the issue which you ought to have challenged at the
outset, when the main point of my treatise was being presented. I repeat, it
seems to me that the expression 'a little less/ which in Greek is fipa.yy TL, is not
to be referred to the degree to which Christ's majesty was diminished, but to
the length of time which Christ spent on earth; that is to say, Christ was made
lower than the angels for a short while.219 This was the direction in which
the essential part of my treatise was leading, namely, that the Greek words
fipaxv TL, which the Septuagint translators rendered 'a little/ are to be taken
as referring not to the degree but to the duration of Christ's humiliation. If
you could not see that this was my intent, what could be more blind? If you
did see, and pretended that you did not, what could be more shameless? For
it will be worthwhile going over the arguments which you employed with
me earlier. "The following/ you say,

is a naive piece of reasoning: 'The Son of Man was made lower than even the
most worthless of men; the most worthless of men have been made far lower
than the angels; therefore, the Son of Man has been made a much greater degree
lower than the angels.' For if he has been made 'much' lower, then he has not
been made 'a little' lower (for the two terms are contraries), even though this,
according to my opponent's opinion, is what the Prophet means. For according
to the Septuagint the Prophet says, 'You have made him a little lower than
the angels/ an interpretation of which my opponent approves. Furthermore, if
he was made much lower than the angels, then he was made an even further
degree lower than God: therefore, the Prophet is undermined whether we read
'than God' or 'than the angels.' Accordingly, my opponent's argument destroys
itself and shows itself false in every part.220

I have quoted your remarks up to this point, remarks in which, not

to mention the absurdity of the language and the phenomenal wordiness,
you make me out as lacking not only in logic, an art which you have toiled
over all your life,221 but also in common sense. My argument reads simply as

219 Erasmus now arrives at the exegetical solution which he proposes. The adverb
found in the psalm ought to have a temporal nuance.
220 Here is a lengthy passage from Lefevre (Disputatio ASD ix-3 210:140-8) cited to
emphasize all the more how much Lefevre 'missed the point.'
221 Lefevre published and commented on Aristotelian logic in such works as
his Introductiones logicales of 1496, very frequently republished, later with the
addition of Josse Clichtove's commentaries or even the Organon of 1501. Erasmus
mischievously returns several times to the subject of Lefevre's incoherence,
which he finds inexplicable in the works of such a great connaisseur of Aristotle.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 43C / ASD IX~3 140 58

follows: 'that Christ was diminished not a little but for a little while, meaning
that he was greatly diminished but for a brief period only; and that this
meaning was consistent with either of the two readings, "than God" or "than
the angels/" Out of this you create an entirely new syllogism and argue
that I have undermined the meaning of the Prophet whichever reading is
adopted. Who will not marvel at such subtlety, the likes of which Chrysippus
himself could not match?222 Who could escape this dilemma,223 its twin horns
threatening me, one on this side and one on that? Who would not admit that
the effort which you have invested in the study of logic over so many years
has paid off handsomely? With such fine argument you show that a friend
has spoken with impiety! For that piece of reasoning you called upon God
in heaven and you offer eternal thanks to the giver of all light. Again and
again, my dear Lefevre, I appeal to your conscience.224 When you go over
these things in your mind, are you not at all ashamed of yourself? If you
were serious in what you wrote, and I will not say that you were, where is
your philosophy? Or, since you regard me as a novice in that line, where is
your basic human reasoning? If you were joking, tell me, please, is this how
you jest with a friend? If you adopt that method of arguing out of conviction,
what more ridiculous thing could be invented? If you are making fun of
me, where is that deep friendship of ours? What is fitting for a mountebank
is not fitting for Lefevre.225 Are you so unconcerned over what you write
in your books? Do you have so poor an opinion of the intelligence of your
contemporaries that you think they will tolerate such nonsense, or fail to
perceive it? Who will not admit that your statement "This argument destroys
itself and shows itself false in every part' should with justification be turned
against yourself? For my part, I would not wish to exercise my right to do
so; I am satisfied to have shown you to yourself in the hope of saving you
from fooling in the same fashion again, if fooling is the word for using
linguistic deceptions to accuse a friend of impiety and making out that he is
undermining prophetic meaning. But what do you intend when you say that
'according to my opponent's view,' that is, my view, when the Prophet says,
"You have made him a little lower than the angels/ he meant that Christ was
made a great deal lower than the angels, when I clearly say that he meant that
Christ was diminished for a short time, and, further, when it was not under
discussion at this point whether he was diminished greatly or a little? Nor

222 Chrysippus of Tarsus (d 209 BC) is the second founder of the Stoic school.
223 The word in Greek signifies an animal with two horns.
224 An appeal to conscience is a Christian humanist's last resort.
225 Seneca Epistulae morales 29.7
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 44A / ASD IX~3 142 59

will I simply grant you what you assume as conceded, namely, that the most
worthless of men were made much lower than the angels. For it can be the
case that the most worthless man, to accept your use of the superlative, is in
some way greater than the angels.
At this point I was minded to bring my refutation to a close,226 except
that you are incapable of halting your attack, and as if you had not talked
enough nonsense already, you keep going and add the following: 'For the
same reason he contradicts his own assertion when he adds, "He was not
even made a little lower than the angels when he was reduced to hunger,
thirst, beatings, the cross, and finally death." If Christ was not even made a
little lower than the angels, how can the reading in the Prophet be taken to be
"You have made him a little lower than the angels"? Are not the expressions
"a little lower" and "not a little lower" mutually exclusive, and likewise "a
little" and "not a little"?'227 How delighted, how triumphant, how pleased
with yourself you are over this, and how silly you make yourself look in
making fun of me! Who denies that 'a little' and 'not a little' are contraries? I
am sure you would not have seen it had it not been for the years you spent
on Aristotle, though it is as clear as day to a blind man, as they say.228 But
what are in no way contrary are 'a little' and 'for a long time,' and 'for a long
time' and 'much.' I do not equate 'Christ was made a little lower' with 'Christ
was not made a little lower'; what I say is, 'Christ was made much lower than
the angels, but not for a long time/ or 'Christ was made lower than the angels
for a little while, but not just a little lower.' You should have refuted this
before launching into self-congratulation, so that no one could criticize you
for singing the victory ode before the victory, as the Greeks say.229 Instead,
as though you had the battle already won, you begin to sport and jest like
ever such a sharp and witty fellow. 'I would concede willingly,' you say, 'that
Christ was made not a little lower than the angels, since he was not made
lower than the angels at all.' But all the time you fail to realize that while you
wish to deny absolutely that Christ was made lower than the angels, you are
in fact admitting that he was. If you had said, 'the Son of Man was not made a
little lower than the angels/ this could perhaps be consistent with saying, 'He

226 Erasmus has already announced his conclusion on several occasions, but he
has hardly crossed the mid-point of his Apologia. Shortly, he will announce an
epilogue which will summarize his various arguments.
227 Disputatio ASD ix-3 210:149-54
228 Adagia i viii 93: Vd caeco apparent
229 Adagia i vii 55: Tlpb TTJ^ UI'KT/S TO eyxoojiuoy aSets. Ante victoriam encomium canis
resembles an expression found in Plato's Lysis 2050.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 440 / ASD IX~3 142 60

was not made lower at all.' But when you say, 'He was made not a little lower/
you are stating an affirmative proposition, because the negative 'not' does
not govern the verb 'made lower/ but the adverb 'a little.' It does not matter
in the Latin where the negative is placed, only what it governs. If you claim
that it governs both, all the expert Latinists will oppose you. Unless perhaps
you think that when I say, 'Peter loves you not a little/ this can be taken to
mean that you are loved by Peter neither much nor a little; or if I were to
say, 'This man gave you not much/ it can be taken to mean that he gave you
nothing. It would be the same as your saying, 'Christ was diminished not
even a little'; for you would be saying that he was not diminished in any way
at all. You see how careful he must be who contrives to make fun of another,
and still more the man who contrives to charge another with impiety.
However, let us pass over these trifles and return to the serious chal-
lenge which you commence to launch over my having written that the words
/3pa)cu n should be given a temporal reference, that is, covering the time
which Christ spent on earth up to his resurrection. First of all, my dear
Lefevre, I would have you take note that on this point I am not making an as-
sertion; I am speaking rather in a tentative and exploratory fashion, as much
as to say, 'It seems to me.' I repeat, I am amazed that you feel so strongly
that this opinion must be challenged, since far from hindering your own it
actually supports it; unless, of course, you feel obliged to disagree with me
at absolutely every turn. Let us suppose that you have won your point that
the correct reading is 'a little lower than God' and not 'a little lower than the
angels/ a second difficulty confronts you as you still have the sticky problem
of explaining how he who as God came down to human nature and was re-
duced to suffering its injuries, or its insults, if you prefer St Hilary's term,
can be said to have descended only a little.230 If it is a difficulty which has es-
caped your notice, then I fail to find in you that sharpness for which you are
known. If you are pretending not to notice it, then I miss your frankness. Do
you consider it impious of me to be pointing this difficulty out and urging
you to address it, a difficulty which has to be removed if your interpreta-
tion is to stand? I have explained with the aid of so many witnesses and so
many arguments that Christ was diminished not just a little but a great deal.
But imagine that I am stripped of all my support troops, that I am facing
you with one weapon only, which Paul himself supplies when he says, 'He
desolated himself - where will you turn?231 What stratagem will you use to
escape? Will you interpret 'desolated' to mean that he humiliated himself to a

230 Hilary De Trinitate 2.25 CCSL 62 61

231 Phil 2:7
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 45A / ASD IX~3 144 6l

small extent? Who would not burst into hissing and hooting at that interpre-
tation, and judge it worthy, if anything is, of all the hellebore in Anticyra?232
It is like someone interpreting the saying 'Pleasure destroys the mind's fac-
ulties' to mean that pleasure has a slight weakening effect upon the mind's
faculties, or someone announcing the annihilation of the army as the loss of a
few soldiers. What the verb exinanire means to Latin writers is clear enough:
Quintus Curtius used it to mean 'exhaust.'233 Paul's Greek reads tKtviao-ev,
that is, 'He emptied/ or alternatively, 'He reduced himself to nothing/ so
that he could not have found a stronger verb to emphasize the utter humilia-
tion of Christ and to express the extreme degree of his diminution. You push
to the opposite extreme in your anxiety to have Christ humiliated to the least
degree possible, and twisting this way and that, as the Greeks say,234 you
misrepresent whatever speaks of his remarkable humiliation as merely the
low estimation of him on the part of impious men. I, on the other hand, in as
much as I wish there to be in Christ an example of humility, maintain that his
humiliation was very real. Of course, there was no reason why you should
have been caught up in this difficulty had you chosen to accept my interpre-
tation of ft poxy TL instead of criticizing it, since this interpretation of mine,
the interpretation of the older Greek writers, virtually solves the problem
which was causing you difficulty.
Yet here you are, advancing upon me with an array of Greek and
Hebrew examples to back you up. The latter we shall look at in due course.
For the present, let us examine the strength of the Greek evidence which you
bring against my view. 'I do not believe you/ you say, 'since for the Greek
writers and for those who are experts in the Greek language fipayi) TL does
not denote a measure of time, but rather a measure of worth and estimation.'
You allude to Eustathius commenting on the words 'and ten talents of gold'
in Homer's Iliad and saying, 'If it refers to Greek talents it is a trifling amount'
[/3pa)(u rt].235 You think that this is sufficient to prove that for Greek writers
ppa)(y TL cannot have a temporal reference. Now, in the first place I think it
amusing that you should be relying upon the Homeric scholiast Eustathius to

232 'Anticyra': Adagia i viii 52: Naviget Anticyras. This means 'You make me out to be
insane.' Anticyra was famous for producing the hellebore which was supposed
to heal madness.
233 Quintus Curtius Rufus Historiae 4.13.34
234 In Greek. Plutarch Marius 30.5
235 Disputatio ASD ix-3 216:332-5. This citation from Eustathius, the twelfth-century
bishop of Thessalonica who was particularly known for his commentaries on
Homer, was originally written in Greek (In Homeri Iliadem 1.122).
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 450 / ASD IX~3 144 62

demonstrate that fipayy TL has the meaning "a trifle/ when this can be shown
from any author you wish. I hardly think that you are indulging in display to
remind us that you are well versed in Homer's epics. The point is, however,
that Eustathius is read as an interpreter of Homer, not as an authority on
correct linguistic usage. Likewise, if I wanted to substantiate the correctness
in Latin of the expression fregit navem, I would not offer an example from
the commentaries of Beroaldo or Bade before one from Cicero or Terence.236
In any event, I cannot see what need there was to prove something of which
everyone is aware and which nobody denies. Though let me remark in your
defence, even though you are my accuser, that I suspect you did not read it
in Eustathius himself, but found it somewhere in someone's notes.
Yet how does it follow that fipaxy TL, or 'a trifle/ granted that it may
refer to an estimation, cannot also be used to refer to time, or whatever you
wish? For example, if one can properly say 'a trifling amount of money/ can
one not also properly say 'a trifling amount of time'? Or if we say in Latin 'a
short cloak/ is it not possible also to say 'a short day'? For this is how you
reason who a little later consign me for treatment at Anticyra because I seem
to you to reach a conclusion which is based upon faulty logic, something
which I shall speak of in the appropriate place.237 As for me, I do not intend,
either here or anywhere else, to imitate what to me seems foreign to Christian
modesty. Yet here I do find lacking that expertise in logic which, if I am not
mistaken, you have been either acquiring or imparting now for more than
twenty years; and the same is true of your mathematical skill.238 I beg you,
my dearest Lef evre, recognize how you have been carried away in the heat of
the argument. You are behaving like a schoolmaster with a rod giving us our
Greek lessons, and prescribing new rules: 'If it is a case of indicating time, it is
preferable to say evr' oKiyov, for this is how the philosophers generally speak,
or jj.iK.pov, which is used with reference to time in the Gospel.'239 Without
objecting to the fact that you make philosophers authorities on correct usage,
who denies that fUKpov and oXiyov indicate a measure of time if you add or
understand the word )(p6vov [time]? But the same words will denote a gold
coin, a field, or a donkey, if you prefer, if you add or understand any of
these nouns. I ask you, what are learned and serious men going to say when
they read these things in your books, especially in a place where you are

236 Filippo Beroaldo (d 1505) wrote a commentary on Apuleius; Beroaldo's student,

Josse Bade (d 1535), was a friend of Lefevre.
237 See n232 above.
238 See ni9i above.
239 Disputatio ASD ix-3 216:338-42
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 45? / ASD IX~3 145 63

bringing a charge of impiety against a friend? Imagine the scorn, the sneers,
the derision on the part of some who are in the habit of criticizing even
proper linguistic usage.240 If you had written anything of this kind to me
privately, I would have hidden it away to save you embarrassment; now you
have published it in all seriousness as something worth reading and likely to
bring you credit.
Not content with these remarks you go on to say, 'If the authors of the
Septuagint had wished to signify time they would have said T^Aarrooo-as rayy,
because the word ra^y indicates a small lapse of time/241 What am I hearing?
Would someone who meant that a man lived for a short time say in Greek
ra)({j e^ocrey, that is, 'He lived soon/ or would he not rather say, 'He died
soon'? By your reasoning you arrive at the translation 'You soon made him
lower than the angels/ So help me, my dear Lefevre, I feel shame at these
things on your account, and I wish that you had either not stepped so readily
into an arena which, as I have said, is not properly yours, or were not so intent
upon staying there, since you would be better off dealing with more general
topics.242 Suppose that Eustathius did teach, which he did not, that the word
fipaxv does not refer to time, do you think that Athanasius and Chrysostom
were less expert in Greek than Eustathius, individuals who had phenomenal
reputations for eloquence in Greek? I would not hesitate for a moment to
put up either one of these against even three Eustathiuses. Come now, what
if I produce for you a passage from Luke himself where fipayy TL clearly
refers to time, will you still persist in evasion? Look, here is Luke himself
speaking in chapter 5 of the Acts of the Apostles: 'exe'Aewey ef co {Spa^u TL TOW
dTTooroAovs TroiTjcrcu/243 Will you think that we are to translate here as follows:
'He ordered the apostles to do something outside a little less'? It is absolutely
impossible to pretend that fipaxy TL here does not refer to a measure of
time;244 it is the meaning which the original translator handed down, and we
translate 'He ordered the apostles to spend a little time outside/ The sense
itself does not allow for any distortion; it must refer to time. Tell us that the
writers of the Septuagint, that Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and
Augustine did not employ j3pa)(y TL in this sense; tell us that Jerome himself,
for he is with me on this point, was incorrect in using the expression in a

240 On the Latin expressions to which Erasmus refers, see Adagio, i vi 81: Odorari.
241 Disputatio ASD ix-3 216:342-9
242 This is a perfidious reproach, because a humanist, in the primary sense of the
word, was first and foremost a philologist, especially of Greek.
243 Acts 5:34
244 For ppayi) TL, the Veins Latina uses paulisper where the Vulgate uses breve.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 460 / ASD IX~3 146 64

temporal sense. You see how much wiser it is sometimes, my good Lefevre,
to hold back cautiously than to make bold assertions, in which respect you
sometimes appear to me to be rather too forceful and to take your aversion to
the Sceptics too far. And we might add that the same Luke, whom everyone
accepts as the author of Acts, has been credited by some as being also the
translator of the letter we are discussing.245
To take another point, what about the fact that in this very passage Paul
makes it quite clear that he was thinking of an interval of time when he
adds, 'Nevertheless, this Jesus, who was for a while made lower than the
angels through his suffering and death, we shall see crowned in glory and
honour'?246 As to the fact that he began to be a man, he never ceased to be a
man, but quickly ceased to be a mortal. Does he seem to you to be diminished
only a little who is reduced even to suffering the punishment of death? Since
I do not believe that even you would claim that, to what are you going to
refer the words fipayy TL if not to time, as so many eminent Greek writers
have done? Nor will it serve your purpose very much to do as you have
done in your translation, namely, to transfer the words 'through his suffering
and death' from their proper place to another to prevent them being taken
according to their true reference. For you write as follows, 'Nevertheless,
we shall see Jesus, who was made a little less than God, crowned with glory
and honour through his suffering and death.'247 There is no shift you are
not prepared to make, no stone left unturned in your effort to defend that
newborn child,248 that brand-new view of yours. But take care that your
offspring does not charm you too much.
Again, heaven help me, what am I to say of your behaving like some
Aristarchus prescribing a linguistic rule for us?249 For this is what you give
us: 'When "much" and "little" and the like are joined to words which denote
increase or decrease, they never signify time; and here paulo minus is joined
to the verb "you have diminished," which denotes a decrease; it would be

245 An allusion to the Epistle to the Hebrews, which will be taken up again later.
From the next sentence onwards, however, Paul is considered the author of this
Epistle. For more on this discussion, see 79-81 below. In fact, Erasmus' position
is merely to maintain that there is a certain doubt concerning the identity of the
author.
246 Heb 2:9
247 In his Pauline commentaries, Lefevre indeed changed the traditional order of
the words in Heb 2:9.
248 Adagia i iv 30: Omnem movere lapidem
249 Aristarchus (d 114 BC) was a famous grammarian in Alexandria. Cf Adagia i v
57: Stellis signare.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX ^6E / ASD IX~3 147 65

different if the expression were joined to an adverb denoting time.'250 Do

I detect an enthymeme here,251 implying that it will be a solecism if I say,
'You have extolled me for a little while with your praises'? All the same, I
readily admit that in Latin certain words refer exclusively to time, paulisper,
for example, and aliquantisper, while it is not the case with others, such as
multum and parvum, unless you add a temporal reference. However, the same
distinction does not hold for Greek, and while in Latin a temporal word
must be added, in Greek one is frequently added, but frequently also simply
understood> a -practice which we too sometimes adopt, when we say, for
instance, 'I shall come in a little,' meaning 'I shall come in a little while.'
Not that I think that this has been done in the present case, that is, in the
expression ^Aarrcocras avrbv ftpa^v n; I think rather that a neuter adjective
has been substituted for an adverb in the same manner as we demonstrated
earlier from the words of Paul himself.
Let us briefly examine next the evidence which you adduce from He-
brew texts. You cite several passages where the word Meat refers not to a
measure of time but to something else. I readily admit that in this language I
cannot be a judge, nor do I think that you have advanced to a point where you
would ask us to defer to your authority in this matter.252 Moreover, no mat-
ter which Hebrew writer you place before me, his authority does not carry
such weight with me that it would be a crime to disagree with him. Further-
more, after producing so many passages, you yourself demonstrate only that
Meat sometimes refers to something other than time; you do not demonstrate
that it cannot refer to time. It would not be surprising or novel for a word
which has different meanings sometimes to denote things other than just one
particular thing. What if someone were to produce for you a passage where
it clearly refers to time, what would you do with your new rule? Take Psalm
36 [Vulg]: 'In just a little while there will be no transgressor.'253 In the He-
brew text we have Meat, and it can be taken only of shortness of time. Again,
Psalm 108 [Vulg]: 'May his days be few/254 where the Hebrew for 'few' is
Meatim. Will you deny that here Meat refers to the shortness of time? Again

250 Disputatio ASD ix-3 216:308-11

251 enthymema: a figure of logic which is a syllogism reduced to two propositions
252 For further information on Erasmus' knowledge of Hebrew, see Ep 181:36-45.
As for Lefevre, he made no special claim to having mastered this language.
He says at the end of his commentary on Ps 114 (Vulg), eg, that he leaves the
discussion to those more competent in Hebrew than he (Quincuplex psalterium
1513 ed fol i67v).
253 Ps 37:10
254 Ps 109:8
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 476 / ASD IX~3 148 66

in Psalm 2, 'for his anger will soon flare up/255 is the Hebrew not Bimeat? I
have no doubt that one could find thirty passages if one had the time to look
for them, since these turned up in the book of Psalms alone, this being the
book written in Hebrew which happened to be at hand, even though a single
passage would be sufficient to discredit your rule.
Now if you thought it appropriate to argue over words with such
exactitude, you ought to have examined what the words paulo minus might
signify in Latin writers. You would have found that it is nothing other than
'almost' or 'all but/ Suetonius, for example, employs the words in this sense
in his Life of Nero: 'After the world had put up with such a ruler for almost
fourteen years, it at last cast him off/ Again, in his Life of Tiberius: 'and
seeming likely soon to die, which all but came about'; and in the same work:
'Once freed from fear he played at first a very modest role, more modest
almost than that of a private person/256 You see how to so respectable a writer
paulo minus is no different from 'almost/ and in similar fashion Apuleius
used the superlative form minima minus in the sense of 'very nearly/257 just
as Greek writers use the expression p,iK.pov 5eti> when they wish to indicate
that something is but a little way from taking place. I am surprised, since
you are such an Aristarchus258 when it comes to the Greek and Hebrew
languages, that you dictate rules of usage to the world, and since you are so
sensitive to little words that you say those we are discussing have the effect
of diminishing Christ; I am surprised, I say, that in your translation you did
not change their meaning, even though it would invert the entire sense which
the Prophet intended. Unless you think that 'to be almost diminished' and
'to be diminished a little' mean the same thing, when with the latter he is
understood to be diminished to a small degree and with the former not to
have been diminished at all, even if he came close to being so. Just as the
prophet Balaam, as Augustine says, was not astonished at his ass breaking
into speech because he had become used to strange happenings, will you
likewise show no reaction at all to these kinds of linguistic monstrosities?259
I deliberately omit many examples lest I be doubly tiresome to my reader
through making things which are in themselves offensive and distasteful
even more so by stringing them out. For example, when I point out that
Aquinas was of one mind with Chrysostom because he reminds us that paulo

255 Ps 2:13
256 Nero 4.1 and Tiberius 39 and 26 respectively
257 Apuleius Metamorphoses 1.4.4
258 See 11249 above.
259 Augustine Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 4 CSEL 28 part 2 355-6 on Num 22:28-30
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 47E / ASD IX~3 149 67

minus can be taken in two ways, referring either to quantity or to length of

time, you excuse him as though I were bringing this forward to his discredit.
Were it not for the honesty which I have had occasion to remark in you, there
might lurk the grave suspicion that some Thomist was in league with you
when you were writing these things, since you treat him with somewhat
more politeness than you do Athanasius or Chrysostom.260
Let me respond, however, to the remaining points in your Apologia,
or rather your indictment. You say that I wrote, 'There are those who think
that Luke was the translator of the Epistle [to the Hebrews], and if this
view is accepted, this translation cannot be challenged/261 What offends
you here, my dear Lefevre? Is it that I have stated that certain persons are
of this opinion? But does not the preface to this Epistle contained in our
manuscripts clearly support it? Granted that this preface is not the work of
Jerome, whether it is by Bede or Isidore or someone else it is certainly not
the work of any completely unlearned person, and it is approved for the
public use of Christians.262 I need not bring forward arguments from others
when what is read in this argument is reported by Eusebius in book six,
chapter fourteen of his Ecclesiastical History on the authority of Clement of
Alexandria,263 and when Jerome in his De viris illustribus does not demur.264
But though the identity of the translator may not be absolutely clear, upon
what authority are you relying when you pronounce with such superiority
against Luke? Is it because the translator followed the Septuagint text? Why
would it be surprising if Luke as translator should do so when Paul often
does the same when he is his own translator? Still, I have given you a free
choice of accepting this view or rejecting it. If you do not accept it, then you
have no quarrel with me. If it is a correct view, then it is certainly the case
that the translation is not to be called into question, unless you think that
Luke should be put on the stand. Nevertheless, you add, 'But here truth

260 See n8 above. On St Thomas, see 1159 above. The passage under discussion is
found in the Disputatio ASD ix-3 220:457-76. For Chrysostom, see Enarrationes
in epistolam ad Hebraeos horn 4 PG 63 38. Athanasius is taken for Theophylact (cf
H. de Jonge ASD ix-2 131 ^37).
261 See 11245 above; Disputatio ASD ix-3 220:476-83.
262 On previous prefaces to the different books of the Bible, see Samuel Berger Les
prefaces jointes aux limes de la Bible dans les manuscrits de la Vulgate (Paris 1902);
Maurice E. Schild Abendlandische Bibelvorreden bis zur Lutherbibel (Gutersloh
1970); and Apologia ASD ix-3 151:1625^ The Venerable Bede (d 735) and Isidore
of Seville (d 636) used the Vulgate.
263 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.14.2
264 Jerome De viris illustribus 5 PL 23 65OA
 A P O L O G I A AD FABRUM LB IX 488 / ASD IX~3 150 68

should prevail, not the authority of the writer, whoever he happened to be.'
Are you being serious, Lefevre, or is this said in jest? Whoever the author or
translator of this Epistle was, will his authority carry no weight, even if the
author was Paul himself, or the translator Luke himself? What you mean here
only you will know; what you have expressed in words can certainly not be
mistaken by anyone. However, I shall not press you on your words, since I
am fairly certain that what you meant was that it did not greatly matter who
the translator was since you are convinced it was not Luke.265
Next you take exception to my indicating from the notes of teachers of
Hebrew literature that they take the word Eloim to be singular or plural and
to be a word with more than one meaning.266 Yet this did not disturb you
when you were writing on this psalm. Indeed, you apply its plural number to
the three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.267 As for this new rule, which
is owed to some Hebrew scholar,268 I neither endorse nor reject it. What is
a fact is that none of the Hebrew writers denies that El is proper for God,
or that Eloim is sometimes substituted for God when his function is added,
as when, in creating the world, he said, 'Let us make a man/269 sometimes
for angels, sometimes for leaders and judges, sometimes for gods. The only
distinction they wish to preserve between Eloim and Malachim is that angels
are called Malachim whenever they are being sent to perform a function, but
Eloim whenever their dignity or eminence is pronounced. You claim that the
authors of the Septuagint, whenever Eloim is used without any mark that it is
plural, consistently translated it as 'God/ If this were true, they would have
translated it as 'God' in this instance too, since no mark is present, as you say.
I identify my authority for this, and it is someone to whom you attribute a
great deal, if I am not mistaken. And he teaches the same in volume three
of his recently published work, complete with several citations from Holy

265 Lefevre cannot accept the possibility that Luke the Evangelist might have
translated the Epistle to the Hebrews because that would cast doubt upon his
own concept of inspiration.
266 The Greek term is iroKva-q^ov.
267 This is Lef evre's pious interpretation in the Quincuplex psalterium. He believes
that the Holy Spirit, as the author of Scripture, implied the mystery of the
Trinity through the plural word Eloim. That was also the position of certain
Fathers of the church concerning the 'we's of the creation narratives in Genesis,
to which Erasmus refers a little further on.
268 The expression seems to designate a lew, but it was Francois Vatable, Lef evre's
collaborator and companion, who rendered his services to Lefevre as a Christian
scholar of Hebrew.
269 Gen 1:26. See n26/ above.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 480 / ASD IX~3 150 69

Scripture.270 Recognize, then, how what you say contradicts itself. You claim
that the Septuagint writers followed the same principle throughout, yet here
you admit they translated differently. It is like saying that the whole of a
swan is white while admitting that the same swan has a black beak. It would
not be surprising for someone who is a dullard like me in subtleties of this
kind to make a slip; it is extraordinary that a superb logician like yourself
should be wandering astray in this fashion, especially since you are such a
demanding critic when it comes to little errors of this kind in the writings of
a friend. To me it seems probable that the Septuagint translators recognized
that here too Eloim could be taken as plural in reference, that they were
reluctant to say 'God/ and 'Gods' did not seem right, so they translated it as
'angels.'
I do not believe I have omitted anything which I have not been able
to demolish with clear proofs and on which I have been unable to satisfy
you. But since your whole treatise lacked order, because you were tearing
away at individual parts of my treatise as they came, and in my reply I was
forced to follow your sequence, the reader may find my own presentation
rather unfocused and for this reason less than clear. Accordingly, by way
of an epilogue, it may not be out of place to draw the main threads of the
argument together into a summary. First of all, I have shown that as far as
the central issue is concerned there is no argument between us; indeed, in
fighting against me you are fighting against yourself. I rehearse the question
of the alternative readings, both of which enjoy the support of such great
authorities that, in my view, neither deserves to be rejected out of hand, and
each is in its own way acceptable, provided that the word Eloim in Hebrew can
be singular or plural, and sometimes mean God, sometimes gods, sometimes
judges, sometimes angels, as has been noted by those who teach Hebrew
literature, but chiefly, in case his authority carries more weight with you,
by the Master of the Sentences, as his title is, in section three of his first
volume.271 As to your being so astonished that anyone should be so bold
as to take Eloim as plural when out of 275 instances it is singular in all but

270 Johann Reuchlin, who defended the importance of studies in Hebrew, was
attacked by the theologians and defended by the humanists. Cf Guy Bedouelle
and Franco Giacone 'Une lettre inedite de Gilles de Viterbe (1469-1532) a
Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples (c 1460-1536) au sujet de 1'affaire Reuchlin' Biblio-
theque d'humanisme et Renaissance 36 (1974) 335-45. According to Steenbeek
(Apologia ASD ix-3 151:1659^, the book to which Erasmus refers is De rudimentis
Hebraicis.
271 Peter Lombard Sententiae book i dist 2 c 4
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 49A / ASD IX~3 152 70

one, I in turn am astonished at your boldness in giving your observations

the status of rules. For what is to prevent the word being used as a plural,
even if it has been used as a singular two thousand times? Unless you think
that because the word 'boy' has been used more than six hundred times
in the Scriptures to denote the person's age, it is wrong to use the same
word to mean 'servant.' Equally nonsensical is your assertion regarding the
particle Col, namely, that unless it is added the word Eloim cannot be taken
as plural, an assertion which you base upon the fact that it is added in several
instances. Yet take that passage from the Psalms which Christ himself cites
in the Gospel according to John: 'I have said, "You are gods"'; even Jerome
translates into the plural, despite the fact that the particle Col is certainly not
present. Again, 'God stood in the synagogue of gods/ and 'Mighty gods of
the earth have been powerfully raised up,' and 'Cast out foreign gods/272 But
why do I point to these? There are so many instances in the Old Testament
of the word 'gods' where there is no sign of your particle Col, which you
would like to establish as so consistent a mark of the plural that anyone who
translates Eloim other than as 'God' where it is absent deserves to be brought
to trial. It is very clear, therefore, that the instances which you cite, following
someone who is not the best authority, whoever he is, do not prevent us from
taking Eloim in this instance as plural and as signifying something other than
God.
Second, there is the fact that whichever of the two readings is adopted,
the adverbial expression paulo minus, or paululum, causes a problem, though
it is one which is more acute if we choose the reading which you regard as
the only possible one,273 because while we grant that there is only a moderate
distance separating the nature of angels and mortal flesh, the distinction
between the divine nature which assumed and the human nature which was
assumed must be acknowledged as immense, and it is only on the basis of a
comparison between these two natures that Christ can be said to be less than
the Father. This problem I alleviate by taking paulo minus in the sense of 'for
a short time/ so that Christ is understood to have been diminished to a great
degree, but for a short while, or to a very considerable degree if we measure
his diminution or humiliation, as Ambrose does and which I approve, in
terms of the afflictions which he suffered in this human life of ours which

272 Pss 82:6, 82:1, 47:10; and Gen 35:2 respectively. In John 10:34, Christ cites Ps
82:6.
273 Here, Erasmus has clearly perceived the weakness of Lefevre's hermeneutics,
which reduces the meaning of Holy Scripture to the Christological component
alone. Cf Bedouelle Quincuplex psalterium 147-51.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 490 / ASD IX~3 153 71

he assumed.274 Furthermore, I demonstrated that the Greek words flpaxv TL

can have a temporal meaning, even though this was clear in itself to those
who know the Greek language, and I based my demonstration upon Luke
himself, upon Paul himself, and even upon this very Epistle of Paul,275 just
in case you found the authority of Chrysostom and the other Greek writers
insufficiently weighty.276
Up to this juncture the debate between us centres around the main
point at issue. As for the remaining matters, either you have added them of
your own accord or you have seized upon them from remarks which I made
casually in the course of my argument, either by way of expansion or by
way of supporting my position. Chief among these is my remark that 'Christ
was made lower than the most worthless of men/ So far from there being
anything in this which is unworthy of Christ, it greatly promotes his glory, if
we remember that Paul said that Christ desolated himself, and that the words
of the prophets refer to him as 'a worm and not a man/277 Moreover, if we
bear in mind our own salvation, it was advantageous to us that an example
of humility that was in the highest degree remarkable and genuine should be
displayed through him who is truth itself, especially since emphasizing his
humiliation in this fashion in no way detracts from his sublimity, because
just as he could be called both mortal and immortal, most afflicted and most
blessed, so could he be called in different senses highest and lowest, on
account, that is, of his opposite natures united in the same substance, and
above all on account of the extreme tortures which he took upon himself
beyond all mortals; for I prefer to follow St Ambrose278 in associating the
things which are said of Christ's desolation with these afflictions rather than
with the nature which he assumed, for the reason that if they are associated
simply with the flesh which he took on, he could on this reasoning be said to
have been made lower than God to an immense degree on the very day when
he became man. Accordingly, no one can fail to see that the insults which
you direct towards me when you say that this statement also (by which you
imply, of course, that there are others of the same stripe) is most unworthy
of Christ and God, on the ground that it clings to the letter which destroys
while opposing the spirit which gives life, undermines the meaning of the
Prophet, casts down Christ as do the unholy Jews, and other things of this

274 See ni39 above. It is a question here of Ambrosiaster.

275 The Epistle to the Hebrews
276 Cf 63.
277 Ps 22:7
278 See 11139 above.
 A P O L O G I A AD FABRUM LB IX 5OA / ASD IX~3 154 72

kind, are such as do not deserve to be levelled by you or against me, and are a
far cry from that most gentle spirit of Christ which does not destroy life, but
gives it,279 and which does not abuse the mistakes of men, but amends them,
especially the mistakes of one who speaks with reverence and in accordance
with the opinion of the orthodox Fathers of the church.
Next, with respect to those passages from the prophetic writings which
speak clearly of the extraordinary diminution of Christ, some you distort by
interpreting them as the appraisal of unholy persons, others you lay at my
door. However, I have demonstrated by means of fitting arguments and with
the help of the weightiest authorities that these statements refer to Christ in
a true and literal sense. Moreover, I have pointed out that there is nothing
in your lengthy treatment of Christ's dignity which stands in the way of his
utmost humiliation. Christ's inferiority to the angels is in no way affected
by the fact that they are ordained to worship him, just as his superiority over
his parents is in no way affected by the statement in Luke that he was placed
under them.280 If Christ can in no way be called lower than the angels for the
reason that none of these raised up the dead, healed the sick, to say nothing
of the miracles which Christ performed through their agency, then it follows
that Christ was inferior to his own disciples, since they, as he himself declared
they would, did greater things than these.281 Furthermore, with respect to
what you say about Christ's authority, Christ yields the authority for his
own words to the Father: 'I do the works of my Father; as my Father has
commissioned me, so do I do; the word which you hear is not my word but
that of my Father who sent me; my teaching is not mine.'282 As to your denying
that Christ is called 'a created thing/ I have made it clear that he has been so
called by the highest authorities, even if not by me. Likewise, with respect to
your assertion that Christ enjoys a relationship of equality with God and for
this reason cannot be called a 'worm,' I have proved my point that he enjoys
also another relationship on the basis of which he has been called a 'worm,'
not by me but by the Prophet. Furthermore, with respect to your statement,
which you offer as a reductio ad absurdum, that 'the Cherubim too can be
called "worms" when compared with God/ I would personally not object to
this, especially if the prophetic books attributed this title to them.
You make a large number of statements of this kind which in the
course of my treatise I decided to ignore; for example, the following: 'Bodily

279 Cf 2 Cor 3:6; John 6:63; i Tim 6:13.

280 Heb 1:6; Luke 2:51
281 John 14:12
282 Cf John 14:31; followed by exact citations from John 14:24 and 7:16
 APOLOGY A G A I N S T L E F E V R E LB IX 5OC / ASD IX~3 155 73

torments can be so great that greater torments cannot be devised/283 But

however much you emphasize torments to the body, they may certainly be
rendered more excruciating if they are compounded with equal torments to
the spirit. Further, with respect to your strenuous objections against words
for 'substance'284 being taken as referring to one only of Christ's two natures,
I have pointed out in the first place that I have nowhere done this, and in
the second that had I done so I would have had earlier orthodox writers as
precedents; unless you think, perhaps, that when St Augustine writes, as he
does in On the Trinity, book two, chapter six, 'because the creature was not
so assumed, in which the Holy Spirit should appear, as the Son of Man was
assumed/ he does not take 'Son of Man' as referring to the one of Christ's
two natures.2 5 I also remarked in passing that it is safer to take words for
substance as referring to one of Christ's two natures than to do as you prefer,
which is to take them as referring to both his natures together, that is, his
divine and human natures combined, even though they signify two natures.
I also demonstrated, though it was superfluous to do so, that what can be
stated of Christ using a word for substance can be stated not only of his two
natures separately but also at different times of any of the three substances or
things in Christ.2861 think I have said enough to make it evident that though
you think you have been convincing with syllogisms in which there is an
abundance of errors and a complete absence of effectual arguments, you have
in fact failed to convince. But let us proceed to what is left.
In what follows you attack and hound me to such a degree that I must
confess I ought to have written with greater care and attention if I was going
to encounter such harsh critics. My first concern, however, was the rather
humble one of composing annotations, and in this type of exercise the older
writers always assumed a certain licence.287 I was not expecting to run up
against someone who was intent upon examining every detail and finding
fault unfairly. I thought my readers would be people like myself. But while I
am willing to acknowledge your charge of naivety, I reject your assertion that
I am stupid. For in the first place I am of the opinion that those commentaries

283 This sentence does not appear in any of Lefevre's works; it is a summary of
Lefevre's argument made by Erasmus.
284 hypostasis
285 Augustine De Trinitate 2.6 CCSL 50 93
286 Erasmus calls euro, anima, and divinitas three substantiae (cf Apologia ASD ix-3
110:636-9), thus following the terminology of Augustine De Trinitate 2.11.20
CCSL 50 107. See also niO3 above.
287 libertas. See also nn2o, 23 above.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 5OF / ASD IX~3 156 74

which you cite are not the work of St Jerome and were not collected together
by him.288 Why, then, do you cite them under his name? You ought to have
given them some title, and then we could have dispensed with arguing over
their authorship. And you know that Jerome289 attributes to Paul a certain
artfulness, if I may use the word, of this kind on the grounds that he twists
certain things to his own purpose and on occasion says things which are at
variance with Holy Scripture, even though they are perfectly appropriate
in their original context, as when in the Epistle to Titus he puts the profane
saying of Epimenides the Cretan prophet to work for Christ.290 Similarly in
Acts, what Aratus said of Jupiter, Paul applies to God, and by changing some
of the words twists the profane and impious inscription on the altar into
an argument for the faith.291 For though the inscription read TO THE GODS
OF ASIA AND AFRICA AND EUROPE AND TO UNKNOWN AND FOREIGN GODS, he
distorts it by reporting that he has seen an altar on which was written TO THE
UNKNOWN GOD, as we are told by Jerome in his commentary on Paul's Epistle
to Titus.292
You are well aware also, I think, that almost all the old writers indulge
in allegorical interpretations, especially Ambrose, Origen, and Jerome, and
they deny that there is any danger in this provided that the allegories are
made to conform to devout principles.293 Yet despite all this, see how anyone
who knows Latin will recognize how egregiously you twist my meaning
even when I have explained it. For I did not say that these things 'do not
apply to Christ/ but that 'Jerome does not appear to prove adequately that
they are meant strictly of Christ/ You, so it seems, think that 'strictly' here
has the same force as if I had said 'truly.'294 What I do mean is that those
things are attributed 'strictly' to Christ which are attributed to him in such a
way that they apply to no one else. Thus the First Psalm, in the way in which
the holy teachers interpret it of Christ, does not apply to just any devout
person you wish. If you grant me this liberty here, then it will be true that

