Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian 9781442674530

Citation preview

Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian

Without the notes, Erasmus said, the texts of the Scripture were 'naked and defenceless,' open to criticism by uncomprehending readers and corruption by careless printers. The Annotations represent not only Erasmus' defence of the New Testament against such abuses, but also a reflection of his own philosophy, objectives, and working methods. In establishing the text and defending it against his opponents, Erasmus drew on manuscript sources, classical literature, patristic writings, scholastic exegesis, and the work of his immediate forerunners, Valla and Lefevre. He did not hesitate to point out the errors of illustrious writers like Jerome and established medieval authorities like Peter Lombard. In general he was appreciative of the early church Fathers and contemptuous of medieval commentators. As well as discussing the contents and aims of the Annotations, Erika Rummel investigates Erasmus' development from philologist to theologian and traces the prepublication history of the New Testament. She examines the critical reaction of conservative theologians to Erasmus' work and his replies, incorporated in later editions of the Annotations. The book ends by suggesting a wider field of research: the relationship between the Annotations and the corpus of Erasmian apologetic works. E R I K A R U M M E L is Executive Assistant to the Editorial Board of the Collected Works of Erasmus and author of Erasmus as a Translator of the Classics.

Erasmus Studies

A series of studies concerned with Erasmus and related subjects

1 Under Pretext of Praise: Satiric Mode in Erasmus' Fiction Sister Geraldine Thompson 2 Erasmus on Language and Method in Theology Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle 3 The Politics of Erasmus: A Pacifist Intellectual and His Political Milieu James D. Tracy 4 Phoenix of His Age: Interpretations of Erasmus c 1550-1750 Bruce Mansfield 5 Christening Pagan Mysteries: Erasmus in Pursuit of Wisdom Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle 6 Renaissance English Translations of Erasmus: A Bibliography to 1700 E.J. Devereux 7 Erasmus as a Translator of the Classics Erika Rummel 8 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian Erika Rummel

Erika Rummel

Erasmus Annotations on the New Testament From Philologist to Theologian

University of Toronto Press Toronto Buffalo London

www.utppublishing.com © University of Toronto Press 1986 Toronto Buffalo London Printed in Canada ISBN 0-8020-5683-0

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Rummel, Erika, 1942Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament (Erasmus studies, ISSN 0318-3319; 8) Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. ISBN 0-8020-5683-0 1. Erasmus, Desiderius, d. 1536. Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. 2. Erasmus, Desiderius, d. 1536 Criticism and interpretation. 3. Bible. N.T. Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series BS2335. E65R8 1986

255.7'7

C86-093933-2

The decorated border on the cover and title page is from Erasmus' Annotationes in Novum Testamentum (Basel: Froben 1519) courtesy Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, University of Toronto

Contents

Preface / vii Acknowledgments / xii 1 The Genesis of the Annotations I 3 2 Sources and Authorities / 35 3 The Task and Its Execution / 89 4 Additions, Revisions, and Retractions / 123

Conclusion / 181 Notes / 187 Bibliography / 221 Index of Latin and Greek Words / 227 General Index / 229

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

In the summer of 1514 Erasmus travelled to Basel to arrange with Froben for a new edition of his Adagia and to discuss other publishing projects. Among the manuscripts he had brought along for the printer's consideration were annotations on the New Testament, the fruit of several years of textual studies and research. During the negotiations with Froben, which began in the fall of 1514 and were not concluded until the spring of the following year, Erasmus' plans underwent several modifications. He had composed his annotations as a commentary on the Vulgate and expected them to be read in conjunction with the textus receptus; when the notes appeared in 1516 they accompanied the Greek text of the New Testament faced, not by the Vulgate, but by Erasmus' own translation. In their original form, the Annotations were predominantly a philological commentary, recording and discussing variant readings and commenting on passages in the Vulgate that were in Erasmus' opinion either obscurely or incorrectly rendered. Material added to the notes in subsequent editions (1519, 1522, 1527, 1535) broadened their scope considerably. They became a mixture of textual and literary criticism, theological exegesis, spiritual counsel, and polemical asides. To deal in full measure with the philological as well as theological dimensions of the text called for a Renaissance man indeed. It presupposed expertise in classical philology, patristic and medieval exegesis, and conciliar history. Erasmus, recognizing the immensity of the task, promised only compendious treatment and asked his readers to adjust their expectations accordingly. 'Let no one like a selfish guest demand supper in place of a light luncheon'

viii Preface

(Ep 373:7-8). The author of a book on the Annotations does well to follow Erasmus' lead and repeat his appeal to the fair reader. Also applicable are his remarks on the topic of achieving perfection and surpassing his predecessors: 'I frankly admit that there are many things [in my New Testament] that could have been dealt with in a more learned fashion, and it is undeniable that my attention flagged and I was nodding in some places, yet the facts will show that - after Lorenzo Valla to whom belles lettres owe a debt not only in this field, after Jacques Lefevre the protagonist of all virtue and learning - I have engaged in this business neither without reason nor without benefit' (Apologia Holborn 173:35-174:5). In the case of this book, the names of Albert Rabil and Jerry Bentley must be substituted for those of Valla and Lefevre. Both have made substantial progress investigating Erasmus' biblical scholarship: in Erasmus and the New Testament Rabil investigated Erasmus' notes on Romans; in Humanists and Holy Writ Bentley examined the Annotations as part of a larger survey of biblical scholarship. They have laid the foundations for this monograph. I have divided my subject into four parts. Chapter 1 deals with Erasmus' early career and his gradual transformation from classical philologist into biblical scholar; chapter 2 examines the sources of the Annotations: the manuscripts consulted and the classical, patristic, and scholastic authorities cited; chapter 3 is concerned with Erasmus' aims as an editor, his principles and methods as set out in the Annotations; and chapter 4 deals with the aftermath of his publication: the critical reception it was accorded and the additions and revisions this criticism occasioned. The inquiry into Erasmus' Greek studies and their application to biblical scholarship spans the years from his residence in the monastery of Steyn to the conclusion of his negotiations with Froben and the publication of the New Testament in 1516. Much has been written about this phase in Erasmus' life, yet there are gaps to be filled and, more importantly, myths to be laid to rest. Among them are the erroneous views that Colet inspired Erasmus' philological approach to biblical studies, that the translation published in 1516 was a more conservative version of an earlier one produced in 1505/6, and that Erasmus, when he arrived in Basel in 1514, had definitive plans for an editio princeps of the Greek text and a revised translation of the Vulgate. After tracing Erasmus' biblical studies to 1516, we turn to the core of his New Testament edition, the Annotations, which anchor