288 See n93 above.

289 Jerome Commentarius in epistolam ad Titum i PL 26 606-9. For the same idea, see
Erasmus Annotationes LB vi 501E.
290 Titus 1:12. Annotationes ad Titum LB vi 9680; Reeve m 696
291 Acts 17:28. Aratus was a poet from Sicily who lived in the third century BC.
Paul's citation is taken from the Phenomena of Aratus.
292 Acts 17:23; Jerome Commentarius in epistolam ad Titum i PL 26 6073
293 These are authors whom Erasmus edited - Jerome in 1516; Origen, a posthu-
mous edition of whose works appeared in 1536 but had been begun in 1527,
the same year as Erasmus' first edition of Ambrose.
294 proprie et non vere
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 51C / ASD IX~3 157 75

those things which may apply in a figurative sense to the rest of men also
should not be applied 'strictly' to Christ. And there is nothing in the psalm
we are discussing which cannot be made to apply without fear of heresy
to all devout men.295 For if you grasp the essential meaning of the Prophet,
he seems to be marvelling at God's singular beneficence towards us, who
though he is higher than the heavens, nevertheless shows concern for men
who dwell on earth, and considers them worthy of such great honour that he
has set man over all creatures, recalling almost to the letter what was said in
Genesis, namely, 'Fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the
sea and over the birds of the air and over all the creatures which move upon
the earth/296 and has made man almost equal with the divine by granting him
his special gifts of the mind. For when the Prophet says, 'What is man?'297
he seems to acknowledge the humbleness of the human condition. When he
adds, 'You have made him a little lower than the angels,'298 he shows how he
has been raised up from below by the gift of God. For what we take to refer
to the diminution of man appears to have been said there in the opposite
sense: 'You have made him a little lower than the angels/ that is, you have
made him almost equal with the angels. You are dreaming, you will say.299
No indeed, it was Arnobius, not the worst of writers, who was dreaming
long ago, when he referred this entire psalm not to Christ but to the members
of Christ.300 Certainly, what follows, namely, 'You have put all things under
his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds .. .,'301
this clearly does not apply to Christ, but to us. For of what moment is it if
Christ has been set over the beasts and fishes and birds? And you see that the
translator of the Epistle to the Hebrews took the testimony of the psalm in
this way when he wrote, 'You have put all things under his feet/302 omitting
those items which did not accord equally well with what Christ then did, and
made absolute what seemed to him to be restricted by the list which follows
in the psalm, namely, sheep, oxen, and so forth.
Besides, if the Prophet had in mind the power by which Christ rules over
every creature on the earth and in the sky, how was it appropriate for him to

295 Ps 8
296 Gen 1:28
297 Ps 8:5
298 Ps 8:6
299 Adagia u i 62: Somnium
300 Arnobius Commentarii in psalmos 8 CCSL 25 10
301 Ps 8:8
302 Heb 2:8
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 51F / ASD IX~3 158 76

name only those things which represent the lowliest aspect of this power? I
am aware, of course, that translators take these things allegorically,303 and I
certainly do not reject that approach, though in this case I do think the allegory
is a little too forced. Since at the time I was pondering something of this kind,
and my objective was to put all possibilities to the test, probing them as it
were like so many sacrificial victims, and to place before the reader a variety
of material for him to consider, which is the legitimate role of an annotator,
it seemed only proper to indicate this politely; for there are certain things
which are there to be pointed out rather than explained; it is something which
we see the earliest theologians doing, and even contemporary theologians
do not say altogether the same things in their school lectures as they do
in the private company of scholars, or if they say the same things, they do
not say them in the same way. But to attack me with the kind of language
that you employ, and to make an exhibition of me before an uneducated
and uncharitable public, is to my mind lacking in civility and still less the
mark of a friend. If you care to take note of the kind of language I employ,
it will be clear in an instant that it is the language of someone who is not
being categorical, but simply exploring the issue.304 'He seems not to have
fully proved/ I say. In fact, his arguments seem convincing when they are
nothing of the kind, even though they give a certain impression of truth.
Yet this too I tone down by adding the word 'fully,' that is, not in every
particular. But, you will say, give me an instance of that impression which
creates the illusion that his statement is true. Well, in the first place, he
names his authority305 in such a way as to place the weight of proof on him.
Second, of what importance is it that Paul takes, this passage as referring to
Christ when Jerome himself takes the entire psalm as referring to Christ?
I warned the reader of this briefly and with reluctance so that he might
reject whatever deserved to be rejected. Indeed, it is not at all a case of
doubting whether this psalm applies to Christ, but whether it applies to
him exclusively, that is, to Christ alone in such a way that it cannot be
made to apply to the rest of mankind, despite the fact that common sense
clearly dictates that the entire psalm refers to the human race, under which
God has placed all the products and creatures which the earth brings forth,
reserving for his own divine mind meanwhile to attend to the things above
the earth. St Augustine, it is true, explains the psalm as referring to Christ,
but in such a way as to accommodate it to us as well, having been reborn

303 Augustine Enarratio in psalmum 8 CCSL 38 52-3

304 Ep 1581:864-7 to Beda 25 June 1515
305 The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX fJ2C / ASD IX~3 159 77

in Christ.306 A great crime indeed that I wished to give the reader a tiny word
of caution!
Let me now mention in passing the following verse, interspersing my
comments with your interpretation of it: 'What is man that you are mindful
of him, or the Son of Man that you visitest him?' You write as follows:

Of the rest of mankind there is only a certain mindfulness of God, and at the
same time a certain absence, if I may use the term, as is indicated by the words
'What is man that you are mindful of him?' For mindfulness is of things absent.
But of the Son of Man, that is, Christ, there is already a visitation and presence
on the part of God consisting in Christ's union with him, a union so close that
it is one of substance and closer than any other could be, something which is
indicated in the words 'or the Son of Man that you visitest him'; and visitation,
union, or presence of this kind on the part of God does not diminish man, but
raises him up above all things in such a way that he is made only a little lower
than God; and to be made a little lower than God is to be exalted above all other
things and is for all things to be subjected to him. The apostle Paul says, 'In that
he has placed all things under him, he has made nothing that is not subject to
him, except the one who has placed all things below him.' And concerning that
visitation, union, or embracing on the part of the Divinity, Paul adds towards
the end of the chapter: Tor nowhere does he embrace the angels, but the seed
of Abraham he does embrace/ and 'seed of Abraham' he elsewhere interprets
as Christ.307

I have given your exact words up to this point. Now first, what do
you mean when you say, 'Of the rest of mankind there is only a certain
mindfulness of God'?3°8 Do you mean that men are mindful of God or that
God is mindful of men? Second, do you mean that men are absent or that
God is absent? But even more perilous than this ambiguity is the one you
were guilty of earlier when you said: 'The Word and Son of God is of divine
making and of the same nature as God. For he is no more a created thing than
God/ For this may be taken in one of two ways, either that God the Father is

306 Augustine Enarratio in psalmum 8 CCSL 38 50

307 Erasmus cites a long passage in which Lefevre refers to Heb 2:8, i Cor 15:27,
and Heb 2:16 (Disputatio ASD ix-3 218:386-401), in order to refute it step by step
by demonstrating that if one analyses each sentence, one ends up enmeshed in
difficulties concerning 'unspeakable' matters over which one must not quibble.
308 Memoria is a central theme in Augustinian thought which Lefevre associates,
like that of visitation, with Ps 8:5.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 52E / ASD IX~3 l6o 78

not a created thing, or that the Son of God is not God. Now when you say, 'of
the Son of Man, that is, Christ, there is a visitation/ do you mean that Christ
visited man, or that he was visited by God? If you call a visitation the taking
on of human form, in what way do you say that Christ was visited? Or, as we
rightly say 'God assumed man/ will we properly say 'God assumed Christ'?
You see, here is the very sort of language for which you chastised me a little
earlier, not because I spoke in this way, but because you thought I did. Again,
when you say 'does not diminish man/ are you taking the word 'man/ which
is a word of substance,309 to mean human form, something which you earlier
said could not be done? Further, when you speak of that visitation, union, and
embracing by God, I am amazed that when it comes to my language you seek
a knot in a bulrush,310 as the saying goes, while you allow yourself to talk
such nonsense as this about matters unspeakable. For who has ever used the
expression 'embracing by God/ not to mention your intolerable and pervasive
repetitiveness?3" Furthermore, when you go on to say that 'by this union
Christ was made a little lower than God, but in such a way that he was exalted
above all things/ if this was to be exalted, namely, to be visited by God, and
if he is visited who is united in the assumption, then as soon as the Word
became incarnate, Christ was exalted above all things. Where in this is the fact
that Paul says Jesus was 'made a little lower than God and then crowned with
glory and honour on account of his suffering'? And again, 'On account of this
God exalted him and gave him a name .../ indicating that he was exalted not
on account of his birth, but on account of his suffering on the cross? Moreover,
when you say that God 'embraced the seed of Abraham, who is Christ/ do
you not see that you are saying that Christ was embraced? For I think that
what you mean here by being embraced is nothing other than being assumed.
Likewise, in what follows, namely, 'But he did not embrace any other man/
you understand, I think, 'than Christ/ You perceive, I am sure, how much
material for criticism there is, if someone wished to cavil as you do. Though
Augustine, from whom you have taken the cue for your interpretation, does
not say that Christ was visited by God, but speaks of two men, as it were,
the former a sinner, of whom God was none the less mindful, extending his
kindness even as far as him, and the new man, reborn into holiness.312 In all
of this I consciously and deliberately shut my eyes to a great deal for fear of
giving the impression that I am enjoying what I am simply forced to do.

309 hypostasis
310 Adagia n iv 76: Nodum in scyrpo
311 Adagia n i 92: Battologia
312 Augustine Enarmtio in psalmum 8 CCSL 38 53-4
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 536 / ASD IX~3 l6l 79

From this point on things go from bad to worse in Mandraboulos'

fashion, as the Greek proverb has it.313 One charge leads to another, each
more serious than the one before. Take the heavy charge you bring against
the end of my annotation, where I added the following: 'There has been so
much doubt concerning the authorship of this letter that it is only of recent
date that it has been accepted by the Roman church: indeed, of all the letters
this is the only one on which Ambrose wrote no commentary, and Jerome
says that "it has not been accepted by some because there are a few things in
it which are not found in the Hebrew text." '314 Here you bring a triple charge
against me. First, you accuse me of slow-wittedness for having added these
comments when they have no bearing upon the issue. Second, you charge
me with deception for saying that the letter was accepted only at a late date
when it has always been accepted. Third, you charge me with ignorance,
or madness, as you say, and such a degree of madness as to stand in need
of all the hellebore in Anticyra,315 because in an ill-tempered argument I
concluded wrongly that it was accepted at a late date by the Roman church
because it is the only one on which Ambrose does not comment. Let me
respond briefly to each of the points in turn. If my additional comment
was in no way relevant to what was under discussion, why did you wish
to imitate my slow-wittedness by examining things which have no bearing
upon your case? You had determined to defend your opinion and you had
completed your task. What point was there in drawing the matter out further?
Unless, perhaps, you were determined to scrutinize every single one of my
annotations. Suppose I had suddenly forgotten myself and become oblivious
to all that had preceded, had suddenly tumbled from my donkey and found
myself in another world, as they say, what had that to do with your case?316
After you had made the points you wanted to, politeness required that you
control and hide this madness of your petty little mind and put an end to
attacking me in savage language and mocking me in published volumes.317
There is hardly a person who does not at some time experience what I did.
Nor was there any want of reasons why you should have shown this degree
of politeness quite apart from our friendship. Alone, I was carrying out
a double assignment, the correction of Jerome and of the New Testament,

313 In Greek. Adagia i ii 58: Mandrabuli; Ep 785:11

314 See 11245 above.
315 See 11232 above.
316 Adagia i vii 31 A: Ab asino delapsus; Adagia i ii 97: In olio mundo
317 The plea and the attack become more personal. Erasmus often mentioned the
speed with which he had had to prepare his edition of the Novum instrumentum.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 53E / ASD IX~3 162 80

each on its own a very difficult task. You know the state of my health, and
I was under pressure from several publishers. They were amazed that I
had been able to write as much as I had, an amount it would have been
difficult enough even to read; I was amazed on my part that they were able
to publish anything from pages which had been scribbled out rather than
properly prepared. And you see that in the work itself I promised a revision
of my hasty edition. These writings, then, were surely deserving of a more
sympathetic critic, especially since you are a friend, if at any point I had gone
off the track. Yet, lest you think that I have gone totally astray, let me say
that I thought my comment was to some degree relevant to the issue. For
since there was a problem facing both readings, I was looking for a possible
way out, and I thought I was pointing out an opening318 by demonstrating
that the words fipa\v TL referred to time. However, in case my arguments
should prove unconvincing, and not wishing to leave anything unexplored,
I decided to offer a reminder that there had long been some dispute as
to the author of this letter, especially among the Latin Fathers. Given this
uncertainty, and a justified uncertainty at that, his authority ought to have
less influence over us, and we should feel a greater liberty in challenging
his interpretation; moreover, it would not be necessary to place entire blame
on the poor translator. I realize, of course, that I shall seem to have cleared
myself of the charge of slow-wittedness only to run into a charge of impiety
through appearing eager to diminish the status of a letter whose authority is
held sacrosanct by all orthodox believers. My dear Lef evre, what is expressed
in the letter is quite excellent. Indeed, I would pay a large price for the church
of Christ to have some more letters of this sort from whatever author. If
it were perfectly clear to me what the position of the church is, I would
happily accede to its judgment; or let me say, rather, that for all that I am
at the moment less than sure with what enthusiasm the church has accepted
the letter, one thing is most sure, and that is that I am prepared to follow
wholeheartedly whatever it has decreed, and, even if my own opinion should
differ, always to defer to its judgment, provided that you do not interpret
as a decision of the church whatever has appealed to just any theologian,
or perhaps to no theologian at all. If the church has rightly determined
that this letter was written by Paul and orders me to accept this, then I
believe and proclaim that Paul is its author. But if it has accepted the letter
as something worthy for Christians to read, whoever the author may be, I
concentrate upon the contents and make no argument concerning the author.

318 Adagia in ii 75: Reperire rimam

 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 548 / ASD IX~3 164 8l

If the church wishes it to have the same authority as the rest of Paul's letters, I
raise no objection, but follow willingly wherever ecclesiastical authority has
summoned me.319
But it is impious, you say, to dispute over these things when the letter
has been readily received in all quarters as Paul's. If it is impious to challenge
what the church through public use has approved, what is more generally
accepted as more familiar than that reading which you attack as being false,
namely, 'You have made him a little lower than the angels'? Are you to be
allowed to call an error what the church has for so many centuries adopted
and followed, to which the authority of almost all orthodox believers gives
enthusiastic support, while I shall not be allowed to question politely in what
spirit the church has accepted this letter, especially since this acceptance has
been hesitant and late in coming? You face me with the authority of the synod.
Bring forward the synod which has named Paul as the author.320 If you do,
then I shall turn your own weapon against you and face you in turn with the
fact that the synod has approved the very passage which you reject as being
heretical and unworthy of Christ.321 Your taking refuge behind the Hebrew
text means nothing. Granted that the letter was written in Hebrew, certainly
no one has ventured to claim that he has seen this Hebrew version, which,
as several scholars estimate, had been lost already in Luke's time. Whichever
synod approved this version at the same time approved this reading which
you claim to be false and heretical, unless you are going to say that the text
which had the reading 'a little lower than God' was emended by the synod,
and that all the subsequent Greek and Latin copies were from that point on
corrupted. Even if you were to bring yourself to say this without blushing, I
cannot imagine anyone being so stupid as to believe it.
The only point I make is that there is uncertainty as to the author. It
could be that the letter is not by Paul and yet is even better than the Pauline
letters. And I add that it was accepted with hesitation by the Roman church.
You strongly reject this and deny that its authorship has been questioned. It
is only fair, my dear Lefevre, to forgive me for following the authority of

319 Erasmus avows his obedience to the church while distinguishing, as usual, the
levels of adherence to the several kinds of propositions which are required of
the believer.
320 In its decree of 1442 on the Jacobites, the Council of Florence had enumerated
the fourteen Epistles of the apostle Paul, with the Epistle to the Hebrews listed
last. This text was to be taken up again in 1546 during the Council of Trent.
321 Erasmus' argument must be that the Council of Florence approved the transla-
tion of Ps 8 which Lefevre condemns when it accepted the Latin Vulgate.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 54E / ASD IX~3 164 82

St Jerome and St Augustine in this matter. There is frequent mention of the

letter in Jerome, who several times draws upon it in such a way as to leave
it open whether he is prepared to accept it as genuine or not. But I have at
hand, meanwhile, one or two places which will suffice to absolve me from
the charge of falsehood. For in his exposition of the thirty-first chapter of
Jeremiah, Jerome says, 'The apostle Paul, or whoever else wrote the Epistle
to the Hebrews, used this testimony';322 and Jerome is here being quite
orthodox. If there was agreement that Paul was the author, it was ridiculous
for him to add 'or whoever else wrote the Epistle/ Likewise, in his Letter to
Dardanus, he says:

I must say this, that this letter, which is inscribed 'to the Hebrews/ is taken
not only by the eastern churches but also by all in the past who wrote in Greek
to be the work of the apostle Paul, though a number of people think it the
work of Barnabas or Clement; in fact, it does not matter who the author was,
since it is the work of a man of the church and is sanctioned every day by
being read in the churches. If there is no consensus among the Latin Fathers
to give it a place among canonical writings, neither do the Greek churches
feel bound to accept the Apocalypse of John. I accept both, following by no
means the current practice, but the authority of the old writers, who commonly
accept the testimony of both, just as they are sometimes in the habit of doing
with apocryphal writings; indeed they frequently use examples from pagan
literature as though they were canonical and ecclesiastical.323

So much for my quotation from lerome. Now everyone knows how forceful
Jerome is when he is on the attack. Yet here, where he is employing every
means possible to establish the greatest degree of authority for this letter, he
admits that in his own generation it has not been accepted as canonical by
the Latin Fathers, with the result that they have doubts not only about its
authorship but also about its teaching. On the strength of your remark that
no one has had doubts about it except the Ebionites, the Marcionites, and
heretics like them, almost all the Latin Fathers were heretics, indeed heretics
of the worst kind.324 Furthermore, as to Jerome's statement that he accepts
both the works mentioned, as though he were neither a Latin nor a Greek,

322 Jerome In Hieremiam 31 CCSL 74 319

323 Jerome Ep 129.3 CSEL 5^ ^9
324 This is Lefevre's argument (Disputatio ASD ix~3 223:557-224:564). The Ebionites
seem to have rejected the Pauline corpus completely, whereas the Marcionites
accepted only ten of these Epistles along with the Gospel according to Luke.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 558 / ASD IX~3 165 83

he is speaking not from the authority of a synod but in the manner of

writers whose custom it is to appropriate for their own use whatever happens
to please, regardless of the source. Indeed, in setting up arguments even
apocryphal and pagan material is valid. Again, when he says 'as though they
were canonical/ he is clearly admitting that they were not really canonical.
Jerome again writes in his commentary on the twenty-sixth chapter of
Matthew: Tor Paul too, in the letter which is inscribed "to the Hebrews,"
though many of the Latin Fathers have doubts about it .. ,'325 He did not
say 'many of the heretics/ but 'many of the Latin Fathers/ Similarly, in his
exposition of the fiftieth chapter of Isaiah, he says: 'It is said in the letter which
purports to be to the Hebrews/326 Origen, in his Homily on Matthew, chapter
twenty-six,327 adduces the testimony of this letter, but in such a way that he
does not require his discursant to accept Paul as the author, and virtually
concedes that it may belong to that part of the Apocrypha which is entitled
the Secret Sayings of Isaiah.328 If you regard Origen as a heretic, certainly
he was not condemned by Jerome on the ground that he rejected canonical
writings. In fact, the church approves of Origen in those areas where he was
not condemned by Jerome.329 Augustine, in book sixteen, chapter twenty-
two of the City of God, prefaces his citation of this letter as follows: '... in
the letter which is entitled "To the Hebrews," which many claim to be by
the apostle Paul, but which some deny is his, .. /;33° he did not say that the
orthodox claim Paul as the author while the heretics deny it, but 'many claim
... some deny/ distinguishing between the parties in terms of their numbers,
not their faith. Augustine again, while he was accustomed in other places to
acknowledge quotations from Paul by citing his name, when it comes to this
letter simply records, 'It has been written in the letter to the Hebrews/ 'It has
been understood in this way in the letter to the Hebrews/ and 'concerning
that one reads in the Letter which is entitled "To the Hebrews."/331 It is clear,
therefore, that Augustine was far from certain of its authorship.

325 Jerome Commentarii in Matheum 4 CCSL 77 247 (on Matt 26:8-9)

326 Jerome In Esaiam 50.11 CCSL 73A 557:15
327 Origen on Matt 23:37-9, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei
Jahrhunderte xi (Berlin 1976) 50
328 Erasmus is undoubtedly referring to the Ascension of Isaiah from the second
century. Origen mentioned the prophet's martyrdom in his description of Heb
11:37 in his commentary on Matthew (Matt 10:18, PG 13 881-2).
329 Origen was condemned posthumously for certain propositions and rejected by
Jerome, who, nevertheless, had read much of his writing.
330 Augustine De dvitate Dei 16.22 CCSL 48 524
331 Augustine De dvitate Dei 16.28,16.32 CCSL 48 533,536
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 550 / ASD IX~3 l66 84

You are convinced that the letter was written by the apostle Paul and that
it was composed in Hebrew; you are unsure only of the translator, and the
general tendency to hold him totally responsible you would think legitimate.
Yet whoever it was who added the argument to this letter said, 'The Apostle
is said to have sent this letter, written in Hebrew to the Hebrews, whose
meaning and form were retained by Luke when he put it into Greek/332 How
hesitatingly he speaks, how cautiously he steps! Why, when he makes two
statements and gives them equal weight, do you accept one and reject the
other? And let me add this in passing: if the Hebrew version was extant, why
does he add 'whose meaning and form were retained by Luke'? If the Hebrew
version was already lost, it is surprising that such an important letter dealing
with such important matters was lost so early, since the church at Jerusalem
was populous. You see, then, that there have been those who have had
doubts about the authorship of the letter and who have not been altogether
convinced that it was written in Hebrew. That you have no doubts at all does
not surprise me. After all, you are the person who is so credulous as to believe
that some pettifogger's remarkedly tasteless letter, which decreed that the
words 'Glory be to the Father .. / be sung at the end of each of the Psalms,
is the work of Jerome, simply because it bears Jerome's name; you are the
person who believes that letters inscribed 'from Paul to Seneca' are really by
Paul; and you are the person who added to the rest of Paul's letters as genuine
and authentic that feeble forgery entitled 'Letter to the Laodiceans.'333 It is
dangerous to trust those who trust so easily. I would rather be selective and
discriminating in what I believe than believe everything. But St Jerome, you
say, cites this letter under Paul's name and argues elsewhere that Paul is
the author.334 He cites it under Paul's name because most people read it as
Paul's; there was no call for drawing swords over the authorship on every
occasion. It is true that elsewhere Jerome does argue for Paul's authorship,
but this is not the only issue on which Jerome is cunning and capable of
pretence. I can well believe that he thought highly of the letter for its learning

332 See 11262 above.

333 Erasmus finds in Lefevre's biblical work what seems to him to be a lack
of critical spirit, overcharged with credulity. To prove this point, he notes
Lefevre's acceptance of an interpolation into Jerome's prologue to the Roman
Psalter - see Quincuplex psalterium 1513 ed sig Aiv recto, and Berger Les prefaces
jointes aux Hvres de la Bible 42 n8i (see n262 above); the inclusion in his Pauline
commentaries of the apocryphal correspondence between St Paul and Seneca
- see Ep 1620:25-7; and the attribution of the 'Epistle to the Laodiceans/ an
apocryphal text which undoubtedly stems from the fifth century, to the Apostle.
334 Eg Jerome Commentarii in Matheum 3 CCSL 77 197
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 56A / ASD IX-J l68 85

and its piety, and being not ill disposed to Plato's and Origen's view that
the crowd must sometimes be deceived,335 provided that the deception is
for its benefit, he was prepared to have Paul regarded as the author so that
the letter might be read with greater profit. But what his own opinion was
is uncertain, though not that uncertain if one cares to read through all his
works carefully. Origen, according to book six of the Ecclesiastical History,
admits that many have claimed that the letter was not by Paul even though he
does not count himself among them.336 Furthermore, many have been of the
opinion that the letter owes its elegance of expression to Clement, disciple of
the apostles and bishop of Rome; others have made the same claim for Luke.
Jerome, in his Catalogus scriptorum, carefully notes that there is a good deal of
correspondence between the letter which Clement wrote to the Corinthians
and this letter which is said to be from Paul to the Hebrews. Indeed, in his
Gains he writes as follows, 'Enumerating thirteen letters of Paul, Gaius says
that a fourteenth, which is called "To the Hebrews," is not by Paul/ In virtual
agreement with this judgment, Jerome adds, 'But among the Latin Fathers
even today the letter is not regarded as Paul's/ So Jerome.337
As for myself, I make no pronouncement concerning the author; I am sat-
isfied that doubt about the authorship arose early on, if I am not mistaken, and
doubt on the part of a number of orthodox believers, certain of whom have
gone so far as to deny that it was written by Paul, as we have just now seen from
the testimony of so many authors, including Augustine and Jerome, despite
your claim that no believers have gone this far, only Ebionites, Marcionites,
and the worst heretics of this sort; for this is how you speak, as though the label
heretic was not enough without adding 'worst/ Incidentally, I shall not cavil
over the linguistic error by which, when you mean to indicate a different brand
of heretic, you have spoken of the very same brand by saying 'heretics of this
sort/ even if there is added the none too fitting adjective 'worst/1 was deserv-
ing of the same leniency when I said that the letter was only lately accepted by
the Latin Fathers, since I was taking Jerome as my authority for this, who, as
you are aware, writes elsewhere that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not accepted
as genuine by the Latin Fathers in the same way that the Greek Fathers reject
the Apocalypse.33 Now if the letter was not accepted in Jerome's time, then it
was accepted only at a late date, in fact only after almost five hundred years.

335 Plato Republic 3-389B-C; Origen Contra Celsum eg 4.9 PG 11 iO38o-io39A

336 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.25. In this passage, Origen comments on the
scriptural canon.
337 Jerome De viris illustribus 15 and 59 PL 23 663, 706
338 See n323 above.
 APOLOGIA AD FABRUM LB IX 560 / ASD IX~3 l68 86

You insist that it has always been accepted by the orthodox and rejected only
by heretics. You would have some justification for taking this stand if Jerome
alone, speaking for the Latin Fathers, believed that only heretics rejected it.
No one rejects the letter simply because he does not accept it, for the person
who has not yet expressed his opinion has not accepted it. Heretics reject this
letter on the ground that it is lacking in piety, and I admit that their argu-
ments are in part those which Jerome indicates. You add this, namely, that no
Christian should subscribe to their view, even if the letter was for some time
rejected even by some orthodox believers on account of a few passages which
they suspected on first reading as seeming to lean towards certain heretical
views. Now if you are firmly convinced that the letter is by Paul and that its
authorship has been confirmed by the Holy Synod, why are you the first and
only one of mortals to dare to challenge even an iota in it? I attack the transla-
tor, you respond, not the author. As though the synod saw a different version
from the one which the church uses. If the synod read and approved the let-
ter as we have it, it would be strange if it did not also approve this reading,
which you demand be changed on the ground that it is false and heretical.339
Your final charge, that of ignorance, I hardly took seriously. In fact, it
afforded me some pleasure and amusement. Take my argument that since
Ambrose made no comment on it at all, the letter was not accepted by the
Roman church, or not until a late date. You come out with a variety of witty
ripostes to make sport of this. 'By the same rule/ you say, 'I could argue
that the letter of James, two letters of Peter, and others were accepted only
late by the Roman church since Ambrose made no comment on them, and
for my pains I will be hooted off, laughed to scorn, and show myself in
need of all the hellebore in Anticyra/340 Attack all the annotations in which
I take a different stand from you, and I do so with every justification, and
see whether I shall ever mock you with clever remarks of this kind. In one
place only, where you had made an egregious error and one which would
be truly embarrassing were it not such a common one for men to make, I
remark merely, "I am surprised that such a deep slumber crept upon this fine
man/341 This is the most openly critical remark I make. Could I have found
a more reasonable way of referring to a glaring error than to ascribe it to a
sudden drowsiness, not to mention the fact that I tried to soften even this by
adding as a compliment 'this fine man'?

339 See 11321 above. It is still a question of the Council of Florence.

340 Disputatio ASD ix-3 222:542-7. See n232 above.
341 Lefevre's error in translation concerns Titus 1:3. Cf Reeve in 694.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 57A / ASD IX~3 I/O 87

Now I make no claim for my powers in dialectic, even though I have

studied it since a boy. But even if I had never read my Aristotle or my
Boethius, both of whom I certainly have read, and others besides, just the
Topics of Cicero or Quintilian's Institutio oratoria could have taught me that
it does not necessarily follow that because Ambrose did not comment on
this letter the Roman church did not accept it. I do not reason as stupidly as
you suggest, a suggestion which reveals the truth of Terence's remark that
'nothing is so straightforward that it cannot be distorted by being wrongly
reported.'342 What I wrote was, 'There was so much doubt concerning the
author of this letter that it was accepted by the Roman church only at a
late date, since it is the only one on which Ambrose made no comment.' I
do not argue, as you think, that it was not accepted because Ambrose did
not comment on it; rather, I fasten one indication onto another, joining one
thread to the next, as the saying goes, to make a firm connection.343 For where
matters depend upon indications and compelling evidence is lacking, I have
the right, I think, to argue from the weight of probable proofs, especially
when I am not making an assertion. Jerome testifies, as I have pointed out,
that the letter was accepted only at a late date, that is, by the Romans. And I
mean the Roman church here, the Romans themselves, as Cyprian calls them,
not the Catholic church, as we now term it.344 So it is clear that there has
been doubt concerning the author, and I indicated a little earlier that there
are in the letter certain passages which some had found objectionable; and I
add to the stock, as it were, of other indications the fact that the Latin Father
Ambrose, though he wrote on all the other letters, omitted to comment on
this one only. This is not the same as saying that because Ambrose did not
comment on the letters of Peter they were accepted as genuine only at a later
date. Since Ambrose wrote on all the Pauline letters with the single exception
of this one, which is the longest and the most learned, it is likely that he too
had doubts about the authorship of it, something which can be concluded
from other arguments as well. A closer analogy would have been the case
of Dionysius, who numbers and lists by name the sacraments of the church
and omits only matrimony, from which it is reasonable to infer either that
matrimony was at that time not yet numbered among the sacraments, or that
Dionysius was unaware of the seventh sacrament, or whatever else might

342 Terence Phormio 696-7

343 Erasmus uses the Greek word.
344 The church in Rome and not the universal church (Cyprian Ep 60 CSEL 3 part 2
692)
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 5/D / ASD IX~3 170 88

seem legitimate.345 At least let this stand for the sake of illustration. Or, if
a king were to reward all of his officers with a gift with the exception of
just one officer, it would be reasonable to conclude that the king was not as
pleased with him as with the others.
Admittedly, this form of argument does not lead to a necessary conclu-
sion. Nevertheless, where a matter rests upon indications I do not think this
kind of reasoning deserves to be hooted at as needing all the hellebore in An-
ticyra,346 especially when there are a number of considerations which give
one another mutual support. For this is how you mock a friend. You really are
a jolly fellow,347 a very model of wit and eloquence. Otherwise, who would
tolerate that celebrated deduction which Boethius recounts, as well as the
rhetoricians, namely, 'How could he not have loved her if he carried her off?'
or 'If she is the mother, she loves her son'?348 Or how will you defend the ar-
gument which you employ in this very context, namely, 'This version existed
before Jerome; therefore, it was accepted by the Romans before Jerome'?
As though there is no distinction between being published and being ac-
cepted. Or this argument, which appears in the same context a little further
on, namely, 'Jerome draws upon this letter in replying to a heretic; therefore,
it was accepted by the Romans'? By this method I could reach the follow-
ing conclusions: 'He uses the evidence of the Nazarene Gospel349 against the
heretics; therefore, this Gospel was accepted by the church.' Or, 'Paul uses
the evidence of Epimenides and Aratus; therefore, their works were accepted
by the church.'350 Or, 'Theologians constantly employ the works of Aristotle
against the heretics; therefore, Aristotle was accepted by the church.'
The conjectures which I brought forward from time to time, if they
could not be used as the basis for affirming anything, were appropriate
enough to serve as a warning to the reader that there was something he might

345 For further discussions of marriage as a sacrament, see the other texts in this
volume. There is perhaps also an allusion here to Lefevre's naivety, in so far as
he does not doubt the identity of Pseudo-Dionysius, whose works he edited in
1498.
346 See n232 above.
347 Festivitas is one of the characteristics attributed by Erasmus to his friend Thomas
More.
348 Erasmus lists some examples of false reasoning. In 1496, Lefevre edited an
abridgement of Boethius' mathematical books, which was often reprinted.
349 This refers to an apocryphal Gospel which is sometimes called the Gospel
according to the Hebrews.
350 St Paul cites Epimenides in Titus 1:12 (see n422 below) and Aratus in Acts 17:28
(see n29i above).
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 5&A / ASD IX~3 1/2 89

examine further. At the same time, I frankly admit that had I been advised
by you at the time, or had I had more time to give the issue closer attention,
I would either have omitted mention of the matter in this context or have
brought it forward more carefully. But mistakes of this kind, which are the
result of carelessness, or are ones which human nature fails to anticipate, I
shall be only too pleased to correct at some other time, and I shall take the
greatest care not to give a handle to the critics, since I see that you, who
are so frank and civil in other matters, are violently upset over these points,
and this when they have no bearing, as you admit, upon your case.351 You
wish, of course, to appear to have been drawn into this controversy against
your will, though the crux of the whole matter lies in this, namely, your
assertion that we should read 'than God/ not 'than the angels.' Since I do not
reject your position on this, what additional reason could there be for you
to write against me? Even if I had rejected your view out of hand and were
less deserving than I am of your usual politeness, your own nature should
have kept you from using abusive language, if only to prevent others from
thinking the worse of your character and of my teaching. I wish I had been
permitted to escape this task of replying to you and been allowed to devote
my energy to pleasanter things.352 As it is, you attack me so many times in
the harshest language, and this in the middle of a published work, so that
it can only be deliberate, that silence on my part could be construed as an
admission of guilt. I have done my best to refrain from anger, and I have
defended my innocence in a polite and open manner, determined to keep my
pen free from abuse, and determined to do so for as long as you allow me. If
my reply offends you in any way, you ought to place the blame not on me,
but on those who have taken advantage of your naivety by encouraging you
to take on this piece in the hope that by setting us at odds they might be able
to use our discomfort as a source of their own amusement.353
You know Aristotle's sound observation that 'wickedness needs only
an excuse/354 and you are aware how 'the wicked outnumber the upright/ as
the Greek sage puts it.355 Several people are by their very nature disposed to

351 The question of the Pauline authenticity of the Epistle to the Hebrews is related
to the question under discussion in this controversy.
352 In order to compose the Apologia, Erasmus must have interrupted his translation
of Theodoras Gaza's De linguae Grecae institutione for a week (Ep 771:6-8).
353 See n8 above. The enemies are the conservative theologians.
354 Adagia u i 68: Occasione; Aristotle Rhetoric 1.12.23
355 Bias of Priene (sixth century BC), one of the seven sages of Greece according to
the testimony of Diogenes Laertius Lives of the Philosophers.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 58c / ASD IX~3 172 90

rejoice freely in others' discomforts and to believe that others' pains are their
own good fortune. To some people all writing is distasteful; to a great number
good writing is; and there is hardly anyone whom novelty does not offend.
All these people, my dear Lefevre, are just awaiting their chance. All the more
reason, then, for us to take care not to give it to them and to make sure that
the tail does not wag the dog, as they say.356 For since we have both taken on a
loathsome duty in the interest of the general good, it would be better for us to
be playing our role in harmony, or in concert, as they say.357 If our critics were
to sense that we are in conflict and disagreement with one another, we would
not only double our unpopularity but be robbed as well of all profit from the
energy which we have devoted to our work. Those who are now howling in
criticism because in the Lord's Prayer I have had the temerity to change 'for-
give us our debts' to 'remit our debts,'338 how do you imagine they are going
to react if they see us stabbing at each other with blow upon blow like gladia-
tors in the arena, and playing the buffoon like Horace's Balatro and Nomen-
tanus, who trade witty sayings for the merriment of the banqueteers?359 Look
at our distinguished correctors, they will say, on whose authority the edition
which has been approved for so many centuries is to be revised. How are we
to trust them if they do not agree between themselves? We shall turn out to be
the talk of the world, and all around the meeting places, the market squares,
the drinking shops, the courtyards, the barber shops, the parade grounds, and
the dockyards you will hear the names of Erasmus and Lefevre.360 For all the
toil which we have endured, this is the prize we shall end up taking away.
My dearest Lefevre, I beg you in the name of our friendship, which I for my
part have always tried to foster in sincerity and openness, in the name of that
love of study which draws us both along wherever it may lead, though the
greater success has been yours, I beg you, return to your natural self, return
to your true ways. To this point I have caused you no harm, not even when
I have been provoked. Allow me to stay true to myself. All you need to do
is to be prepared to change your attitude in the present instance and display
that former Lefevre, the Lefevre you have always been, both in our meet-
ings and in all our correspondence. What has happened cannot be wished

356 Adagia i ii 77: Ex ipso bove

357 Adagia n iv 41: Capere provinciam
358 The controversy set Erasmus and Thomas More, on the one side, against John
Batmanson, on the other (Rummel Catholic Critics 1118-19).
359 Horace Satires 1.8, and 2. Perhaps one should read Pantolabus the buffoon in
place of Balatro.
360 Erasmus thus thinks that the whole world is interested in his doings.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 58F / ASD IX~3 174 91

away. The book has been published. But apology is possible and I shall be
only too pleased to accept whatever excuse you wish to offer: it is an isolated
thing which came about through thoughtlessness; it is the result of over-
enthusiasm; these are human failings; I was pushed into it through bad ad-
vice; others took advantage of my naivety. If none of these excuses appeals to
you, then let us do what Homer's Agamemnon does and fall back upon some
madness as the cause of this unfortunate occurrence.361 When the course has
started badly it is better to run back to the start than to keep on to the end.
In heaven's name, I bitterly regret my fate, or rather my misfortune, in
being forced to descend to this kind of writing. I had more than enough to
keep me occupied, and it is the last thing I would wish to spend my hours
upon. If you had expressed your anger to me in a private letter, I would have
either ignored the business altogether or apologized to you privately. If you
had questioned my intelligence, I would have overlooked the insult. As it
is, when in published works you make me out to be an opponent, when in
fact I am on your side, and present as the ground for our dispute the fact
that you are upholding Christ's dignity while I am detracting from it; that
your book is pious and devout, while mine is quite unworthy of God and
Christ; that yours belongs to Christians and those who are led by the spirit,
while mine belongs to Jews and infidels and those who stick to the letter
which destroys, and when you are not content with having said things once,
but attack and abuse over and over again throughout your whole treatise,
I ask you, what could be done?362 Ought I to have ignored your criticisms
in silence, especially when I not only had entertained no such thoughts in
my mind but had made not even a verbal slip? If you think that I have
pleaded my case too freely, bear in mind that there is nothing more free
than innocence. If certain of my remarks betray my hurt, think in how many
particulars I have not allowed my hurt to show. I think that I have displayed
enough moderation by answering your brand of abuse and criticism with
arguments instead of insults. So far my pen has been stained with nobody's
blood. Allow me to enjoy this distinction for ever. So far I have controlled
my outrage, even though it has been justified. But I am a man and I cannot
predict what I might be able to tolerate in future. 'Patience abused turns often
into anger.'363

361 Homer Iliad 19.88-91. On Ate, see 11435 below.

362 Erasmus repeatedly rehashes those sentences of Lefevre which have wounded
him.
363 Adagia i v 67: Funem abrumpere. Publianus' or Publilius Syrus' expression is
Furor fit laesa saepius patientia (ASD n-i 543:573-4).
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 590 / ASD IX~3 176 92

If you must attack me, attack me with charges of such a kind that my
forbearance in ignoring or excusing them is taken to my credit. As it is, if
I am to clear myself, I am compelled to harm a friend; if I remain silent,
I am forced into an acknowledgment of a crime which it would be worth
fighting to the death to deny. If it is an inescapable and necessary condition
of scholarship to be compelled to undermine the reputations of others by
attacking their books, or to be fighting with one critic after another to clear
one's own name, then I would rather bid it farewell. Either I sleep in silence,
or I look out for myself and my studies.364 For what has been so carefully
written that one cannot find something in it to criticize? And what has been
so faultily written that it cannot be defended on one pretext or another? But
if it has been determined that all the writings of the older generations of
commentators are to be defended equally, while those of the moderns are to
be subjected to your kind of abuse, then it is now time to put my pen away.
How much more proper it is to revere the older writers without absolving
them from reasonable criticism, and to challenge the moderns, but with a
proper degree of impartiality. Since we are human beings reading the works
of other human beings we ought to overlook many things and be prepared
in certain instances to interpret things to the author's advantage.
Besides, of what importance is it to find in my humble notes, who am
nobody, something which an ungenerous critic might distort, when there
are more things in the writings of Jerome, Ambrose, Cyprian, Augustine,
and Gregory which no amount of ingenuity could defend if they were given
an unfair hearing? For, not to leave you without an example, how in all
conscience will you defend what Ambrose wrote in defence of Peter's denial:
'For one who said, "I do not know the man," it was reasonable, when asked
whether he was one of the man's disciples, to say, "I am not." So he did not
deny that he was a disciple of Christ, he denied that he was a disciple of a
man. Thus, both Peter and Paul denied that the one whom they confessed as
the Son of God was a man'?365 I ask you, if you would condemn a writer out
of his own mouth, what more heretical statement could be made than that
Christ was not a man, with Peter and Paul brought in as support? Compare
what Augustine says on the Eighth Psalm: 'Why "a worm"? Because he
was mortal, because he was born of the flesh, because he was born without
intercourse. Why "not a man"? Because in the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'366 Who would tolerate

364 See Ep 785:9-10 to Thomas More.

365 Ambrose Expositio evangelii Lucae 10.84 CSEL 32 P31"* 4 4^7
366 Augustine Enarratio n in psalmum 21 CCSL 38 125
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 59F / ASD IX~3 176 93

Christ being said to be not a man because he is God? Again, consider what
Augustine writes in On the Trinity, namely, that when Christ was about to
ascend into heaven the apostles 'believed only what they saw/367 Do you
not consider it a blasphemy against the apostles to suggest that they did not
believe he was God, when Peter admitted long before that the Son of God
lived, and Thomas had openly confessed him as his own Lord and God?368
If we believe that these things and many others like them were devoutly
written, and if we are prepared to put a generous interpretation on them
in such renowned writers, why are we so niggling and uncharitable when
it comes to the work of more recent commentators? Even the most eloquent
babble as best they can about divine matters. Moreover, is our own writing
letter-perfect? But, you will say, we do not apply the same standard to
Erasmus as to Augustine. Certainly, to the extent that he is the greater, my
authority is no doubt less than his; yet I deserved the greater indulgence.
Though I do think it is unworthy of learned men to measure authority in
terms of age rather than substance.
However, enough of this digression. When the sincerity of a writer's
belief is not in question, it is churlish to raise a storm over his language.369
Moreover, it is not only quite alien to human feeling but also contrary to
Christian charity to be on the prowl against other men's writings while
excepting your own, and to play the Momus, or denunciator,370 all the time
failing to realize that the practice which you are endorsing may work unfairly
against you as well. Unless you imagine that your own writings are so precise
in every detail that they leave no room at all for criticism, even though in this
one small treatise alone there are so many things to offend even the generous
reader. Perhaps you think it a fine show when Jerome battles with Rufinus
with volume after volume, or with Augustine, even if afterwards he renews
his friendship with him, though not before their argument was concluded.371
There is no one who yields to genius willingly, as Martial has it.372 Or perhaps
you do not consider it a grand crime that I have overthrown, or shaken rather,
Pico's ten conclusions and diverted so happy a talent from promoting the

367 Augustine De Trinitate 1.9 CCSL 50 53-4

368 Matt 16:16; John 20:28
369 See ni8 above.
370 Adagia i v 74: Momo satisfacere; Adagia u iii 81: Sycophanta
371 Jerome is famous for his theological quarrels with Rufinus of Aquileia, against
whom he wrote an Apologia, whose title Erasmus has chosen for his work against
Lefevre. Augustine set himself in opposition to Jerome over certain biblical
translations.
372 Martial Epigrams 8.18.10
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 6OC / ASD IX~3 178 94

Holy Scriptures.373 And perhaps you approve of that unceasing and ill-
tempered barrage which so many schools of theology and the whole tribe
of preachers have kept up for several years against some obscure book of
Reuchlin.374 Because of our friendship I found it painfully disturbing to see
you too being assailed by those hornets. For I read at Basel the letter in
which the cardinal of Sinigallia pleaded your case against those who were
denouncing you over an annotation on the Thirteenth Psalm based upon
the view of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa to the effect that the soul of Christ
suffered torments in hell, and he was satisfied if his defence could so much as
clear you from a charge of heresy.375 More than that, I heard personally some
learned and distinguished men damning your commentaries, and certain
of them went so far as to mark some passages in them with a pen. If you
approve of that kind of peevish and spiteful attention to detail, then tell me, I
beg you, what purpose it serves and what benefit it gives. There will always
be something to criticize for the person who picks up a book with the express
purpose of finding it. If there is not a single one of the old writers who does
not at some point need to be read with indulgence, then to scrutinize so
unfairly the modern writers is not attention to detail, but envy.
We turn a blind eye to the fact that Jerome not only defends but argues
vehemently for the view that it is permissible for someone who has been
married before baptism to be a priest on the ground that having been
baptized and having concluded his former contract he has entered into a new
one, and calls the view of those who uphold what both the pontifical laws and
the schools of theology now teach the heresy of Cain.376 And this is to take just
one example from many. It does no damage to St Ambrose's reputation that
in commenting on the seventh chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians he
maintains that it is legal for a man who has divorced his wife for adultery to
marry a second time, while denying the same right to the wife. I shall quote
his exact words: 'It is permissible for a man to take a second wife if he has
divorced a wife who has sinned, because he is not constrained by the law as a
woman is; for the man has authority over the woman.'377 It is ridiculous and

373 In 1486, Pico defended thirteen theses, out of nine hundred which had been
declared suspect, in an Apologia.
374 Lefevre sided with Reuchlin just as Erasmus did. See n27O above.
375 On this episode, see Bedouelle Quincuplex psalterium 154-61. The cardinal of
Sinigallia was Marco Vigerio (d 1516), who wrote an Apologia in defence of
Lefevre. The term apologia thus frequently reappears in this passage.
376 Jerome Ep 69 CSEL 54 679-80
377 Ambrosiaster In epistulas ad Corinthios CSEL 81 part 2 75. The assertion that
Ambrose is the author of this passage is too insistent. See ni39 above.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 6OE / ASD IX~3 1/8 95

clearly a mark of desperation for the compiler of the Book of Sentences to excuse
Ambrose by claiming that these words are an interpolation when the total
of Ambrose's books is agreed upon and there is no inconsistency in style.378
Our reverent regard for Cyprian is not diminished because he thought that
those who had been baptized by someone who had been suspected of heresy
should be baptized again. Yet this one issue caused the Donatists and the
Rogatiani to be regarded as heretics even though they were orthodox in
other respects, as even Augustine admits.379 Nobody challenges Augustine
for writing that on the night when her son was taken and then suffered, the
mother of Jesus wavered greatly in her faith, though less than did the rest
of the apostles. Should anyone desire it, the reference is question seventy-
three in his Questions on the Old and New Testament. For those who do not
have it at hand I shall quote his exact words: 'Now in adding, "Sorrow
will pass through your own heart so that the thoughts of many might be
revealed," Simeon indicated that even Mary, through whom the mystery of
the incarnation of the Saviour was brought about, would waver at the death
of the Lord only to be strengthened through the resurrection/380 Likewise,
nobody is about to bring an action against him for attributing to the chief of
the apostles, Peter, even after receiving the Holy Ghost, a wicked pretence
and an evil zeal for oppressing the gentiles. For in commenting on the Epistle
to the Galatians he writes as follows: 'When Peter had come to Antioch
he was scolded by Paul, not because he kept the custom of the Jews in
which he was born and raised, though he did not do so when he was with
gentiles, but because he wished to impose it upon the gentiles/381 Again, in
Concerning the Christian Battle, chapter thirty, he terms this conduct on Peter's
part 'superstitious pretence,' and adds it to the list of his other shortcomings
- his lack of faith, and his resistance to and denial of Christ. Moreover, a
little later in the same chapter he speaks more strongly still in attributing
cowardly pretence to Peter, saying, 'The Catholic church accepts these into
its motherly bosom, such as Peter, despite his weeping when warned of his
denial by the crowing of the cock, and despite his cowardly pretence when

378 Peter Lombard Sententiae book 4 dist 35 c 3

379 This is the subject of a controversy between Cyprian and Stephen, the bishop
of Rome, in the year 256. The Donatists were opposed to the administration
of the sacraments by those who had betrayed the Christian faith during the
persecution, or their successors. The Rogatiani constituted a moderate branch
of the Donatists, directed by Rogatus of Cartenna in Mauretania (Augustine Ep
93 PL 33 32iff).
380 Pseudo-Augustini Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti 77.2 CSEL 50 131
381 Augustine Ad Galatas 1.15 PL 35 2113 (on Gal 2:11-16)
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 6lB / ASD IX~3 l8o 96

corrected by the voice of Paul/382 And far from retracting these statements,383
Augustine went on to challenge Jerome, who had been unwilling to attribute
wickedness to Peter, to change his mind - a wickedness, we might add, which
we cannot believe was in him even before he came to know the teaching
of Christ. For whatever sins Peter committed were due not to any intended
wickedness, but either to a zealous but mistaken passion or to some sudden
panic or human weakness. And I believe that the same holds true for Paul.
Nobody calls Chrysostom to court because he attributed to the Virgin
Mary the kind of passion which characterizes the general run of mothers,
who are domineering with their children and eager to secure praise and
reputation through them. For in his commentary on the twelfth chapter of
Matthew he includes the following: 'Some measure of maternal forwardness
naturally besets every mother. Consider the forwardness, therefore, as much
his mother's as his brothers'. For when they ought to have gone inside and
listened to Jesus along with the crowds, or at least waited outside until he
had finished speaking and only then gone in, they were driven by a certain
vanity and ostentation to summon him outside in the presence of all.'384
And the rest of what he goes on to say is in the same vein. Chrysostom
again says the same things when commenting on chapter 11 of the Gospel
according to John, but more clearly and emphatically, in speaking of Mary
in the following manner: 'For she desired to procure the good opinion of
men and to become more famous herself through her son's reputation, and
was perhaps beset by a human forwardness. Just as his brothers too, when
they said, "Show yourself to the world," were desirous of securing fame for
themselves through his miraculous deeds.' And a little later he says, 'Indeed,
up to that point they did not have the opinion of him that he deserved, and
Mary, as mothers do, thought it proper for her to direct her son in all things,
even though she must revere and honour him as Lord.'385 Why need I go
on to mention something which is frequent in all the older writers, namely,
the view that Christ alone is free from the sin of his birth? This is a serious
charge against them and as reproachful to the Virgin Mary as the tribes of
Scotists wish it to appear.386

382 Augustine De agone christiano 30.32 CSEL 41135

383 Literally, 'to sing a palinode.' Adagia i ix 59: Palinodiam canere
384 Chrysostom Commentarius in Matthaeum horn 44-5 PG 57 464-5 (different text
from that of Erasmus)
385 Chrysostom Commentarius in lohannem PG 59 129-30 (different text)
386 The Scotists defended the theology of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin
Mary and thus would not suffer anyone to speak of her weaknesses.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 6lE / ASD IX~3 l82 97

Now we mention these examples not for the purpose of publicly mock-
ing the mistakes of the older generation of commentators, but in order to
make it clear how unfair it is to allow nothing in the writings of more re-
cent commentators to escape scrutiny, and to distort and criticize statements
which are made sincerely and devoutly: This smacks of heresy/ 'This has
a bad sound to it/ 'This could be a stumbling block/ 'This has a suspicious
ring/ 'This displays too little reverence for our teachers/387 Rather, let us
agree to apply to all writers the principle which St Augustine wishes to be
adopted in the case of all his writings, and which he enunciates in On the
Trinity, book one, chapter three: 'Whoever reads these writings, wherever
he is equally as certain as I am, let him go along with me; wherever he is
equally doubtful, let him investigate with me; wherever he recognizes an er-
ror as his own, let him come back to me; wherever he detects an error which
is mine, let him call me back: in this way let us proceed side by side along
the path of charity, making our way together in search of him of whom it
has been spoken, "Seek always his face." This is the sacred and secure agree-
ment I seek in the presence of our Lord with all who read what I write, in
all my works and most especially in this one, where we are inquiring into
the unity of the Trinity/388 How much more sensible is this approach, my
dear Lefevre, than for us to destroy our work and others' by engaging in
mutual criticism, or, as St Paul puts it, by biting and being bitten in return.389
I really do not think that even Christ would be pleased to have his dignity
defended if it means that we ruin our reputations as Christians. He is the
author of peace; he is best pleased by harmony among his own. Whatever you
allow to be done to a brother, whether it be a kindness or an abuse, when it is
done it rebounds upon itself. Discord arises from ever so faint a spark, and
once aflame spreads fire all around. Then they rush forward on this side and
that, partisans and allies, the hateful and the malicious, some to pour cold
water, as they say,390 others oil, upon the blaze,391 and suddenly what was an
argument between two becomes a full-scale war, and there is no stopping
before the whole thing ends in mayhem. Meanwhile, we lose what I regard
as our dearest possession, and that is friendship. Your supporters are angry
at me,392 and some of mine, I suspect, are indignant at you. How much more

387 Comments attributed to the theologians

388 Augustine De Trinitate 1.3 CCSL 50 32
389 Gal 5:15
390 Adagia 1x51: Frigidam aquam
391 Adagia i ii 9: Oleum
392 See 111143,55 above.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 62B / ASD IX~3 182 98

acceptable it would be for us to share as friends and reap a double harvest.

If there is some chance that we can contest on the field of the Scriptures,
as Jerome puts it,393 without causing ourselves pain, then let us join in
competition with each other and either teach or learn something. But if
anyone who disagrees with you in any way at all is your enemy to be assailed
by such rocks as you hurl, then I quit the field and reject the terms of combat;
that kind of battle belongs to gladiators, not to theologians.
Error is human and so is Christian reproof. I corrected your mistakes
with the hope of receiving your thanks, as anyone who corrected mine would
receive thanks from me. I would not hesitate to correct Jerome himself in
the same way if he were alive. And I have no doubt that he would take it
in good part. If I cannot ignore your errors it is because I hold you in too
high regard. Yet you have preferred to retaliate rather than accept my advice
and correct your mistakes. I merely mentioned in a restrained manner and
without any exaggeration that you had slipped up in certain particulars. You,
on the other hand, charge me with impiety even where I have committed
no error. This is how you calculate the repayment which charity is owed.
St Augustine does not consider himself above criticism when he has made
a slip,394 while you, not yet a bishop, nor elected yet, I think, to the senate
of theologians,395 thought it would be a disgrace to change anything in your
second edition. Did you think it more desirable for many to err with you than
for you to acknowledge your own mistakes? I have not yet drawn up a list of
all the instances, but I have come across some places where frankly, my dear
Lefevre, I completely fail to understand your intention. With reference to
chapter 2 of the Epistle to the Colossians, I noted that you had made a mistake
over the word Kara/3pa/3eveVco; and when I had proved my point using the
testimony of Jerome, the Greek scholiasts,396 and finally Ambrose, I added,
'These authorities make it quite clear how far from correct in this passage
is the opinion of Jacques Lefevre, a man who is otherwise most learned.'
See whether there is anything insulting here, whether there is anything
which resembles your style, whether I refute you in a hostile fashion by
suggesting that you are unworthy of God and Christ. To the contrary, of my
own accord I excuse your slip by adding, 'But he has been led into this by

393 Jerome Ep 115 CSEL 55 397

394 Augustine wrote his Retractationes at the end of his life. See nii5 above.
395 Here, Erasmus picks up again the prejudice of the theologians against Lefevre,
who was first and foremost a philosopher.
396 Pseudo-Oecumenius PG 119 38-9 and ASD ix-2 195 n539; Apologia ASD ix-3
i85:24i2n
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 62E / ASD IX~3 184 99

Valla, who thinks that the verb Karafipafievtiv means "to call before a judge"
or "to threaten with a judge/"397 Yet despite my advice you did not think
you needed to make a change, and even now your translation reads, 'Let
no one willingly call you before a judge/ Right up to the present you cling
tenaciously398 to this most unnatural interpretation, which differs from that
of all the older commentators, adding in your explanation only the following:
'Let no one deprive you of the prize, or else, let no one call you before a
judge. For there are those who think that the word KaTa/3pa/3etierco in this
position means the latter, and it is upon their assumption that I have based
my interpretation/399 Now, first of all, there is no difference, is there, whether
you say 'deprive you of the prize' or 'turn aside the judge'? Second, does
Valla's authority stand so great with you that you prefer to follow him alone
against all the theologians of the past, including Jerome,400 especially when
Valla points to nobody's authority to confirm what he says? Recognize, I beg
you, that when you were treating these matters, when you wished to alter
the meaning which the world accepted, it was unworthy of you to dismiss
the reading which Ambrose had preferred,401 the notation which Jerome
had made, a man who is exceedingly scrupulous in these matters, and the
interpretation which the Greek commentators had handed down. Or did you
think that you could deal with so serious an issue in such an offhand and
cavalier fashion?4021 did not say what I did in order to condemn you, my dear
Lefevre, but in order to make you pay more attention in the future, the kind
of attention, indeed, I wish you had paid to previous commentators, of whom
there are very many, when you published your Commentaries on the Psalms.403
Again, with reference to chapter 4 of the Epistle to the Ephesians, where
in an embarrassing slip you mistook nvfieiav for some word /cwei'ay, since
you could not find a way to evade your mistake you did in your transla-
tion substitute 'treachery' for 'disturbance'; but in your exposition you have

397 On Col 2:18, see Reeve m 640. Erasmus himself was the first to publish Valla's
annotations.
398 Adagio, i iv 22: Mordicus tenere (pertinacia)
399 Lefevre Commentaries on Col 2:18
400 In the Vulgate
401 Ambrosiaster In epistulam ad Colosenses CSEL 81 part 3 189. Jerome did not write
any commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians.
402 Adagio, i iv 27: Molli brachio
403 The Quincuplex psalterium certainly contained some patristic references, but
Lefevre remained very independent of them (Bedouelle Quincuplex psalterium
81-92). It is also true that his preface honoured the Fathers of the church who
had commented upon the Psalter.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 636 / ASD IX~3 184 1OO

retained 'disturbance' and do not change your ridiculous and strained inter-
pretation. In your examination, meanwhile, you have retained your original
note, but without explaining what Ku/3eia means, as though 'treachery' ex-
presses the Greek word literally.404 If no annotation was required here, why
did you make an annotation in your earlier edition? If an annotation was re-
quired, why do you omit one? If what I had proposed offended you, why
did you not offer something better? I do not demand that you acknowledge a
person who corrects you, but in teaching I do require frankness, and what is
more, there was more reason for you to name me here than there, where my
remarks have no bearing upon you. I ask you, what is this pride, I do not want
to call it arrogance? Is it so strong that you think it a disgrace to recant?405
To come to another point, with respect to chapter 2 of the Epistle to
the Philippians, where you have translated Trapa/SouAeucrajueyo? as 'ready to
offer his life after deliberation/ even though I have pointed out the force
of the participle you still cling tenaciously to your 'ready to offer after
deliberation/ In the first place, who ever said 'after deliberation' when he
meant 'voluntarily'? Second, since the participle is aorist, how can it mean
'ready to offer'? The preferred translation would have been 'having handed
over' or 'exposed his life to danger/ Third, who ever has said 'offer' when
he meant 'expose to danger'? For when Christ says, 'I offer my life/ he uses
'offer' in the sense of 'offer up/4°6
Now just as in my annotations I deliberately overlooked a number of
points in the hope that by commenting on just a few I would encourage you
to be more careful, though I was ready to offer more if by chance you should
have asked me to do so in your letters, so I have no mind to go into every
particular here. All the same, since you were publishing a second edition
of your work, credibility demanded that you remove certain things which
scholars could not read without either laughter or disgust. For example, the
passage in chapter 6 of the Epistle to the Ephesians, namely, 'against the
spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly world/ where, even though the
Greek says 'in the heavenly world/ you assert that it is possible to read it as
'towards those in heaven/ meaning 'against those in heaven/ as if in Greek
the preposition kv could in any way mean 'against' in the same way that the

404 On Eph 4:14, see Lefevre 1512 ed fol 381-. After Erasmus' remark (Reeve m 606),
Lefevre changed the text, but removed his note without mentioning Erasmus.
405 In Greek. See ^83 above.
406 On Phil 2:30. Erasmus does not name Lefevre at this point in his Annotationes
(Reeve in 626). Erasmus' most significant reproach to Lefevre is thus that he
has been stubborn and maintained his errors throughout his editions.
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 630 / ASD IX~3 l86 1O1

preposition eis can.407 When you write these things, my dear Lefevre, what
else are you doing except presenting yourself as a laughing-stock even to
children? In the same category is your translation of KO.T' o^OaX^obovXeiav
as 'subjection to the eye/ when the translator had given the linguistically
more proper 'eye-service/ Likewise, in chapter 7 of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, the words Trapayei yap TO <r)(f//xa TOV KO(T{JLOV you translate and
annotate as 'the shape of this world deceives/ not recognizing that the word
vrapdyet is intransitive, something which you could have gathered from other
instances, especially since so many times in the Gospel you read uTraye omVco,
'get behind me.'408 Ought you not to have changed this, especially since you
are the only one to have proposed it and all writers stand opposed to your
view? Yet notice how in my annotations I do not attack you on this matter,
even though I would have been entirely justified in doing so.
Again, in chapter 5 of the same Epistle, with reference to the word
o-vvaxOevTuw you go against all the Greek and Latin Fathers, and against Greek
grammar itself, in translating, and defending it in an annotation, 'when you
are grieving together' instead of 'when you are gathered together/ What
mistake could be more hideous than this? Yet notice the respect and deference
with which I express my disagreement with you on this point. You could
wish for nothing more from one who is more devoted to you, save only that,
not agreeing with you, he make mention of your name, since in other respects
my conduct could not have been more charitable and respectful. As it is,
the matter itself left me no option, as any perceptive reader who compares
your words closely with mine will clearly see. In fact, since not everyone
has access to all the volumes, I will quote what I wrote: 'My friend Jacques
Lefevre has emended this passage, claiming that avvayOivTuv is formed from
the verb vvva.y6oiw.i; but I do not subscribe to his judgment on this point,
even though in other things I willingly agree with him as a man who is as
learned as he is precise.' This is my annotation.409 Your mistake cannot be
excused, and you yourself have made sure that it not be covered over or
disguised.410 Now although any mistake in books which treat divine matters

407 On Eph 6:6, see Lefevre 1512 ed fol 39V. Lefevre could have read Erasmus'
Annotationes, and even if he was not mentioned explicitly in relation to this
point, he could have profited by it.
408 i Cor 7:31; Reeve n 465. The gospel citation is found in Matt 16:23 and Mark
8:33.
409 i Cor 5:4; Reeve n 452-3
410 In fact, Lefevre had for once taken account of Erasmus' criticism, and he even
mentioned it in his second edition of 1515, fols io7v-io8r.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 6$A / ASD IX~3 l88 1O2

is significant, the change in this one word, apart from the fact that it gives
a weak and pale sense, removes something which weighty and respected
interpreters have regarded as noteworthy, namely, that Paul, even though he
was appointed an apostle by Christ himself,4" does not take upon himself
the authority to declare his opinion solely in his own name, but prefers that it
be grounded in the accepted view of the church,412 acting differently in this
regard than certain bishops today, who wield an absolute tyranny over those
under them and in everything act according to their own wishes, without
regard for public debate. In addition, this passage serves notice that if anyone
shall have committed an act which deserves to be criticized, this criticism
should be made openly, not secretly and in private, partly in order that one
example might deter the rest from sinning, and partly to protect against
someone suffering disrepute as a result of a false accusation and an unjust
verdict. Your translation, 'grieving together/ removed this healthy warning.
Accordingly, given that it was worthwhile my pointing out your mistake,
and the public good almost required me to do so,413 how could anyone have
done it in a more charitable, respectful, and sincere fashion than I did? Come
now, compare your gracious treatise, if you please, with my critical attack,
if attack is the word it deserves. In my work there is a complete absence of
sourness, malice, anger, and display, and I correct a friend's mistake only
to give him support. You, on the other hand, in the course of one small414
treatise virtually drown in spite a friend who has committed no mistake and
who is on your side. Moreover, the weight of your authority was not so great
that anyone could interpret this politeness of mine as fear, nor was your
generosity so marked that I could appear to be flattering you in the hope
of a reward. My restraint was the result of charitableness, not agreement or
apprehension.
But to continue. With respect to chapter 6 of the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians, who, I ask you, is ready to accept these words, 'in good fortune
and in bad fortune,' which signify absolutely nothing? Yet you ignored my
advice and refused to change them.415 Again, in chapter 10 of the same
Epistle, where out of a single adverbial, or if you prefer, prepositional,

411 See Gal 1:12.

412 A significant remark for revealing Erasmus' ecclesiology, which is based here
upon the consensus ecdesiae.
413 See nai above. The responsibility of any commentator on the Bible is also
pastoral.
414 This refers to Lefevre's Disputatio.
415 2 Cor 6:7; Reeve n 540
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 640 / ASD IX~3 190 1O3

word, i)7T€p€K€Lua, you have made two words, vnep e/ceu>a (and virep^Lva,
incidentally, is no different from eVe/cei^a, since em often has the same force
as uTrep), and you have translated 'which are above those of yours'? In your
examination you do not change your translation, except that what you earlier
preferred, namely, 'which are beyond yours/ you transform into 'which are
beyond you'; and in your second edition you have omitted your rule for the
use of vTrep in Greek, presumably because someone advised you that it was
completely wrong, since the Greeks, when they say 'over the head,' use the
expression uvrep TTJS /ce^aA?)?, not vTTtpavu 7779 /cec^aA???.416 I congratulate you
for omitting what you have, but I do not approve of what you fight tooth and
nail to retain,417 since it is clearly ridiculous to anyone who knows Greek.
Again, in chapter 5 of the Epistle to the Ephesians, when you alone of
writers of Greek and Latin get 'unhealthiness' out of the Greek word for
'profligacy/ are you not guilty of making the Apostle a doctor? You ignored
my advice and decided not to change it. But suppose the word do-om'a here
is in fact derived from crcoros, even though the etymologists maintain that it
is from creVcoTcu, ao-coro? will not necessarily mean 'unhealthy/ but 'wasted/
and even in Terence we have characters who are described as 'wasted by
profligacy/ You seem to take 'profligate' to mean 'libidinous' or 'lustful.'418
Then you turn to jesting, leaving the linguistic argument to the grammarians,
as though you were not yourself taking the part of a grammarian in inquiring
into these matters, and you add the following fine witticism: 'Grammarians
search for the origins of words more diligently than philosophers search for
the source of the Nile' - implying, I suppose, that you are excluding yourself
from the grammarians' camp and enlisting in the ranks of the philosophers.419
Whether the grammarians would have you in their number I do not know;
and whether the philosophers torture themselves over the source of the Nile
you will find out. One thing I do know, that it is more to the point than the
source of the Nile whether in this passage Paul understood 'profligacy' as the
opposite of temperance and continence, or 'unhealthiness' as the concern of
doctors.
Again, in the Epistle to Titus, with respect to your translation of the
words ey KrjpvyfjLarL 8 kiri(TTtvQr]v eyoo as 'in preaching, to which I am bound,
or committed/ you not only refuse to correct so embarrassing an error,
despite being advised to do so, but even compound the mistake in your

416 2 Cor 10:16

417 Adagia i iv 23: Toto corpore
418 Eph 5:18. The allusion to Terence is to Adelphi 760.
419 The headwaters of the Nile were unknown. Cf Horace Odes 4.14.45.
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 6$A / ASD IX~3 190 104

second edition by declaring that you have retained your original translation,
and adding that there is no difference between 'which has been entrusted
to me' and 'to which I am bound/420 Here, my dear Lefevre, I appeal
to your conscience.421 When you were writing this, were you not aware
of the amusement you would be giving to learned readers? In Greek, of
course, o eirio-TevQ-qv and o> eTTio-TtvOyv have the same force. You yourself read
0 eTTKrr^vdfjv, though even if someone were to adopt the reading o> tmo-Ttvdriv
1 could demonstrate that the meaning is the same, but only in Greek. But
does it make no difference in Latin whether you say 'Peter is committed
to me' or 'I am committed to Peter'? For this is what you are saying. The
fact that you have made so egregious an error I have put down to a sudden
case of drowsiness. But as to the fact that you do not correct these things,
despite my friendly admonishment, I ask you, what name can I give to that?
Now as to that refrain in the same passage, namely, 'Cretans are always liars,
evil beasts, slow bellies,' I am amazed indeed that you take such obstinate
pleasure in it.422 Further, in chapter 13 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
what need was there to note that the words /ecu ovs p.tv e0ero 6 6>e6? ey TT)
e/e/eATjcria can be translated 'and God has set his own in the church/ when it
is clear that ou? there is an alternate form not of eous (his own), but of row
(some), an alternative which ought not to have appeared strange to you since
it occurs more than ten times in the New Testament?423
Since there were very many instances of this sort in your Commentaries,
and I had pointed to certain of them, it was left to your vigilance to weigh the
remainder carefully in your second edition, and to deprive sarcastic critics
of the opportunity for laughter. Yet anyone who points out your mistakes,
and does so in a friendly manner, you regard as an enemy and deserving
of the kind of gratitude which you have paid me in your treatise. Would
that you had avoided entirely the field of translation and annotation, a field
which, as I have said, is not really your forte. There are more important
matters you could have engaged in. This field, humble as it is, demands skill
in both Greek and Latin, and your expertise in these needs no comment,
since your own writings bear clear witness. For example, with respect to
the words oi //ey e£ kpiQeias, ol 8e e£ 0,70,7:77? in chapter i of the Epistle to
the Philippians, you maintain that 'who' would be a better translation than

420 Titus 1:3; Reeve in 694. Lefevre had maintained his position in his edition of
1515,fol2i2r-v.
421 See n224 above.
422 Titus 1:12. This is a citation from Epimenides (Reeve in 696).
423 i Cor 12:28; Reeve n 497
 APOLOGY AGAINST LEFEVRE LB IX 6$D / ASD IX~3 192 105

'some': what you fail to notice is that what we have here is the definite article
used distributively, not the relative pronoun which carries an accent, that is,
ot; not to mention the fact that no sense at all emerges if you read 'who/424
Another thing which is constant in your examinations is that whatever your
Greek manuscript had in it, you ascribe unhesitatingly to Paul, as though
Greek manuscripts do not sometimes vary, or are never corrupt, when I
myself discovered in a particularly fine manuscript copy the following words
written in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians: Seojueyoi rj^&v rrjv Xapiv KOL
rr]v KOLVtoviav TT)? §ia/coi/i'as 777? et? rot;? ayi'ou? §e£aa-$ai ^jixa?- ev TroAAot? r<wi>
avTLypatydnv OUTCO? eu/37/rat, KCU ov Ka^oo? ^A/TnVajuef .425 What we have here, of
course, is a case of several words being transferred by an illiterate scribe
from the margin to the body of the text. In order to make this clearer to
those who do not know Greek, I shall translate as follows: 'Asking that we
receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints; in many
manuscript copies appears the following: "and not as we hoped/" It is clear
that the words 'in many manuscript copies appears the following' represent
someone's marginal annotation. It is risky, therefore, to place immediate trust
in your manuscript and to make pronouncements before examining all the
manuscripts.
My dear Lef evre, if in your second edition you had taken care to correct
these instances and countless others like them, you would have been paying
due regard to your good name and to me as well, since friends have all things
in common,426 and when we are working in a similar field an egregious
error on your part diminishes my credibility as well among those with less
experience. As it is, you were so little inclined to worry over any of these
things that your sole motive in hurrying your second edition along might
seem to have been a desire to attack a friend. Indeed, I can well see that
certain people are likely to come to such a conclusion. For why would they
not put this interpretation on your wordy and elaborate criticism427 when
they put a sinister interpretation even on the praises which at the end of your
treatise you heap upon me, or which you use rather to stroke my head?428

424 Phil 1:16-17. There is no mention of Lefevre in the Annotationes.

425 2 Cor 8:4-5. For further information on the Greek manuscripts which Erasmus
used, see Apologia ASD ix-3 193:2567^ According to Steenbeek, this interpolated
manuscript is MS Greek suppl 2 of the National Library in Vienna, loaned to
Erasmus by the monastery of Corsendonck, near Turnhout (193:2569^.
426 Adagia i i i: Amicorum communia
427 Erasmus wrote a much more voluminous work than Lefevre's.
428 Adagia in i 37: Demulcere caput
 A P O L O G I A AD F A B R U M LB IX 66A / ASD IX~3 194 1O6

Look, they say, he credits Erasmus with a keen eye for detail, he credits him
with eloquence, linguistic skill, attention to those who have a passion for
learning, but nowhere does he go so far as to call him a fine person; in short,
he grants him only industry and talent, when the most important aspect of
praise is praise of the person's life and principles.429 Finally, you do not
call me a theologian, but a would-be theologian.430 What else is a would-
be theologian, they say, than one who merely claims and appropriates the
profession for himself? In fact, there is nothing I would claim for myself less
than the profession of theologian, even though at the insistence of certain of
my friends I long ago took that rank. Where in my writings do I boast of
being a theologian? Who has ever heard me at any time congratulate myself
on that title, even in casual conversation?
Now, take my praises of you. Do you not see how I pour them forth with
an open hand, as they say,431 how unsparing and genuine I am? Perhaps you
were afraid that you yourself would be forced to exhibit whatever qualities
you attributed to me, in accordance with the old saying, Give a pledge and
evil is nigh at hand.432 But I have no complaint on this score. The qualities
which you grant me are more than enough. It is a nuisance only that a handle
has been given to those who would snarl at us over this kind of thing. It is
not my practice to boast about any praise I might receive; but I do take pride
in the friendship we share and in all the learning and discovering we do
together. It is clear that someone begrudges me this feeling and that it was
at his instigation that you composed your friendly treatise.433 Look, they say,
you enjoy your Lefevre, you regard him as your friend, and you think that
you have done too little to acknowledge his sincerity, his modesty, and his
piety. So many of your annotations he has dismissed in a single note, and
fully enough at that, he has said.
But let the complaints and recriminations come to an end now. What
has been done cannot be made undone in this fashion. The only thing left is
for both of us to join together in repairing the damage. If my response causes
you pain, I am the more pained for having been forced to reply. I would
have preferred to devote my energy to praising a friend, even with false

429 See 1x40 above.

430 These are Lefevre's words (Disputatio ASD ix-j 224:576-7), but he did not say
them maliciously. Erasmus wants to be known as a theologian. See, for example,
his Praise of Folly (Moriae encomium) ASD iv-3 68.
431 Adagia n i 16: Plena manu
432 Adagia i vi 97: Sponde, noxa praesto est
433 See n8 above.
 APOLOGY A G A I N S T LEFEVRE LB IX 66D / ASD IX~3 194 1O/

praises, than to refuting him, however correct my arguments might be.434

I have simply been vindicating myself, not attacking your views; as far as
that is concerned, my dear Lefevre, I would not want you to discover what
I might be capable of. If in the future I see that you are the kind of person
I have always thought you are, the kind I have always credited you with
being, I shall attribute this isolated and regrettable episode to the Fates, or to
the goddess Strife, or to Homer's Madness,435 to any god or human you wish.
But if you persist in attacking a friend in unfriendly fashion, I shall be forced
to change my opinion of you. But let us end on a positive note. I am confident
that you will do what I most dearly hope will be better for both of us and
more pleasing in the end to Christ.436 If so, you will find me gracious and
supportive in every way. If not, then I do not know how I will be. Farewell,
my most learned and, if you will allow me, my most dear Lefevre.
Louvain. 5 August 1517

434 Ep 627:19-20 to Ludwig Baer 23 August 1517. Erasmus takes up the same
expression.
435 Ate (or Discord) is an infernal divinity who was banished from heaven by
Jupiter (Iliad 19.88-91). Erinys is one of the Furies.
436 Lefevre did not want to excuse himself and answered this whole polemic only
with silence.
This page intentionally left blank
 AN APPENDIX
O N T H E W R I T I N G S O F JOSSE C L I C H T O V E

R E F U T A T I O N OF THE ACCUSATIONS
OF JOSSE CLICHTOVE AGAINST THE SUASORIA
OF DESIDERIUS ERASMUS OF R O T T E R D A M
IN PRAISE OF M A R R I A G E

Appendix de scriptis Clithovei

Dilutio eorum quae lodocus Clithoveus scripsit

adversus dedamationem suasoriam matrimonii

translated and annotated by CHARLES FANTAZZI

 I N T R O D U C T O R Y NOTE 11O

The Appendix on the Writings ofjosse Clichtove was appended to the Supputatio
calumniarum Natalis Bedae, published in August 1526, together with another
appendix in answer to Pierre Cousturier's Antapologia, apology to an apology.
They are prefaced by a letter to the faculty of the University of Paris (Allen Ep
1664) dated 6 February 1526. It is evident that the Appendix was meant only as
a temporary reply to the accusations made by Clichtove in his Propugnaculum
ecclesiae adversus Lutheranos, and it is rather subdued in tone.1
In 1531, after a long sustained barrage, the University of Paris un-
leashed its definitive condemnation of numerous opinions of Erasmus, the
Determinatio facultatis theologiae in schola Parisiensi super quam plurimis asser-
tionibus D. Erasmi Roterodami.2 Erasmus was beside himself with rage, ex-
claiming in a letter (Allen Ep 2575:13) that 'they are not satisfied with killing
Erasmus, but wish to annihilate him altogether, robbing him even of his rep-
utation/ It was not only his ill fame in Paris that worried him; he and others
with him were concerned that the condemnation might spread to the Nether-
lands.3 With his usual assiduity he set about to answer the criticisms and by
the end of the year his defence was ready. The voluminous Declarationes ad
censums Lutetiae vulgatas was published by the beginning of February 1532
and was followed by a revised and enlarged edition4 in September of the
same year. He prefaced his answer with a letter to the faculty couched in
a reserved and respectful style. He then proceeded to list each of the cen-
sures, one by one, to which he appended his respective responses. Among the
charges levelled at him is that Erasmus wrote disparagingly of the virtue of
ecclesiastical chastity (titulus xx, with Erasmus' brief reply, LB ix 9020-903A).
While he was engaged in his head-on conflict with the Parisian doctors,
Beda in particular, Erasmus decided to lay to rest also the old complaints of
Clichtove, using the same oil, as he puts it in a later letter: 'De eodem, quod
aiunt, oleo respondi et Clitovei veteribus naeniis/5 Together with this lengthy
apology there appeared a revised text of the Epistola de esu carnium with an ap-
pendix of scholia explaining no fewer than fifty-seven points of the treatise in

1 A manuscript of the text of the Appendix is extant in the Marburg Library,

and a copy of it was procured by Professor Clemens Bruehl. The form of the
document, with a salutation (obscured in Bruehl's apograph) and a vale at the
end, seems to indicate that the Appendix originated as a letter.
2 Contained in C. du Plessis d'Argentre Collectio iudiciorum de novis erroribus (Paris
1728-36; repr Brussels 1966) n part i 47-77, with a preface by Erasmus
3 Cf Allen Epp 2573:1-7 and 2566:41-50 from Maarten Lips; 2588:66-9 from
Caspar Schets; and 2573 from Conradus Goclenius.
4 It is this version that is printed in LB ix 813-954.
5 Allen Ep 2604:40
 A P P E N D I X / R E F U T A T I O N OF C L I C H T O V E 111

answer to objections made by Clichtove in the third book of his Propugnaculum

ecclesiae. The Dilutio6 responded in more detail to chapters 30 to 34 of the sec-
ond book. A third text was joined to these two defences, In elenchum Alberti Pii
brevissima scholia, a list of 122 citations from the index of Pio's exhaustive attack
on Erasmus' doctrine with an accompanying refutation.7 The sale of all these
works, considered as one book, was promptly forbidden by the Sorbonne.8
The Dilutio was omitted by Beatus Rhenanus from the Basel Opera
omnia probably through an oversight, as Augustijn suggests, rather than
intentionally, as Telle maintains,9 nor does it appear in the Leiden edition.
It remained for Emile V. Telle to produce a modern edition of the work,
Erasmus Roterodamus. Dilutio eorum quae lodocus Clithoveus scripsit adversus
Dedamationem Des. Erasmi Roterodami suasoriam matrimonii (Geneva 1968),
based on an exemplar of the Froben edition held by Harvard University.
With the exception of a number of banal misprints this has served as the basis
for the present translation.
CF