Preface ix

the text and remain the most impressive monument to his biblical scholarship. Examining Erasmus' principles of textual and literary criticism, we find that he relied on both manuscript tradition and patristic witnesses to establish the text. While the question of his manuscript sources has received considerable attention in modern literature, Erasmus' secondary sources have not been fully investigated. The use of classical authorities in the Annotations, for example, is a neglected field and is treated here for the first time in more than incidental fashion. As for Erasmus' references to the Fathers, a window on his patristic sources has been opened up by Ch. Bene in Erasme et St Augustin and A. Godin in Erasme lecteur d'Origene. It remained to extend their findings to other patristic sources cited in the Annotations, among them Jerome, Hilary, and Ambrose, most prominent among the Latin Fathers; Chrysostom, whom Erasmus considered the most prestigious of the Greek Fathers after Origen; and Theophylact, with whom he was so unfamiliar in 1516 that he got his name wrong. As for the exegetes of the later Middle Ages, Erasmus generally shunned them, mentioning their interpretations mainly to criticize or ridicule them. His negative attitude towards scholastic theology has been analysed and documented by Ch. Dolfen in Die Stellung des Erasmus von Rotterdam zur scholastischen Methode; here my task was to confirm an established thesis with specific examples from the Annotations. No detailed study exists, however, of Erasmus' philological aims and methods in the Annotations. This section I therefore claim as my own, although J. Chomarat has included some relevant aspects in his comprehensive Grammaire et rhetorique chez Erasme. Erasmus spoke of his aims as a philologist in the prolegomena to the New Testament and indicated the areas in which he intended to improve on the Vulgate. First he set about eradicating textual corruptions; in the execution of this task he showed himself alert to potential sources of scribal errors and signs of deliberate tampering with the text. He also aimed at an improved translation, striving for accuracy - the translator's cardinal virtue - as well as clarity of expression, purity of language, and stylistic appeal. Clarity and accuracy were generally accepted goals - though not all theologians agreed that the Vulgate needed improvement in these respects; changing the textus receptus for the sake of stylistic improvements was, however, regarded as a frivolous, if not heretical, enterprise. Conservative theologians quoted Augustine's dictum 'God is not

x Preface

offended by solecisms' and suggested that revisions of this nature cast aspersions on God's language skills or threw doubt on the apostles' inspiration. When Erasmus persevered in his efforts, he became the object of relentless criticism. The prolonged debate over the merits of his corrections concerns us inasmuch as it prompted Erasmus to add substantially to his annotations in an effort to justify and corroborate the changes he proposed. The apologias he wrote in the course of his controversies with reactionary critics merit a monograph of their own; I have attempted to provide a synopsis of Erasmus' disputes with conservative theologians and have identified some of the cross-currents between the apologias and the Annotations. This is an area of Erasmian studies that has been neglected to date. Individual notes and their critical reception have been the subject of scholarly investigation, but the censures of Lee, Beda, the Spanish orders, and Pio, who systematically investigated Erasmus' works for subversive and heretical comments, are still awaiting full treatment. With few exceptions (most notably the apology of 1521 against Zuniga, which has been edited by H. de Jonge in ASD IX-2 Amsterdam 1983) the texts are not available in modern editions. Yet these controversies are of considerable significance for the historical development of the Annotations. Their impact is discussed and documented below by means of representative examples. The Annotations have been compared - both by Erasmus' contemporaries and by modern scholars - with Valla's work in the same field. Erasmus' enemies accused him of plagiarizing Valla's notes; he himself all but denied his debt to the Italian scholar. As usual, the truth lies in the middle. Valla did not initiate Erasmus in the subject of biblical philology. The latter discovered his predecessor's work on the New Testament in 1504, that is, some years after he had publicly affirmed the importance of language studies for biblical scholarship and had begun his own commentaries on the Pauline Epistles. There can be no doubt, however, that Valla's work was an inspiration to Erasmus and confirmed the direction of his studies. It has been noted that Erasmus incorporated Valla's findings in his own notes without giving proper credit - a common practice in his age - but it must also be recognized that much of what Valla had to say was intrinsically and naturally connected with the issue and would readily occur to a scholar collating Greek and Latin manuscripts. Valla described himself as a 'poor and lowly follower of Jerome' (Collatio Perosa 6:12-13), and in Erasmus'