6 Telle is of the opinion that the work had already been written in 1526 im-
mediately after the publication of the Propugnaculum, as he affirmed first in
his Erasme 344, and more vehemently in his edition of the Dilutio, where he
accuses Erasmus of withholding publication because of fear of repercussions
from the proceedings against Louis de Berquin, translator of the Encomium into
French. Telle says of Erasmus, in rather unbridled language, 'Le fait qu'il edita
la Dilutio, et si tard, revele sa vanite, sa recidive, son gout de la singerie, ses
inquietudes pour sa surete a lui et non son honnetete intellectuelle' (Telle Di-
lutio 47-8). Augustijn argues to the contrary that certain statements from the
Appendix de scriptis Clithovei and from Epp 1780:41-3 and 2604:40 indicate quite
clearly that the apology was written in 1531 (ASD ix-i 59 n53).
7 Pio's last attack on Erasmus, In locos lucubrationum variarum D. Erasmi xxm libri,
was published by Ascensius Badius (Josse Bade) in March 1531, two months
after his death. Erasmus' counterblast, one of his most fierce writings, appeared
in June 1531 and again on 5 January 1532 with the title Apologia brevis ad
viginti quattuor libros Alberti Pii quondam Carporum comitis. Brief it was not, filling
seventy-three columns in Leclerc (LB ix 1123-96). The scholia published with the
Dilutio are more brief, occupying fifteen pages of the Harvard exemplar used
by Telle in his edition. Other copies are listed in Bibliotheca Belgica (Brussels
1964) n 776ff and iv 663.
8 L. Delisle Notice sur un registre des proces verbaux de lafaculte de theologie de Paris
pendant les annees 1505-1533 (Paris 1899) 338,396. Telle asserts that this measure
was responsible for the disappearance of the treatise, 'Elle decida de la faire dis-
paraitre et y reussit presque' (Telle Dilutio 48), but Augustijn points out that in
the Rotterdam union catalogue thirty-one exemplars are cited (ASD ix-i 62 n72).
9 Augustijn ASD ix-i 63; Telle Dilutio 59
 AN APPENDIX
ON THE W R I T I N G S OF JOSSE C L I C H T O V E

I regret that I have not yet had the time to read the books of Josse Clichtove
to which he gave the title Bulwark of the Faith.11 merely examined them to see
if there was anything of direct relevance to me. His harangues on continence,
abstinence, and the regular life agree very much with my own views, and
would that he had as well such persuasiveness of speech that he could inflame
all monks and priests to a love of these virtues. But as for his inserting in
the index to the volume2 that I attempt to give advice against the observance
of the law on priestly continence, if he wished to debate the question with
me, he should have represented my opinion more accurately in the following
manner: 'In view of the present status of those who profess celibacy, Erasmus
wonders whether it would be a lesser evil for the church to permit wives for
those who after making every effort still do not lead continent lives, or to
leave things as they are.' And furthermore in those passages of the Encomium
of Marriage to which he refers I cannot help but take notice of his lack of
candour. As one formerly not ill-versed in the study of letters he knows
what a declamation is, namely, a fictitious topic of discussion with arguments
presented on both sides for the sake of practice in elocution. Who ever heard
that the examples of grammarians or dialecticians, who transmit the teaching
of this art, had to conform to the opinions of theologians? If they have so

1 Propugnaculum fidei. Erasmus purposely, it seems, misquotes the title of the

work, Propugnaculum ecdesiae.
2 Propugnaculum i6^r, in the edition published by de Colines, Paris 1526. The index
alphabeticus enumerates these censures of Erasmus: the Encomium matrimonii
composed by Erasmus is not to be approved in all respects; Erasmus attempts to
give advice against the practice of the law concerning priestly celibacy; Erasmus
entertains erroneous opinions concerning fast and abstinence as defined by
the church. Erasmus' essay on the prohibition of eating meat (Epistola de esu
carnium) is refuted in the third book of this work.
 APPENDIX ON THE WRITINGS OF CLICHTOVE LB IX 8l2F 113

much leisure time, why don't they weigh Donatus3 and Poggio's Facetiae4
in the same balance? Those who put forward before theologians tenets of
Aristotle that are diametrically opposed to the teaching of Christ have only
to say: 'I speak as a philosopher/ But if it is the role of the orator in actual
judicial proceedings not to speak the truth at all times but only to give the
appearance of truth, as long as it contributes to the victory, then it is much
more unreasonable to submit particular passages in a fictitious theme to the
rigours of a theological examination.
Whoever professes to write a declamation deliberately exempts himself
from credibility and puts only his skill in oratory at risk, as in the example of
one who before pronouncing a eulogy of justice must first praise injustice.5
Josse quotes my writings as if acting as a theologian I had seriously recom-
mended those arguments to the faithful. On the contrary one must imagine
the true circumstances of the composition, namely, that a schoolboy engaged
in the study of rhetoric is delivering a speech in a school of declamation, and
is giving proof of his ability to use different approaches in treating the same
argument. I had included this example among the rhetorical rules of suasion
in my book On the Writing of Letters.6 Lest you should think I am inventing
this, there are people in England7 who have the original copy, written in my
hand almost thirty years ago. And I have an exemplar copied by a clerk8
twenty years ago, in which there is also a preliminary sketch of another sec-
tion.9 If in the first part there was no argument to be refuted, what would the
speaker representing the opposite side have to say? Well, suppose I were to
put forward a statement from St Thomas10 which says that in the sacrament

3 The two works on grammar, the Ars minor and the Ars major, of Aelius Donatus
(fourth century AD) were favourite school-books in the Middle Ages.
4 A collection of mostly scurrilous tales written by the Florentine humanist
Poggio Bracciolini
5 As does Glaucon in Plato's Republic. Cf Dilutio 127 n64-
6 Probably referring to the two sample letters, one of persuasion and one of
dissuasion, on the subject of marriage, CWE 25 129-48
7 Erasmus gave a copy of the first draft of the treatise to Robert Fisher in 1498 to
bring with him to England. It already contained the text of the encomium in the
form of a letter of persuasion. He also sent a revised version to William Blount,
fourth Baron Mountjoy in November 1499. Cf Epp 71 and 117.
8 In Ep 80:26 addressed to Jacob Batt, Erasmus mentions that his copyist Cami-
nadus had the only copy of the work.
9 The brief instructions on how to dissuade a friend from marrying that were
inserted as a counterpart to the long letter counselling marriage. Cf CWE 25
145-8.
10 Summa theologiae m q 74 art i obj i
 A P P E N D I X DE S C R I P T I S C L I T H O V E I LB IX 8138 114

of the Eucharist the body of the Lord, that was slain for us, would have been
better represented by the flesh of animals than by the species of bread and
wine because they were more perfect representations of what they signify.
If I were to impute the charge of blasphemy to him, would not Clichtove im-
mediately object that I was not acting fairly since I was constructing a false
accusation from arguments that precede the refutation? That is the way they
talk. If this method is valid in theological disputation, it is much more valid
in a fictitious subject, in which the speaker is compelled to give his support
to neither side.
Moreover, this declamation is concerned not with the general question
of whether marriage is better than celibacy, but with a question limited
to specific circumstances, namely, whether marriage is more profitable than
celibacy for the particular person whom I imagine. And although I am dealing
with a fictitious topic, I still did not yield to the freedom of the declamation
to the extent charged by Clichtove. He claims that I recommend that it would
be in the better interests of mankind if priestly and monastic continence,
consecrated to God, be done away with, obliterated, violated, and changed
to the conjugal state.11 The verb 'recommend' is not in my declamation, and
I do not speak in my own name. The one whom I represent as speaking
says, 'It seems to me/ He does not condemn the continence of priests and
monks, and indeed the declamation commends the virtue of continence even
in marriage,12 which he wishes to be very similar to virginity, that is, that
there be as little gratification of lust as possible, the principal goal being the
generation of offspring.
In the next place I compare virginity to the angels while I attribute mar-
riage to men. Naturally, to those who by the gift of God can live continently I
attribute qualities beyond those of mere mortals. The declaimer of the speech
does not refer to chaste priests and monks, but to those who lead impure
lives, of whom alas! there is a great multitude everywhere even if we pre-
tend not to notice secret depravities. If there is no other remedy for these
hapless creatures, the speaker thinks it would be expedient for the church
to permit them to marry, as a kind of second plank to save them from ship-
wreck.13 And he adds, 'If the circumstances required it';14 that is, if it seems

11 Propugnaculum iaiv. Cf Dilutio 1301169.

12 CWE 25 137-8
13 Jerome Ep 84 PL 22 748. In this context the 'second plank' refers to the sacrament
of penance.
14 CWE 25 137. Erasmus uses here a slightly different Latin phrase from the one
used in De conscribendis epistolis.
 A P P E N D I X ON THE W R I T I N G S OF C L I C H T O V E LB IX 8l4A 115

proper and fitting to the leaders of the church. But if someone should answer
that the church cannot release one from a solemn vow, let him then explain
precisely how it can release one from a simple vow, even though it is some-
thing done publicly and generally known. I also think that the church can
do what the Roman pontiff/5 highest pastor of the church, does in official
documents, when for grave reasons he makes a monk into a non-monk. Al-
though I am not here formally advocating this, since my declamation talks
not about the initiated but about those who have yet to be initiated, surely
the church can decide that from now on those who become priests or monks
need not be bound by the obligation of the vow of chastity if after trying ev-
ery means they are overcome by the weakness of the flesh. This is what that
speaker meant, a far cry from Clichtove's vehement utterances. Nothing of
the sort was ever my intention, nor is it to be found in any of my writings,
even the most frivolous of them. Nevertheless, that speaker by right of the li-
cence granted to orators twists certain arguments to the advantage of his case.
What a spectacle it would be if in the classroom of the declamatory school
one who had dissuaded Alexander the Great from attacking Tyre16 should
be answered by some theologian with the grave dogmas of the schools. Yet
Clichtove's response is no more relevant than that. There is no time at the
moment to respond to his other charges. His book was delivered to me late
when the book fair was already close at hand, and I could hardly finish what
I was engaged in. I made some reply17 several years ago to Jan Briart, then
wrote something in response to Beda's criticisms,18 not yet aware that Clich-
tove had touched on this subject. I also had a special defence against the
detractors of this declamation, which for limitations of time I have not had
occasion to publish. In this I shall declare that my views on the chastity of
those who profess celibacy and on marriage are no different from those of
the Catholic church. To his other criticisms concerning the eating of meat and
fasting we have partly responded19 and partly will respond in such a way as
to satisfy at least the impartial reader. It would be preferable to devote our
energies to resolving our differences rather than to providing seed-ground
for new disagreements through biased inquiries.

15 Papal dispensation from vows. Cf Dilutio 131 njj.

16 A favourite topic in the schools of declamation was Alexander's deliberation
whether or not to besiege the island fortress of Tyre in 332 BC.
17 The Apologia de laude matrimonii, 1519
18 Prologus in supputationem calumniarum Bedae (August 1526) LB ix 488F-489A
19 As part of the Divinationes ad notata Bedae LB ix 484D-4&9A
 R E F U T A T I O N OF THE A C C U S A T I O N S OF
JOSSE CLICHTOVE AGAINST THE SUASORIA
OF D E S I D E R I U S ERASMUS OF R O T T E R D A M
IN PRAISE OF M A R R I A G E

I have finally read through Josse Clichtove's attack in the second book of his
Propugnaculum1 against my Declamation in Praise of Marriage. But his earnest
attempt to do battle with a fictitious theme, using the testimony of the
Scriptures and the Fathers and decrees of the church, almost provoked me
to laughter. It was as if I had before my eyes a veteran soldier in full battle
array exerting all his strength to fight with shadows, regaling his audience
with an amusing spectacle of shadow-boxing. Nevertheless I admired his
spirit, inflamed, as it appears, with an extraordinary love of chastity.2 I am
convinced that none of this is feigned, for I consider him to be a good
man totally without pretence. And on this account I once regarded him
with affection,3 that is, before I incited this hostility in him. But Satan with
his many wiles knows how to deceive even the simplest spirits with the
blandishments of piety. Otherwise, if he had recalled the integrity that befits
a Christian priest, the circumspection proper to a theologian (especially one
from Paris), the moderation expected of one who finds fault, and the piety
proper to a defender of the church, he would not have made false accusations
or magnified things beyond all proportion in such offensive language. Such
example would have been more useful to this most celebrated of all Faculties
and would have brought more honour to the name of theologian.
For the moment, however, I shall not present a true apology, for fear
that after having given a foolish account of myself as a young man in treating
this subject, I should now as an old man appear even more foolish in taking
seriously what is meant as playful. I shall simply call attention to certain

1 Quotations are taken from the edition of the Propugnaculum published by de

Colines, Paris 1526.
2 Erasmus is making fun of Clichtove's zeal for chastity manifested at his ad-
vanced age.
3 Cf Ep 1620:78-9 to Noel Beda 2 October 1525: 'I always liked Josse Clichtove
 R E F U T A T I O N OF C L I C H T O V E Telle JO 117

passages in which I am forced to note the lack of moderation and sincerity

I might have expected of him. First of all, he disallows me in this dispute the
evidence I adduce in an apology4 I wrote against the charges of Jan Briart,
namely, that I had written on this subject as a young man not for myself
but for a distinguished gentleman, William Mountjoy.5 At that time I was
instructing him in the art of rhetoric, and I wished in this exercise to set
before the eyes of the young man an example of what I had taught him in the
exposition of the theory. Clichtove says, 'Since you were an old man more
trained in sacred learning when you published what you had written as a
young man, you should have given preference to virginity over marriage.'6
I was not so unversed in the Scriptures, my dear Josse, as not to know that
virginity entered into voluntarily through love of a holy life is to be preferred
to matrimony; but that was not what was in question there. If I had wished to
revise this treatise according to the precepts of the Scriptures and theological
reasoning I would have needed a sponge, not a pen. I thought I had made
allowances for any scandal that I might cause to the weak when in the
prefatory title71 stated that it was a topic of declamation devised to develop
skill in speaking and not to instil the dogmas of the Christian religion.
He cites the example of Enea Silvio, who, when he was an old man
and sovereign pontiff, ordered the book on the love affair of Euryalus and
Lucretia9 that he had written as a youth to be condemned. But I am not yet

4 Apologia de laude matrimonii, Louvain, 7 March 1519

5 William Blount, fourth Baron Mountjoy, student of Erasmus in Paris and
lifelong friend, to whom he addressed what appears to be a dedicatory preface
of a revised version of De conscribendis epistolis, Ep 117
6 Propugnaculum 127?. Erasmus does not cite Clichtove's objections exactly. His
opponent says that in publishing his youthful work as an older man Erasmus
should have removed certain statements that were not in harmony with the
church's teaching or could give bad example. Clichtove does not say specifically
that he should have given preference to virginity over marriage.
7 Declamatio in genere suasorio de laude matrimonii
8 Pope Pius u. Clichtove gives an excerpt from a letter of retraction (epistola
poenitudinis) that Enea Silvio as pope prefixed to the rather unedifying tale he
had written as a youth. In it he asks his readers to put their faith in an old
man rather than a young man, to reject Aeneas and accept Pius, explaining
that the gentile name was bestowed upon him at birth by his parents, but that
he took the Christian name on his accession to the papacy: 'Aeneam reicite,
Pium suscipite. Illud gentile nomen parentes indidere nascenti, hoc christianum
in apostolatu suscepimus'; Aeneae Sylvii Piccolominei Senensis opera quae extant
omnia (Basel 1571) 870 Ep 395.
9 The Historia de Euryalo et Lucretia written by Enea Silvio in 1444 is a melancholy
tale of a young Sienese bride, married to an old Menelaus, who falls in love
with a handsome French knight in the retinue of Duke Sigmund of Tyrol.
 DILUTIO Telle 70 118

pope, nor did I write, as he did, prurient tales of how a wife deceived her
husband in defiance of conjugal fidelity and took herself a lover. I invented a
speaker in a declamatory speech who recommends a chaste marriage, closely
resembling virginity, to a young man on whom depended the propagation
of an excellent family. If I had proclaimed after the example of Enea, 'Reject
the young Erasmus and accept the old,' I would have been guilty of an
utter falsehood, as if I had taught that marriage was to be preferred to
virginity without qualification.10 Did I not condemn this insignificant treatise
sufficiently when I proclaimed more than once that it was a declamation and
was concerned with proficiency in public speaking and not with faith and
morals?
Homer did not correct his Battle of the Frogs and M/ce,11 but wrote the
Iliad in its place. And Virgil did not correct the Gnat,12 but went on to write
the Bucolics. Besides, what would I have accomplished by correcting some
statements in this exercise? Now I have done more by removing credibility
from the whole declamation. In scholastic disputations, even if something is
said that is contradictory to the Catholic faith, it is sufficient to say, 'I speak
now as a philosopher.' But it did me no good to shout at the top of my voice,
'I am speaking as a rhetorician; I am not fashioning morals, but I am teaching
language.' Who could have restrained his laughter if someone had examined
the letters and declamations of Carolus Virulus13 according to theological
canons? Now suppose that I would have been willing to correct that short
oratorical exercise according to the severe norms of theology, who would not
have cried out in protest: 'You fool, what are you doing? Why decorate a
cooking-pot?'14 Epictetus would have added, 'Let a pot remain a pot.'15
But Clichtove does not even allow the title to be used in my defence,
the fact that I called it a declamation. Still, he showed a little more sense
than the theologian16 who thought that the Latin word for declamation was
equivalent in meaning to a sermon, and as a result of this error publicly
excoriated me in very vehement language in a crowded university lecture-

10 Erasmus uses here and elsewhere in this apology the term simpliciter taken from
scholastic argumentation.
11 A parody of Homer probably written in the fourth century BC. Erasmus men-
tions these examples in the prefatory letter to the Praise of Folly (Moriae en-
comium), written to Thomas More, Ep 222.
12 A mock-heroic poem long attributed to Virgil
13 Charles Menniken of Ghent (c 1413-93), author of a treatise on letter-writing
which Erasmus ridicules in De conscribendis epistolis CWE 25 50
14 Said of useless toil; Adagia i iv 66. Quoted in Greek
15 Arrian Discourses of Epictetus 4.10.34
16 Jan Briart of Am. Cf CWE 71 86-7.
 R E F U T A T I O N OF C L I C H T O V E Telle 71 119

hall. I learned of his error afterwards in a private conversation with him. Such
is the risk we run when certain individuals have not learned Latin. Clichtove
admits that a declamation concerns itself with a fictitious subject, but this is
so especially in forensic debate/7 in which both sides argue with a certain
degree of probability. To persuade us of this he produces several arguments
from the declamations of Quintilian.18 Then he calls on me to answer whether
it is a fictitious argument or not, and whether the question 'Should celibacy
be preferred to marriage or vice versa?' is one to be debated19 before a
magistrate's tribunal. In the first place, who taught Josse that a declamation
is concerned particularly with law cases that are conducted before a judge
when Seneca,20 whom I think he has read, lists so many declamations as
suasoriae?21 But even if we concede that declamations usually deal with
forensic cases, does it immediately follow that declamations do not belong
to the suasorial or encomiastic genre? And what name shall we assign to one
who exercises himself in the encomiastic genre, praising a man or a city or a
nation? Moreover, suppose one were to treat a trivial subject,22 for example,
if one were to write a eulogy of Busiris, as Isocrates did,23 or of Phalaris,24
as Lucian did, or of quartan fever,25 as did Favorinus, or of baldness, as did

17 Propugnaculum i2jv
18 A group of nineteen model pieces illustrating popular themes of the schools of
declamation, attributed to Quintilian in the Middle Ages and in Erasmus' time,
but definitely not written by him. Clichtove Propugnaculum i28r proposes the
fifth and thirteenth of these speeches, which treat of the usual fanciful subjects
debated in such exercises.
19 Clichtove's argument is that the subject is not debatable, since it has been
proved both by Scripture and by the writings of the Fathers of the church that
celibacy is preferred to marriage. Hence it would be false to call the treatise a
declamation.
20 The elder Seneca, regularly confused in Erasmus' time with his son, Seneca the
philosopher. One book of his suasoriae, speeches of exhortation to historical or
semi-historical characters on their future conduct, is extant.
21 See the preceding note.
22 Erasmus uses the Greek term a§of ov, literally, an unexpected or improbable
topic. Cf Aulus Gellius Nodes Atticae 17.12.
23 Actually, Isocrates wrote a rejoinder to a mock encomium of Busiris written
by Polycrates, an Athenian sophist of the fourth century BC. Busiris was a
legendary Egyptian king who slaughtered all foreigners entering Egypt.
24 In this exercise Lucian has the tyrant defend his cruel conduct before the people
of Delphi. Cf Lucian trans A.M. Harmon i (Cambridge, Mass 1959) 3-21.
25 Favorinus, a Gallic rhetor of the second century, wrote an encomium on this
subject. Plato in the Timaeus (86A) argues that quartan fever may be a blessing,
for when one gets well, he will enjoy surer health. Guillaume de 1'Isle, a disciple
of Erasmus, also wrote an Encomium febris quartanae (Basel 1542).
 DILUTIO Telle 73 120

Synesius,26 or the happiness of brute animals, on which Plutarch27 wrote -

would these be excluded from the category of declamations because the topic
cannot be argued with probability on both sides? On the contrary, learned
men think that topics of this kind are particularly effective in producing
quickness of intellect. This type of exercise is not unlike the scholastic dispute
that goes by the name obligatoria,28 in which, notwithstanding, examples are
sometimes taken from sacred writings. Many false things are said, some
of them even blasphemous, if they were not excused by the nature of the
exercise. But where did he ever get the idea that the subject of my treatise
was whether celibacy should be preferred to matrimony or vice versa? I
never even dreamed of such a thing. It is not an inquiry before a judge as
to whether the state of an unmarried man is preferable to that of a married
man. Yet Quintilian29 reminds us that the question of whether a philosopher
should take a wife is often debated in deliberative speeches. I treat a question
that pertains to suasoriae and it is limited to specific circumstances. So then he
corrects the title30 and calls it a commendation of marriage or an exhortation
to marriage. Even I occasionally call it an encomium of marriage, but what's
the difference? Do not exhortations or eulogies fall into the category of
rhetorical exercises? I don't think he is so ignorant of the art of rhetoric that
he does not know that the encomiastic genre is also appropriate for judicial
cases, especially the suasorial type. The name of the exercise is taken from
the main argument.
In this case, therefore, marriage is praised so that a young man will
be induced to take a wife. Now this topic belongs expressly to the suasorial
genre. If the title deceived him, he could at least have perceived from the
argument that the topic was a suasoria and not to be taken seriously. Finally,
my apology,31 which he claims to have read, demonstrates clearly the nature
of the subject.

26 Bishop of Cyrene, fifth century AD, wrote a mock encomium of baldness in

answer to a praise of long hair written by the orator Dio Chrysostom, PG 66
1167-1206. A Latin translation was done by John Free, an English humanist,
who taught rhetoric at the school of Guarino in Ferrara in 1456. It was published
together with the Folly, Basel 1515.
27 Plutarch's Bruta animalia (Moralia 9850-992) is a dialogue between Ulysses and
one of his men, who has been transformed into a swine by Circe and finds
himself happier in his new existence.
28 Disputation held in summer at the University of Paris for the reception of the
licentiate in theology in January
29 Quintilian Institutio oratoria 3.5.13
30 Propugnaculum i28r
31 The Apologia de laude matrimonii CWE 71 81-95
 REFUTATION OF CLICHTOVE Telle 73 121

But perhaps Clichtove had already written against my rhetorical ex-

ercise before he had learned from my apology what the word declamation
meant in Latin, and that the argument was treated from both sides. In that
case he should also have changed his method of argument, but he preferred
to leave room for calumny through pointless evasions. Therefore Josse goes
astray right at the beginning, going aground32 in the harbour, as they say.
He declares, 'Those who exhort invite to what is better; Erasmus does the op-
posite/33 But they are not writing a declamation. Elsewhere I too proclaim
the praises of virginity, namely, in my little book on the comparison of a vir-
gin and a martyr,34 and again in my essay on the solitary life;35 and in a
thousand other places I admit that in absolute terms continence is superior
to marriage. But if the main object of his attack is to draw discredit upon the
form of the declamation as such, why is only the first part singled out for
condemnation although I treated both sides of the question, arguing for mar-
riage in the first part and against it in the second? That is no more fitting
than if one were to combat the arguments of Thomas or of Scotus in which
they impugn vows or defend fornication,36 while neglecting to mention the
rebuttal that follows. If he was eager to make false accusations, he could just
as well have condemned each section equally. For those who censure mat-
rimony and those who censure virginity unfairly are equally in error. One
should not be criticized, however, for thinking that it would be more feasi-
ble for this or that person to marry rather than to live a life of celibacy, even
if he were not composing a declamation but pleading a real case.
Moreover, since this is only one letter among many proposed as exam-
ples, why is it alone submitted to rigid scrutiny? In his whole argumentation
he deals with me as if I treated only this side of the question, and as if I
were not writing a declamation, but sincerely wished to make this recom-
mendation to a particular friend. Whereas, after proposing various rules, I
say, 'The following will serve as an example of this brief set of rules' [CWE 25
129]. Why did that much-quoted dictum of Aristotle not occur to him: 'We
set forth examples, not because that is the way things are, but in order that

32 Adagia i v 76
33 Propugnaculum i28r
34 Virginis et martyris compamtio (1524) LB v 589-600. Virginity is here depicted as
a daily martyrdom hardly attainable by an ordinary mortal.
35 De contemptu mundi CWE 66 135-75
36 Erasmus refers to the scholastic format, in which first the objections were
stated and then the rebuttal. In Thomas vows are discussed in the Summa
theologiae u-n q 189 art 2-4; immorality (stuprum) at u-u q 154 art 2-4 and in the
Quaestio disputata de malo 180. Scotus discusses simple and solemn vows in the
Commentaria Oxoniensia ad iv libros Magistri sententiarum 4 d 38.
 DILUTIO Telle 74 122

the learners may understand through them.' For example, when Aristotle37
borrows examples from mathematics, he is not obliged to be answerable for
the truth of the borrowed material.
I could have been more justifiably criticized for transferring an argu-
ment pertaining to good morals to the school of declamation. Plato38 forbids
those who are chosen to watch over the republic to be instructed in dialectic
until an advanced age, lest having been trained to approve or reject anything
whatsoever, they waver in decisions concerning virtue and vice, in which
there should be great firmness. I too should not recommend that young boys
have too much training in topics of this kind, but the same danger is inherent
in scholastic disputations, since they debate subjects about which it is wrong
to entertain any doubt.
Since the foundation of Clichtove's entire argument is insubstantial, it
is inevitable that what he built on it must crumble. He is wrong in his as-
sumption that I do not propose39 a subject restricted to certain circumstances,
but throughout the discussion make use of general, common, and universal
arguments. In the first place, there are many particular circumstances in the
narration right from the start. It does not adduce arguments itself, but it con-
tains the seeds of argumentation. Then in the division part of the speech,
'But I shall show by the clearest of proofs that this alternative would be far
more honourable, profitable, and pleasant for you' [CWE 25 130], when I say
'for you' I indicate a specific person, not a universal truth. Likewise when I
say, 'Besides, if virginity were to merit special praise in all others, in your
case it cannot escape censure' [CWE 25 138], and since I refer to him again and
again, am I not presenting arguments from the particular circumstances of a
specific person? Frequently I make reference to outstanding individuals or
to the corrupt morals of these times, as when I show that there is a great di-
versity between the characteristic behaviour of the time of the apostles and
that of our own age [CWE 25 137]. Again when I say, 'I speak now as one man
to another, as one commoner to another, as one weak mortal to another' [CWE
25 138]. Again when I say, 'You must remember that the survival of your race
rests with you alone' [CWE 25 144, not exact]. Again when I turn to the oppo-
site effect, the example he cites of his sister's dedicating herself to God [CWE
25 144]. Next when I say, 'You who are the elder must remember that you
are a man' [CWE 25 144]. Then the whole concluding part of the argument
consists of particular circumstances. Yet my friend Clichtove proclaims and

37 Aristotle Rhetoric 1.2.8 (i356b), 18.3 (9i6d)

38 Plato Republic ^8A
39 Propugnaculum ia8v
 R E F U T A T I O N OF C L I C H T O V E Telle 76 123

insists with much verbiage that through the whole course of the oration I do
not touch on any specific circumstances, obviously so that there will be op-
portunity for false accusation. And yet it would have been more becoming
to a theologian's moral integrity and more profitable to young boys, about
whose chastity he seems to be preoccupied, to make it clear that this whole
argument was a rhetorical declamation and was totally lacking in any cred-
ibility. Moreover, the reader was instructed to await the presentation of the
other side of the argument, of which we gave only an outline indicating the
principal sources of the arguments. We have explained why we did not com-
plete this part of the work in the Apology,40 which Josse dismissed. As to the
fact that I use many common arguments, I had every right to do so. Cicero
does the same, and so does Jerome41 when he advises against marriage and
assembles all the usual material about the marriage bond. Can it be that he
thinks that commonplaces are not to be used in persuasion? As if one were
to advise the Emperor against war with the Turks, but were not allowed to
support his case by citing the usual disadvantages of war.
On top of this, he does not allow me42 to say in my defence that I prefer
marriage to celibacy, not to continence, since in Latin celibate means free
from marriage even if one has two hundred concubines. Just as a childless
person is contrasted to a parent, so a celibate person is contrasted to a
husband. Horace43 calls himself celibate although he was far from continent.
Josse claims44 that the word caelebs was used in that sense by profane writers
but that sacred writers never used the word except to designate one who
lived a pure and chaste life. He says further that there is no more distinction
between celibate and continent than there is between justice and equity.45 I
won't mention that for those who have knowledge of Latin a just judge and
an equitable judge are not at all the same thing, nor are the justice of laws and
the equity of law. But whence can he prove to us that in the sacred writers the
word 'celibate' is used solely and exclusively to mean 'continent'? As far as I

40 The Apologia de laude matrimonii CWE 71 91

41 Jerome Adversus lovinianum 1.48 PL 23 2918. Jerome refers to a story concerning
Cicero's repudiation of his wife, Terentia, who then proceeded to marry Sallust,
Cicero's enemy. In his misogamist argument Jerome emphasizes that this could
happen even with a good wife, who had imbibed some of the wisdom of her
husband. Clichtove cites this passage at Propugnaculum n6r.
42 Propugnaculum i28v
43 Horace Epistles 1.1.87-9
44 Propugnaculum i28v
45 For the distinction between justice and equity cf Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics
5.10.3-7, and the Rhetoric 1.13.17-19.
 DILUTIO Telle 77 124

know, this was never the case, at least in those writers who knew Latin. I am
not speaking of those who think that there is no difference between lust and
promiscuity. It is not surprising if at times they call one who is celibate chaste,
since nothing prevents a celibate person from being continent. But Joseph
and Mary, although they were most chaste, were not celibate. Again, there
are many monks who are celibate by profession but do not live a continent
life. Likewise if I were to call an Italian learned it does not follow that there
is no difference between a learned man and an Italian. Among Christians,
since all sexual intercourse outside of marriage is illicit, all those who are
celibate should also be continent. Finally, I share the opinion of those who
think that by their vow46 monks and priests do not renounce incontinence,
which is forbidden to everyone, but marriage.
In his second book against Jovinian, Jerome47 introduces a new etymol-
ogy: caelebs means worthy of heaven [caelum], because the celibate abstain
from sexual intercourse. But it is not unusual for him to seize upon any
weapon in the fight in order to gain the victory, and he declares in more than
one passage that it is his right to do so. What wonder is it if he harnesses for
his purpose an all but arbitrary etymology of one word, when in that same
place he forces several citations from Sacred Scripture to support his argu-
ment, twisting their neck,48 as the saying goes? But let us grant him his use of
the word. Is that to say that all those who refrain from sexual intercourse are
worthy of heaven, while those who legitimately engage in sexual intercourse
are unworthy of heaven? And yet in that same passage he does not use the
word caelebs wholly and entirely in that sense, but in place of the word 'wid-
ower.' This is what he says: 'A marvellous word, and one which the spouse
of Christ would hear among virgins and widows and celibates.'49 The word
virgin is applied to both sexes, but since it seemed to sound jarring to say
widows and widowers, he calls men who were free from marriage through
the death of their wives celibates. And yet the word celibate is also used of

46 Many theologians, including Gerson De consiliis evangelicis in Oeuvres completes

ed P. Glorieux 10 vols (Paris 1960-75) in 19-20, considered that acts of incon-
tinence were transgressions of the commandment of God, but not violations
of the vow of chastity, since a vow must concern supererogatory works, not
matters forbidden de praecepto. Luther defended this opinion in his De votis
monasticis. Clichtove, citing St Thomas Summa theologiae n-n q 186 art 10, ar-
gues against this view in some unpublished writings, Bibliotheque Mazarine
MS 1068 f ol 28or-v.
47 Jerome Adversus lovinianum 2.37 PL 23 351
48 Adagia TV ix 50
49 Jerome Adversus lovinianum 2.37 PL 23 351
 REFUTATION OF C L I C H T O V E Telle 78 125

one who never had a wife, and continent is used of one who in any state
of life whatever lives a chaste life. Deficiency of vocabulary forced them to
misuse words. If every widow is continent, and if there is no difference be-
tween a widow and a continent woman, then celibate and continent can mean
the same thing. But if the word celibate includes all those who live continent
lives, what need was there for three words? In the second book [actually
the first] the same writer uses the word continent for those whom he here
calls celibate. He said, 'The sum of money that was promised in marriage
was varied and distinct, according to whether they were widows, continent
women, or married women/50 It is not that these words mean the same thing,
but that among Christians those who profess celibacy should abstain from
intercourse.
But again, granted that the sacred Doctors used the word consistently in
that way, will I not be allowed to speak good Latin51 in an exercise devised to
perfect the language of young students? No doubt he will cite Priscian,52 who
interpreted celibate as celestial, because the celibate person leads a heavenly
life, in chastity and purity, although Clichtove53 added that last phrase of his
own. But while etymology may have some importance in other contexts, in
this case, at any rate, it was long ago derided by the learned Quintilian.54
These are Quintilian's words: 'Gaius imagined that he was clever in deriving
caelibes from caelites, because the celibate are free of a heavy burden, and he
supported his case with an example from Greek, stating that the word r]t6cos55
is used in the same way. Yet Modestus does not yield to him in invention. He
says that those who are without a wife are called by this name because Saturn
cut the genitals off the sky/ You see that the etymology of the jurisconsults
was ridiculed by such a learned man. Other examples of the same kind are

50 Jerome Adversus lovinianum 1.33 PL 23 252

51 In his Paraphrasis in Elegantias Laurentii Vallae Erasmus defines the word caelebs
clearly as 'one who lives outside marriage, whether he be bereft of his wife
or never had one, whether continent or incontinent. Therefore celibacy is the
opposite of marriage' (ASD 1-4 232:673).
52 Priscian Institutio de arte grammatica 2.8.10
53 Propugnaculum izqr
54 Quintilian Institutio oratoria 1.6.36. The modern text of Quintilian reads Gavi-
us, presumably Gavius Bassus, a grammarian of the age of Cicero. Modestus
is probably a f reedman of C. Julius Hyginus mentioned in Suetonius De gram-
maticis 20. Apparently Erasmus understood them to be the jurists Gaius and
Modestinus, who belong to a later era.
55 rjifaos: the word signifies a young unmarried man in Greek and is a cognate of
the Latin viduus and the English 'widower.' It is not connected with the word
$eo? as the Latin etymologist claims.
 DILUTIO Telle 79 126

oratio from oris ratio, and testamentum from testatio mentis. But let us admit the
validity of this derivation. Gaius, who was the first to teach this etymology,
thought that caelibes was derived from caelites not because the celibate lived
chastely, but because they lived happily and contentedly, free of the marriage
halter and the other troubles that marriage brings with it. On the other hand
the gods of Gaius and Modestus are neither celibate nor continent. Jupiter
in addition to Juno has a host of nymphs56 without including his Phrygian
cup-bearer.57 Mars58 is not satisfied with his legitimate spouse but has secret
assignations with Venus, the wife of Vulcan. I won't mention the rest, since
with them it is an endless tale of immorality, incest, adultery, and rape. Yet
they are called blessed and 'living a life of ease' by the poets because of
their happy existence. Terence's Micio59 says the same: Tor this they deem
me fortunate, that I never had a wife.'
Clichtove is even less shamefaced in saying that throughout this decla-
ration I used the word celibate to mean continent, when the truth is I do not do
so even once; on the contrary, I distinguish between the two in several places.
For example, I say: 'You admire celibacy and respect virginity. But if you take
away the practice of wedlock, there will be neither unwedded nor virgins'
[CWE 25 143]. Another example: 'Yet why do you inquire so thoroughly, nay,
so anxiously, into all the disadvantages of marriage, as if celibacy had no dis-
advantages?' [CWE 25 142]. Do I not oppose celibacy to marriage when I say,
'[Roman marriage laws] prove how detrimental it was to the republic that the
state either be reduced in numbers through the desire for the single life or be
populated with bastards if celibates do not produce children' [CWE 25 132]?
Again: 'One who perseveres in the single state simply in order to have a more
independent life' [CWE 25 132]. Do I not oppose celibacy to marriage again
in that passage? Then, even more clearly: 'We read that men who are truly
chaste and virgins are praised, but celibacy in itself receives no praise' [CWE
25 132]. Do I not distinguish here a celibate person from a continent person
and a virgin? Likewise a little before that passage in praise of marriage I bor-
row the image that Christ took from wedlock to express his ineffable union
with the church, adding, 'What do we read like this concerning celibacy any-
where in the sacred writings?' [CWE 25 132]. Since all of this is very clearly
stated, how shameful it was for a theologian to declare so emphatically that

56 Virgil Aeneid 1.71

57 Ganymede
58 Homer Odyssey 8.266-366. Of course, neither Mars nor Ares, his Greek counter-
part, had a legitimate spouse.
59 Terence Adelphi 43-4
 REFUTATION OF CLICHTOVE Telle 80 127

Erasmus throughout his treatise used the word celibate to mean continent!60
But this groundwork had to be laid so that he would have ample opportunity
for his nasty incriminations, allowing whatever the declamation says against
the celibate to be interpreted as pertaining to those who are continent.
But when he strips me of my weapons by dismissing the arguments of
my Apology, why does he disregard the similarity of a declamation, which
treats both sides of a question, to the disputations of the theologians,61 which
first impugn even articles of faith by every manner of device and then untie
the knots they have woven? In the second part62 I demonstrate how one
who is advising against marriage ought to exaggerate the disadvantages
of marriage and by contrast exalt the advantages of celibacy. By various
methods I exaggerate the servitude of marriage, its troubles and dangers, and
I express contempt for animal pleasure. I enhance the dignity and happiness
of virginity, and rebut the arguments previously used to commend marriage.
If he had not ignored all of this, all those distorted accusations he hurls with
incredible vehemence against the condemner of continence would fall flat.
On the other hand, if, speaking as a philosopher, I had deduced by rational
argument that the world was not created so that I could arouse the wits of
learned men to prove by philosophical reasoning that the world was created,
no one, I dare say, would convert the philosophical debate into an inquiry into
the Catholic faith, but would merely approve or disapprove of the display of
ingenuity. Giovanni Antonio Campano63 condemned beneficence and praised
ingratitude, but no one charged him with impiety. In Plato, Glaucon64 praises
injustice in order to incite Socrates to praise it, but no one ever thought less
of justice because of it. In our times, too, someone praised drunkenness,65
but no one used harsh words against him, even though he did not write a
corresponding praise of sobriety. Yet the first part of my little declamation
has called forth a laborious response from a theologian in a work to which
he gave the grandiose title Bulwark of the Church, as if it were a matter of

60 In an epistolary exchange in luly 1532 with the Dominican theologian Ambro-

sius Pelargus (Storch), to whom he had submitted his response to the censures
of the University of Paris, Erasmus once more defends his use of the word
caelebs (Allen Ep 2675:1-4).
61 Propugnaculum i28r
62 CWE 25 145-8
63 De ingmtitudine fugienda (Venice 1502) 28r~4or
64 Brother of Plato; he is made to praise injustice in the second book of the Republic
(358E-362C).
65 Christoph Hegendorff Encomium ebrietatis (Leipzig 1519). Philo of Alexandria
had also written a De ebrietate on the drunkenness of Noah.
 DILUTIO Telle 81 128

great seriousness, and as if there had been no counter-argument. He makes

it appear as if I wrote this composition with the intention of convincing the
world, contrary to the teaching of the church, that virginity and continence
were things to be avoided. Finally, he pretends he is the defender of the
church and I its adversary. It is true that I do use some false arguments.
That is not surprising, certainly, if we are dealing with a fictitious theme,
when theologians do the same in serious discussions. If there were no invalid
arguments, what would the other side have to present?
Now consider how even in a fictitious argument I was not totally obliv-
ious of Christian orthodoxy. First I imagine that one layman is persuading
another young layman to marry a wife rather than remain single. Thus when
Josse pretends so many times that I am really advising a friend against con-
tinence, he acts shamelessly on two counts. First, because he substitutes a
different person in order to arouse ill will against me; then, because he pre-
tends that I condemn celibacy outright, when all I do is advise a certain
person against it; lastly, because he everywhere takes celibacy to mean con-
tinence. And yet this last point is not very relevant. No one would deny
that this or that person may be advised against a life of virginity or conti-
nence. For neither celibacy nor virginity nor continence is praiseworthy in
itself unless the purpose is that a man may have more time for piety. The
Gospel condemns the foolish virgins,66 and the decrees of the synods67 of the
church condemn those women who after taking the veil disdain and despise
the company of married women. But if we were to speak from a political
point of view, it is wrong not to devote oneself to the raising of children. I
invent a young man who is not only free, but also weak, for whom the celi-
bate life would not be salutary. He will say, 'Where does that appear?' It
is evident from these words: 'But virginity is a divine and angelic preroga-
tive' [CWE 25 137]. To this objection it is answered, 'But wedlock is human; I
speak now as one man to another, as one commoner to another, as one weak
mortal to another' [CWE 25 137-8]. I use the term 'man' to mean one who is
not fitted for virginity, which is proper to those who are in some way su-
perior to man. I use the word 'commoner' to mean a layman who is free to
take a wife whenever he likes, and by 'weak' I mean one who would not
undertake a life of perpetual continence without risk. I add an exterior con-
straint, not to omit a part of the suasorial genre, namely, that his line would
perish.

66 Matt 25:2-13
67 Council of Gangra in 362, quoted in Gratian's Decretum pars i D 30 and D 31
cc 8-9
 R E F U T A T I O N OF C L I C H T O V E Telle 8l 129

Clichtove will say that this is not sufficient reason for abandoning con-
tinence. But the declamation deals with a free man. Even if it seems absurd
to use such arguments in a fictitious theme, we read that the Roman pontiff
granted permission to a certain cardinal to join himself in marriage to a noble
young woman, because the preservation of his line depended upon him, and
after having a male offspring from her he could return, if he wished, to the dig-
nity of cardinal.68 And this was not a declamation. Again I do not exhort to any
marriage whatever, but to a chaste marriage very similar to virginity. Does
this smack of Epicureanism? Besides, in many passages I attribute to virginity
its proper dignity, stating openly that it has been praised, but in the case of a
few, for perfection belongs to the few. When I acknowledge that it is above the
condition of mankind and that it partakes of an angelic sublimity, I say, 'Let us
who live under the law of nature look up to those things that are above nature,
but emulate what is within our capacity' [CWE 25131]. When you hear the word
'us/ do not imagine that it is Erasmus addressing a second person, but one lay-
man speaking to another, one weak mortal to another. The expression 'within
our capacity' reveals his weakness. This passage also refers to particular cir-
cumstances, which Josse consistently denied. In another passage I declare that
virginity is an image of heavenly life. I say, 'God wished to show men a kind
of picture and likeness of that life in heaven where no women marry or are
given in marriage' [CWE 25 143]. What more noble statement could be made
concerning virginity? I state that it befits apostles and men of apostolic temper
as something perfect befitting those who are perfect. He will say, 'Then why
do you advise against it?' I advise the addressee against it, not everyone, and
not to repeat it so many times, these things are said in a declamation in the
person of someone else. I could produce other passages, but I think these are
sufficient for my purpose. If Clichtove did not see these passages, why does
he say that he examined my declamation? If he did see them and pretends
not to have seen them, where is his Christian integrity, his fraternal charity?
Now let us see how he states his case. 'Erasmus/ he says, 'recommends
that priests and monks be granted the faculty to have wives, and it will

68 Erasmus may be referring here to the notorious case of Cesare Borgia, who
was allowed to resign his cardinalate and become laicized by dispensation of
his father, Pope Alexander vi, on 17 August 1498. He then married Charlotte
d'Albert on 12 May 1499. Erasmus discusses similar cases in scholia 42 and
119 of the Brevissima scholia, also published in 1532, claiming as his source of
information Cajetanus' De dispensatione matrimonii in occidentali ecclesia, 1505.1
am indebted for this information to Professor Nelson Minnich of The Catholic
University of America.
 DILUTIO Telle 82 130

be beneficial to the progress of the human race if the continence of priests

and monks that is consecrated to God is destroyed, obliterated, violated, and
exchanged for the conjugal state.'69 What was the purpose of this violent
statement? The speaker in the declamation, whom I invent, does not speak in
that way. He makes no recommendations, but modestly states, 'In my view
it would not be ill-advised for the interests and morals of mankind if the
right of wedlock were also conceded to priests and monks, if circumstances
required it' [CWE 25 137]. What grave offence is it if this opinion is expressed
in a declamation by a layman when Pope Pius n said, not in the context of a
rhetorical declamation, Tor grave reasons we took wives away from priests,
but for graver ones we should give them back to them/70 What wrong is
there if circumstances require it, if extreme necessity forces it upon us, if it is
permitted by divine law, if it is expedient for the church? Not content with
this the speaker added, 'especially in view of the fact that there is such a
great throng of priests everywhere, so few of whom live a chaste life'71 [CWE
25 137].
Clichtove says, 'What has once been consecrated to God cannot be
turned to profane use/72 I shall not discuss such things as chalices and
patens, which certain persons have distributed for the uses of the poor not
without praise for their piety. Are we to say that a legitimate marriage and
an undefiled marriage-bed belong to Satan, although it is a sacrament of the
church? And how is it that the holy patriarchs were so pleasing to God in the
state of matrimony? How is it that the priests of the Old Law were consecrated
to the sacred ministries and yet were not prohibited from marrying? I shall
pass over these older precedents, but in the early days of the church,73 when
piety was in its greatest flowering, was marriage not permitted to priests
and deacons? But, it will be objected, the indissoluble vow is an obstacle. The
speaker in the declamation would not wish the vow to be dissolved except

69 Propugnaculum i2iv
70 This phrase, which was often quoted by the opponents of priestly celibacy
in the Renaissance, was attributed to Pius u by Platina. The actual phrase,
which is slightly paraphrased by Erasmus, is 'Sacerdotibus magna ratione
sublatas nuptias, majori restituendas videri'; Platina De vitis ac gestis summorum
pontificum (Cologne 1540) 295.
71 This passage is not contained in the Encomium matrimonii but was added to De
conscribendis epistolis.
72 Propugnaculum i2iv
73 It was not until the Council of Elvira in 300 that those in sacred orders were
obliged to observe chastity. This regulation was reinforced by Pope Siricius at
the Council of Rome in 386.
 R E F U T A T I O N OF C L I C H T O V E Telle 83 13!

by the authority of those charged with such duties. If the Roman pontiff for
suitable reasons can make a monk into a non-monk/4 what prevents him
from allowing marriage for grave reasons? I shall not speak here of the great
multitude of those professing celibacy who live very impure lives and how
this corruption seeps down to men of various conditions. Such facts do not
entirely escape the notice of Clichtove, however much he palliates them with
fair names.
Moreover, the wording of the speaker in the declamation can be under-
stood to refer not to the initiate but to those to be initiated. But if he refers
especially to those that are bound by oath, if the pope or the church75 can-
not absolve anyone from his vow, the speaker in the declamation does not
imply that they be granted the right to marry. Similarly he does not teach
that it would be more proper to allow marriage, but judges that it would be
a lesser evil; rather, he does not judge, but thinks so, and he qualifies his
statement by saying, "In my view/ which is equivalent to saying, 'That is
my opinion at least, although it may be erroneous.' In Greek the particle ye
has the same force. But let us suppose the church allowed priests, monks,
and nuns to marry, would that mean that the purity of men and women of
the church would immediately be destroyed, obliterated, and violated? The
declamation does not wish that anyone be forced into marriage, and it is
probable that a great number of people will persevere in the unmarried state,
even from among those who live incontinently. Therefore, for those who like
chastity, let that remain as their mark of honour; for those who cannot be
continent, it would be granted that they have wives instead of concubines.
I think there never were more chaste priests in the church than when the
refuge of marriage was available to them.
It was equally generous of him to attribute impious aims to me, as if
I were trying to persuade everyone that continence was pernicious for the
human race, forgetting that these things are said in a declamation and not by
me, but by a lay person advising against celibacy. Every time Josse repeats in
this tract, 'Erasmus recommends, Erasmus teaches, Erasmus attempts/ he is

74 On the glossa see Beryl Smalley The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford
1952)55.
75 St Thomas states in the Summa theologiae n-n q 88 art 11 that the pope can
dispense a secular priest from his vow, because it is not a solemn vow. The
question was the subject of several treatises written at this time, such as Nicolas
Boussart De continentia sacerdotum: utrum papa possit cum sacerdote dispensare ut
nubat (Paris 1505) and loannis Maioris theologi in iv sententiarum quaestiones (Paris
1521) f ol cliv.
 DILUTIO Telle 84 132

straying from the truth. For neither does the speaker recommend anything,
nor am I the speaker there, nor is everything that is said uttered with true
sincerity.
The declaimer twists the argument in his favour, saying that if everyone
were to embrace the state of virginity the whole human race would perish.
Josse admits76 that this is true, but says that it will never happen. That is
tantamount to uttering prophecies. Nevertheless, an argument from suppo-
sition is not to be rejected in a declamation, since it is often valid in serious
discussion. For example, Jerome's answer to Jovinian, 'If they were all to be-
come wise, where would the foolish be?'77 is a verbal quibble, not an answer.
Otherwise it would be offensive to honourable marriage. The difference be-
tween marriage and virginity is not that between wisdom and stupidity,
but rather that between the gold of ducats and that of florins.78 Certainly
in the case of the addressee in the declamation, his race would have been
annihilated if he had not taken a wife.
Now let us review some passages in which Clichtove lashes out with
stinging words, not that we regard seriously what was not said seriously, but
to indicate how unmindful he was of theological seriousness. He makes the
observation that in setting forth the argument I call the celibate way of life
lacking in humanity and sterile.79 In the narration of the case I express doubt
as to whether the subject of the declamation had decided on celibacy, that
is, abstention from marriage, through motives of religion or because he was
overcome with grief. If he abstains through religious motivation, it is not a
human action, because it is something above the human condition and not
befitting the weak person whom I depict. Man is by nature a sociable animal.
We have it from divine testimony: 'It is not good for man to be alone/80 There
is no more apt company for a man than a woman. If he shrinks from marriage
because he is overcome with grief, then it is not only inhuman, but stupid.
Again, if he rejects marriage for religious reasons, his action is impious, if it
implies that living holily in the married state is not permitted. I treat these
sides of the argument in my presentation of the case, sometimes speaking as

76 Propugnaculum 122V
77 This phrase is interpolated by Erasmus into the context of Jerome's Adversus
lovinianum 1.36 PL 23 271.
78 The two coins were of approximately equal value and were considered as
comparable in the international trade of Erasmus' time. Cf John H. Munro
'Money and Coinage of the Age of Erasmus' CWE i 314-16.
79 Propugnaculum i22r. Erasmus does indeed make such statements in De con-
scribendis epistolis CWE 25 130,135.
80 Gen 2:18
 REFUTATION OF CLICHTOVE Telle 86 133

one concerned with the government of the state, sometimes as a rhetorician,

sometimes as a natural philosopher, always as a participant in a debate. In a
theological argument I would speak in another manner.
In another passage811 wonder why his quotation is incomplete, unless
he intended to leave room for the reproach that these words were more
appropriate to Epicurus or a pagan than to a theologian, again imagining that
I wrote those things in my own name, in all seriousness, and as a theologian.
The passage is as follows: 'What is more ill-advised than in the pursuit of
sanctity to shun as unholy what God himself, the source and father of all
holiness, wished to be held most holy? What is more inhuman than to shrink
from the laws of the human condition? What is more ungrateful than to deny
to one's descendants that which you would not be able to deny, etc' [CWE 25
130]. What, I beseech you, is impious or Epicurean here? Is it not sinful to
despise matrimony in the name of religion, as if it were something profane,
although it is a sacrament of the church? Would not this attitude be ungrateful
and inhuman unless it were excused because of the pursuit of a higher good?
Is it not right to say that he who follows an angelic life is not a man? As far as
political considerations are concerned, he who remains sterile is not a good
citizen in this respect because he diminishes the size of the citizen body, just
as Socrates82 said that he who diminished the flock or the herd was not a good
shepherd.
But what follows is harsher: 'It seems all the more shameful that dumb
herds should obey nature's laws, but men, like the giants, should declare
war upon nature' [CWE 25 134]. When you read 'It seems/ you recognize, I
presume, a phrase used by one engaged in a debate, not by someone giving
utterance to his own thoughts. When you read later on 'It is clear' [CWE 25135],
you know that I am relating an argument, not stating my own opinion. Still
this reasoning, although presented in a fictitious discussion, is not altogether
absurd. Celibacy in itself is degrading unless it is entered into for the sake of
the kingdom of God. Again I do not call one who does not have a wife a stone
[CWE 25 135], but one who is not moved by a desire to marry, since nature
has implanted not only in animate things but in plants and herbs the desire
to propagate their kind.
Furthermore, the declamation imagines that the addressee is unquali-
fiedly opposed to marriage, not that he wishes to conquer the promptings of
nature through love of piety. The command 'Increase and multiply'83 has not

81 Propugnaculum 1221
82 Plato Republic 345D
83 Gen 1:22
 DILUTIO Telle 86 134

been rescinded, but it yields to a more perfect calling. Celibacy that shuns
marriage through love of pleasure and ease is shameful and inhuman. More
shameful is that which despises and abhors marriage. Almost all the young
men depicted in comedies shrink from marriage, but they are not praised
for it. It is praiseworthy for a Christian to oppose nature for the sake of
the kingdom of heaven, which, according to the words of the Lord, 'suffers
violence.'84 But what praise does he deserve who is not touched by such feel-
ings? I call the instinct of nature a supernatural power created by God. At
this point Clichtove will ask me whether John the Baptist, John the Evange-
list, and Paul were not human beings, or good citizens, or whether they were
stones. Did you expect me to cite such examples in a declamatory exercise? In
the Scriptures even stones are praised,85 and it merits praise to rebel against
nature, but what does this have to do with the person whom I depict as shun-
ning marriage out of human sentiments? And he restricts the question to
those who are not influenced by human feelings. But a certain Parisian the-
ologian86 of some renown wonders whether the mother of Jesus felt the first
stirrings of nature, especially before she gave birth to Christ, although in my
opinion it would have been more seemly not to raise this question. Josse ad-
mits that those whom he named struggled against the promptings of nature.
If this is true, they were influenced by them. He adds, 'corrupted'87 nature,
but I posit that the stimulus to procreate comes from nature understood in
an absolute sense, as thirst and hunger by nature stimulate us to preserve na-
ture, although rebellion may rise from the corruption of nature, about which
there will be opportunity to say more later on. Again in this instance I use
the word 'seem/ playing the part of one who is discussing, not asserting as
a fact. Despite all this, Josse concludes by saying that all these statements are
undeniably impious and thoroughly detestable.
He takes offence at another passage: 'But nowadays conditions and
times are such that you would not find anywhere a less defiled purity of
morals than among the married' [CWE 25 137]. The declamation talks about
impurity, which Josse says does not exist, and for that reason cannot be
adduced to vilify religious orders, as if it were prohibited to say anything

84 Matt 11:12
85 Isa 28:16; Matt 21:42
86 Probably Pierre Cousturier (d 1537), a controversial Carthusian monk from
the monastery of Vauvert-lez-Paris, who wrote a treatise against the detractors
of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Apologeticum in novos anticomaristas praedarissimae
beatae Virginis Mariae laudibus detrahentes (Paris 1526)
87 Propugnaculum i22r
 REFUTATION OF CLICHTOVE Tclle 87 135

on a fictitious subject that was not absolutely verifiable. Would that Clichtove
could have said with complete certainty, "The declamation is shamefully
lying/ Perhaps he has spent all his life among pure virgins, male and female,
but for those who have lived in various regions it is more than apparent
that what the declamation says is true. I won't mention here the bands of
prostitutes of both sexes who are supported in some places by leading men
of both the religious and the secular sphere. I won't mention the monasteries
of men and women where all discipline has collapsed, which are openly
nothing else but brothels. Those who are occupied in hearing the confessions
of religious relate these things as certain facts, even in the case of well-
reputed monasteries, cloistered nuns, and boarding-schools, in which the
young are trained under a rigid regime - stories such as any religious person
could not hear without feeling great chagrin. These things are not said to
cast aspersion on religious orders; I merely touch on them lightly and in a
general way since the case required it. I do not see how they could have been
referred to more briefly or in a more seemly fashion. But if whoever makes
general observation on men's morals is considered offensive, who is more
offensive than Jerome,88 who scours monks, virgins, clerics, and bishops with
caustic wit?89 Who is more rude than Bernard,90 who vents his rage against
the corrupt morals of the Roman Curia and the monks themselves? 'Where?'
you ask. In innumerable passages, but especially in the books to which he
gave the title De consideratione and also in his Meditations. Josse objects91 that I
do not compare one set of morals with another, one state of life with another.
Then why did I use the words 'nowadays conditions and times are such'
[see 134 above]? That statement clearly precludes, unless I am mistaken, any
accusation that I appear to prefer marriage to continence in absolute terms.
This phrase from the declamation also irritates him: 'For the others will
seem to have been interested in leading a pure life; you will be judged the
murderer of your line, because, when you were able to have offspring by
honourable wedlock, you allowed it to die out through vile celibacy' [CWE 25
143-4]. Here the speaker is arguing from the standpoint of what is considered
praiseworthy, and is not expressing his own opinion, but what the masses

88 As in Jerome's letters to Eustochium PL 22 394-425 and to Heliodorus PL 22

347-54
89 Horace Satires 1.10.4
90 Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) also speaks out against the abuses of the clergy
in the fourth book of De consideratione PL 182 727-807, and in the Meditationes
piissimae de cognitione humanae conditionis PL 184 485-507.
91 Propugnaculum i22v
 DILUTIO Telle 88 136

would say. In his eyes celibacy is vile not for anyone at all but for one who, not
through love of a more perfect way of life but through hatred of marriage,
allows his race to die out. Clichtove's subsequent statement is amusing: 'The
sublime herald of the Lord, John the Baptist, was not the murderer of his
race/92 Perfume on the lentils,93 as the proverb goes. I resolved this difficulty
earlier, for a little before this passage I admit that celibacy is fitting for
apostles, bishops, priests, and monks, so why would I condemn it in John the
Baptist, the precursor of the Lord?
He goes on to make further references to the declamation: 'Some in-
dulgence should be granted to her sex and her years. The girl did wrong
because she was overcome with grief; at the instance of foolish women or
foolish monks she threw herself into it headlong' [CWE 25 144]. Here Clich-
tove constructs a syllogism: 'If a girl who professes the monastic life commits
a sin, then the profession of continence is a sin.'94 And at this point my good
friend Josse shouts at the top of his voice that nothing more impious, more
detestable could be uttered. But he does not advert to the fact that there are
various kinds of sins. A person with a fever who does not abstain from wine
sins against the art of healing; one who does not propagate his race is guilty
of a sin against the political order. Lastly, a girl who throws herself headlong
at the instigation of foolish men and women into an unfamiliar kind of life,
while not even being sufficiently aware of who she is herself, sins against Sa-
cred Scripture, which says that a faithless and foolish promise is displeasing
to God.95 The declamation illustrates in the case of this girl that it is a grave
offence to make a difficult and indissoluble vow rashly. How impudent of
Clichtove to accuse me of impiety for saying this in a declamatory exercise,
when if it were said in a sermon, all would agree that it is a salutary admo-
nition, especially in this age, when so many young girls are caught in a trap
who will afterwards, but too late, repent of their way of life. Then my gentle
adversary rebukes me for having exposed a girl to derision in my compo-
sition. How can I do that, my good sir, if I do not disclose the name of any
young man or any girl; on the contrary, when the whole situation is fictitious,
as befits a declamatory exercise, in which even if I had wished to use names,
I would have had to use fictitious ones, as I do in other letters?
At the end of this chapter96 he concludes: 'He should have commended
marriage in such a way as to give primary importance to celibacy and

92 Propugnaculum izjr
93 Adagia i vii 23
94 Propugnaculum 1231
95 Eccles5:4
96 Propugnaculum chapter 31,1231
 REFUTATION OF CLICHTOVE Telle 89 \yj

to confess candidly that celibacy is preferable to marriage/ So says Josse.

Actually I do just that in more than one place in the declamation itself, but I
argue from the circumstances that marriage is more suitable for the person
concerned. What kind of an orator would I have been if I had convinced him
that celibacy was preferable, when I am overtly persuading him to marry? So
often does Clichtove din into our ears that celibacy means chastity, that if he
continues to misuse a Latin word it would almost become a fixed rule and
henceforward speaking Latin would be forbidden, because by his repeated
solecisms he cleared a path for calumny.
In the next chapter he has the effrontery to say that after citing passages
from Scripture, I added the following statement in denigration of continence:
'What do we read like this concerning celibacy anywhere in the sacred
writings? Wedlock is called honourable, and the marriage-bed undefiled
by the apostle Paul,97 but celibacy is never even named there . . . But if
the law condemns and stigmatizes a barren marriage, it has condemned the
unmarried much more severely' [CWE 25 132]. First of all he joins my sentences
together incorrectly through carelessness or, more probably, through malice.
The sentence beginning 'What do we read like' depends on what precedes
it.' "Marriage is a great sacrament," says Paul, "in Christ and the church"/98
[CWE 25 131]. Obviously Paul is here commending marriage because it is an
image of that ineffable union by which Christ is joined to his spouse the
church, and the union in him of divine nature with human nature. From
this follows the statement 'What do you read like this concerning celibacy?'
And I use the word celibacy according to good Latin usage in its simple
connotation of a manner of life that is free from marriage. After the citation of
that passage, another one from Paul follows: 'Wedlock is called honourable,
and the marriage-bed undefiled. Not even virginity is ever called a great
sacrament in Christ and in the church' [CWE 25 132, not exact]. This does not
mean that marriage is superior to virginity in absolute terms. I admit this,
but it belonged to the other part of the declamation. In the passage in which
Paul pays homage to marriage he does not mention celibacy, since celibacy
is diametrically opposed to marriage. But Josse distorts my words, as if I
wrote that nowhere in the sacred writings is there honourable mention of
a life free from marriage. He says, 'But in many other places virginity and
continence are praised.'99 Who does not know that? But here I am using the
word celibacy in an absolute sense, debating with one who perhaps avoids
having a wife not through love of piety but through dislike of marriage.

97 Heb 13:4
98 Eph5:32
99 Propugnaculum i2jv
 DILUTIO Telle 90 138

But suppose I understood the word 'celibacy' to mean 'chastity/ would

it have been appropriate for me as an orator to mention things that are
opposed to my case, and suddenly turn from being an opponent of celibacy
into its advocate? The fact that the law says, 'Cursed is he who has not left
his seed in Israel';100 that it relates that he who spilled his seed upon the
ground was gravely punished by God; that women who did not give birth
were thought of as disgraced, since the common people thought that this
was a manifestation of divine wrath; that those who had offspring after a
long sterility give thanks to God for having taken away the disgrace they
brought upon Israel; that among the Mosaic blessings the fruit of the womb
is mentioned while sterility is counted as a curse; that David calls down as
a great curse upon Michol,101 the daughter of Saul, that no man would see
offspring from her - all of these examples were sufficient for the declaimer
of the speech to prove that the law condemned a sterile marriage. 'Cursed'
sometimes denotes abominable, hateful, and shameful. I leave it to him to
consider the value of John Damascene's commentary.102 We are not bound
to any particular interpretation of Scripture, especially in a declamatory
exercise.
What follows is equally unabashed: 'Besides, it is not one who lives
unmarried who makes himself a eunuch, but one who in chaste and holy
fashion carries out the duties of wedlock' [CWE 25 137]. My copies, three in
all, each a different edition, read as follows: 'Not only he who, etc.'103 I mean
that chastity can be achieved to a large degree also in marriage, if one is not
a slave to lust, but only desires offspring so that they may be brought up for
the sake of Christ, and if one suspends the exercise of the marital right at
times in order to pray.
He does not like this argument of the declamation: 'If it was rightly
said that God and nature do nothing in vain, why did nature assign us
these reproductive organs and these incitements, if celibacy in itself is to be
considered praiseworthy?' [CWE 25 136, not exact]. As long as the theologians
in the schools base their arguments on the authority of Aristotle, they are

100 Gen 38:8-10, the curse against Onan, quoted by Erasmus (CWE 25 138)
101 2 Sam 6:20-3
102 John Damascene (c 645-750) comments on this passage in his Theologia PG 94
1210-11; Clichtove elucidates Damascene's commentary in his edition Theologia
Damasceni, quaituor libris explicata et adiecto ad litteram commentario elucidata (Paris
1519) fols 188-9.
103 The adverb modo is in the text of De conscribendis epistolis but not in the Encomium
matrimonii.
 REFUTATION OF CLICHTOVE Tellc Q2 139

considered learned, but is it unlawful for the declaimer of a speech to reason

in the same way? 'But the argument is invalid/104 he will say. I agree, if by
invalid we mean that which can be refuted. But if I were to resolve all the
issues, what would the speaker on the opposing side have to say?
I must say repeatedly that I am dealing here with one who shrinks from
marriage not through pious zeal but for other reasons, like the widows whom
Paul105 wishes to be married and procreate children. If the Apostle recom-
mends this, is it a crime if a declaimer makes the same recommendations? In
such cases, at least, marriage is preferable to celibacy. That I am not making
this up is revealed in my words, which Josse neglected to cite: 'In all other
respects one who follows the law of nature and procreates children is to be
preferred to one who perseveres in the single state simply in order to have a
more independent life' [CWE 25 132].
He criticizes this passage also: 'I have no patience with those who say
that sexual excitement is shameful and that venereal stimuli have their origin
not in nature, but in sin. What is so far from the truth?' [CWE 25 136, not exact].
Some were offended in this passage by the word 'shameful/ as if I meant
that all sexual intercourse was dirty and illicit. I use the word 'shameful' to
mean something of which we are ashamed, just as Paul calls those parts of the
body shameful106 not because they are by nature more shameful than other
members, but because it is considered indecent to expose them. I readily
admit that the rebellion of those members had its origin in sin, but the stimuli
themselves I consider as merely natural, and that they would have existed in
our first parents even if they had never sinned. For how could the function
of marriage be carried out without them? I do not deny that rebellion and
baseness would not have been present, but let Clichtove himself discover
by what authority he asserts that natural instincts107 would not have been
present. There are many things that Augustine108 and other ancient writers
mention about the state of our first parents if they had persevered in their
innocence, which we are not obliged to believe as articles of faith. I know
that a distinction is made between created nature and fallen nature, but it is

104 Propugnaculum i24r

105 i Tim 5:14
106 i Cor 12:23 (inhonesta)
107 Clichtove Propugnaculum 124V argues that Adam and Eve were not ashamed of
their nakedness and thus were not subject to the promptings of the flesh until
they had disobeyed the divine command.
108 Clichtove cites Augustine De civitate Dei 14.17, which supports his view of the
innocence of the first parents, 'clothed in grace,' as Augustine says, before their
disobedience.
 DILUTIO Telle 92 140

still called fallen nature. Paul says, 'We are children of wrath by nature.'109
Indeed, rarely is the nature of man understood otherwise in the Christian
writers, unless they make a distinction because of some additional factor.
I understand the word nature in an absolute sense, that is, common to us
with other animals. For I am writing a declamation, not teaching theology.
Indecency did not originate with nature, but the sexual stimulus that is now
judged to be shameful did come from nature. My additional remarks that
indecency arises more from men's imagination than from reality, I confess
to be not a very good argument, not even in a declamation, yet it is not
altogether false. A great part of this sense of shame rises out of men's words,
when they shout at their children: 'Aren't you ashamed? Cover yourself!'
There has been no lack of philosophers who taught that what was
not shameful in itself was not shameful when done in public. I do not
approve, however, of the shamelessness of the Cynics,110 but in a declamation
everything is turned to the uses of persuasion. Consider for a moment
Clichtove's dialectical skill. He taught that at the beginning of the human
race before the fall there were no illicit instincts rebellious to the spirit, and
from this assertion he infers that Erasmus' contention that these instincts
were instilled in us by nature and not from the sin of our first parents is
weakened. Which instincts did he mean? Those that arise against the will of
the spirit? That is not what I said. I spoke of purely natural instincts. When
nature instigates us to procreate, it performs its natural function. It incites us
to self-propagation just as it incites us to self-preservation through hunger
and thirst. But man is hungry and thirsty even when he does not wish to
be. Is that a consequence of sin? The fact that we resist these impulses with
difficulty and are often mastered by them is due to the weakness of our
reason. It is clever of him to call an excerpt from a declamation an opinion of
Erasmus, of which I also strive to persuade others. By the same token, when
Thomas111 argues that simple fornication is not a sin, because to wipe one's
nose is not a sin, he calls this a belief of Thomas. But that is more than enough
concerning sexual appetites and natural instincts.
When I say that opposition to nature is not a virtue, he says that I
should have distinguished between created and fallen nature. Of course that
distinction would have been very useful in a fictitious composition! For the

109 Eph2:3
no The works of Aphrodite could be performed in public according to the Cynics.
Cf Diogenes Laertius Lives of the Philosophers 6.69.
111 See nj6 above. This is stated as an objection in n-n q 154 art 2, which is then
refuted.
 R E F U T A T I O N OF C L I C H T O V E Telle 93 14!

purposes of declamation it was sufficient to make use of the Stoic teaching

that the essence of virtue is to live according to nature. But the fundamental
role of nature is to preserve itself and propagate its kind. These things are
good in themselves, but can become shameful in particular situations.
The declamation introduces the example of the daughters of Lot, whose
sexual intercourse with their father Josse calls monstrous/12 I know not on
whose authority. It is quite plausible that those young girls had been brought
up with upright morals by an upright father. He says that I 'subinsinu-
ate'113 that they either did not sin or could readily be forgiven. What is this
Lynceus"4 not capable of seeing? On the contrary, the declaimer of the com-
position neither 'subinsinuates' nor 'superinsinuates' that they did not sin.
He merely introduces an example of an action by which to show how great
is man's natural desire to propagate his kind. And if they did sin gravely,
it serves so much the more as an example for the development of the ar-
gument. They preferred to preserve future generations through a wicked
deed rather than let the race perish. These young girls were convinced that
the whole world had been destroyed by fire and that there were only three
survivors. Origen"5 extenuates and excuses this deed in various ways. At
the beginning of the world brother reproduced from sister without guilt be-
cause necessity so required. Perhaps necessity could also excuse the incest of
these girls. What wrong proposition did Erasmus put forth this time? This
is Josse's conclusion after careful reasoning: 'Erasmus should not have pro-
posed this example of a monstrous crime for the purpose of recommending a
good action/"6 No one called this a monstrous crime before Josse. But even
granted that it is, whence does he produce this rule that one ought not make
use of a lowly example to recommend something good? Why does Christ use
the example of the thief in the night117 to teach holy vigilance, or the treach-
erous steward118 to teach pious generosity? When the declamation reasons
from the standpoint of that which gives pleasure, he says that I describe the
pleasure of the marriage act in words that are so sexually arousing119 and tit-
illating that he was afraid to quote them, no doubt to have the reader think

112 The adjective in Latin is infandum; Propugnaculum I26r. The passage is found in
Gen 19:36.
113 Propugnaculum i26r
114 Adagia 11154
115 Origen Contra Celsum 4.45 PG 111102 and In Genesim homilia 5 PG 12 190-4
116 Propugnaculum i26v
117 Luke 12:39
118 Luke 16:1-8
119 Propugnaculum iz6v
 DILUTIO Telle 94 142

that my words contained excessive obscenity. But the fact is that the declama-
tion so treats this subject that it could hardly be treated with more modesty
by a virgin theologian. When it compares the friendship of marriage with
other friendships, it says, Tor while we are linked with other friends by
benevolence of mind, with a wife we are joined by the greatest affection,
physical union, the bond of the sacrament, and the common sharing of all
fortunes' [CWE 25 139]. Moses spoke with less modesty when he said, 'And
they shall be two in one flesh.'
The declamation continues: 'If you are at home, she is there to dispel
the tedium of solitude; if abroad, she can speed you on your way with a
kiss, miss you when you are away, receive you gladly on your return. She
is the sweetest companion of your youth, the welcome comfort of your old
age' [CWE 25 140]. Is this prurient? What Hippolytus120 could speak more
chastely? It goes on: 'I should not presume at this point to set before you
those pleasures, the sweetest that nature has bestowed upon mankind, which
men of great genius, for some reason or other, have chosen to ignore rather
than despise' [CWE 25 140]. These presumably are those prurient words that
Clichtove found titillating. When I mention licit sexual intercourse, that is,
existing within marriage, what could have been stated with more modesty?
There is not a word there on the pleasure of the marriage act. What can be the
purpose of those who publish such things in defamation of their neighbour?
He also thinks that another statement of the declaimer of the speech
is worthy of censure, namely, that one who is not attracted by this type of
pleasure seems more like a stone than a human being. He asks me whether
the saints,121 who perhaps by a special gift of God did not have these feelings
at all, should be called stones. If he wants a humorous answer, I shall say
that they were stones, but special stones for the building of God's house,
and they were not men in the sense of Paul's words 'Are you not men?'122
but through their extraordinary virtue angels or gods. If he wants a serious
answer, I shall say that the declamation does not deal with those few who
were raised above the condition of mankind, if indeed they did exist, which
is uncertain. I always make exception for Christ and his most holy mother.
One terrible passage is left: the speaker, not Erasmus, wishes 'that
those who indiscriminately encourage to celibacy those who are not mature
enough to know their own minds should direct similar efforts to presenting
a picture of chaste and pure matrimony' [CWE 25 138]. I refer to those who by

120 Chaste son of Theseus, liege of Diana

121 Propugnaculum i26v
122 i Cor 3:4
 R E F U T A T I O N OF C L I C H T O V E Telle 95 143

improper exhortation constrain young girls and boys to enter the monastic
life, and I add the word 'indiscriminately' because not all are suitable for
this type of life. Does Clichtove approve of such individuals? I don't think
so. But Augustine, as he says,123 and Jerome encourage few people to the
married life. My declamation encourages only one person. But if highly
esteemed, learned men encourage some persons to a life of continence with
due deliberation and prudence, are we to give immediate approval to those
who do this today rashly and unadvisedly? The declaimer does not wish
them to spend their efforts exhorting everyone to embrace the married state,
as Josse falsely interprets, but to present a picture of chaste matrimony. Since
there is a great multitude of married people, the masses think that it is licit to
gratify their lust in marriage. If the image of a chaste marriage were depicted
for them, we would have more chaste marriages. What the declaimer wishes
to be changed is something worthy of denunciation; what he prefers to take
its place is holy and virtually necessary; yet the defender of the church takes
offence.
One finishing touch remains to be added to this theological declamation.
Despite the fact that it is a declamation; that it is the first part of a set theme
to which an opposing argument must be made; that these things are said not
by Erasmus, but by a young layman; that they are addressed not to everyone,
but to one individual; that a virtuous action is being recommended and one
that in a certain way is necessary for him; that there is not a licentious word
in the whole speech; that even in theological disputations it is permitted to
use false reasoning in order that the listeners may learn how to refute it;
despite all this, listen, I beseech you, to what my friend Clichtove has to
say in his Bulwark of the Church. To utter freely at long last/ he says, 'what
I feel, I should wish that all books that are redolent of Venus and incite
the unwary minds of the readers to her through the deadly poison of their
words, such as this little treatise of Erasmus, of which we are speaking, as
well as the Facetiae*24 of the Florentine, Poggio, and the first two books of
the De voluptate125 of Lorenzo Valla, which advocate adultery and fornication
and condemn celibacy in those dedicated to God in the monastic life, and

123 Propugnaculum 12/r

124 A collection of anecdotes, mostly salacious, and not sparing in their castigation
of monks and clerics, written by Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459) when he was
papal secretary under Pope Martin v
125 The first two books of this treatise, written in 1431, expounded the views of
Epicurean philosophy in the person of Antonio Beccadelli, il Panormita, whose
own life accorded well with the views he is made to represent.
 DILUTIO Telle 96 144

some other books published by Christian writers, should be consigned to

fire and brimstone as they deserve/126 Were you sober when you wrote this,
Clichtove? If you mean by Venus illicit intercourse, there is not a syllable in
my declamation that is redolent of such a Venus. If you mean licit intercourse,
is it not permitted even in a declamation to urge this or that individual to
enter into a chaste marriage? And do you judge that this 'little treatise/ in
which there is not a single lascivious word, is to be compared with the filthy
witticisms127 of Poggio and the books of Valla that patronize whoring and
adultery, as you say?
Paul rightly said, 'Evil conversations corrupt good morals/128 but do
not those who defame their neighbour with such calumnies publicize evil
conversations? If similar impartiality is used in making judgments by those
whose verdicts determine whether men are to be burned at the stake, what are
we to say? And although they publish books of this kind, they still wonder
that there are some who do not immediately regard whatever has been said
or written by theologians as oracular. I could amplify this point with many
words, but I prefer to make allowance for Clichtove's ingenuousness.
I do not think it necessary to refute his accusations against my letter on
the choice of foods. I think sufficient answer was given to them in the notes129
I added to the letter. But I will touch selectively on a few of his points. His
list130 includes 'Erasmus attempts to advise against the practice of the law
on priestly continence.' What is the practice of the law but continence itself?
Does Erasmus ever advise against that? Or does he not strongly endorse it
on various occasions throughout his writings and in that very epistle which
losse condemns? But he harps on these same words at the beginning of his
discussion. He says that if permission to marry were granted to priests, a
vile disgrace and a dire contagion of more grievous crimes would be visited

126 Propugnaculum 12/r

127 Cf Ep 182:99-101. Erasmus calls Poggio's writings 'filthy, pestilent, godless
stuff in Ep 337:352-3.
128 i Cor 15:33
129 In answer to the objections of Clichtove voiced in the third book of the Propug-
naculum and to other critics, Erasmus published a revised version of his essay
on fasting, De interdictu esu carnium, appending to it a series of scholia which
elucidate no fewer than fifty-seven points. The full title of the work is Epistola
de delectu ciborum, cum scholiis per ipsum autorem recens additis. It was published
together with the Dilutio and an answer to Alberto Pio. The work was included
neither in the 1540 Froben edition nor in Leclerc. A critical edition of the text
has now been published by C. Augustijn (ASD ix-i 65-89).
130 Propugnaculum i6gr
 R E F U T A T I O N OF C L I C H T O V E Telle 97 145

upon the church. What crimes is he prophesying to us in these words?