Preface xi

case, too, the church Father must be considered the primary source of inspiration. Indeed, the concerns voiced by Jerome and the justifications offered by him in the prefaces to his various biblical translations are echoed by Erasmus. He is, moreover, explicit in acknowledging the paradigmatic value of Jerome's work for his own scholarly career, declaring that he wished to 'follow the path to which I am beckoned by St Jerome and the glorious choir of all those ancient writers' (Ep 149:61-3). Ultimately, however, Erasmus' source of inspiration must be sought, not in personal or literary contacts, but in the collective voice of his age, a renaissance, not only dubbed so by modern scholars but recognized as such by humanists who sought to distance themselves from the language and method of scholasticism. Erasmus was perpetuating and advancing a movement that had begun with Manetti and Valla in Italy, was continued by the Complutensian scholars in Spain, and came to fruition in the work of northern humanists. The quest that united these men was a desire to master the biblical languages and to put their linguistic skills to use in restoring scriptural texts. Conservative theologians who clung to the speculative method on which they had been brought up rejected this new approach to scriptural studies, but Erasmus insisted on its validity: Theology, the queen of sciences,' he said, 'will not be offended if some share is claimed in her ... by her humble attendant Grammar' (Ep 182:147-9). In the years following the publication of his New Testament Erasmus was called upon to defend this position against the acerbic attacks of his opponents. Embroiled in controversy for the remainder of his life, he was finally vindicated by posterity, which yielded to philology its legitimate place in biblical studies.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to express her gratitude to Professor James K. McConica and Dr Ron Schoeffel for their continued encouragement and support; to Professors R.D. Sider, JJ. Bateman, and HJ. de Jonge for reading the manuscript in draft and offering valuable advice; to the readers appointed by the publisher for their suggestions; and to the copy-editor, Mary Baldwin, whose efficiency and professional skills I greatly appreciated. This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to the University of Toronto Press.

ERASMUS' ANNOTATIONSON THE NEW TESTAMENT

This page intentionally left blank

ONE

The Genesis of the Annotations

EX POETA THEOLOGUS1

Erasmus was in his thirties when he made the commitment 'to devote himself entirely to sacred literature' (Ep 138:52-3). If a date is wanted for his 'conversion' from philologist to biblical scholar, the year 1501 may serve as a point of reference. However, like any change involving the restructuring of priorities, this reorientation, too, was a gradual process taking place over a number of years. In his youth Erasmus had shown little inclination for biblical studies. His guardians had destined him for the religious life, not from any consideration for the boy's likes or dislikes, but from a desire to discharge their duties in an expedient fashion. At first Erasmus resisted the idea of entering a monastery, but in the end his misgivings were overcome by a companion's eloquent, if unrealistic, description of monastic life as a sojourn in 'the garden of the Muses.'2 Literature was Erasmus' first love,3 and he felt an almost mystic attraction for it, 'as if he were carried away to the temple of the Muses by divine force.' 4 His earliest letters bear witness to his love of literature. They are sprinkled with quotations from classical authors, notably the poets Ovid, Horace, Virgil, and Juvenal. His own poems, too, are modelled on their example and reflect the classical age in subject-matter, imagery, and metre. This enthusiasm for secular literature did not go unchallenged, however. An erudite letter to his guardian, Peter Winckel, earned Erasmus a sharp reproof. Far from appreciating the classical quotations it contained, the guardian 'replied severely that in future if he sent any letter like that, he must add a commentary; it had always been his

4 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

own habit ... to write plainly and "punctually" - that was the word he used' (Ep 447:95-8). Cornelis Gerard, a friend and frequent correspondent, shared Erasmus' interests but was more cautious in his approach to the classics. It appears that he edited a poem Erasmus had submitted to his judgment, inserting scriptural allusions. Erasmus, the purist, had chosen his similes and metaphors exclusively from the realm of classical mythology. 5 On Cornelis' advice he now adopted Christian themes: 'Since you kindly remind me of this, I have decided for the future to write nothing which does not breathe the atmosphere either of praise of holy men or of holiness itself (Ep 28:8-11). Still, his style reflected his reading and was thought too fastidious and ornate. The prior of St Michael's at Hem, who had encouraged Erasmus to write a poem in praise of the archangel Michael, was appalled when he received the finished product (Reedijk poem 35). 'He did not dare to display it publicly because, as he said, it was so poetical, it could appear to have been written in Greek' (Allen I 3:34-5). Yet Erasmus had tried to moderate his style, joining quotations from Ovid, Horace, and Virgil with allusions to the Psalms and Revelation. This attempt to chart a middle course between his own ideals and the expectations of his elders did not have the desired results, however. 'In the end all I achieved was failure to please them, or scholars either' (Ep 113:68). Thus, the cultural climate of his time and the personal circumstances of his life involved Erasmus in a conflict: his natural impulse was to study, enjoy, and emulate classical authors, but the universal disapproval of his pursuits led him to question their propriety for a Christian and a member of the regular clergy. Classical literature, which he had embraced with such enthusiasm, was viewed with suspicion by those around him, so that, instead of being supported in his choices, he was obliged to conceal his interests and pursue classical studies surreptitiously.6 Looking back on his years at school in 's Hertogenbosch and in the monastery at Steyn, he felt that his talents had been stifled. He noted that 'it matters much in what era and in what country you write, who are your judges, who your competitors' (Allen I 2:27-9). At another time, in another place, he might have been allowed to follow his natural inclination and become a poet or a teacher of literature, but the restrictive atmosphere of the monastery at Steyn and, later on, the College de Montaigu in Paris forced him to abandon this calling.

The Genesis of the Annotations 5

He expressed his feelings of impotence and despair in a poem entitled 'Against Barbary': Not without tears I said farewell, my Muse, farewell forever, Phoebus, father mine, my love once, my repose. Unwillingly I leave you now, Forced by the fatal spite of ignorant men who tear apart the Muses' sacred art; forced by Arcadia's troops, more numerous - oh shame - than stars. (Reedijk poem 14:17-24) The standard textbooks and dictionaries used in school - Papias, Graecismus, Doctrinale, Catholicon, Mammetrectus - disgusted the young Erasmus. Instead, he read Valla's Elegantiae, a humanistic textbook on style, and Jerome, whose language breathed the spirit of the classical age. And so it was the church Father whose help he invoked in answering the question that had troubled him for some time now: was it right for a Christian to read and imitate pagan authors? He cast the saint's reply in verse: Your studies I do not condemn, you have my leave to read provided you divide your time equally (and your love) between Pierian bands and Holy Writ, weighing or rather, reading it with reverence. And may your speech be clothed in splendid style with grand arrangement; though when you raise up gleaming Egyptian vessels, be prepared to build a noble edifice to God - then will you, free of blame, earn praise by praise ... The Muse I will not damn, but warn you lest you turn away from sacred dogmata commending soberness. For if you read accounts of ancient feats devoid of truth: with learned rhyme and metre harness them; but if you seek to echo Holy Writ:

6 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

let Scripture dictate meaning; let your Muse embellish it with style ornate. (Reedijk poem 15:14-33) These lines bring to a formal close the first stage in Erasmus' literary productions. The bucolic scenes and sentimental outpourings that characterize his early poetry are superseded by meditations on Christ's death and resurrection and paeans on angels and saints. The verdict put into Jerome's mouth represents Erasmus' own resolution. A variation of the motto 'when you raise up gleaming Egyptian vessels, be prepared to build a noble edifice to God' had already appeared in a letter to Hendrik van Bergen, in which Erasmus discussed the duties and objectives of the Christian poet. There, too, he announced that 'Egyptian trimmings' could be applied to Christian themes with some benefit.7 Similarly he said in the Antibarbari: To take away the wealth of Egypt is to transfer heathen literature to the adornment and use of our faith' (CWE 23 97:20-1). The protreptic De contemptu mundi, composed around the same time,8 was Erasmus' first large-scale attempt to put into practice the theory that pagan literature could be pressed into the service of Christ. Choosing a commonplace topic of medieval literature, Erasmus presented traditional arguments but supported them in a novel fashion, drawing his examples from classical literature rather than from ecclesiastic history and quoting Roman poetry instead of Scripture.9 A similar tendency characterized a series of contemporary poems on the foolishness of human aspirations, the inevitability of death, and the worthlessness of material possessions.10 In writing these compositions, which combined Christian and pagan sources, Erasmus attempted to prove to a sceptical world that classical authors deserved to be read, that their ideas could be reconciled with the philosophia Christi, and that their rhetoric could be used to glorify God. Although the literary output of the years 1489-92 offered evidence of a subtle change in Erasmus' thinking and showed him diverting his creative efforts to spiritual themes, the image he projected was still that of a man more devoted to secular literature than was deemed compatible with his profession, a man of literary ambitions striving to be a poet after the classical fashion. This reputation caused him some embarrassment, and he wrote to Hector Boece in 1495: 'Confound it, what has put it into your head that

The Genesis of the Annotations 7

Erasmus is a poet? This expression, by which you keep describing me in your letters from time to time, is in bad odour nowadays' (Ep 47:14-16). In another letter, written in 1499 to Johannes Sixtinus, he spoke in disparaging terms of his poetic calling: 'It would be better if [my Muses] went on sleeping: they are good-for-nothing, noisy, loquacious, distracting females' (Ep 113:173-5). At this stage in his life he considered the impulse to write poetry a siren call tempting him to indulge in frivolous delights and keeping him from his Christian duty. Erasmus had been ordained priest in 1492. Six months later he left Steyn to become Latin secretary to Hendrik van Bergen, the bishop of Cambrai. For some time he entertained hopes of accompanying his master to Italy, the centre of the new learning, but when the bishop's plans came to nothing, Erasmus' spirits sank. To escape a situation which no longer held any prospects for him, he asked for leave to study theology in Paris. In doing so, he did not follow his personal inclinations but chose from available options. In the Compendium vitae we read that 'theology repelled him' (CWE 4 408:124). Paris was, moreover, the stronghold of scholasticism, whose exponents Erasmus variously described as quibbling sophists and pseudotheologians and whose obscure style and twisted arguments he despised.11 Although he had made a valiant effort to conform with the values of his community - tempering his style to please his superiors, formally renouncing the poets, and bidding farewell to the Muses - he was not entirely reconciled to this position when he departed for Paris. The continuing inner struggle is evident from the letters he wrote between 1495 and 1499. A meaningful interpretation of their contents requires distinguishing official communications from private outpourings, since each group of letters shows Erasmus in a different light. In messages to Nicolaas Werner, a fellow monk of Steyn, and to Hendrik van Bergen, his patron, Erasmus appears a new man: the dedicated student of theology; in letters to his more intimate friends Cornelis Gerard and Willem Hermans he appears as devoted to belles lettres as ever. One need not accuse Erasmus of duplicity; rather, the letters express a genuine conflict, the dichotomy between his pledge to Christ and his devotion to the Muses, callings that were not easily combined in the scholastic atmosphere of the university. In its halls theology and literature could not coexist, as Erasmus explained in a letter to his friend and

8 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

pupil Thomas Grey: They say the secrets of this branch of learning [theology] cannot be grasped by a person who has anything at all to do with the Muses or the Graces' (Ep 64:84-6). In letters destined for the pious ears of Nicolaas Werner Erasmus spoke of his 'longing for a life wherein I may in sanctified leisure ... meditate on holy writ.'12 He may have mentioned his literary projects - a manual of style, rules for letter-writing, a collection of proverbs - but his correspondent did not favour such pursuits, 'saying that many disapprove of them' (Ep 81:9). It goes without saying that Erasmus was guarded in his statements to Hendrik van Bergen, who had sponsored his theological studies. In a letter accompanying a presentation copy of Hermans' Silva odarum, he apologized for sending another man's work, saying that he was 'busied with studies in theology' (Ep 51:16). In a letter appearing at the end of the Silva odarum and also addressed to Hendrik van Bergen, he goes as far as to reproach Christian poets for adopting pagan models: 'I tend to be privately indignant from time to time with the poets of modern times ... because in choosing models they prefer to set before themselves Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, and Ovid, rather than St Ambrose or Paulinus of Nola or Prudentius or Juvencus or Moses or David or Solomon, as though their Christianity were forced and not spontaneous' (Ep 49:100-5). The same criticism could of course be levelled against Erasmus' own poems. He therefore went on to qualify what might otherwise be construed as hypocritical remarks: 'However, I shall check myself before I go too far, especially in regard to my former "darlings," as people call them to discredit me. I am myself happy to be of my friend Gaguin's opinion in thinking that even ecclesiastical subjects can be treated brilliantly in vernacular works provided the style is pure. And I would not reprehend anyone for applying Egyptian trimmings, but I am against the appropriation of Egypt in its entirety' (Ep 49:106-11). Here, as in other contemporary letters, Erasmus' concern for his reputation shows through. It is obvious from his remarks that some people considered his conduct in Paris objectionable. In the letter just quoted he speaks of those who wished to discredit him; in a letter to Werner he is at pains to prove his devotion to theological studies in case 'anyone was hitherto unaware of the high value I set on holy writ' (Ep 48:3-4). In communications with Cornelis Gerard and Willem Hermans he tries to correct any impression of frivolity