As if both the eastern and the western church did not permit marriage to
priests and deacons for several centuries. He does not wish the weeds131 to
be pulled out lest the wheat also be uprooted at the same time, as if the
result would be that if marriage were permitted to the incontinent, no one
would live a continent life, but everyone would immediately be corrupted
by the admixture of wedded priests. And now are none corrupted by the
admixture of those living with concubines? not to mention more obscene
things.
He says that the mysteries of the altar are too exalted to be performed
by married men. Therefore Paul sinned in admitting not only married dea-
cons/32 but married bishops133 to celebrate the mysteries of the altar. I shall
not make reference here to the fact that Peter was married, or that Philip was
a deacon. The church was shrouded in deep darkness when for so many cen-
turies it did not see that it was wrong to entrust the ministry of the altar to
those who were married. What is the opinion of the synod that pronounces
anathema upon those who refused to receive communion from the hands of
married priests?134 What of the fact that today very few priests minister at
the altar but attend to those sacred duties through the intermediacy of oth-
ers while they themselves hunt, wage wars, gamble, and administer worldly
affairs?
Again he concludes: 'Since/ he says, 'once this breach was made, the
status of the whole ecclesiastical class would appear excessively degenerate
and would be defiled by an ugly disfigurement/135 Thus speaks Josse. Such
must have been the Greek church at one time and such it must be today;
such also was the Roman church for several centuries. Is he not aware that
this language verges on gross slander of the Catholic church? Is it defiled by
marriage but not defiled by harlots and other lusts not to be mentioned here?
'But/ he says, 'these evils would not be lacking in the clerical order
even if marriage were permitted to them/136 To prevent these evils an ancient

131 Matt 13:26

132 i Tim 3:12
133 i Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6
134 In Ep 1039:138-48 to the Bohemian nobleman Jan Slechta, Erasmus cites Au-
gustine on Ps 10:6 that the gift of God conferred through the sacraments is not
vitiated by the morals of the minister. The belief of the Donatists that the valid-
ity of the sacraments depended on the worthiness of the one who administered
them was condemned at the Council of Aries in 431.
135 Propugnaculum i2ir
136 Propugnaculum i2iv
 DILUTIO Telle 97 146

law137 would be revived. An adulterous priest would be punished by death,

one who consorts with prostitutes or possesses a concubine would be deposed
from his office; or if leniency is recommended, the adulterer would be forced
to do public penance and would afterwards be numbered among the laity.
A priest or deacon guilty of impure actions would be debarred from wealth
and office. But what hope would there be for putting an end to evils of this
kind or how would religious leaders have the courage to correct these abuses
when they themselves admit indiscriminately into the ecclesiastical order
ignorant young men who betray their immorality in their whole bearing and
are already plainly contaminated by these very vices?
In the third book, after reviewing Luther's opinion138 that bishops and
priests have the right not to prescribe but only to encourage, he adds that he
was quite astonished that Erasmus was tainted with almost the same idea,
because I wrote somewhere139 that it seemed to me that Christianity would
be more unadulterated if no particular kind of food were prescribed.
Can we be said to be tainted with the same ideas if one of us refuses all
validity to papal constitutions and the other hopes for such spiritual vigour
in the church that no one will have need of such prescriptions, but the faithful
will withdraw themselves far from any type of Judaism140 by observing a
simplicity of diet voluntarily and with lifelong frugality? And he ends his
speech in this way: 'Erasmus should follow the opinion of the universal
church in this regard, publicly approved by the consent of the Christian
people, and confirmed by long practice, rather than depart from it, relying
on his own opinion, which is contrary to it/141 Where does Erasmus depart
from the opinion of the church? Does he advocate that the general practice
of the church should be violated? He teaches the very opposite. And what

137 Penalties were imposed on uncelibate clerics and their offspring were deprived
of civil status by Pope Benedict vm at the Synod of Pavia, 1020, and thes
pronouncements were enacted as the law of the empire by Henry n. At the Synod
of Tournai in 1520 statutes were published by Bishop Louis Guillard, a disciple
of Clichtove, assigning severe penalties to priests living with concubines.
Sessions 29, 21, 22, and 25 of the Council of Trent were dedicated to the
eradication of this abuse. Cf Karl Joseph von Hefele Histoire des conciles d'apres
les documents originaux trans Dom H. Leclercq (Paris 1907- ) x.
138 Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523) 45 117-18 and The
Sacrament of Penance (1519) 35 12-17 m Luther's Works ed Jaroslav Pelikan and
Helmut T. Lehmann 55 vols (St Louis 1955-86)
139 Ep 916:164-6, dedicatory letter of the Paraphrasis in Corinthios LB vii 851-2
140 That is, empty religious formalism. Cf Enchiridion CWE 66 127 and Ep 541:149^
141 Propugnaculum i3ir
 R E F U T A T I O N OF C L I C H T O V E Telle 98 147

of his desire that such ardour for true spiritual piety should return that men
will not have need of prescriptions of this kind? I think this has always been
the wish of pious men. Of course, my opponent sings a palinode for having
written that certain words that the church recites in the consecration of the
paschal candle, 'O happy fault/42 which earned us such a great Redeemer/
should be suppressed. But what does this have to do with my wish, which,
unless I am mistaken, I hold in common with the church?
A little further on, when he says that my complaints were designed
to reject fasting and abstinence, it is manifestly false, since in the same
letter143 that he criticizes, I reproach those who without necessity violate
such constitutions of the church. And yet he insists on this reproof in other
passages also. If he had said that my complaints aimed at changing obligations
into exhortation, his speech would have been at least plausible, if not true. I
do not complain there of constitutions, but of the preposterous judgments of
men, who give such importance to these external matters that in deference to
them they neglect what is more directly concerned with evangelical piety.
And if one were to complain of the immoderate number of such consti-
tutions, what crime would there be? Does not Jean Gerson144 complain of the
great number of feast days? Does he not complain of the excessive quantity
of constitutions, by which he says the Vigour of the spirit is impeded, men's
consciences are ensnared, and Christ's sweet yoke becomes iron-clad'?145
And he makes these complaints about the prescriptions not of just anyone,
but of bishops, popes, and even synods, recognizing that the hierarchy of-
ten abuse their power. As for what Josse asserts, that if the obligation should
be removed no one would fast or abstain from sumptuous foods, to put it
frankly, he has a dull imagination.

142 In his commentary on John Damascene's Defide orthodoxa (Paris 1512) Clichtove
had rejected the phrase O felix culpa of the Easter hymn Exsultet, considering
it to be a late interpolation. He preferred to substitute (more prosaically) O
magna misericordia, quae talem nobis miseris dedit salvatorem (f ol i8ir). Following
Duns Scotus and Bonaventure, the Sorbonne theologian argued that Adam's
sin was not necessary to bring about the Incarnation, but that Christ would have
become man to bring his creation to perfection. In the wake of much criticism
he retracted this opinion in De necessitate peccati Adae et foelicitate culpae eiusdem
apologetica disceptatio (Paris 1520). He does so once again in the Propugnaculum
1321.
143 Ep 916 criticizes those who violate the church's constitutions.
144 Jehan Charlier, born in Gerson (1363-1429), chancellor of Paris. In his De
potestate ecclesiastica he complains of the multiplication of feast days; in Oeuvres
completes vi 239 (see 1146 above).
145 Gerson De vita spirituali animae in Oeuvres completes in 129 (see 1146 above)
 DILUTIO Telle 99 148

And here I should warn the reader not to imbibe unwarily the deadly
poison that lies hidden under these honied words. Were you sober, Clichtove,
when you committed this to writing? He does not see that I am merely
engaged in debate in my treatise, stating nothing categorically, but deferring
judgment to the leaders of the church. He considers that it is forbidden to
discuss established practices. None at all? Is there any constitution of the
church which teaches that the obligation concerning the choice of foods will
last forever? I don't think so, but I do teach that a law must be observed as
long as it lasts. And furthermore, in the entire discussion in which he praises
Christian fasting, he calls me his adversary, as if I spoke ill of fasting; and lest
anyone should think that this attack was directed against others, he reminds
the reader in the table of contents, 'I have refuted Erasmus in the third book/
He culls certain phrases of mine and constructs verbose syllogisms out
of them, vindictively stating such premises for the purpose of calumniating
me in this way: 'Discrimination in food is close to Judaism; therefore, the
constitution must be abolished.' 'Christ made no prescription about discrim-
ination in food; therefore the law should be abrogated.'146 The letter does not
follow this form of reasoning, but by collecting various reasons in the figure
of speech called o-vvaQpoio-^o^7 it urges bishops to consider whether in the
present circumstances it would not be expedient to change the obligation of
the law into an exhortation. But if he had set forth the argument in a proper
manner, there would have been no opportunity for his hateful vituperations,
which he did not want to lose at any cost. Clichtove would have given a better
example of a theologian's integrity if he had used the same scrupulousness
in refraining from calumny and impudent words against his brother as he
did in proclaiming fasting and abstinence from forbidden foods to us. That
is a much more grievous offence than breaking a fast or partaking of an egg
against the practice of the church. And as certain men now praise the scrupu-
lous spirit in which he humbly asked pardon for having rashly attacked a
chant of the church which is not even taken from divine Scripture, so many
more would praise the man's integrity if he would retract the many slander-
ous things he wrote against his friend. May the Lord grant us all a mind
worthy of him.

146 Propugnaculum ijor ff

147 (rvvaQpoLa-fjLos, 'accumulation'; mentioned also in De conscribendis epistolis CW
93. Cf Quintilian Institutio omtoria 8.4.26.
 THE R E P L Y OF E R A S M U S TO
THE D I S P U T A T I O N OF A
CERTAIN PHIMOSTOMUS ON DIVORCE

Responsio ad disputationem cuiusdam Phimostomi de divortio

translated and annotated by ANN DALZELL

 INTRODUCTORY NOTE 150

In 1532 Johann Dietenberger published an attack on the doctrines of the

reformers entitled Phimostomus scriptumriorum, 'A Bridle for the Scriptural-
ists.'1 To this he appended a 'special treatise' on the subject of divorce.2 He
had been working on this for some time, ever since he had discussed the
subject with Valentin von Tetleben, the archbishop of Mainz. Tetleben had
shown some sympathy for the view of Erasmus that the laws governing di-
vorce might be relaxed, given certain circumstances.3 Erasmus had argued
this point in a lengthy excursus on i Corinthians 7:39: 'The wife is bound
by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is
at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord/4 Dietenberger
did not see Erasmus' work until 10 October 1531, but once having read it he
took up his pen and finished his treatise.5 He reviewed the passages in the
Bible that state the conditions for divorce,6 then listed and attempted to refute
sixty-one points in Erasmus' excursus to which he took exception.7 Erasmus'
Reply8 first appeared on 19 August 1532, and in the following month was
published at Freiburg im Breisgau together with the Epistolae palaeonaeoi of
Joh. Emoneus luliacensis.9 The work was written hastily. The style is un-
polished and the arguments not always clearly presented. Erasmus did not
choose to spend more time in refuting Dietenberger's attack than he had to,
and further, because Dietenberger had misrepresented Erasmus' position on
confession (176), it was essential to correct his allegations speedily before
they could harm Erasmus' reputation for orthodoxy and sound doctrine. He
directed his defence to Tetleben (see 177) but did not address him by name.
The exchange between Erasmus and Dietenberger was the subject of a
paper entitled 'Erasmus and Dietenberger on Divorce' by Dr Edwin Rabbie,
presented at a colloquium, 'Erasmianism: Ideal and Reality,' organized by the
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and held in Amsterdam,
19-21 September 1996. Dr Rabbie's paper is published in the proceedings of
the conference, edited by M.E.H.N. Mout, H. Smolinsky, and J. Trapman.
The text of the Leiden edition (LB), with a few minor corrections, has
been used for this translation. The corrections are indicated in the notes where

1 Cologne: P. Quentel
2 Dietenberger 211-52
3 Dietenberger 212
4 Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 6920-7030
5 Dietenberger 212
6 Dietenberger 213-26
7 Dietenberger 226-52
8 Responsio ad disputationem de divortio LB ix 955A-965D
9 Dietenberger 211 ni
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E 151

they occur. Discussions of technical terms are also to be found in the notes
in their appropriate place. I have translated biblical texts by the Authorized
Version wherever possible. When the Vulgate does not correspond to the text
used for the Authorized Version, I have followed the Douai-Rheims Bible.
Occasionally - where, for example, Erasmus has provided his own Latin
translation - I have modified the English version in order to make his point
clear.

AD
 THE R E P L Y OF E R A S M U S TO
THE D I S P U T A T I O N OF A
CERTAIN PHIMOSTOMUS ON DIVORCE1

E R A S M U S OF R O T T E R D A M TO THE M O S T D I S T I N G U I S H E D . . ., D O C T O R
OF C A N O N AND C I V I L LAW
I have been reading a tract on divorce written by a man who in my opinion
makes his points quite well and reveals a more moderate attitude of mind
than some whom we see contending in this arena. Yet he is not entirely dis-
pleased with himself. You can see this from his title page, which rattles its
'bridles' and 'bits' at us, arrogant words indeed! Now why he thought that he
would insult his opponents by calling them Scripturalists I do not know.2 He
might with more justice have called the others Rationalists, for they ignore
the Scriptures and apply secular criteria to their study of the Gospels. Or if
they introduce anything from Holy Writ, they do so from convention rather
than conviction and often with little point, so you know that their knowledge
of Scripture is superficial.
It was my critic's intention to refute the remarks which I made some
time ago in my annotation on chapter 7 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians.3
My sole purpose was to provide the authorities of the church with an op-
portunity for considering whether there is any way to ensure that marriages
are not undertaken so rashly; or if undertaken rashly, whether they could be

1 Dietenberger's attack on Erasmus was appended to his Phimostomus scripturari-

orum, published by P. Quentel in Cologne, 1532 (Dietenberger 211-52).
Phimostomus (bridle) is part of the title, not a name for the author as Erasmus
pretends. Dietenberger returned to the image at the conclusion of the trea-
tise: frenum istud, 'that bridle/ and/reno rectitudinis catholicae, 'with the bridle of
Catholic rectitude' (Dietenberger 210).
2 Scripturalists (scripturarii): see Dietenberger 210: 'those who boast that they do
everything according to the Scriptures'; and 'the thrice and four-times damned
heresy of the Scripturalists.'
3 i Cor 7:39. A brief note in the first edition (1516) was greatly expanded for
the second edition (1519). Further revisions were introduced in the third and
fourth editions (1522 and 1527), but these were not used by Dietenberger.
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E LB IX 9556 153

dissolved by an ecclesiastical court, given good and sufficient grounds.4 His

first move was to establish certain criteria as foundation blocks on which the
structure of his whole argument might rest, but some seem to me so shaky
that they need other pillars to support them! He wants the words divortium
and repudium,5 when used in Holy Writ, to be understood always as 'the
termination of cohabitation without the termination of the marriage bond/6
whereas I use these words throughout the whole of my discussion with a
broader meaning;7 and he limits the term 'divorce' to those unions in which
sexual intercourse has taken place.8 Then, he says that he does not choose to
discuss what the pope or the church can do by way of loosening or tightening
the bond of matrimony,9 although this topic forms no small part of my discus-
sion; for its purpose is to urge that some consideration be given for those who
are unhappily married, or if this is impossible, that at least some consideration
be given in future to ensure that marriages are not contracted so easily.
Now who has given him the authority to impose on me new restrictions
affecting the meanings of words? Even a betrothed woman10 is 'divorced':

4 Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 692?

5 'divortium and repudium': ie 'divorce.' Divortium is not found in the Vulgate.
'Divorce' is expressed by the verbs dimitto and discedo, and the bill of divorce
authorized in Mosaic law by libellus repudii.
6 Dietenberger 212: 'I do not understand divorce to mean the dissolution of the
marriage bond'; and Dietenberger 216: 'not complete freedom from the author-
ity of the husband, but the dismissal merely of the wife from her husband's
house.'
7 Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 6<^jE: 'I mean by divorce - true divorce,
that is, and the only form known to that age - a form of divorce by which it
was lawful to marry a second wife after divorcing the former wife. For what
our generation understands as divorce, namely "the termination of cohabitation
without the termination of the marriage bond," what ancient theologian or legal
authority ever meant that by divorce?'
8 Dietenberger 214: 'The law of divorce has reference only to a marriage that has
been consummated and that has been lawfully undertaken in other respects.' All
authorities agreed that consent was the essential condition of a valid marriage,
but not all believed that the marriage must be consummated before being
considered valid; see Gratian Decretum pars 2 c 27 q 2, and Peter Lombard
Sententiae book 4 dist 27 cc 3-5, who cites authorities on both sides. See F. and
J. Gies Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages (New York 1987) i36ff.
9 Dietenberger 212: 'I do not presume to set out here what the pope and the
church can do regarding the termination of a marriage.'
10 'Betrothed woman' (non iam ducta) denotes a woman whose marriage has been
contracted, but who has not yet moved from her father's to her husband's house.
In the Palestine of the Bible betrothal was a solemn contract. The betrothal
was the more important part of a Jewish marriage because the bride was
'consecrated' to her husband at that time. She normally remained in her father's
 R E S P O N S I O DE D I V O R T I O LB IX 9550 154

when her intended husband withdraws from the contract, a divorce takes
place; both the man who dismisses and the woman who is dismissed bring
about a divorce even if sexual intercourse has not taken place. St Joseph,
seeing that his 'wife' was pregnant, was about to arrange a divorce. (The
same word, aTroXvaai, 'put away/ is used there and in Matthew 5 and in other
passages where the Lord is speaking of divorce.)11 Furthermore, divorce can
take place between those who have not been married legally; if, for example,
a man unknowingly marries a woman related to him in the second degree of
consanguinity, or if a woman remarries, believing that her former husband
is dead. If my opponent wanted to refute my arguments, he ought to have
used words in the same way that I used them.
Now what theologian has taught or what angel has revealed that the
word foeditas, that is, 'foulness/ in Deuteronomy 24 means 'adultery' and
nothing but adultery?12 The translators of the Septuagint wrote acryji^ov

house for a year, then the second part of the marriage was celebrated, the
groom took her to his house, and the marriage was consummated. In the Europe
of Erasmus also betrothal was a solemn contract, so much so that in some
parts of Europe a betrothed couple were automatically regarded as married
if they had sexual intercourse. Erasmus believed that Mary and Joseph were
betrothed but not married when Jesus was 'conceived by the Holy Ghost' (Matt
1:18: 'When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came
together'). Because she was formally consecrated to him, she was called his
'wife' in Matt 1:20 and 24, and when she appeared to be guilty of adultery,
it was appropriate that Joseph arrange a 'divorce.' The expression 'espoused
wife' (Luke 2:5) emphasizes the solemnity of the betrothal and indicates that
the marriage had not been completed.
11 Matt 1:19 and 5:31-2
12 Deut 24:1; cf Dietenberger 215-16. Dietenberger cites as his authority for this
interpretation Paul of Burgos (c 1353-1435), a converted Jew and exegete, who
wrote approximately 1100 additional notes (additiones) for Nicholas of Lyra's
great biblical commentary, the Postillae perpetuae in universam S. Scripturam, the
first biblical commentary to be printed (Rome 1471-2). For the text of Burgos'
additio on Deut 24:1, see Dietenberger 215 ni/. Burgos stated that the Hebrew
word translated in the Vulgate by foeditas, 'foulness,' would have been rendered
more accurately by turpitudo, 'disgrace,' as in Lev 18:6-18, where it is used to
denounce forbidden forms of intercourse: adultery, incest, and bestiality. The
sexual connotation which it clearly bears in this passage must be understood
in Deut 24:1; and Mai 2:15-16, 'When thou shalt come to hate her ...,' quoted
by Erasmus below, 159, should also be interpreted in this light: 'because she
has broken the Mosaic law.' The Septuagint expression is broader in meaning.
Erasmus translated it by rem indecoram, which may refer to either a physical or
a moral blemish.
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E LB IX 955E 155

-npay^a, that is, 'an unlovely thing/ The text of the Law is as follows: 'When
a man hath taken a wife, and hath had her, and it come to pass that she find
no favour in his eyes because he hath found some foulness in her, then let
him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out
of his house/13 A man 'takes a wife' when he contracts a marriage; he 'has
had' her when he has taken her to his house.14 (The expression 'has had' is
translated in the Septuagint by crwoiKTyo-Tj, that is, 'lived in the same house/) It
may happen at this point, because they are living together, that the husband
discovers a hidden blemish of body or mind which he had not noticed before,
even though intercourse does not take place. Now suppose that an illness
attacked you: would anyone refer to it in such an imprecise manner as this if
he knew that you suffered from one specific disease?
But if 'foulness' means solely and simply 'the adultery of the wife' as
my opponent wishes, does he think that a 'suspicion of adultery' is meant,
or 'known adultery'? Now within the limitations of human understanding
no distinction can be made between a strong suspicion of adultery, which
the Law calls 'the spirit of jealousy/ and an adultery which, though known,
cannot be confirmed by witnesses. The words of the Law in the fifth chapter
of Numbers make this clear: 'whether she is defiled or is charged on a false
suspicion/15 Now the right to divorce his wife was not granted to a husband
on the ground of a suspicion of adultery: another remedy was provided
for that.16 If the adultery was detected and could be proved - and there is
no other ground on which it is lawful to divorce - then by giving a bill of
divorce, a man delivers up his wife to stoning.17 (I speak of Jewish divorce.)
That accomplished, it will be perfectly lawful for the husband to marry
another woman; but who would want to take for his wife a woman who
had been divorced on the ground of adultery and was subject to capital
punishment?
Furthermore, it is agreed that the Law ordained the giving of a bill of
divorce as a kindness to the woman in order that she might marry whom she

13 Deut 24:1
14 Dietenberger (213-14) understood 'has had her'(habuerit earn) to mean 'She has
become his as a result of sexual intercourse/ Erasmus refers the two verbs, 'has
taken' and 'has had/ to the two parts of a Jewish marriage.
15 Num 5:14: 'And the spirit of jealousy come upon him [the husband], and he be
jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon
him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled/
16 A wife's integrity could be ascertained by the drinking of 'bitter waters' (Num
5:18-24).
17 Deut 22:20-1
 R E S P O N S I O DE D I V O R T I O LB IX 9566 156

chose after she had been released from the authority of her former husband.
But what kindness does an adulteress deserve?
Again, it is unlikely that the reason for a divorce was normally added
to bills of divorce; that was a matter for the families. According to Josephus,
through this document the husband gave up the right to reclaim his wife
against her will;18 or if she had married a second husband and had been
divorced by him as well, or if she were freed from her second husband by
his death, her former husband could not marry her19 because it would seem
that he had rashly divorced a woman who later came to please him. And this
was done to show disapproval of the divorcing husband and good will to the
wife who was divorced. And the divorcing husband is ordered to give the
bill of divorce into the hand of his wife for the following reason, so that she
may have the means of finding a husband and of demonstrating that she is
completely free.
The clause that follows, 'send her out of his house/20 is designed to
protect the woman's reputation, for if she lived in the man's house after she
received the bill of divorce, people would suspect that she had intercourse
with him after the divorce. But our Theologian imagines it to be obvious
from this clause and, as they say, as clear as day that the right to remarry is
denied to the woman. 'Do you understand?' he says. It does not mean that
he will release her from the bond of matrimony, but from cohabitation.' And
here you have one of the principal foundations of his argument. Pure straw!
Divorce is a matter not of law but of privilege. Even so, the manner
of divorce, by giving a bill of divorce and by dismissal, is a matter of law,
for divorce by any other means is unlawful. It was a law of great humanity:
it took into account the husband's passionate nature and aversion and the
wife's right to freedom.
But if divorce in that text is interpreted simply as 'separation from bed
and board,' why does it happen in our day that men who have divorced their
wives are not told to get them out of the house? What interpretation can be
more cruel or absurd than this?

18 Josephus Antiquities 4.8.23

19 Deut 24:2-4
20 Deut 24:1. Dietenberger (216) understood 'out of his house' as a restricting
clause (dausula ... restrictoria): 'not to send his wife from him altogether, but
from the house only.' He maintained that the Mosaic law of divorce and the
Christian law were the same, and he had, therefore, to explain Deut 24:1-4 in
the light of Jesus' teaching as recorded in eg Mark 10:11-12: 'Whosoever shall
put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a
woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth
adultery/
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E LB IX 9$6E 157

Our alert and penetrating Investigator should at least have noticed

the phrase that follows immediately in the Law, 'and when she has left
and married another husband/21 This is the reason she is sent from the
house, that she may go lawfully to the house of a second husband. But this
Phimostomus of ours interprets the phrase to mean 'She should not marry a
second husband'!
Again: it says in the same passage, 'She is defiled and become abom-
inable before the Lord/22 The word 'abominable' is used not because the
woman committed a sin by marrying a second husband; but just as 'cursed'
is used of a sterile woman, and 'unclean' of a menstruating woman, and 'ac-
cursed' of a man hanging on the gibbet, so in the same way 'abominable'
is used of a divorced woman. (And indeed she ought to be abominable in
the eyes of her former husband, for this will prevent him from taking her
back after she has had intercourse with her second husband.) It is the alter-
nation of marriages and the intermingling of semen that is abominable, not
the woman herself, divorced for some physical blemish. Here you have one
foundation pillar that cannot stand.
The second pillar is that Christ, when speaking of divorce in Matthew
5 and 19, Mark 10, and Luke i6,23 does not introduce a new law, but
merely explains what Moses meant: what Moses calls 'foulness' Christ calls
'fornication/24 But why is this so clear? Did Moses lack words for naming
the heinous crime of adultery? He names it in many other places. Now the
Lord did not reply to the Jews who cited the Mosaic law: 'Moses and I mean
the same thing. He permitted divorce for some foulness which I define as
fornication, and men who divorced their wives in his day were just as guilty
of adultery if they married again as they would be today under the law of
the gospel/ But as if he were offering a more perfect law Jesus said, 'But
I for my part say unto you/25 Also, my critic claims that when the Jews
replied, 'Moses made it lawful to divorce a wife by a bill of divorce on other
ground than that of adultery/26 they did not state the meaning of the Law,

21 Deut24:2
22 Deut 24:4
23 Matt 5:31-2 and 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18
24 Dietenberger 215-16. Dietenberger accepted the interpretation of Paul of Bur-
gos, 'basing his argument on the text of the Law and confirming it by the words
of Christ/
25 Matt 19:3-9. In his translation of Matt 19:9 Erasmus emphasized the contrast
between 'Moses' and T: Ego autem dico vobis, cf Vulg Dico autem vobis (= A.e'yo> 6e
v ij.lv).
26 'on other ground than that of adultery': translating ob aliam causam rather than
non ob aliam causam as printed in LB ix 9578
 R E S P O N S I O DE D I V O R T I O LB IX 957B 158

but rather the interpretation of it given by the Pharisees.27 But what he claims
must be proved. For the Lord himself did not say in his reply, 'The Pharisees
misinterpreted the Law to you for the following reason/ but he said, 'Moses
permitted you/28 Now what my critic attributes to Christ is of no importance.
The only thing that matters is what is expressed in the Gospel.
Evil is permitted, my critic says, lest a greater evil ensue.291 grant that
this statement is valid under human law, which permits public brothels in
order to prevent rape and adultery. (Yet permits them to this extent only, that
it does not punish them severely, for it does punish them to a degree.) But
divine law does not permit evil that good may ensue, although sometimes it
grants to frail humanity a less than perfect way lest it fall into sin; as when
Paul, for example, permits widows to marry again.30 Adultery, however, is
listed not among imperfections but among serious crimes, punished among
the Jews by stoning, among the Romans by decapitation. How, then, is it
reasonable to suggest that such a crime was permitted by Moses?
Furthermore, since there is no passage either in the Law or in the
Prophets which states that the expression 'foul thing' means 'adultery,' and
'divorce' means 'the termination of cohabitation without the termination of
the marriage bond,' what a trap would have been laid for the Jews through
not understanding the Law! what a great, open pit for falling into adultery!
The Law, which is binding on all, ought to express clearly what it means.
Moreover, since the Law requires that an adulteress be put to death by
stoning - and by this interpretation a divorced woman who marries again
clearly commits adultery - such a woman ought to have been punished,
according to the Law; nor would there have been need for a trial in this
case,31 since according to my critic adultery consists in this very thing, that is
to say, in marrying a second husband.
Now it often happens in Scripture that a point which has been expressed
somewhat obscurely in one passage is clarified in others; but the second
chapter of Malachi provides not even a glimmer of light by which we may
conclude that adultery was the only ground for divorce permitted to the Jews

27 Dietenberger 217: 'but because it was commonly said by Jews who were under
the influence of the teachings of the Pharisees that a wife could be dismissed
for any cause whatsoever'
28 Matt 19:8
29 Dietenberger 218: 'But I think that reconciliation on account of the weakness of
the flesh was admitted lest they be tempted by Satan after their separation.'
30 i Cor 7:8-9
31 le the trial 'by bitter waters/ Num 5:18-24
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E LB IX 95/E 159

and that after divorce a wife could not lawfully marry a second husband.
The text is as follows: ' Despise not the wife of thy youth. When thou shalt
come to hate her, send her away, saith the Lord the God of Israel.'32 What
is the meaning of 'Despise not'? 'Do not send her off in a way that would
cause her shame and disgrace, like a servant or a slave/ as Abraham sent
Hagar away, with no provisions apart from a loaf of bread and a bottle of
water, Genesis 2i.33 But if you have conceived an aversion towards her, send
her away with humanity so that she may marry again in accordance with the
Law, and return her dowry so that she may find a husband, and abjure the
right to claim her again once she has been sent away.
Now aversion does not arise from adultery alone. Moreover, the entire
twenty-fourth chapter of Deuteronomy records laws whose generosity re-
veals an admirable humanity. For example: Do not require military service
of a man during the first year of marriage. Do not take the millstone as se-
curity. Receive security outside the house. Return security before sundown.
Pay labourers each day for the work of that day. Do not take a widow's cloth-
ing as security. Leave the gleanings for strangers and paupers; and do the
same when harvesting the grapes and olives.34
My critic cites Burgos as his authority for maintaining that in Deuteron-
omy the expression 'foul thing' denotes the adultery of the wife. I do not
know if Burgos says this, for I have not yet found the reference and I can
hardly persuade myself to believe it. But granted that this was said by him,
he is not an irrefutable Doctor of the church. When I cite in my note the dis-
tinguished Doctors of the church, Ambrose, Origen, and Tertullian, my critic
says that it makes no difference what this one or that one has said, but only
what Scripture says.35 It would be more appropriate for me to say this to him
when he introduces Burgos. However, Cardinal Cajetanus, in his commen-
tary on that passage of Deuteronomy, states on the authority of the Hebrew
that by the expression 'foul thing' any physical blemish is meant which ought
to be hidden on account of its ugliness; and he states categorically that a
woman does not sin if she has married again after being divorced, and that a
man does not sin if he has married again after divorcing his wife.36

32 Mai 2:15-16. See ni2 above.

33 Gen 21:14
34 Deut 24:5-21
35 Dietenberger 231: 'I do not ask here what this one or that one has written about
divorce, but what God has taught and ordained in his Holy Word.'
36 Cajetanus, like Burgos, based his interpretation on the Hebrew text, but he un-
derstood Deut 24:1 to mean that a previously known condition or circumstance
 RESPONSIO DE DIVORTIO LB IX 958B 160

Phimostomus says that permission to remarry was granted to a husband

not because he had divorced his wife, but because Jews in antiquity were
permitted to have a number of wives at the same time.37 If this is true,
Christ spoke to no purpose when he said in Matthew 19, 'Whosoever shall
put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery,'38 assuming that Christ teaches nothing new in this
text but simply expounds the meaning of the Law. It seems likely in fact,
that the concession of which certain patriarchs and kings availed themselves,
perhaps under the inspiration of the Spirit, had been withdrawn long before
the coming of Christ because the Israelites had already become a sufficiently
populous nation. For there is no text in the Old Testament which sanctions
polygamy. There are only a number of examples, a small number, among its
holy men.
My critic does not take up this argument of mine: If divorce as defined
in the Law consisted of nothing more than the termination of cohabitation,
why do Leviticus 21 and Ezekiel 44 state, 'A priest is forbidden to marry
a widow or a divorced woman'?39 'Even such a woman was permitted to
marry/ the Law says, 'but as one defiled/40 If a divorced woman commits
adultery when she takes another husband, on what ground is she said to
marry? For 'marry' is a word used of matrimony, not of harlotry. A divorced
woman is called defiled in the same way that a widow is called defiled,
because she has had sexual intercourse with her husband. A woman who
has had sexual intercourse is in some measure defiled, and for that reason a
priest is forbidden to marry her; not because she is unworthy of a husband,
but because it is appropriate to the priestly office that he marry an unsullied
virgin. For virginity, even among the heathen, has always had its own honour
and grace.
A further point: why were the children of a later marriage held to be
legitimate if the marriage was adulterous?

(res) was revealed to the husband. It was a condition by its very nature hateful,
but not defined in the Law. He did not state that the blemish was physical, but
may have meant to describe it as such when he said that it was 'in the woman
herself.' Cajetanus' commentaries on the Pentateuch were first published in
1531, at Rome. Erasmus was availing himself of the most recent scholarship on
the subject.
37 Dietenberger 236: 'not under the law of divorce, but because a husband was per-
mitted at that time to have several wives - a concession now totally withdrawn'
38 Matt 19:9
39 Lev 21:14; Ezek 44:22
40 Deut24:4
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E LB IX 9580 l6l

And so, if it is by no means clear either from the words of the Law or
from the words of the Prophets that the true meaning of 'some foul thing'
is 'adultery/ and that the true meaning of 'divorce' is 'the termination of
cohabitation without the termination of the marriage bond/ and if the words
of Christ mean exactly the same as those of the Law (except that while he
relaxes in some measure the first law given in the Garden of Eden,41 he grants
less latitude to Christians than Moses had granted to the Jews because he
restricts the grounds for divorce to one), what other type of divorce could
the Jews understand - or the disciples, for that matter, who at that time were
no different from Jews - except what they had learned from the Law?42
Moreover, the Lord does not indicate to them by any word that the form
of divorce which he favours here was the only form of divorce among the
Jews. In fact, the disciples say, 'If the case of the man be so with his wife, it
is not good to marry/43 The estate of matrimony does not appear forbidding
to them because a man may not remarry after he has divorced his wife, but
because divorce had been permitted for one cause only while the Law had
permitted it on many grounds; and many women are possessed of faults no
less distressing than adultery.
But if we insist on that well-known ordinance 'What God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder/44 not even the form of divorce which
today the church permits on numerous grounds will be found acceptable.
For God so joined man and woman in the beginning that the two were 'one
flesh'.45 (Bodily union, as they explain it, makes one flesh.)46 But men who
divorce their wives today deprive themselves of this union; and so those
who live apart and do not share a bed do so in defiance of the command-
ment of the Lord; and this is clearly true because the expression 'put asun-
der' properly expresses the dissolution of conjugal relations (for Matthew

41 Gen 2:24: 'and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh'
42 What the disciples learned from the Law is implied by their reply to Jesus,
Matt 19:10: 'If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.'
They understood from Jesus' teaching that he greatly restricted the freedom to
divorce which had been permitted by the Mosaic law, and they were shocked
by the limitations that he imposed. If the disciples had interpreted the Mosaic
law in the same way as Dietenberger, they would have expressed surprise that
Jesus admitted divorce on any grounds.
43 Matt 19:10
44 Matt 19:6
45 Gen 2:24
46 Dietenberger 214: 'But how will they be "in one flesh" or "one flesh" unless
sexual intercourse has taken place?'
 R E S P O N S I O DE D I V O R T I O LB IX 959A 162

says xoupt^eTou);47 even as 'will cleave unto' (Trpoo-KoXX.-rjO-ijo-eTai) and 'joined

together' (o-vve&v^ev) express an indissoluble union.48
My opponent takes refuge in the apostle Paul, 'the interpreter' of the
mind of the Lord,49 who writes to the Romans in chapter 7, 'The woman is
bound to her husband as long as her husband liveth/ etc.50 First of all, it is
recognized that the Apostle is not concerned in this passage with the question
of divorce, but that he is drawing an illustration from the Law in order to
prove that those who profess the gospel are no longer bound by the usages of
the Law. Now it is recognized that an illustration used to make a point need
not be applicable in every detail: it is enough if it applies to the point it was
chosen to elucidate. For example, the Lord compares his coining to a thief
in the night.51 Now 'the law of the husband' is Paul's term for 'the right of
the husband/ The right of the husband is his authority over his wife and his
power to exact her obedience. But this right is lost in this new kind of divorce;
so according to Paul, even this kind of divorce would not be lawful. This
text, therefore, presents two difficulties: the first is that it is an illustration;
the second is that if we are restricted by its words, even divorce understood
as 'separation from the marriage bed' will be unlawful.
But if my opponent says, 'One must understand in this text "except on
the ground of fornication,"' there will be two difficulties. One is that the
exception does not square with the point Paul is making, for he wants to
show that the law which he calls 'the law of the husband' is dead, not that it
is vexatious. The second is that if the death of the husband and divorce on
the ground of adultery have the same force, it will be lawful in our day too
for divorced women to remarry.
A further point: in that text the Apostle speaks about the woman, not
about the man, for the Law did not grant to the wife the right to divorce
but granted it to the husband only. In my opponent's argument, on the other

47 le 'put asunder/ Matt 19:6

48 Matt 19:5 and 19:6. Jesus is describing marriage as ordained by God in the
Garden of Eden.
49 Dietenberger 217: 'St Paul, the divine interpreter of passages of Holy Writ
whose meaning is obscure'
50 Rom 7:2-3: Tor the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her
husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from
the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married
to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead,
she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to
another man.'
51 Matt 24:43; Luke 12:39;c^ RGV 3:3-
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E LB IX 959C 163

hand, the same regulation is applied to both, but nowhere is this set out in
Holy Writ. I shall speak about this soon in some detail.52
There remains the passage in First Corinthians, chapter 7: 'And unto
the married I command, yet not I but the Lord, Let not the wife depart
from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be
reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife/53
In this passage Paul admits no exception, although the Lord, whose precept
he cites, made an exception for adultery. But Ambrose says that we should
understand here 'except on the ground of adultery/54 Suppose I grant the
point, even so, the exception is to be understood with the last clause only,
'and let not the husband put away his wife/55 because nowhere does Christ
permit or does the Law permit a wife to divorce her husband on the ground
of her husband's adultery. Ambrose explains this point clearly in the same
note,56 since my opponent hounds me with the authority of Ambrose. Now
when the Apostle says, 'Let not the wife depart from her husband/ he speaks
of a divorce arranged by a wife who has been distressed by her husband's
conduct; otherwise there would have been no point in his adding, 'and let
not the husband put away his wife/ for he would be saying the same thing

52 165 below
53 i Cor 7:10-11; cited and discussed by Dietenberger 217-18. In his Latin trans-
lation of the New Testament Erasmus placed a full stop after verse 10, 'Let not
the wife depart from her husband.' The Vulgate (and English translations) carry
the sentence over into verse 11: '(10)... depart from her husband: (11) But and
if she depart...' If verses 10 and 11 are taken together, the authority of the Lord
applies to both. If they are taken as two sentences, verse 11 need not carry the
authority of the Lord. This point is significant for the discussion that follows.
54 Ambrose Commentarium in epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios primam 7:10-11 PL 17
230: '"Except on the ground of fornication" is understood/ Cf Dietenberger
218: 'except on the ground permitted by the Lord, which Ambrose said was to
be understood/
Erasmus questioned the authenticity of this commentary in 1527 and suggested
that it be referred to as the work of 'Ambrosiaster/
55 'Ambrosiaster' introduced the exception under the lemma 'And let not the
husband put away his wife' (PL 17 230). Erasmus is following this interpretation
of the passage, not suggesting one of his own.
56 Ambrose Commentarium in epistolam B. Fault ad Corinthios primam 7:10-11 PL 17
230: 'And he did not add, as he did of the wife, "But if he depart, let him remain
unmarried," because it is lawful for a husband to marry if he has dismissed an
adulterous wife. The husband is not restricted by the law in the same way as is
his wife, for "the husband is the head of the wife" (Eph 5:23).' And cf under the
lemma Aut viro suo reconciliari, 'or be reconciled to her husband' (i Cor 7:11):
'The same law does not apply to the inferior person as to the superior/
 R E S P O N S I O DE D I V O R T I O LB IX 959D 164

twice, since the rejected wife 'departs' and the rejecting husband 'puts her
away/57 But we do not read anywhere that a wife was permitted to dismiss
her husband. On the basis of this passage, the only one adduced, it cannot be
proved conclusively.
And so the Apostle proposes in the name of the Lord what was a counsel
of perfection, namely, that there should be no separation at all, not even on
the ground of adultery, because such a sin does not occur between those
who have been made perfect; but that the bond should remain unbroken,
even as it was in the original institution of matrimony.58 (For the Lord did
not command that the husband repudiate his wife if she committed adultery;
rather he granted this concession in recognition of our infirmity. It is Paul
who calls this a 'commandment' of the Lord.)59 But if the woman leaves her
husband - and if she does, she goes beyond the concession permitted - then
the Apostle advises her on his own authority to remain unmarried;60 or if she
cannot endure the single life, to forgive her husband and return with him to
a loving union. And Ambrose calls this the 'advice' of the Apostle, namely,
that it is better for her to live alone in the hope of a reconciliation than to
live with a second husband in an adulterous relationship. Again, the author
of the commentaries on all the Epistles of Paul which we read under the
name of Jerome supports the same interpretation and adds, 'This is better.'
The passage from Ambrose is as follows: "This is the advice of the Apostle,
that if she has left as a result of her husband's bad conduct, she should now
remain unmarried.'61 The words of the commentator are as follows: 'If she
has left for any cause, let her not marry another; or if she desires to marry

57 The words 'depart' and 'put away' can refer to one divorce, for when the
husband 'puts away' his wife, she must 'depart' from his house. But they can
also distinguish two divorces, the one in which the wife takes the initiative and
'departs/ the other in which the husband takes the initiative and 'puts away'
his wife. If Paul meant the former, he repeated himself unnecessarily, but if the
latter, then he introduced a concept not found in the teaching of Christ or the
Law. But according to Dietenberger, the Apostle's teaching cannot differ from
that of his Master, 'since we submit that the Apostle, in whom Christ speaks, is
in complete accord with Christ' (Dietenberger 217).
58 Gen 2:24; Matt 19:3-6 and 8
59 i Cor 7:10: 'And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord/
60 Erasmus has just shown that the Mosaic law does not permit the wife to arrange
a divorce and that Jesus did not enlarge the concession granted by the Law.
Therefore Paul could not invoke the authority of the Lord for the advice offered
in i Cor 7:11: 'But and if she depart.. /
61 Ambrose Commentarium in epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios primam 7:10-11 PL 17
230
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E LB IX 959F 165

again, let her be reconciled, for this is clearly better than for her to marry
again/62 Ambrose calls this addition 'the advice of Paul'; and he does not say
'on the ground of adultery/ but 'as a result of her husband's bad conduct/ an
expression open to broader interpretation. Likewise, the other commentator
says 'for any cause/ which implies 'for many causes'; and he says 'it is better/
not 'it is necessary.'
On the other hand, the Apostle does not command the husband to
remain single if he does not desire to be reconciled to his wife, because he
may lawfully dismiss his wife for adultery. Many reasons can be adduced
to explain why greater rights were granted to the husband than to the
wife, but it is not necessary to consider them in this discussion. I know
that some authorities regard husband and wife as equal in the legal aspects
of matrimony, but Paul considers them equal only within the estate of
matrimony when he says, 'The husband hath not power of his own body, but
the wife, and likewise also the wife/ etc.63 This does not apply to the right
of divorce. In other respects he wants the wife to be subject to her husband64
and calls the husband 'the head of the wife.'65 And Peter summons wives to
follow the example of Sarah, who called her husband 'lord/66 So far are they
from being considered equal.
But let us grant to the wife the right of divorcing her husband on
the ground of adultery, if after the divorce the bond of matrimony remains
unbroken; how then can Paul67 describe her as ayajuo?, that is, 'unmarried/ if
she is still bound to her husband? Or how can Ambrose describe as 'advice'
a commandment which cannot be contravened?68 From this text, therefore,
it cannot be proved conclusively that a woman who has been dismissed in
accordance with the terms permitted by the Law and the concession granted

62 Expositiones xin epistularum Pauli PL 30 736, usually ascribed to Pelagius.

The quotation as given in LB ix 959? (and in Froben's 1540 edition of Erasmus'
Opera omnia, volume ix) makes poor sense. As given in PL it says,'... or if she
desires, let her be reconciled to her husband; for this is clearly better than for
her to marry a second husband/
63 i Cor 7:4
64 Eph 5:22; Col 3:18
65 Eph 5:23
66 i Pet 3:6; cf Gen 18:12
67 Reading a Paulo for the Paulo of LB ix 9608
68 Ambrose understood i Cor 7:11, 'But and if she depart, let her remain unmar-
ried, or be reconciled to her husband/ as Paul's advice to a woman who had left
her husband, contrary to the Law and the teaching of Christ. Dietenberger in-
terpreted this as part of the injunction introduced in i Cor 7:10 with the words
T command, yet not I, but the Lord/ and therefore as the teaching of Christ.
 PRESPONSIO DE DIVORTIO LB IX 960B 166

by the Lord, cannot lawfully marry again. And so it is abundantly clear that
Paul speaks in this passage of a woman who has left her husband unlawfully,
since a woman does not have the right to go her own way. Otherwise he would
have required of the husband too that he remain single or be reconciled to
his wife.
Furthermore, the clause of exception is not without difficulty; 9 and
although my critic declares that he will dispel this difficulty, he does not do
what he promises - through forgetfulness, I imagine. The ancient Doctors
of the church take 'except it be for fornication'70 as referring to the whole
sentence. In that case the meaning will be that the husband is permitted to
take another wife without incurring the sin of adultery, and that the wife
may marry again without incurring sin.71 But St Augustine refers the phrase
'saving for the cause of fornication'72 only to the clause that reads, 'he causeth
her to commit adultery'; for a husband who dismisses an adulterous wife
does not make her an adulteress. On the contrary, he rejects a wife who has
already committed adultery.73 Augustine devised this interpretation lest it
appear from the Lord's words that it is lawful to marry again after divorce.
I say that such an interpretation is more to be praised for its intellectual
subtlety than for its truth. For the words of the evangelist in chapter 19
have a different meaning: 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it
be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.'74 Here
the position of the exception, placed in the middle, shows that it is to be
understood with both parts of the proposition 'shall put away his wife

69 le 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery' (Matt 5:32); and 'Whosoever shall put away his
wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery'
(Matt 19:9)
70 Matt 19:9
71 Although she is an adulteress
72 Matt 5:32
73 Augustine De coniugiis adulterinis 1.2.2 PL 40 452, commenting on Matt 5:32:
'How are we to understand the text otherwise than as prohibiting a husband
from divorcing his wife except on the ground of fornication? And the expla-
nation is given: lest he "cause her to commit adultery"; for even if she has not
divorced her husband but has been divorced by him, she will be an adulter-
ess if she marries. Therefore, in order to prevent so great an evil, a man is not
permitted to divorce his wife except on the ground of fornication; for in that
case he does not make her an adulteress by divorcing her; rather he divorces a
woman who is already an adulteress.'
74 Matt 19:9
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E LB IX $6OD 167

... and shall marry another/ Certainly it cannot be taken only with the
second part. And so the evangelist means: a man who divorces his wife
for other than the legitimate cause provides her with the circumstances
for committing adultery; and a man who marries a woman who has been
divorced for other than the legitimate cause commits adultery, because he
sleeps with a woman who belongs to another. From this it follows that a
man who has divorced his wife for the reason named by the Lord and has
married another does not himself commit adultery, and he does not provide
his wife with a cause for adultery because it is lawful for a woman who
has been divorced on lawful grounds to marry again if she cannot contain
herself.
Where, then, is this new kind of divorce clearly approved, in, which a
husband and wife live apart, but the Hercules-knot remains?75 Nothing can
be proved from the passage in Paul except that a wife does not have the right
to divorce her husband if she is the injured party and has left him, lest she
contract a marriage with an adulterer/6 It is different if she has been divorced
by her husband in accordance with the Law.
At this time I omit what the orthodox Fathers have written about mar-
riage, for my critic cares nothing for their authority except when they support
his point of view. Perhaps he will reject Origen and Tertullian:77 but everyone
grants that they surpassed Ambrose and Augustine in their understanding of
the Scriptures. With regard to the matter in hand, they were never censured
by the church; and censured they certainly would have been if they had been
found in error. If they have departed from the norm in anything, their lapse is
explained by their antiquity, for in their day many doctrines had not yet been
formulated. The errors of Origen have been carefully censured, but on this
subject he was never reproved. That Tertullian did not agree with the perverse
doctrine of Montanus is made clear by the fact that he soon left that sect/8
He has been criticized because he condemned second marriages.79 He was

75 Adagia i ix 48: 'Hercules-knot... a fastening that is very tight and difficult to

undo' (CWE 32 7)
76 Matt 5:32: 'and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery'
77 Dietenberger 299: 'I do not ask what Origen "was not inclined to doubt," but
what the law of God ordained concerning divorce.' Cf Erasmus Annotationes in
Novum Testamentum LB vi 693ff (on i Cor 7:39).
78 Tertullian remained faithful to Montanist teaching much longer than Erasmus
realized.
79 See Tertullian De monogamia, a Montanist work. The Montanists, contrary to the
teaching of the church, forbade a bereaved spouse to marry.
 RESPONSIO DE DIVORTIO LB IX <}6O£ l68

never reproved for permitting a husband to remarry after he had divorced

his wife.80
There remains, then, the interpretation, or rather the ruling, provided
by the church. I follow where my critic calls, although he declared that he
did not wish to employ human arguments to support his position, but would
demonstrate clearly, on the evidence of the canonical books of the Bible taken
in their literal senses, that it is not lawful for a husband to marry again if he
has divorced his wife on the ground of fornication, and that it is not lawful
for a woman who has been divorced to marry again.
My critic refers me to the decisions of the Fathers, causa 32, quaestio 7;
and there I find men cited whose authority he does not accept.81 Moreover,
even an opinion cited in the Decretum is not a law of the church, since
it often happens that the opinions of the ancient authorities cited there are
diametrically opposed to one another. Some are even heretical, should anyone
care to examine them. Now in this quaestio Augustine takes first place;82 and
I grant that everywhere he teaches what the church now follows. But it is not
an act of impiety, I believe, to question the opinion of Augustine in some
instances. Gregory is cited there,83 and he does not allow a woman who was
divorced on account of adultery to marry again even after the death of her
husband, although Paul does not deny her this privilege. When the texts of
those authors are cited by us, when this author and that are named, when
they are cited in the Decretum, do they suddenly become lawgivers?
'But Gratian decides/ Does he, indeed! 'It is clearly demonstrated by
these authorities/ he says, 'that whoever has divorced his wife on the ground
of fornication will not be able to marry another while she is still alive, and
if he marries, he will be guilty of adultery/84 But immediately he adds, 'To
these the following reply is given: these authorities speak of those whose
chastity is not hindered by infirmity of the flesh and of those who have made
themselves unfit for union with others because they were responsible for
the separation/ A fine decision! Let Phimostomus enjoy it, and let him admit
that those who cannot live chastely after divorcing their wives do not sin

80 Tertullian Contra Marcionem 4.34.5-6, a Catholic work; quoted by Erasmus

Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 693F
81 Dietenberger 222. See Gratian Decretum pars 2 c 32 q 7 c 3: 'If a man who has
divorced his wife on the ground of fornication can marry again while his wife
is alive/ Erasmus' title for Gratian's work is Decreta.
82 Decretum pars 2 c 32 q 7 c i: "The bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by
fornication' (De bono coniugali 7 PL 40 378-9).
83 Decretum pars 2 c 32 q 7 c 18
84 Decretum pars 2 c 32 q 7 c 16
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E LB IX 9610 169

if they marry again. Again, what are the Decretals but papal rescripts and
episcopal decisions? And yet I find nothing there which properly pertains to
this question.
Now I have shown that archbishops and Roman pontiffs have held
different opinions, not only about matrimony but about other serious matters
as well, and that an earlier opinion has been corrected by later reflection.
The same thing has happened with regard to numerous decrees of the early
councils.85 The church has never been without the spirit of her Bridegroom,
but it has seemed good to him to defer the clarification of certain matters
until his own good time. I believe that the spirit of Christ was with the
apostles, yet Peter was criticized by Paul,86 and dissension rose between Paul
and Barnabas,87 although the Spirit itself never disagrees with itself. It is
probable also that the Spirit did not desert the sacred Doctors of the church,
but sometimes they falter and from time to time they oppose one another
violently. It is also possible that the Spirit is with the Roman pontiffs, and
yet a decree of Celestine [in] was rescinded by Innocent in,88 one of Pelagius
[n] by Gregory [i],89 a decree of the church of Modena by Innocent [in],90
placita of John xxn were condemned by Nicholas,91 and these dealing not
with trivial matters but with fundamental ones, pertaining to the substance
of the sacrament; unless, perhaps, there is no difference between a husband
and an adulterer, between marriage and adultery.
Formerly it was not thought wrong to believe that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father only; now it is explained differently.92 Formerly
it was acceptable to believe that the body of the Lord is present through
the act of consecration performed by the priest; later, transubstantiation was
discovered. Formerly the whole church, and especially the western church,
believed that when an infant is baptized, the washing with water does not
assure salvation unless the body and blood of the Lord are administered
immediately. The church thought that it was bound to this interpretation by

85 For examples, see Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 695 and 696.

86 Gal 2:11-14;see Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 6970.
87 Acts 15:36-9
88 Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 696F
89 Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 696F-697A
90 Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. LB vi 697A-B
91 Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 696E-F. Nicholas is not identified by
Erasmus; probably the antipope Nicholas v, installed by Louis of Bavaria in
1328, during the pontificate of John xxu.
92 le thefilioque dispute. The word was added to the Nicene Creed at Rome in 1013
and had been used elsewhere before that date.
 R E S P O N S I O DE D I V O R T I O LB IX 9611 I/O

the words of the Lord in John 6: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat
the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you/93
The church now understands that text in a different way.
Well, then, does not this text support my argument? The Apostle urges
a believing wife to remain with an unbelieving husband provided that he
does not seek a divorce.94 But today the church forbids this. If people say in
reply that Paul advised but did not command this,95 it will be correct to say
the same thing of the verse that immediately precedes it.96
But if the church on so many occasions and in matters of such grave
import has corrected earlier judgments by later, why are we to think that
now 'the Lord's hand is shortened'?97 And why does my critic think that it
was improper for me, although I introduced my remarks so circumspectly,
to examine an issue on which lawyers of the highest reputation freely
express their doubts and also their decisions? on which the distinguished
and early Doctors of the church hand down divergent opinions? on which
the Lord so spoke that his words incline more to the view which some of
the earliest interpreters advanced? especially since no error is imputed to the
church in this discussion. For the church does not by her law abrogate the
commandment of the Lord. She too is opposed to divorce and narrows the
concession granted by the Lord even as the Lord restricted that of Moses.
Moreover, it is agreed that the Roman pontiff, or certainly the church,
can interpret the canonical Scripture, can expand and contract. By interpre-
tation he shows that the Scripture has a meaning different from the one for-
merly accepted. By expanding, he grants what divine law did not expressly
grant; permits divorce, for example, on the ground of heresy or apostasy
or entrance into the religious life. By contracting, he subtracts from its con-
cessions, as when he forbids marriage between persons related by degrees
of consanguinity permitted by the Old Law and not forbidden by the New,
and likewise on the ground of spiritual affinity; again, when he terminates
a valid marriage for the sake of a religious profession; when he takes from

93 John 6:53 (= Vulg 6:54). The text has been understood as referring exclusively
to the sacrament, and with wider reference as in Augustine Tractatus in loannem
26.15 CCSL 36 267-8: meat and drink are the fellowship of his own body and
members, which is the Holy Church.
94 i Cor 7:13: 'And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if
he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.'
95 i Cor 7:12: 'But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.'
96 i Cor 7:12: 'If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to
dwell with him, let him not put her away.'
97 Isa 59:1: 'Behold the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save.'
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E LB IX 9628 iyi

a husband the right of divorce if he too is guilty of adultery, or if he has

prostituted his wife, or has had sexual relations with her after he has sus-
pected her of infidelity, or has kept her when she was publicly playing the
harlot. But if the pope has so much authority over the sacraments of the New
Law, which Christ alone could institute, and over matters pertaining to the
substance of the sacrament, much greater will be his power over the decrees
of general councils, whose authority some people regard as equal to that of
the Gospels, but only, I believe, if they show clearly that what they decree is
in accordance with canonical Scripture. But let no one so take matters into his
own hands that he behave as if it were right for a private individual to de-
spise or rescind the decrees of councils. If a matter has been established by
the corporate authority of the church, it is appropriate for it to be changed by
the same authority; but let the greater good of Christ's flock require it.
At this point I am going to be told that the church has no position on
divorce apart from that expressed by Moses, by the Lord, and by the Apostle.
As far as Moses is concerned, it seems to me that my opponent is suffering
from the same misfortune as the dog in Aesop's fables, who, while he was
trying to seize the shadow of the meat, lost the real meat that he was holding
in his mouth.98 Thus while my critic shamelessly attempts to equate the law
of Moses with the teaching of Christ, despite the authority of all the ancient
commentators, he loses credibility in his other arguments as well. As far as
the passage of Paul is concerned, if the Apostle in writing to the Corinthians
thinks that divorce takes place only on the ground of adultery, he says nothing
that differs from the teaching of the Lord. He wants everyone to be perfect
so that divorce need not occur. If this cannot be achieved, he advises the wife
not to marry again," but to leave an opportunity for a return to favour. This
would be impossible if she had had intimate relations with another husband
after the divorce. For as long as the husband who divorced her did not marry
again, there is hope of a reconciliation provided that the woman restrain her
desires. The command which Paul addresses to the wife has, then, a practical
value, for the concession granted by the Lord does not allow her any ground
for leaving her husband and marrying another man; nor does the Old Law,
unless her husband initiate the divorce. For a similar reason Paul urges a
Christian wife not to leave a non-Christian husband,100 because one may hope
that a man who does not shrink from the society of a Christian woman will
some day be converted through the effort of his wife. But if we are concerned

98 No 133 in Aesopica ed B.E. Perry (Urbana 1952)

99 \ Cor 7:11
100 i Cor 7:13
 R E S P O N S I O DE D I V O R T I O LB IX C)62E 1J2

with the usual kind of divorce, which comes about because women, offended
by the conduct of their husbands, recoil from marital intimacy, this text does
nothing to help my opponent's argument, for a husband too, if he rejects his
wife on similar grounds, is forbidden to marry again.101
Now if divorce is permitted on the ground of adultery because adul-
tery is such a heinous offence, there are other more serious crimes, such as
unnatural vice, which Paul detests equally in men and in women,102 infanti-
cide, poisoning, abortion induced by drugs. But if the reason is that adultery
is particularly damaging to the marriage bond, does the wife who makes
her body available to another deal a more deadly blow to that bond than the
wife who contrives the murder of her husband or who destroys their child
either after or before its birth? For the marriage bond is not based solely and
simply on the mutual enjoyment of bodies, since coitus is not an essential el-
ement of marriage,103 but rather on unbroken, lifelong partnership and on
mutual support, whatever fortune brings. Truly a woman who sins against
their child sins against the bond of matrimony in a particularly devastating
way.
But the church grants a wife separation from her husband's bed and
board if he demands from her the use of her body in ways other than nature
has decreed. The church, in fact, grants divorce for many reasons other than
that of adultery, the only reason which the Lord approved. But my critic does
not allow that the church deviates a straw's breadth, as they say, from the
literal meaning of Scripture.
With regard to apostasy or lapse into heresy, they offer a tropological
explanation, that this is spiritual adultery. But what texts of Scripture make
this clear? When one argues that every sin is an adultery of the soul committed
against Christ the Bridegroom, they admit that this is true, 'but not to the
same extent,' they say. This interpretation does not, I think, satisfy everyone.
What they say about affinity is similar.
When one argues about a wife who has been abandoned in favour of
a profession to the monastic life, they value this so highly that they think it
right for a girl who has been publicly married to be torn from her husband
against her will and protesting, and to remain alone until he, after a year
and a half (which is the period assigned for probation) makes his profession.
But if, before the completion of this period - or after its completion even -

101 Since adultery is the only exception granted by the Lord as a ground on which
a husband may lawfully initiate a divorce
102 Rom 1:26-7
103 154 above, and 173 and 175 below
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E LB IX 9630 173

he transfers to another monastery and must again put in a year of probation,

or if he does it a third time, his deserted wife is told to wait until he is
professed as a monk. Where does Holy Writ permit this? They offer us the
following text: 'But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of
her husband so that she is at liberty to marry whom she will/104 'Profession
of the monastic life is the death of the secular life/ they say. But where do
the canonical Scriptures teach this? Are not all Christians dead to the world,
and are they not all buried with Christ through baptism?105 And yet Paul
does not desire that a baptized wife leave an unbaptized husband unless he
rejects their union.106 But if Paul understood both deaths, the physical and the
spiritual,107 why does the physical death so free a woman that it is lawful for
her to marry a second husband after a marriage that has been consummated?
And why does the same law not obtain for secular death, that is, death in a
spiritual sense? Why do we make a distinction that Paul and the Lord did
not make? And who does not perceive that this is a human argument devised
in support of the monastic life? But human institutions should be fostered
in such a way that no harm is done to what God has established and the
Apostle confirmed. If I should at this point raise the case of certain gentlemen
who have arranged for wealthy abbacies before receiving the cowl, and in
the name of religion desert the wives with whom they had contracted legal
marriages and from which they had perhaps taken every pleasure except
coitus,108 my opponents will say that what often happens is of no concern,
only what ought to happen. The gospel calls us to perfection, I admit; but
even as perfection exists beyond the monastic life, so it is possible for it to
exist within marriage also. Even if perfection were not found in marriage,
perfection is a matter of practice rather than of profession. And if profession
is attractive, then the step should have been taken when it was honourable,
and when it could be taken without injuring anyone. But let others see to the
privilege of monastic life.
I strongly approve the fact that the church permits the dissolution of
conjugal union when the offences are intolerable; but it does this through
the power entrusted to it of granting dispensations, and not from the clear
teaching of Scripture; yet my critic maintains that everything is done in
accordance with the literal meaning of Scripture.

104 Rom 7:2 and i Cor 7:39

105 Rom 6:3-4
106 i Cor 7:13
107 Rom 6:3-4
108 Cf LB ix 9640 (175 below: 'Monastic profession dissolves a marriage/ etc).
 R E S P O N S I O DE D I V O R T I O LB IX ^6jE 174

My critic's entire argument, then, rests on extremely shaky foundations;

and yet, as if he had proved his case in every detail, he passes on to his
epilogue. There he sets out a number of short passages taken from my
annotation, and he refutes them,109 all of which is right and good for him
if I concede that Moses in Deuteronomy, the Lord in the Gospels, and Paul
in the Epistles did not know of any ground for divorce except adultery, nor
any form of divorce except that which breaks off the conjugal union without
terminating the marriage bond; if I granted that the Lord expressed by the
word 'adultery' both physical and spiritual adultery; if I granted that the
Apostle clearly expressed by the word 'death' both secular death (that is,
death by monastic profession) and physical death; finally, if I admitted that
the pope and the church can make no decree except in accordance with what
has been expressed in Holy Writ.
My critic argued against certain matters which he did not understand,
as in the rehearsal of the law in the fifth chapter of Numbers.110
I had mentioned in my annotation that Origen had written that there
were some bishops who permitted wives separated from their husbands to
marry again, and that Origen admitted that they did this contrary to the
teaching of the Lord and Paul, but that even so he did not condemn what
they did.111 My critic says in reply that he does not see how Origen can fail
to condemn what he admits to be at variance with the commandment of the
Lord and the Apostle. But if he had followed that passage in the annotation
for some lines further, he would have seen that Origen was referring there
to husbands who had divorced their wives on other grounds than that one
ground which the Lord permitted. 'Why, then,' he will say, 'does Origen
not condemn this action of the bishops?' I shall explain in a few words:
because they did not know if it was lawful to reject wives on grounds as
serious as adultery or even more serious. For the Lord appears to mention
fornication by name, not because it is quite simply the most wicked of all
sins, but because it is a far more serious sin than those for which Jews, and
gentiles too, used to divorce their wives. Perhaps those appalling crimes112

109 Dietenberger 226-52. Dietenberger took issue on sixty-one points.

no le Num 5:11-31 (155 above), the trial by bitter waters, used to prove the
innocence or guilt of a woman suspected of adultery. This passage was discussed
neither by Erasmus in his annotation nor by Dietenberger.
in LB vi 693A; Dietenberger 229; Origen Commentarium in Matthaeum 14 PG 3
1245A-B
112 Origen noted poisoning, murder of an infant during the absence of its father
(the husband), other forms of murder, and the dispersal of the household during
the husband's absence.
 REPLY ON D I V O R C E LB IX 9648 1/5

are passed over in silence because Christians were not expected to commit
them. Similarly the gentile who founded jurisprudence did not establish a
penalty for parricide.113 In fact, this line of reasoning - 'If it is lawful to
divorce a wife for adultery, it is even more reasonable to do so for poisoning
or sorcery or infanticide' - is a somewhat more acceptable argument than that
other: 'She is ordered to leave the house, therefore it is not lawful for the
divorcing husband or the divorced wife to make a new marriage'; and 'It is
lawful to divorce on the ground of heresy, for that is spiritual death'; and114
'Monastic profession dissolves a marriage which is lawful and solemnized
but not consummated, because religious profession is secular death.'
In commenting on the thirty-first passage, where I had written that
among the gentiles, let alone among the Jews, a marriage was not valid unless
ratified by the authority of parents or older relatives, although both societies
permitted dissolution of marriage given sufficient ground, my critic makes a
wonderfully witty remark. 'Until this moment/ he says, 'I did not know that
the law regulating marriage for Christians had to be drawn up in accordance
with the customs of gentiles and Jews rather than in accordance with the law
of God/115 But if something is done well by the gentiles, why would it be
absurd to adapt it to the practice of Christians? What passage of Scripture
would be attacked if dependent sons and daughters could not marry without
the consent of their parents? Their legal status is like that of bondsmen, for
they are under the authority of another. Why does he fuss about the Jews,
when he himself, throughout the whole of his disputation, twists the teaching
of Christ and the Apostle into conformity with the Mosaic law?
In discussing the thirty-fourth passage, my critic 'frankly admits' that
the church is right to dissolve a marriage 'contracted when wine has drained
away the use of reason/116 But I ask him if a young man, after passionate
fondling, embracing, and kissing, inflamed by wine and love in equal meas-
ure, with his male organ already at the entrance to the girl's private parts
and their naked bodies touching one another, has the use of his reason? The
penniless girl, instructed by the procuress, sees that the young man is not in
control of himself and says, 'I will not permit intercourse unless you are will-
ing to marry me/ He replies, 'I will marry you,' not realizing that by their

113 Solon. See Diogenes Laertius Lives of the Philosophers 1.2

114 'and': reading Ac rather than At as printed in LB ix 9640
115 Dietenberger 239; cf Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 6980.
116 Dietenberger 241; cf Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 698E. Erasmus
mentions not only drunkenness in this passage, but youth, sin, rashness, igno-
rance, and the influence of pimps and bawds.
 R E S P O N S I O DE D I V O R T I O LB IX ()6%E 1/6

sexual union a future promise becomes a present vow.117 And yet marriages
of this kind are called legitimate, and we have drummed into our ears, 'What
God hath joined together, let not man put asunder/
In commenting on the twenty-ninth passage, in which I show that it was
lawful among the Jews for a divorced woman to marry a second husband,
and base my argument on the fact that a priest is forbidden to marry a
divorced woman, my critic replies as follows: 'But not everything that was at
one time lawful for Jews is lawful for Christians today/118 But throughout
the whole of his disputation he was concerned to show that in the matter of
divorce, Jews had not been permitted a hair's-breadth more latitude than the
Lord and the Apostle permitted to the Christians. What he repeatedly called
adultery before, he now says was lawful.
On the final passage, when I had introduced the example of Fabiola119
and said, 'Perhaps Paul in that instance would have interpreted his own
words with more humanity than we have done/ he wittily replies, 'Rather,
Paul would have said, "What I have written, I have written/"120 But I said
not a word about changing Scripture, only about interpreting Scripture.
I have gone over these points in the hope of arousing that distinguished
scholar to a more rigorous defence of his arguments; arguments which he
thinks he has made so clear that no place is left for uncertainty. In other
respects, I think he is a good man. So much for his treatise on divorce.
Now at the beginning of his disputation he calls me 'his friend';121 yet as
if it were an honour he names me in his list of 'Scripturalists/ in the company
of excellent men, beginning with Arius and Sabellius going on to Martin
Luther. In this venerable company he mentions Erasmus between Karlstadt
and Zwingli with this comment: 'Erasmus of Rotterdam questions whether

117 Consent was recognized as the basis of matrimony, but lawyers argued as to
what forms of consent were legally binding. Peter Lombard Sententiae book 4
dist 37 c 3 distinguished between 'words of the future' (verba defuturo), 'I will
take you as my husband/ which do not constitute a binding contract, and
'words of present' (verba de praesenti), 'I take you as my husband/ which do;
but coitus, the distinctive act of marriage, was recognized as converting the
nebulous future, 'I will take you as my wife/ to the factual present, 'I am taking
you as my wife' (here and now).
118 Dietenberger 242-3; cf Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 698E
119 St Fabiola (d 399). Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi 7O1E; cf Jerome Epp
64, 77,78.
120 Dietenberger 252; John 19:22
121 Dietenberger 212: doctrissimus Erasmus noster Rhoterodamus, 'my learned friend,
Erasmus of Rotterdam'
 R E P L Y ON D I V O R C E LB IX 9658 177

the sacrament of confession practised in the church is ordained by God and is

necessary for salvation; but he is wrong because he disagrees with the decree
of the church/122
What a lot of nonsense! and in so few words! First: Nowhere does
Erasmus question whether a sacrament of confession was practised in the
church, for the sacraments of baptism and penance cannot be separated from
confession; but he does somewhere question whether the form of confession
which is now used in the church was instituted by Christ as part of the
sacrament.
Nowhere in his discussion does he express doubt in these words,
'whether it is ordained by God/ It may be that 'divine law' is a wider term
and that many things come under the divine law which were not instituted
by Christ.
Far less does he question whether it is necessary for salvation. For if it
had only been introduced by a general decree of the church and approved
by use over many years, I would still think it necessary for salvation.
But my critic will perhaps say in excuse that he has not read my works;
and what he says comes close to the truth, for he thanks the Carthusian
Lambertus123 most generously because through him he happened to read the
annotation of Erasmus which he criticizes. And yet he seems not to have read
it with due attention.
But let him show me that decree of the church which states clearly
that the form of confession which we now practise was instituted by Christ.
Indeed the serious nature of theological dispute requires that one examine
closely what one criticizes before sending such a damaging statement in a
letter.

I thought that I should address this little reply to you because my critic had
addressed his treatise to you. Then if you think fit, you can act as adjudicator
and mediator between us. Best wishes.
Freiburg im Breisgau, 19 August 1532

122 Dietenberger 50-1

123 Lambertus Pascualis, moderator and rector of the Carthusians at Koblenz
This page intentionally left blank
WORKS F R E Q U E N T L Y CITED

SHORT-TITLE FORMS
FOR ERASMUS' WORKS

INDEX
WORKS FREQUENTLY CITED

This list provides bibliographical information for publications referred to in short-

title form in introductions and notes. Erasmus' letters are cited by epistle and line
number in the CWE translation except where Allen or another edition is indicated. For
Erasmus' other writings see the short-title list following.

Allen P.S. Allen, H.M. Allen, and H.W. Garrod eds Opus epistolarum
Des. Erasmi Roterodami (Oxford 1906-47) 11 vols, plus index
volume by B. Flower and E. Rosenbaum (Oxford 1958).
Letters are cited by epistle and line number.

ASD Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (Amsterdam 1969- )

Bedouelle Lefevre Guy Bedouelle Lefevre d'Etaples et I'intelligence des Ecritures

d'Etaples (Geneva 1976)

Bedouelle Quincuplex Guy Bedouelle Le Quincuplex psalterium de Lefevre d'Etaples:

psalterium un guide de lecture (Geneva 1979)

CCSL Corpus christianorum, series Latina (Turnhout 1954- )

CEBR Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the

Renaissance and Reformation ed P.G. Bietenholz and T.B.
Deutscher (Toronto 1985-7) 3 vols

CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna and

Leipzig 1866- )

CWE Collected Works of Erasmus (Toronto 1974- )

Dietenberger Johannes Dietenberger Phimostomus scripturariorum (Cologne

1532) ed E. Iserloh and P. Fabisch (with J. Toussaert and
E. Weichel) Corpus catholicorum 38 (Munster 1985)

LB J. Leclerc ed Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami opera omnia (Leiden

1703-6) 10 vols

Massaut Clichtove Jean-Pierre Massaut Josse Clichtove: I'humanisme et la reforme

du clerge (Paris 1968) 2 vols

Massaut Critique et Jean-Pierre Massaut Critique et tradition a la veille de la Reforme

tradition en France (Paris 1974)

PG J.P. Migne ed Patrologiae cursus completus ... series Graeca

(Paris 1857-1912) 162 vols
 WORKS FREQUENTLY CITED l8l

PL J.P. Migne ed Patrologiae cursus completus ... series Latina

(Paris 1844-64) 221 vols

Propugnaculum Propugnaculum ecclesiae adversus Lutheranos, per ludocum

Clichtoveum Neoportuensem, doctorem theologum, elaboratum et
ires libros continens (Paris 1526)

Reeve Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament, a facsimile of the

final Latin text (1535) with all variants, i The Gospels ed Anne
Reeve, introduction by M. A. Screech (London 1986); n Acts,
Romans, i and n Corinthians ed Anne Reeve and M. A. Screech
(Leiden and New York 1989); in Galatians to the Apocalypse ed
Anne Reeve, with an introduction by M.A. Screech (Leiden
1993)

Rummel Catholic Erika Rummel Erasmus and His Catholic Critics (Nieuwkoop
Critics 1989) 2 vols

Telle Dilutio Erasmus Roterodamus. Dilutio eorum quae lodocus Clithoveus

scripsit adversus Declamationem Des. Erasmi Roterodami
suasoriam matrimonii ed Emile V. Telle (Geneva 1968)

Telle Erasme Emile V. Telle Erasme de Rotterdam et le septieme sacrement

(Geneva 1954)

WA D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar

1883- )

WA Briefwechsel D. Martin Luthers Werke, Briefwechsel (Weimar 1930-78) 15 vols

SHORT-TITLE FORMS FOR ERASMUS' WORKS

Titles following colons are longer versions of the same, or are alternative titles. Items
entirely enclosed in square brackets are of doubtful authorship. For abbreviations,
see Works Frequently Cited.

Acta: Acta Academiae Lovaniensis contra Lutherum Opuscula / CWE 71

Adagia: Adagiorum chiliades 1508, etc (Adagiorum collectanea for the primitive
form, when required) LB n / ASD n-i, 4,5,6 / CWE 30-6
Admonitio adversus mendacium: Admonitio adversus mendacium et obtrecta-
tionem LBX
Annotationes in Novum Testamentum LB vi / CWE 51-60
Antibarbari LB x / ASD 1-1 / CWE 23
Apologia ad Caranzam: Apologia ad Sanctium Caranzam, or Apologia de tribus
locis, or Responsio ad annotationem Stunicae ... a Sanctio Caranza def ensam LB ix
Apologia ad Fabrum: Apologia ad lacobum Fabrum Stapulensem LB ix / ASD ix-3 /
CWE 83
Apologia adversus monachos: Apologia adversus monachos quosdam Hispanos LB ix
Apologia adversus Petrum Sutorem: Apologia adversus debacchationes Petri
Sutoris LB ix
Apologia adversus rhapsodias Alberti Pii: Apologia ad viginti et quattuor libros A.
Pii LBIX
Apologia contra Latomi dialogum: Apologia contra lacobi Latomi dialogum de tribus
linguis LB ix / CWE 71
Apologia de 'In principle erat sermo' LB ix
Apologia de laude matrimonii: Apologia pro declamatione de laude matri-
monii LB ix / CWE 71
Apologia de loco 'Omnes quidem': Apologia de loco 'Omnes quidem resurge-
mus' LB ix
Apologiae contra Stunicam: Apologiae contra Lopidem Stunicam LB ix / ASD ix-2
Apologia qua respondet invectivis Lei: Apologia qua respondet duabus invectivis
EduardiLei Opuscula
Apophthegmata LB iv
Appendix de scriptis Clithovei LB ix / CWE 83
Appendix respondens ad Sutorem LB ix
Argumenta: Argumenta in omnes epistolas apostolicas nova (with Paraphrases)
Axiomata pro causa Lutheri: Axiomata pro causa Martini Lutheri Opuscula /
CWE 71

Carmina LB i, iv, v, vm / ASD 1-7 / CWE 85-6

Catalogus lucubrationum LB i
Ciceronianus: Dialogus Ciceronianus LB i / ASD 1-2 / CWE 28
Colloquia LB i / ASD 1-3 / CWE 39-40
Compendium vitae Allen i / CWE 4
Concionalis interpretatio (in Psalmi)
Conflictus: Conflictus Thaliae et Barbariei LB i
[Consilium: Consilium cuiusdam ex animo cupientis esse consultum] Opuscula /
CWE 71
 S H O R T - T I T L E F O R M S FOR E R A S M U S ' W O R K S 183

De bello Turcico: Consultatio de bello Turcico (in Psahni)

De civilitate: De civilitate morum puerilium LB i / CWE 25
Declamatio de morte LB iv
Declamatiuncula LBIV
Declarationes ad censuras Lutetiae vulgatas: Declarationes ad censuras Lutetiae
vulgatas sub nomine facultatis theologiae Parisiensis LB ix
De concordia: De sarcienda ecclesiae concordia, or De amabili ecclesiae concordia (in
Psalmi)
De conscribendis epistolis LB i / ASD 1-2 / CWE 25
De constructione: De constructione octo partium orationis, or Syntaxis LB i / ASD 1-4
De contemptu mundi: Epistola de contemptu mundi LB v / ASD v-i / CWE 66
De copia: De duplici copia verborum ac rerum LB i / ASD 1-6 / CWE 24
De esu carnium: Epistola apologetica ad Christophorum episcopum Basiliensem de
interdicto esu carnium LB ix / ASD ix-i
De immensa Dei misericordia: Concio de immensa Dei misericordia LB v / CWE 70
De libero arbitrio: De libero arbitrio diatribe LB ix / CWE 76
De praeparatione: De praeparatione ad mortem LB v / ASD v-i / CWE 70
De pueris instituendis: De pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis LB i / ASD 1-2 /
CWE 26
De puero lesu: Concio de puero lesu LB v / CWE 29
De puritate tabernaculi: De puritate tabernaculi sive ecclesiae christianae (in
Psalmi)
De ratione studii LB i / ASD 1-2 / CWE 24
De recta pronuntiatione: De recta latini graecique sermonis pronuntiatione LB i /
ASD 1-4 / CWE 26
De taedio lesu: Disputatiuncula de taedio, pavore, tristicia lesu LB v / CWE 70
Detectio praestigiarum: Detectio praestigiarum cuiusdam libelli germanice
scripti LB x / ASD ix-1
De vidua Christiana LB v / CWE 66
De virtute amplectenda: Oratio de virtute amplectenda LB v / CWE 29
[Dialogus bilinguium ac trilinguium: Chonradi Nastadiensis dialogus bilinguium ac
trilinguium] Opuscula / CWE 7
Dilutio: Dilutio eorum quae lodocus Clithoveus scripsit adversus declamationem
suasoriam matrimonii CWE 83
Divinationes ad notata Bedae LB ix

Ecclesiastes: Ecclesiastes sive de ratione concionandi LB v / ASD v-4,5

Elenchus in N. Bedae censuras LB ix
Enchiridion: Enchiridion militis christiani LB v / CWE 66
Encomium matrimonii (in De conscribendis epistolis)
Encomium medicinae: Declamatio in laudem artis medicae LB i / ASD 1-4 / CWE 29
Epistola ad Dorpium LB ix / CWE 3 / CWE 71
Epistola ad fratres Inferioris Germaniae: Responsio ad fratres Germaniae Inferioris
ad epistolam apologeticam incerto autore proditam LB x / ASD ix-i
Epistola ad graculos: Epistola ad quosdam imprudentissimos graculos LB x
Epistola apologetica de Termino LB x
Epistola consolatoria: Epistola consolatoria virginibus sacris, or Epistola consolatoria
in adversis LB v / CWE 69
 S H O R T - T I T L E F O R M S FOR E R A S M U S ' W O R K S 184

Epistola contra pseudevangelicos: Epistola contra quosdam qui se falso iactant

evangelicos LB x / ASD ix-i
Euripidis Hecuba LB i / ASD 1-1
Euripidis Iphigenia in Aulide LB i / ASD 1-1
Exomologesis: Exomologesis sive modus confitendi LB v
Explanatio symbol!: Explanatio symboli apostolorum sive catechismus LB v /
ASD v-i / CWE 70
Ex Plutarcho versa LB iv / ASD iv-2

Formula: Conficiendarum epistolarum formula (see De conscribendis epistolis)

Hyperaspistes LB x / CWE 76-7

In Nucem Ovidii commentarius LB i / ASD 1-1 / CWE 29

In Prudentium: Commentarius in duos hymnos Prudentii LB v / CWE 29
Institutio christiani matrimonii LB v / CWE 69
Institutio principis christiani LB iv / ASD iv-i / CWE 27

[Julius exclusus: Dialogus Julius exclusus e coelis] Opuscula / CWE 27

Lingua LB iv / ASD IV-IA / CWE 29

Liturgia Virginis Matris: Virginis Matris apud Lauretum cultae liturgia LB v /
ASD v-i / CWE 69
Luciani dialogi LB i / ASD 1-1

Manif esta mendacia CWE 71

Methodus (see Ratio)
Modus orandi Deum LB v / ASD v-i / CWE 70
Moria: Moriae encomium LB iv / ASD iv-3 / CWE 27

Novum Testamentum: Novum Testamentum 1519 and later (Novum instrumentum

for the first edition, 1516, when required) LB vi

Obsecratio ad Virginem Mariam: Obsecratio sive oratio ad Virginem Mariam in rebus

adversis LB v / CWE 69
Oratio de pace: Oratio de pace et discordia LB vm
Oratio funebris: Oratio funebris in funere Bertae de Heyen LB vm / CWE 29

Paean Virgini Matri: Paean Virgini Matri dicendus LB v / CWE 69

Panegyricus: Panegyricus ad Philippum Austriae ducem LB iv / ASD iv-i / CWE 27
Parabolae: Parabolae sive similia LB i / ASD 1-5 / CWE 23
Paraclesis LBV, vi
Paraphrasis in Elegantias Vallae: Paraphrasis in Elegantias Laurentii Vallae LB i /
ASD 1-4
Paraphrasis in Matthaeum, etc (in Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum)
Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum LB vn / CWE 42-50
Peregrinatio apostolorum: Peregrinatio apostolorum Petri et Pauli LB vi, vn
Precatio ad Virginis filium lesum LB v / CWE 69
 S H O R T - T I T L E F O R M S FOR E R A S M U S ' W O R K S 185

Precatio dominica LB v / CWE 69

Precationes: Precationes aliquot novae LB v / CWE 69
Precatio pro pace ecclesiae: Precatio ad Dominum lesum pro pace ecclesiae LB iv, v /
CWE 69
Psalmi: Psalmi, or Enarrationes sive commentarii in psalmos LB v / ASD v-2, 3 /
CWE 63-5
Purgatio adversus epistolam Lutheri: Purgatio adversus epistolam non sobriam
Lutheri LB x / ASD ix-i

Querela pacis LB iv / ASD iv-2 / CWE 27

Ratio: Ratio sen Methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram theologiam (Methodus

for the shorter version originally published in the Novum instrumentum of
1516) LB v, vi
Responsio ad annotationes Lei: Liber quo respondet annotationibus Lei LB ix
Responsio ad collationes: Responsio ad collationes cuiusdam iuvenis gerontodidas-
cali LB ix
Responsio ad disputationem de divortio: Responsio ad disputationem cuiusdam
Phimostomi de divortio LB ix / CWE 83
Responsio ad epistolam Pii: Responsio ad epistolam paraeneticam Alberti Pii, or
Responsio ad exhortationem Pii LB ix
Responsio ad notulas Bedaicas LB x
Responsio ad Petri Cursii defensionem: Epistola de apologia Cursii LB x / Allen
Ep 3032
Responsio adversus f ebricitantis libellum: Apologia monasticae religionis LB x