The Genesis of the Annotations 9

he might have left and appears to regret his outspokenness. He implores Cornelis to keep their conversations confidential ('keep to yourself what I have confided to you' - Ep 78:18-19) and reproaches him for not having defended him loyally in his absence. Similarly he takes issue with Willem Hermans: 'What, my dear Willem, did you mean when you wrote "You yourself are aware, nor am I unaware, what manner of life you live there"? ... You still think of me as the Erasmus of old ... if you wish to form a true picture of your friend, you must imagine him, not indulging in frivolity or feasting or love affairs, but distraught with grief: tearful and loathing himself (Ep 83:39-40, 104-9). He may have asked Fausto Andrelini to add weight to his words by providing a character reference, for we find the poet writing to Hermans soon thereafter: 'I cannot surely, cannot, I say, refrain from rejoicing that your community possesses one to whom not only you yourselves but this university of Paris also owe love, honour, respect, and admiration' (Ep 84:4-6). In spite of this fulsome praise, Erasmus' standing at the university and his devotion to theological studies must be called into question. His sincerity is certainly compromised by a satirical passage on the origin of scholastic theology found in a letter to Thomas Grey. According to Erasmus, scholasticism went back to Epimenides, an ancient philosopher whose skin was preserved at the Sorbonne, 'the holy of holies of Scotist theology,' and consulted as an oracle by faculty members 'whenever syllogisms failed them.' Once this Epimenides entered a cave, lost his way 'as even theologians do,' and was 'biting his nails and pondering at great length "instances" and "quiddities" and "formal qualities" ' when he was overcome by sleep and did not wake until forty-seven years later - a lucky outcome, 'for most of our present-day theologians never wake up at all.' And what did he dream up during those forty-seven years? 'Why, of course, those super-subtle subtleties that today are the boast of the sons of Scotus' (Ep 64:25-76). In the same letter Erasmus also describes what it was like to attend lectures in theology: If only you could see your Erasmus sitting agape among those glorified Scotists, while "Gryllard"13 lectures from a lofty throne. If you could but observe his furrowed brow, his uncomprehending look and worried expression, you would say it was another man' (Ep 64:80-4). These can hardly be interpreted as the words of a committed student - even if they are

10 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

followed by a disclaimer: 'But, my sweetest Grey, I would not have you mistakenly infer that what I have just written was directed against theology itself, to which, as you are aware, I have always been deeply devoted. I merely wished to make a joke at the expense of a few quasi-theologians of our own day, whose brains are the most addled, tongues the most uncultured, wits the dullest, teachings the thorniest, characters the least attractive, lives the most hypocritical, talk the most slanderous, and hearts the blackest on earth' (Ep 64:94-101). Thus, it is not surprising that Erasmus, though now engaged in theological studies, remained a poet in the eyes of his friends.14 A letter addressed to one of his pupils, Christian Northoff, tells of entertaining debates and recitals in his company. Sharing quarters with Erasmus meant living on 'the mount of Helicon itself (Ep 61:130-1). This was not the environment envisaged by the guardian of another student, Thomas Grey. This 'elderly humbug' (Ep 58:24) removed his charge from Erasmus' care, a circumstance that can hardly have contributed to his good standing in a conservative community. On the whole, the first four years Erasmus spent in Paris show little evidence of a real and lasting conversion from poet to theologian. In 1496 Erasmus had written to Werner: 'I have no desire to be diverted from religious studies by any monetary inducement. I did not come to Paris to teach, or to make piles of money, but to learn' (Ep 48:26-8). Within a year, however, the necessity of providing for his needs obliged him to find work as a tutor. One of his English pupils, William Blount, Lord Mountjoy, invited Erasmus to accompany him to England, and the two men set out in the fall of 1499. In England, Erasmus was introduced to a circle of scholars, among them John Colet, who was then lecturing at Oxford. Colet's exposition of the Pauline Epistles opened Erasmus' eyes to an alternative approach to theology that was at once more creditable and more congenial to his own nature. Colet had the force of conviction. His personal integrity, his missionary zeal, and his simple faith greatly appealed to Erasmus. He later described their growing friendship, paying tribute to Colet's character and erudition: 'It was admiration for your extraordinary learning and love of your piety that drew me to you' (Ep 181:6-7). Here was a man who applied the humanistic call Ad fontes to the subject of theology, directing his listeners, not to medieval commentaries and glosses, but to the