Spongia: Spongia adversus aspergines Hutteni LB x / ASD ix-i

Supputatio: Supputatio calumniarum Natalis Bedae LB ix

Tyrannicida: Tyrannicida, declamatio Lucianicae respondens LB i / ASD 1-1 / CWE 29

Virginis et martyris comparatio LB v / CWE 69

Vita Hieronymi: Vita divi Hieronymi Stridonensis Opuscula / CWE 61
This page intentionally left blank
 Index

abortion 172 Ambrosiaster liii, 38n, 7in, i63nn

Abraham 77, 78,159 - In epistulam ad Colosenses 99n
Acts of the Apostles 24, 64, 74. See also - In epistulam ad Filippenses 38n
Chrysostom, John, St - In epistulas ad Corinthios 94 and n
- 5 63; 5:34 63n Amerbach, Bonifacius xxxix
- 15:36-9 i69n; 15:39 xxiii Amerbach, Bruno xxn
- 17:23 74n; 17:28 74n, 88n Anticyra 61 and n, 62, 79, 86, 88. See
- 26:2-3 xiii also Bedlam
- 28:26 24n Apelles 12 and n
Adam 44,139^ i47n Aphrodite i4on
adulteress, adulterous, adultery xl Apocalypse of John 82, 85
and n, xii, lii, liii, 94, 126, 143,144, apostasy 170,172
146,154 and n, 155-7, ^T11/158-62, Apuleius xii, 62n, 66; Apology (Pro se de
i62n, 163 and n, 164-6, i66nn, 167 magia liber) xii; Metamorphoses 66n
and n, 168-72, i72n, 174 and n, 175 Aquinas, Thomas, St xxi, xxx, xliv, 18-
Aeschines 14 and n 19, i9n, 20 and n, 27, 37n, 66, 67n,
Aesop 171 113,121,140
Agamemnon 91 - Quaestio disputata de malo i2in
Agrippa xiii - Summa theologiae ii3n, i2in, i24n,
Albert, Charlotte d' i29n 13in, i4on
Albert of Brandenburg, archbishop of - Super epistolas S. Pauli i8n, 19
Mainz li Aratus 74 and n, 88 and n; Phenomena
Aleandro, Girolamo xxviii and n 74n
Alexander vi, Pope i29n Areopagus 14 and n
Alexander the Great 12 and n, 115 Arian(s) 29,4gn, 52. See also Arius
and n Aristarchus 64 and n, 66
Ambrose, St, bishop of Milan xxxi, xl, Aristides of Athens xii
liii, 14, 23, 27, 29n, 30, 34, 38 and n, Aristotelian(s) 40,57n
44,51,70-1,74,79,86-7,92,94 and n, Aristotle xiv, xvii, xlvi-xlviii, 4n, 37
95, 98-9,159,163 and n, 164-5, *65n, and n, 40, 44, 49, 57n, 59, 87-9,113,
167 121-2, 138
- Commentarium in epistolam B. Pauli ad - Categories 45n
Corinthios primam 1631111, i64n - Decoelo 4gn
- Expositio evangelii Lucae 34n, 44n, 92n - Nicomachean Ethics xvii, 37n, i23n
- Expositio psalmi 118 34n - Organon 57n
 INDEX 188

- Physics 49n Balaam 66

- Rhetoric 8gn, laan, 12311 baptism, baptize(d) xxxv, 94-5, 169,
Arius liii, 52,176 173,177
Aries, Council of 14511 Barbaro, Ermolao xvii
Arnobius 75; Commentarii in psalmos Barbier, Pierre xvi, xxviii
75n Barnabas xxiii, 82,169
Arrian Discourses ofEpictetus n8n Bassus, Gavius De origine verborum
Ascension of Isaiah 8311. See also Secret i25n
Sayings of Isaiah Batmanson, John 9on
Ate 9111,10711 Batt, Jacob ii3n
Athanasius xix, 54,56,63,67 and n Beccadelli, Antonio i43n
Augustine, St, bishop of Hippo xii, Beda, Noel xiv and n, xv and n, xxvi,
xxiii, xxxi, xxxiii, xl, liii, 14, 19, 22- xxxiv, xlvii, 1, 76n, no, 115, n6n
4, 27-9, 2gn, 30-2, 37n, 38, 43-5, 51 - Annotationum ... in lacobum Fabrum
and n, 54, 56, 63, 66, 76, 78, 82-3, Stapulensem libri duo et in Desiderium
85, 92-3, 93n, 95, 98,139 and n, 143, Erasmum Roterodamum liber unus
160-8 xvn
- Ad Galatas 95 and n - Apologia adversus clandestinos
- De agone christiano 95, g6n Lutheranos xliin
- De bono coniugali i68n Bede 67 and n
- DecivitateDei(CityofGod) 83andnn, Bedlam ('Anticyra') xxiii and n
i39n Benedict vui, Pope i46n
- De coniugiis adulterinis i66n Bernard of Clairvaux, St xxxvi, xlix,
- De doctrina Christiana 6n 135 and n
- Dehaeresibus 45n - De consideratione 135 and n
- De sermone Domini in monte 3 in - Meditationes piissimae de cognitione
- De Trinitate (On the Trinity) xxxiii, humanae conditionis 135 and n
28n, 29 and n, 32n, 42n, 50 and n, 73 Beroaldo, Filippo 62 and n
and nn, 93 and n, 97 and n Berquin, Louis de xxviii, xlii and n,
- Enarratio in psalmum 8 2$n, jqn, j6n, 1, n in; Declamation des louenges de
77n, 78n manage xliin
- Enarratio n in psalmum 21 ^y\, 45n, bestiality 154x1
92n Bias of Priene Syn
- letters 29-30 and nn, 31, 44n, 50 Bible xiv, xviii, lii, 67n, iO2n, 150, i53n,
and n, 5 in, 95n 168; Authorized Version 151; de
- on Ps 10:6 i45n Jerusalem xlin; Douai xlin; Douai-
- Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 66n Rheims 151; Jerusalem xlin; King
- Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti James xlin; Vulgate xlin, 2on, 63n,
95 and n 6/n, 8in, 99n, 151, i53n, i54n, i57n,
- Retractationes 3 in, 98n i63n
- Tractatus in loannem 44n, i7on Blount, William, Lord Mountjoy ii3n,
Aulus Gellius Noctes Atticae ii9n 117 and n
Boethius 87-8
Bade, Josse 9n, 62 and n, inn Bonaventure, St i47n
Badius, Ascensius inn Borgia, Cesare i29n
Baechem, Nicolaas (Egmondanus) xv, Boussart, Nicolas: De continentia
xxvi and n sacerdotum: utrum papa possit cum
Baer, Ludwig iO7n sacerdote dispensare ut nubat 13 in;
 INDEX 189

loannis Maioris theologi in iv - Commentarius in Matthaeum 96 and n

sententiarum quaestiones I3in - Enarrationes in epistolam ad Hebraeos
Bracciolini, Poggio xlix, 144 and n; 23n, 67n
Facetiae 113 and n, 143 and n Cicero 18, 62, 123 and n, I25n;
Briart, Jan, of Ath xxxiv, xlvii, 115,117, Philippicae 4n; Topics 87
n8n Circe i2on
Brigonnet, Guillaume, bishop of Meaux Clement vn, Pope xxvii
xxvii Clement of Alexandria 67
Bude, Guillaume xiv and n, xxii, xxiiin, Clement of Rome, St 82,85
xxiv, 3,9 and n, i4n Clichtove, Josse xi and n, xvi-xvii,
Bullock, Henry xxivn xxxiii, xxxv, xliii and n, xliv-xlvii,
Burgos, Paul of Hi, i57n, 159 and n; xlvii and n, xlviii-1, In, Iv, 57n, no,
additiones i54n 113-16, n6n, 117 and nn, 118-19,
Buschius, Hermannus xlin 121-4, 124n/ 125-6, 128-32, 134-7,
Busiris 119 and n 139 and nn, 140-4, I44n, 145, I46n,
147 and n, 148
Cabbala xix - Antilutherus xliin
Cain 94 - De necessitate peccati Adae et foelicitate
Cajetanus, Tommaso de Vio, cardinal culpae eiusdem apologetica disceptatio
Hi, 159-60 and n; De dispensation i47n
matrimonii in occidentali ecclesia 12911 - De vita et moribus sacerdotum xliin
Caminadus, Augustinus Vincentius - Elucidatorium ecclesiasticum In
H3n - Propugnaculum ecclesiae adversus
Campano, Giovanni Antonio 127; De Lutheranos xlii and n, xliii-xliv, xlvii,
ingratitudine fugienda i27n in and n, 112 and nn, H4n, 116
Capito, Wolfgang xviiin and n, iiTn, ngnn, i2on, I2in, I22n,
Carranza, Sancho xxxiv i23nn, i25n, 127 and n, i3onn, i32nn,
Carvajal, Bernardino Lopez de, cardinal i33n, i34n, i35n, i36nn, i37n, i39nn,
xxxvin i4inn, i42n, 143 and n, i44nn, i45nn,
Catherine of Aragon xxxiv, xxxix i46n, i47n, i48n
Celestine in, Pope 169 - Theologia Damasceni quattuor libris
celibacy, (un)celibate(s) xxxiv-xxxvii, explicata et adiecto ad litter am
xlii-xliii, xliiin, xliv-xlvi, xlviii-xlix, commentario elucidata i38n
ii2n, 114-15,119 and n, 120-1,123- Cochlaeus, Johannes H
5, i25n, 126-8, i3on, 131-5, 137-9, College du Cardinal Lemoine xvii,
142-3, i46n xxn, xxvi
Chalcedon, Council of 2gn Collegium Trilingue xiv
Champier, Symphorien xxii Colossi ans, letter to the 9,99n
Charles v, Emperor xxvii, 4 and n - 1:15 46n
chaste(ly), chastity xxxv-xxxvi, xxxvin, - 2 98; 2:18 99nn
xxxvii, xli, xliiin, xlviii, no, 115, - 3:18 i65n
n6n, 118, 123-4, 124n/ 125-6, 130 confession 135,176-7
and n, 131,137-8,143-4, 168 consanguinity 170
Chrysippus of Tarsus 58 and n Consentius 44
Chrysostom, John, St xix, xxviii, xxxiii, continence(y), continent xxxv-xxxvii,
19, 23, 54, 56, 63, 66-7, 71, 96 xliii and n, xlv-xlviii, 114,121,123-4,
- commentaries on Acts xxviii I24n, 125 and n, 126-8, 129-31,135,
- Commentarius in lohannem 96 and n 137,143-5
 INDEX 190

1 Corinthians - 22:20-1 i55n

- 1:17 5611 - 24 154,159; 24:1-4 i56n; 24:1 xli, Hi,
- 2:2 35n; 2:8 2711 i54n, i55n, i56n, i59n; 24:2-4 i56n;
- 3:4 i42n 24:2 i57n; 24:4 i57n, i6on; 24:5-21
- 5 101; 5:4 i2n, loin i59n
- 7 lii, liii, 94, 152, 101, 163; 7:4 liii, Dietenberger, Johann (Phimostomus)
i65n; 7:8-9 i58n; 7:10-11 16311, xxxv, xln, 1-liii, Iv, 150 and nn,
16411, 16511; 7:10 16411, 16511; 7:11 i52nn, i53nn, i54n, i55n, i56n, 157
16311, 16411, 16511, 17111; 7:12 1701111; and n, 1581:01, i59n, 160 and n, i6inn,
7:13 17011, 17111, 17311; 7:31 loin; i62n, i63nn, i64n, i65n, i67n, 168
7:39 xl and n, li, 150, i52n, i67n, and n, i74nn, i75nn, i76nn, i77n;
i73n Phimostomus scripturariorum In, 150,
- 12:23 *39n; 12:28 io4n i52n
- 13 104 Dio Chrysostom i2on
- 15:27 77n; 15:33 I44n; 15:45 44n; Diogenes Laertius Lives of the
15:48 43n Philosophers Sgn, i4on, i75n
2 Corinthians 105 Dionysian xxi
- 3:6 72n Dionysius. See Pseudo-Dionysius
- 5:21 45n divorce (divortium) li-liii, Iv, 150-3,
- 6 102; 6:6 6n; 6:7 iO2n i53nn, 154-6, i56n, 157-60, i6on, 161
- 8:4-5 io5n and n, 162-4, i64nn, 165-6, i66n, 167
-10 102; 10:16 io3n and n, 168,170-2, i72n, 174,176
Cousin, Gilbert xxxix Donatists 95 and n, i45n
Cousturier, Pierre (Petrus Sutor) Donatus, Aelius 113; Ars major ii3n;
xxviin, 134 Ars minor ii3n
- Antapologia no Dorp, Maarten van xviin
- Apologeticum in novos anticomaristas Duns Scotus, John xliv, 121, i47n;
praedarissimae beatae Virginis Marine Commentaria Oxoniensia ad iv libros
laudibus detrahentes i34n Magistri sententiarum i2in
- De tralatione Bibliae xxvin
Cromwell, Thomas xxxvin Ebionites 82 and n, 85
Cusa. See Nicholas of Cusa Ecclesiastes 5:4 i36n
Cynics 140 and n Eden, Garden of 161, i62n
Cyprian, St 33, 87, 95 and n; letters Elvira, Council of i3on
33n, 87n Enea Silvio (Pope Pius n) 117 and n,
118,130 and n
Damascene, John, St 52; De fide - Aeneae Sylvii Piccolominei Senensis
orthodoxa 52n opera quae extant omnis iiTn
Dardanus 82 - Historia de Euryalo et Lucretia 117
David 51,138 andn
Decretals liii, 169 Ephesians, letter to the xxxviii, 51
De 1'Isle, Guillaume Encomium febris - 2:3 i4on; 2:10 5 in
quartanae ngn - 4 99; 4:14 loon
Demosthenes 14 and n - 5 103; 5:18 iO3n; 5:22 i65n; 5:23
Determinatio facultatis theologiae in i63n, i65n; 5:25-33 xlin; 5:32
schola Parisiensis super quam plurimis xxxviii, i37n
assertionibus D. Erasmi Roterodami no - 6 ioo;6:6 loin
Deuteronomy 159,174 Epictetus 118 andn
 INDEX 191

Epicurean(ism) \, 129,133,14311 ii4n, iiTn, n8n, i3on, i32n, i38n,

Epicurus 133 148
Epimenides the Cretan 74, 88 and n, De contemptu mundi i2in
1040 De genere dissuasorio xxxiv
'Epistle to the Laodiceans' 8411 De vidua Christiana xxxiv, xxxvi,
Erasmus: original works, editions, and xxxviin, xxxixnn, xin
translations Dilutio eorum quae lodocus Clithoveus
- Adagia 511, yn, iin, i3n, 14, 2on, scripsit adversus dedamationem
2 inn, 22n, 24n, 4on, 42n, 45n, 49^ Des. Erasmi Roterodami suasoriam
5on, 53n, 54n, 59ixn, 6in, 63n, 64nn, matrimonii xin, xxxv, xxxviin, xliv,
75n, ySnn, 79nn, Son, 8qn, gonn, gin, xlvi-xlvii, xlviin, 1, in and nn, ii3n,
93n, g6n, 97nn, 99nn, iO3n, io5nn, 114x1, ii5n, i44n
io6nn, n8n, i2in, i24n, i36n, i4in, Divinationes ad notata Bedae ii5n
i67n Enchiridion militis christiani xxxvin,
- Ad notationes Ed. Lei ad Ephesios xli, Ivi, i46n
xxxviiin Encomium matrimonii xxxiii and n,
- Ad notationes novas Ed. Lei ad xxxvn, xlii-xliii, xlv and n, xlvii,
Philippenses xxxviiin 11 in, 112 and n, i3on, i38n
- Ambrose, edition of 74n Epistola de delectu ciborum, cum scholiis
- Annotations on the New Testament per ipsum autorem recens additis i44n
(Annotationes) xx, xxxiv, xl, li-lii, 3, Epistola de esu carnium 110, ii2n,
15 and n, 17, 74nn, loon, loin, iO5n, i44n
150 and n, i52n, i53nn, i67n, i68n, Epistolae palaenaeoi 1
i69nn, i75nn, i76nn Epistolae xiv ex Vulgata, adiecta
- Apologia ad lacobum Fabrum intelligentia ex Graeco, cum
Stapulensem xi, xiii and n, xviiin, xxn, commentariis 2
xxii-xxiii, xxiiin, xxiv, xxix, liv, Ivi, 2 Examinationes circa Htteram 8n
and n, 3, i3n, i4n, 34n, 5 in, 55, 59n, In elenchum Alberti Pii brevissima
67n, 69n, 73n, Sgn, io5n scholia in
- Apologia adversus monachos (Contra Institutio christiani matrimonii xxxiv,
coelibatum) xxxviin xxxviin, xxxviiinn, xxxixnn, Ivn
- Apologia brevis ad viginti quattuor Jerome, edition of 2on, 74n
libros Alberti Pii quondam Carporum letters (Ep 67) xiiin; (Ep 71) ii3n;
comitis 11 in (Ep 80) ii3n; (Ep 117) ii3n, iiTn;
- Apologia de laude matrimonii xxxiv, (Ep 178) inn; (Ep 181) 6$n; (Ep 182)
xliii, ii5n, iiTn, i2on, 123 and n i44n; (Ep 222) ii8n; (Ep 315) xvin;
- Apologiae omnes xin, xviiin (Ep 326) xviin, 8n; (Ep 334) 8n; (Ep
- Appendix de scriptis Clithovei xi, xxxiii, 337) xviin, 8n, i44n; (Ep 434) gn; (Ep
xxxviin, xliii, xlv-xlvii, liv, no and n, 445) xvin; (Ep 541) i46n; (Ep 551) 4n;
inn (Ep 596) 411; (Ep 607) I2n; (Ep 621)
- Brevissima scholia i2gn xvin; (Ep 627) xxiiin, lOTn; (Ep 653)
- Ciceronianus xxviii and n iTn; (Ep 659) xxiiinn; (Ep 663) xxiiin;
- Collocjuia xxxiv, xxxixn, xli, xliin, xliv (Ep 675) xxiin; (Ep 680A) xxiin; (Ep
- Declamation in Praise of Marriage 116 694) 4n; (Ep 724) xxiiin, xxivnn, 5n;
- Declarationes ad censuras Lutetiae (Ep 731) xviiin; (Ep 744) xxiin; (Ep
vulgatas xlviin, no 755) xviiin; (Ep 766) xxivn; (Ep 771)
- De conscribendis epistolis xxxiii, 8gn; (Ep 775) xxivn; (Ep 777) 4n; (Ep
xxxivn, xxxviin, xlvii, 113 and n, 778) xiin, xxiin, xxiiin, xxivn, I4n,
 INDEX 192

25n; (Ep 784) ion; (Ep 785) 7911, 9211; - Virginis et martyris comparatio xxxiv,
(Ep 794) xvn, ITTL; (Ep 796) xxivn; xxxviin, i2in
(Ep 800) xxiiin, 511; (Ep 810) xxiin, Erinys lOTn
xxiiin; (Ep 814) xxivnn; (Ep 826) Eucharist li, 114
xxivn; (Ep 855) xxiiin; (Ep 856) xxvn; Eusebius of Caesarea xii; Ecclesiastical
(Ep 878) 2on; (Ep 896) xxivn; (Ep 906) History 67 and n, 85 and n
xxiin, 2on; (Ep 916) i46n, 14711; (Ep Eustathius, bishop of Thessalonica 61
936) xxvn; (Ep 1006) lin; (Ep 1039) and n, 62,63; In Homeri Iliadem 6in
I45n; (Ep 1068) xxvn; (Ep 1108) xxvn; Eve i39n
(Ep 1111) xxvn; (Ep 1126) xlin; (Ep Ezekiel
1144) xvn; (Ep 1171) 24n; (Ep 1192) - 44 160; 44:22 i6on
xxvinn; (Ep 1196) xxvin; (Ep 1212)
xxvin; (Ep 1407) xxvin; (Ep 1555) Fabiola,St 176 and n
xxvin; (Ep 1581) xxviin, 76n; (Ep Farel, Guillaume xliin
1620) 84n, n6n; (Ep i65OA) xxviin; fast(ing) xlvii, xlix, ii2n, 115,147-8
(Ep 1664) no; (Ep 1674) xxviin; (Ep Favorinus 119 and n
1685) xvn, xxvin; (Ep 1713) xxviin; Ficino, Marsilio xvii
(Ep 1723) xxviin; (Ep 1795) xxviiin; filioque liii, i6gn
(Ep 1887) xxxviin; (Ep 1976) Ivin; (Ep Fisher, John xxv and n, ion
2040) xxxixn; (Ep 2052) xxviiin; (Ep Fisher, Robert ii3n
2256) xxxixn; (Ep 2267) xxxixn; (Ep Florence, Council of 8 in, 86n
2362) xxviiin; (Ep 2379) xxviiin; (Ep Francis i, king of France xiii, xxn,
2566) non; (Ep 2573) non; (Ep 2575) xxvi-xxviii
no; (Ep 2588) lion; (Ep 2604) xlviin, Free, John i2on
lion, 11 in; (Ep 2675) i27n; (Ep 2771) Froben, Johann 2-3
xxxviin; (Ep 2842) xxviiin
- Moriae encomium xliv, io6n, ii8n, Gaguin, Robert xiiin
i2on Galatians, letter to the 25
- Novum instrumentum xviii, 2, 7n, 8n, - 1:12 io2n
ign, 35n, 7gn - 2:11-16 95 and n; 2:11-14 i6gn
- Novum Testamentum xii-xiii, i63n - 3:i3 45^
- Opera omnia xi, xviin, xlviin, 3, i65n - 4H 5*n
- Origen, edition of 74n - 5:15 97n
- Paraphrasis in Elegantias Laurentii - 6:14 56n
Vallae i25n Gangra, Council of i28n
- Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum Ganymede i26n
xxxiv, xliin; in Corinthios i46n; in Gaza, Theodorus. See Erasmus, original
Matthaeum xxxvin works, editions, and translations:
- Precationes xxxixn Theodorus Gaza
- Prologus in supputationem calumniarum Gellius, Aulus. See Aulus Gellius
Bedae ii5n Genesis 68n
- Responsio ad disputationem cuiusdam - 1:22 I33n; 1:26 68n; 1:28 75 and n
Phimostomi de divortio \, Hi, liv, 150 - 2:18 i32n; 2:24 i6inn, i64n
and n - 18:12 i65n
- Supputatio calumniarum Natalis Bedae - 19:36 i4in
110 - 21 159; 21:14 159n
- Theodoras Gaza De linguae Grecae - 35:2 7on
institutione, translation of 8gn - 38:8-10 i38n
 INDEX 193

Gerson, Jean 147; De consiliis evangelicis - Battle of the Frogs and Mice 118 and n
12411; De potestate ecclesiastica 14711; - Iliad 61,91 and n, iO7n, 118
De vita spirituali animae 14711 - Odyssey i26n
Giberti, Gian Matteo, bishop of Verona Hoogstraten, Jacob of li; Destructio
xxvii Cabalae li
Giustiniani, Agostino xxx, 15^ 2on, Horace 123; Epistles nn, i23n; Odes
2inn io3n; Satires ion, 90 and n, i35n
Glareanus, Henricus xxiv Hyginus, C. Julius I25n, 126
Glaucon 127
glossa ordinaria 13 in incest xlix, 126,141,154nn
Goclenius, Conradus non infanticide xli, 172, i74n, 175
Godfrey, Gerard (Garret Godfrey) 4n Innocent in, Pope 169
Granellus, Bernardus 2in Isaiah 34
Gratian Decretum liii, i28n, i53n; 168 - 28:16 i34n
andnn - 42 34^
Gregory i, Pope St 30,92,168,169 - 50 83; 50:11 83n
Grey, Thomas xvi - 59:1 i7on
Guillard, Louis, bishop of Tournai Isidore of Seville 67 and n
xxvin, xliii, i46n Isocrates 119 and n
luliacensis, Joh. Emoneus Epistolae
Hagar 159 palaeonaeoi 150
Ham 38
Hebrews, letter to the xix, xxi, xxx, Jacobites 8in
xxxii, 24n, 37, 64n, 67, 68n, 71 and n, James, St 86
75, 76n, 8in, 82-3,85,8gn Jeremiah 31 82
- 2 xxn, 4; 2:7 xviiin, 2-3, 7n, i8n; 2:8 Jerome, St xi-xii, xx, xxiii, xxx, xxxvii,
75n, 77n; 2:9 38n, 4in, 64n; 2:16 77n; xlviii-xlix, 14,15-19, ign, 20 and nn,
2:18 38n 23-5, 27-8, 28n, 30, 46, 51-2, 56, 63,
- 11:37 83n &7' 7°' 74/ 76' 79,82-3,83nn, 84 and n,
- 13:4 i37n 85-8, 92-3,93n, 94,96, 98-9,99n, 123
Hegendorff, Christoph Encomium and n, 135,143,164
ebrietatis i2jn - Adversus lovinianum xxxviin, 1, i23n,
Heliodorus 28 and n 124 and nn, i25n, 132 and n
Henry ii i46n - Catalogus scriptorum 85
Henry vm, king of England xxxiv, - Commentarioli in psalmos i6n, 25n
xxxix; Assertio septem sacramentorum - Commentarius in epistolam ad Ephesios
xxxviii 30 and n, 46n, 52n
Hercules 167 - Commentarius in epistolam ad Galatas
heresy, heretic(s), heretical liii, Iv, 33n, iTn, 25n
82-3,86,88,92,94-5,170,172,175 - Commentarius in epistolam ad Titum
Hesiod 5,11; Works and Days 5n, nn 46 and n, 74nn
Hilary, St xxxi, 19, 23, 27, 30-1,39, 48, - Commentarii in Matheum 83 and n,
51,60 84n
- De Trinitate jon, 39n, 6on - Contra loannem Hierosolymitanum ad
- Liber de Patris et Filii unitate 3 in Pammachium xin
Hildegard of Bingen xvii - De viris illustribus 67 and n, 85n
Hippolytus 142 - Gallican Psalter 2on
Homer 6in, 62,107 - In Esaiam Sjn
 INDEX 194

- In Hieremiam i6n, 82n - Aristotle Organon, edition of 5711

- letters 28n, San, 9411,9811,11411,13511, - Boethius, edition of abridgement of
17611 88n
Job 25:6 44 and n - commentaries on the Pauline Epistles
John xxn, Pope 169 and n (Commentarii in S. Pauli epistolas)
John, St 51,134,136; xviii-xix, xixn, xxix, xxxiii, 2, 4, 8n,
Gospel according to 35n, 44,70 10 and n, 14, i5n, 33n, 64n, 84n, 99n,
- 1:14 5in; 1:29 42n 100 and nn, 101 and nn, 104 and n
- 6 170; 6:53 170^6:63 72n - Corollarium xix
- 7:16 72n - Disputatio xviiin, gn, nn, i4n, iTn,
- 10:30 5on; 10:34 7on; 3in, 33n, 36n, 39n, 4on, 4in, 42n, 44n,
- 11 96; 11:33-5 47n 45n, 46n, 48n, 5in, 52n, 53n, 54n,
- 12:32 39n 55nn, 57n, 58n, 6in, 62n, 63n, 65n,
- 13:1-20 48n 67nn, 77n, 82n, 86n, 98n, io2n, io6n
- 14:12 72n; 14:24 72n; 14:28 xix, 49n; - Epistres et evangiles pour les cinquante
14:31 72n deux sepmaines xxvii
- 15:1 42n; 15:5 42n - French translation of the New
- 19:22 i76n Testament xxvii
- 20:28 93n - Introductiones logicales 57n
John Damascene: De fide orthodoxa - Nemorarius, Jordanus Elementa
i47n; Theologia 138 and n arithmetica, editio princeps of 49n
Joseph, St Hi, 124,154 and n - Psalter, 1524 edition of i5n
Josephus, Flavius 156; Antiquities i56n - Quincuplex psalterium xvn, xviii
Juno xxxix, 126 and n, xix and nn, 2, 2on, 23, 65n,
Jupiter xxxix, 74, lOTn, 126 68n, 84n, 99 and n
Justin Martyr, St xii Lefevrites i3n, 17 and n
Juvenal Satires ion Leo, St 3on
Leviticus
Karlstadt, Andreas liii, 176 - 18:6-18 i54n
- 21 160; 21:14 i6on
Lang, Johann xvn Lips, Maarten non
Lange, Jean xxvi and nn Lombard, Peter 95; Sententiae (Book of
Lateran Council, Fifth 23n Sentences) 27 and n, 37n, 52 and n, 69
Latomus, Jacobus xii and n, 95 and n, i53n, i76n
Lee, Edward xxxiv Lord's Prayer 90
Lefevre d'Etaples, Jacques xi-xv, xvnn, Lot xlix, 141
xxiv-xxv, xxvn, xxvi-xxvii, xxviin, Louis of Bavaria (Louis iv), emperor
xxviii and n, xxix-xxxiii, xxxvi, xlii, i69n
liv-lv, 2-4, 4n, 5nn, 6 and nn, 7n, 8 Lucian 119 and n
and n, 9nn, ion, 11 and nn, i2nn, Luke, St xxxii, 44, 63-4, 67-8, 68n, 81,
13 and nn, i4nn, 16 and n, iTn, i9n, 84-5;
20 and nn, 22, 24 and n, 25-6, 28n, Gospel according to 47,72,82n
33, 34n, 35n, 37n, 39^ 43n, 45 and n, - 2:5 i54n; 2:51 72n
46n, 53, 55 and n, 56n, 57nn, 58, 60, - 9:58 34^
62 and n, 63-4, 65n, 67-8, 68nn, 7on, - 12:39 M111/ i62n
73n, TTnn, 80-1,8in, 86n, 88n, 90-1, - 16 157; 16:1-8 i4in; 16:18 i57n
93n, 94nn, 97-8, g8n, 99 and n, loonn, - 23:31 47n
101 and nn, 104-5, iO5nn, 106-7, lOTn Lull, Ramon xvii
 INDEX 195

Luther, Martin xv and n, xxv-vi, xlii - 17:19 34n

and n, xliii, liii, lv, 146,176 - 19 157, 160; 19:3-9 i57nn; 19:3-6
- De servo arbitrio 1 i64n; 19:3 xl; 19:5 i62n; 19:6 i6in,
- De votis monasticis xlvi, 12411 i62n; 19:8 i58n, i64n; 19:9 liii, i57n,
- On the Babylonian Captivity of the i6on, i66nn; 19:10 lii, i6inn; 19:12
Church xxxviii xxxvi
Lutheran(s) xlii - 21:18-19 47IV 21:42 42n, i34n
Lutheranism 1 - 23:37-9 83n
Lynceus 141 - 24:43 i62n
Lysippus 12 and n - 25:2-13 i28n
- 26:8-9 83^26:72 44n
Malachi Menniken, Charles, of Ghent 118 and n
- 2 158; 2:15-16 i54n, i59n Metzenhausen, Johann von li
Marcionites 82 and n, 85 Michol 138
Marcus the Gnostic 45 and n Modestus 125 and n, 126
Margaret of Navarre xxviii Montanist(s), Montanus 167 and nn
Mark, Gospel according to More, Thomas, St xxvin, 4n, 88n, gon,
- 8:33 loin 92n, n8n
- 10 157; 10:2-12 I57n; 10:11-12 I56n Mosaic, Moses lii, 142,157 and n, 158,
marriage, matrimony xi, xxxiii-xxxvii, 161,170-1,174
xxxviin, xxxviii-xxxix, xli-xliii, xliiin,
xliv-xlix, li-lvi, 87, 88n, 94, ii3nn, Nazarene Gospel (Gospel according to
114-15,117 and n, 118-19, H9n/120- the Hebrews) 88 and n
i, 123-5,125n/126-35, i37-9> Mi-5/ Nemorarius, Jordanus Elementa
150,153 and nn, i54n, 155 and n, 156 arithmetica 49n
and n, 157-61, i6in, 162 and n, 163 Nepotianus 28 and n
and n, 164 and n, 165 and nn, 166 Nesen, Wilhelm xxn
and n, 167 and n, 168 and n, 169-73, Newman, John Henry xii; Apologia pro
i73n, 174-6, i76n vita sua xii
Mars 126 Nicene Creed i69n
Martens, Dirk 2-3 Nicholas v, antipope 169 and n
Martial 93; Epigrams 93n Nicholas of Cusa, cardinal xvii, 94
Martin v, Pope i43n Nicholas of Lyra Postillae perpetuae in
Mary, the Blessed Virgin lii, 29,36,46, universam S. Scripturam 15411
5 in, 52,95-6,96n, 124,134 and n, 142 Noah 38, i27n
Mary Magdalene xxiv, xxv, xlvn, 6n, Numbers, book of
46, i54n - 5 155/174; 5:n-3i 174^; 5:i4 i55n;
Mary of Hungary xxxiv 5:18-24 i55n, i58n
Matthew, Gospel according to - 22:28-30 66n
- 1:19 lii, i54n; 1:20 i54n; 1:24 i54n Nyssa, Gregory of xvi
- 5 1-54, 157; 5:3i-2 15411, i57n; 5:32
i66nn, i67n obligatoria 120 and n
- 8:20 46n Ochino, Bernardino xxvin
- 10:18 83n Onan i38n
- 11:12 i34n; 11:29 3^n Origen xiii, xl, 74,83 and nn, 85 and n,
- 12 96 141,159,167 and n, 174 and n
- 13:26 i45n; 13:31 34n - Commentarium in Matthaeum i74n
- 16:16 93n; 16:23 loin - Contra Celsum 8$n, i4in
 INDEX 196

- Homily on Matthew 83 and nn - Lysis 59n

- In Genesim homilia 14111 - Republic 8$n, ii3n, i22n, i27n, i33n
Ovid 39; Amoves 911; Tristia 3911 - Timaeus ngn
Plautus 54; Aulularia 54n; Captivi 5411
parricide 175 Plutarch 120; Bruta animalia i2on;
Pascualis, Lambertus 177 and n Marius 6in
Paul, St xiii, xviii, xxiii, xxx-xxxi, xxxiv, Polycrates ngn
liii, 2, 6, 24 and n, 33, 35-7, 39, 43-6, polygamy 160
49, 51, 56, 60-1, 64 and n, 65, 67-8, Poncher, Etienne, bishop of Paris 9
71, 74, 76-9, 81 and n, 82-4, 84n, 85- and n, 33n
6, 88n, 92, 95-7,102-3,1O5/ X34' *37/ Prato, Felice da i5n
139,140,142,144-5,15^/162 and n, Priscian 125; Institutio de arte
163-4, i64nn, 165-74, X76 grammatica i25n
Pavia, Synod of i46n Protestant Reformation xxxvii
Pelagianism 1 Proverbs 51
Pelagius n, Pope 169 - 8:22-3 52n
Pelagius Expositiones xiii epistularum Psalm(s) xxxii, 16,20,27,42,57n, 66,70
Pauli i65n - i 74
Pelargus, Ambrosius (Storch) 1270 - 2:13 66n
Pellicanus, Conradus 2on - 8 xix, liv, 75n, 8in, 84,92; 8:4 xix; 8:5
penance liii, ii4n, 146,177 75n, 77n; 8:6 xviii and n, xxx, 2, 15,
Peter, St 18,44,86,87,92,93,95-6,145, 4in, 75n; 8:8 75n
165,169 - 22 (21 Vulg):7 xix, xxxi, 34n, 42n,
i Peter 3:6 i65n 45n, 7in; 22:8 43n; 22:17 43n; 22:25
Petrine privilege, the liii 46n
Phalaris 119 and n - 37 (36 Vulg) 65,37:10 65n
Pharisees Hi, 42,44,158 and n - 47:10 7on
Philip, St 145 - 82:1 7on; 82:6 7on
Philip of Macedon I4n - 89:7 26n
Philippians, letter to the 36 - 109 (108 Vulg) 65; 109:8 65n
- i 104; 1:16-17 iO5n - 114 (Vulg) 65n
- 2 xxxi, liv, 100; 2:6-11 xix, 33n; 2:7 - 119 24n
xxxii, 33n, 36n, 6on; 2:9-10 56n; 2:9 Pseudo-Dionysius xvii, 87, 88n
36n; 2:30 loon Pseudo-Jerome liii
Philo of Alexandria De ebrietate i27n Pseudo-Oecumenius 98n
Piccolomini. See Enea Silvio Pythia 2on
Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni
Francesco xvii, 93,94n Quadratus xii
Pio, Alberto 111 and n, i44n; In locos Quintilian 119 and n, 120,125; Institutio
lucubrationum variarum D. Erasmi xxm oratoria 87, i2on, i25n, i48n
libri 11 in
Pirckheimer, Willibald xxv rape 126,158
Pius n, Pope. See Enea Silvio Reuchlin, Johannes xxvi, li, 69n, 94
Platina, Bartholomeo Sacchi i3on; De and n; De rudimentis Hebraicis 6gn
vitis ac gestis summorum pontificum Revelation, book of
i3on - 3:3 i62n
Plato(nic) xxi, 18,85,122,127 and n - 5:5 42n
- Apology xii Rhenanus, Beatus xvi
 INDEX 197

Richard of Saint Victor xvii Spalatinus, Georgius xvn

Rogatiani 95 and n Stephen i, bishop of Rome 95n
Rogatus of Cartenna 95n Stoic(s) 40 and n, 58n, 141
Roman Index xxviii stoning 155,158
Romans, letter to the Suetonius 66; De grammaticis i25n;
- 1:26-7 i72n Nero 66 and n; Tiberius 66 and n
- 6:3-4 173™ Synesius, bishop of Cyrene 120 and n
- 7 162; 7:2-3 Hi, i62n; 7:2 I73n; Taverner, Richard xxxiiin
7:10-11 liii 'Taxander' xii
- 10:12 48n TeDeum 2gn
- 12:9 6n Terence 62, 87,103, 126; Adelphi iojn,
Rome, Council of I3on i26n; Phormio Syn
Roussel, Gerard xxviii Terentia i23n
Rufinus of Aquileia xii, xxiii, 93 and n Tertullian xl, 159, 167 and n; Contra
Rufus, Quintus Curtius 61; Historiae Marcionem i68n; De monogamia i67n
6in Tetleben, Valentin von, archbishop of
Ruysbroek, Jan van xvii Mainz li, 150
Theoderici, Vincentius xxvin
Sabellius 176 Theophylact 19, 23, 54, 56, 63, 67n;
Sadoleto, Jacopo, bishop of Carpentras Commentarius in epistolam ad Hebraeos
xxv ign
Sallust i23n Theseus i42n
2 Samuel 6:20-3 i3§n i Thessalonians 5:22 6n
Sarah 165 Thomas, St 93
Satan xlvii, 55 and n, 116,130,I58n i Timothy
Saturn 125 - 2:5 46n
Saul 138 - 3:2 I33n; 3:12 1451^1
Sceptics 64 - 5:14 i39n
Schets, Caspar lion - 6:4 27n; 6:13 72n
Schiirer, Matthias 2 Titelmans, Frans xv; Prologus in
Schweiss, Alexander xxvi Collationes quinque xvn
Scotus. See Duns Scotus, John Titus, letter to 46, 74,103
Scribes 42,44 - 1:3 86n, iO4n; 1:6 i45n; 1:12 74n, 88n,
Secret Sayings of Isaiah 83. See also iO4n
Ascension of Isaiah Tory, Geoffrey Champ fleury au quel est
Sedulius Scotus 5in contenu Lart et science de la deue et vraye
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, the Elder 84 proportion des lettres Attiques xiv and n
and n, 119 and n; suasoriae 119 and n; Tournai, Synod of I46n
Epistulae morales j8n transubstantiation 169
Seneca the Younger ngn Trent, Council of xii, 8in, i46n
Sigmund, duke of Tyrol iiTn trial by bitter waters i55n, i58n, 174
Simeon 95 Tunstall, Cuthbert xxii
Siricius, Pope i3on
Slechta,Jan i45n Ulysses i2on
Socrates xii, 40,127,133 Valla, Lorenzo xvii, xlix, 99 and n, 144
Solomon. See Proverbs - Adnotationes in Latinam Novi
Solon i7^n Testamenti interpretationem xvii
sorcery 175 - De voluptate 143 and n
 INDEX 198

Varazzo, Caspar de 2in Vives, Juan Luis xxv

Vatable, Francois xx and n, 68n Volusian 29-30,50
Venus 126,143-4 Vulcan 126
Vigerio, Marco, cardinal 94 and n;
Apologia in defence of Lefevre 94n Zuichemus, Viglius xlviin
Virgil: Aeneid i26n; Gnat 118 and n Zuniga, Diego Lopez (Stunica) xii,
virgin(ity) xxxiv-xxxvii, xxxviin, xlv- xv, xxxiv; Adnotationes lacobi Lopidis
xlvi, xlviii, 114, 117 and n, 118,121 Stunicae contra D. Erasmum ... et in
and n, 124,126-9,132/ *35/ *37/142/ lacobum Fabrum xvn
169 Zwingli, Huldrych xivn, liii, 176
Virulus, Carolus. See Menniken,
Charles, of Ghent
This page intentionally left blank
 This book

was designed by

VAL COOKE

based on the series design by

ALLAN FLEMING

and was printed by

University

of Toronto

Press