The Genesis of the Annotations 11 words of St Paul. In his biographical sketch of Colet, Erasmus reported his friend's preferences with approval: 'He took the greatest pleasure in Dionysius, Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Jerome ... the Scotists, to whom the general public attributes special acumen, seemed to him stupid and dull and anything but ingenious; for to philosophize on other men's opinions and words, criticizing now this point, now another, and to dissect everything minutely is the mark of a barren and weak intellect' (Allen Ep 1211:271-3, 425-9). On this point, then, the two friends agreed, but on the subject of classical authors their views were essentially disparate. Colet's verdict on pagan literature is expressed in his Lectures on Corinthians (Lupton 109-10): We ought to banquet with Christ alone, at the choice table of the Scriptures; and to feast most plentifully with him in the New Testament wherein the water of Moses has been turned into wine by Christ himself. At other tables, that is, the books of heathen authors, in which there is nothing that savours of Christ, nothing that does not savour of the Devil - at those tables, I say, no Christian assuredly ought to sit unless he chooses to be thought a guest of the Devil rather than of the Lord. Such as are the pastures, such are the kine; and as a man feeds, so does he grow. If we seek to feed on the wisdom of the heathens, which is devilish not Christian, we lose the principles of our Lord. For no one takes food at their tables, that is, their books, unless for either doubting or despising the Scriptures; and each of these is a wicked and profane thing, and an abominable tempting of God. Colet therefore remonstrated with Erasmus over his devotion to secular literature and admonished him to focus his attention on Holy Writ instead. Erasmus, in turn, assured Colet that, as far as his career was concerned, he 'never intended to become a professor of what is called secular learning' (Ep 108:113). Yet he declined Colet's invitation to lecture on the Old Testament because he considered himself deficient in language skills. On this point, too, the two men's views differed considerably. Erasmus believed that a theologian could not dispense with philological skills: Those who venture to write, not merely on the Scriptures, but on any ancient books at all, are devoid of both intelligence and modesty if they do not possess a reasonable command of both Greek and Latin' (Ep

12 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament 182:219-22). Colet, in contrast, believed that an understanding of the gospel truth was obtained chiefly through prayer and was granted by God's grace: Now if any should say, as is often said, that to read heathen authors is of assistance for the right understanding of Holy Writ, let them reflect whether the very fact of such reliance being placed upon them does not make them a chief obstacle to such understanding. For, in so acting, you distrust your power of understanding the Scriptures by grace alone, and prayer, and by the help of Christ, and of faith, but think you can do so through the means and assistance of heathens ... [the gospel truth] is understood by grace; grace is procured by our prayers being heard; our prayers are heard when whetted by devotion and strengthened by fasting. To have recourse to other means is mere infatuation. (Lectures on Corinthians Lupton 110-11) In the light of these statements, it is futile to ascribe to Colet more than a limited role in inspiring Erasmus' work on the New Testament, which was philological in its conception.15 Colet may have directed Erasmus towards scriptural studies in general, but for the impulse that led him to emend the Vulgate and to write the Annotations we must look elsewhere - perhaps beyond personal influences. Applying philological principles to Holy Writ was an idea whose time had come. In Spain Cardinal Jimenes had initiated his project to publish a polyglot Bible; in France Jacques Lefevre was preparing a commentary and translation of the Pauline Epistles; in Germany Reuchlin was examining the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The search for a correct text, translation, and interpretation based on philological principles had begun even earlier in Italy. By 1444 Lorenzo Valla had completed his first collation of the Greek and Latin texts of the New Testament; a decade later Giannozzo Manetti translated the New Testament from the Greek; and in 1481 Johannes Crastonus published his polyglot Psalter.16 While we have no indication that Erasmus was familiar with either Manetti's or Crastonus' work, we know that he admired Valla, whose Elegantiae he epitomized for use in schools and whose notes on the New Testament he published in 1505 with a preface defending the philological approach to scriptural studies. Valla is therefore often regarded as Erasmus' model and immediate forerunner.17 The Italian humanist (1407-57) taught rhetoric at Pavia be-

The Genesis of the Annotations 13

tween 1429 and 1433, entered the service of King Alfonso V of Aragon and Sicily in 1437, and in 1448 was appointed apostolic secretary under Pope Nicholas V. Valla's scholarship encompassed the fields of rhetoric, philosophy, and theology. In De voluptate he contrasted Stoic and Epicurean ideals with Christian views on the rewards of virtue; in the Elegantiae, a handbook of style, he sought to encourage a return to the beauty and elegance of classical diction; in De libero arbitrio he expounded his views on the transcendence of the divine will. The work that is of interest in the present context, however, is his Collatio Novi Testamenti, critical notes on the text of the New Testament, which he composed in two stages or redactions in the years 1442/3 and 1453/7 respectively. As the title of the work indicates, his concern was not so much exegesis as textual criticism, both in the primary sense of pointing out variant readings and in the secondary sense of offering literary criticism of the Vulgate translation. His method may be characterized here in a few bold strokes: he examined and collated a number of Greek and Latin manuscripts but was inclined to give preference to the Greek original as being inherently more reliable than a translation; he paid close attention to the grammatical and stylistic features of the Vulgate version, touching on the meaning only incidentally when, in his opinion, the translator had failed to give a clear rendering of doctrine. As his authorities he cited predominantly classical writers, but he also referred to patristic and medieval commentators. Quoting from, among others, Jerome, Ambrose, Haimo of Auxerre (Remigius), and Thomas Aquinas, he showed a Renaissance scholar's bias for patristic witnesses over scholastic commentators.18 In 1504 Erasmus discovered a manuscript of Valla's notes in the abbey of Pare, near Louvain, and published it the following year under the title Adnotationes in Novum Test amentum.19 Three years earlier he had himself entered the field of biblical scholarship, comparing the Pauline Epistles with the Greek original and writing a commentary (enarratio) on them.20 Unfortunately this work, drafted in 1501, is no longer extant, so that we do not know the exact nature and scope of Erasmus' undertaking and, consequently, the extent to which he was indebted to Valla for the philological method. It is significant, however, that as early as in 1501 he recognized the importance of Greek language skills for the successful completion of his task, explaining why he interrupted his work on Paul: '[I] would have gone on, but for certain distractions, of which

14 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

the most important was that I needed the Greek at every point' (Ep 181:38-40). We may conjecture from this that Erasmus developed a philological approach to biblical studies independently from, and prior to having read, Valla's notes. This view was, however, not shared by his contemporaries. In a short biography written for Charles V, Beatus Rhenanus claims that Erasmus 'imitated Valla' in his Annotations (Allen I 64:281), but Erasmus himself assigned no such importance to his predecessor's work. Valla's name is notably absent from the preface to the New Testament and from the dedicatory letter to Pope Leo X. Speaking of the genesis of his work, Erasmus declared that he 'had prepared for this [task] ... by starting some time ago my commentaries on St Paul' (Ep 373:146-7) and listed as his inspirational sources 'the works of the classical [ie, patristic] theologians' (Ep 384:60). Erasmus' opponents, however, did not keep silent on Valla's prior contributions to the field and postulated a dependence. Diego Lopez Zuniga alleged that Erasmus had plagiarized Valla and, 'in the manner of Aesop's crow' (Allen Ep 2172:10-11), published another man's work as his own; a second opponent, Edward Lee, also saw a seminal relationship between the two works, saying that 'Lorenzo was the start of the trouble' (Ep 843:96). Erasmus called this idle talk: manifestae vanitatis est (Allen Ep 2172:9). He admitted that he had taken material from Valla's Annotations, in some cases without giving proper credit, but insisted that these instances were negligible and that his own work reached far beyond Valla's.21 Maarten van Dorp was another contemporary who raised the issue of Erasmus' relationship to his predecessors, saying that Lefevre and Valla had already attempted the task that Erasmus was proposing for himself at this time. Erasmus' reply clearly indicates his own view of the matter: Personally I think Valla most praiseworthy, as a man more concerned with literature than with theology, for having shown enough energy in the study of Scripture to compare the Greek with the Latin, while there are not a few theologians who have never read the whole Testament right through; although in some things I differ from him, especially in those that relate to theological science. And Jacques Lefevre had his notes in hand already when I was getting this work under way, and it happened, a trifle unfortunately, that even in our most friendly conversations neither of us thought

The Genesis of the Annotations 15 of mentioning his plans, nor did I learn what he had been at until his work appeared in print. His attempt also I heartily approve, although from him too I dissent in some places, reluctantly ... But it is not yet quite clear to me why you confront me with these two names. Is it to deter me from the project as though I were already anticipated? ... We do not attempt an exactly similar task. Lorenzo only annotated selected passages, and those, it is clear, in passing and with what they call a light touch. Lefevre published notes on the Pauline Epistles only, and translated them in his own way; then added notes in passing if there was any disagreement. But I have translated the whole New Testament after comparison with the Greek copies ... (Ep 337:881-906) He adopts a similar stand in the Apologia affixed to the first edition of the New Testament (Holborn 174:2-5) and in a letter to Cardinal Grimani, saying: 'Even after Lorenzo Valla and that learned and industrious man Jacques Lefevre, I hope I may be thought to have had good reason to undertake [this task]' (Ep 334:176-8). It is evident from Erasmus' statements that, whatever his contemporaries may have thought, he did not feel personally indebted to Valla or at any rate did not feel that his debt was significant enough to merit an official vote of thanks. Rather he seems to have considered Valla in the same category as Lefevre: his equal rather than his master in the field. Moreover, he thought that he could improve on his predecessor's work. For inspiration and guidance he looked beyond Valla to the church Fathers. In Ep 149, which contains a programmatic statement on biblical studies, Erasmus declared that his own inclination was 'to follow the path to which I am beckoned by St Jerome and the glorious choir of all those ancient writers' (Ep 149:62-3). In the preface to the Annotations he once again asserted that he had revised the New Testament according to the Greek sources, 'advised to do so by Jerome and Augustine' (Ep 373:19). He praised their example and, furthermore, paid homage to Origen who had demonstrated 'some of the basic principles of the science of theology' (Ep 181:47-8). The impetus for his work must, therefore, be sought in the Fathers, and among them especially Jerome, whose principles and practical example affected him most directly. Jerome had deeply impressed Erasmus in his youth and continued to occupy his attention during his studies in Paris.22 More-

16 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

over, from 1500 on Erasmus was engaged in revising Jerome's work, finally publishing the result of his research in 1516. It is in Jerome's letters and in the prefaces to his translations that we find many of the concerns later expressed by Erasmus himself. Jerome had discussed, for example, the relative importance of stylistic appeal and accuracy and the difficulty of reconciling these two ideals. In De optima genere interpretandi he had written: In my versions from the Greek (excepting Holy Writ, where even the order of words is a sacred mystery) I did not translate word for word but expressed the meaning' (Ep 57.5). In support of this approach he cited Cicero's dictum non verbum pro verbo (De optima genere dicendi 14). Erasmus, in turn, cited Jerome's authority both in describing his own translations from secular authors and in defending his emendations of the Vulgate.23 Like Jerome, he 'followed Cicero's old rule' and he averred, echoing Jerome, that 'nothing is harder than to turn good Greek into good Latin' (Ep 177:114, 118-19).24 Pointing out the necessity of revising the New Testament because of discrepancies in the manuscript tradition and mistakes in the translation, Erasmus noted the problems that needed to be addressed: 'Internal disagreements, or a nodding translator's plainly inadequate renderings of the meanings, or things that are more intelligibly expressed in Greek, or, finally, anything that is clearly corrupt in our texts' (Ep 182:136-9). Jerome had mentioned the same concerns: There are almost as many readings as there are manuscripts. If the true reading must be sought out among many, why not turn to the Greek sources and correct what has been poorly rendered by bad translators, or emended wrongly by presumptuous and inexperienced men, or enlarged or changed by nodding scribes?' (preface to the Gospels PL 29:558B-559A). Like Jerome, Erasmus saw biblical translations as a philologist's task and denied that this view conflicted with the principle of inspiration. He quoted Jerome in defence of his view: 'I should like them to explain then the meaning of Jerome's remark to his friend Desiderius that "it is one thing to be a prophet, another to be a translator." >25 Erasmus also followed Jerome's lead in carefully avoiding any claim of official status for his revised version. Jerome had said repeatedly that he was not imposing his translation on those unwilling to accept it: 'Let those who wish have their old book' (preface to Job PL 28:1142A); 'Let them read it if they wish, put it away if they don't' (preface to Esdras PL 28:1472B-C). Erasmus also emphasized that his translation was his personal con-

The Genesis of the Annotations 17

tribution to biblical studies and that he commended it to Christ, not to men. In the Capita contra morosos he stressed that he was not imposing his own judgment on others: 'Let the Vulgate be read in schools, recited in churches, and quoted from pulpits' - his translation was intended for the private use of scholars.26 Erasmus implied that he was following in Jerome's footsteps when he used his example to justify his own work: 'Even at the time when Damasus gave this task to Jerome - to revise the New Testament according to the Greek sources - the church had a version which it used and perhaps had been using for some centuries. If it was sound, what need was there for Jerome's revision? If it was corrupt, it is obvious that the church was using, for the time being, a version that needed improving' (Capita contra morosos 37). Jerome had complained that his contemporaries preferred the old version to the new one, 'evaluating it like wine' (preface to Pentateuch PL 28:179A); Erasmus made the same point, calling it 'very foolish to evaluate things by their age' (Capita contra morosos 64). He expressly compared the hostile reception given to his scholarly efforts with the criticism encountered by Jerome, saying that he was bearing his fate with greater equanimity because it was shared by the church Father. Unpopularity had been the lot of many scholars, 'but even of St Jerome himself - and the Latin world has no more learned or holier man than him' (Allen Ep 1334:13-16). In defending Erasmus' biblical scholarship, Thomas More draws the same parallel: 'Every single objection you make,' he writes to Dorp, '... was once made against St Jerome and thoroughly refuted by him' (Ep 15 Rogers 42-3). While Erasmus regarded his task as a continuation of Jerome's work, his contemporaries accused him of attacking the reputation of the church Father by claiming that the Vulgate was full of errors. Erasmus, however, denied that the Vulgate represented Jerome's revision. He believed that Jerome's work was no longer extant: 'If it were, there would perhaps be no need for my collation' (scholia on Jerome's preface to the Gospels, 1536 edition, page 31). It is evident from these pronouncements that Erasmus saw his revision as somehow restoring Jerome's lost translation - a creative extension of the work he did in editing Jerome's Opera omnia. When we trace the progress of Erasmus' language studies we find that a sustained theological purpose can be documented only from 1501 on. Before then he had sought gratification and scholarly enlightenment in classical authors. He admired their elegant diction,

18 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

their rhetorical appeal, and their erudition and despised in equal measure the turgid style and convoluted arguments of scholastic authors, whose books epitomized contemporary theology. While Colet played a role in turning Erasmus' interest to scriptural studies, the application of philological principles to Holy Writ - the significant element in his biblical scholarship - goes back to other sources: the positive example of Jerome, whose work Erasmus sought to restore; the negative example of medieval exegetes, whose commentaries Erasmus sought to invalidate; and Valla's notes, which corroborated Erasmus' own findings and confirmed him in his belief that a revision of the Vulgate was necessary. RESEARCH AND PREPARATION FOR THE EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

After his return to the continent in 1500 Erasmus immersed himself in Greek studies with a view to applying his newly acquired skills to biblical texts. He wrote to a former pupil, Nicolaus Bensrott, asking him to be on the lookout for Greek texts of the Gospels and the Psalms.27 At one time he voiced hopes of returning to England 'to spend a month or two studying divinity with my friend Colet' (Ep 159:60-1, July 1501), but nothing came of these plans. Shortly afterwards Erasmus announced his intention to prepare a commentary on Romans following the example of Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine (Ep 164:41-6). He expected this task to occupy him during the winter months, which he intended to spend 'brooding in silence over holy writ' (Ep 165:2). The course of his preparatory work can be traced from requests for loans from the library of St Berlin's. He asked for Augustine, Ambrose, Lyra, Origen, 'or anyone else who has written a commentary on Paul.'28 At St Bertin's he received encouragement and support from the warden, Jean Vitrier, whom he later remembered with gratitude, linking his memory with that of Colet and describing the two men's approach to theology in similar terms. Like Colet, Vitrier had drawn his inspiration from scriptural texts and early commentators. The books of God, especially the Epistles of Paul, he had learnt so well that no one knew his own hand better then he knew the words of his Paul. He knew most of Ambrose by heart. And it is almost incredible how much he retained by memory also out of the other old orthodox writers' (Allen Ep 1211:44-9). In his sermons Vitrier had relied

The Genesis of the Annotations 19

on biblical texts, unlike the majority of preachers, 'who put together a frigid patchwork out of Scotus, Thomas, Durandus ... His whole speech was full of sacred Scripture and he was unable to utter anything else' (Allen Ep 1211:66-70). Erasmus completed four volumes of his Pauline commentary 'at one rush' (uno quasi impetu, Ep 181:37), but then put it aside because he found that he needed more Greek to do a thorough job.29 He also began to study Hebrew - 'sipped the cup of that language, as the saying goes' (Ep 334:135) - but abandoned the project, 'put off by the strangeness of the language' (Ep 181:42-3). The goal of his language studies was to see with his own eyes rather than trust those of others.30 In letters to friends he asserted that he wished to 'devote to religion and to Christ whatever life remains' and counselled them in turn to study Holy Writ and the commentaries of the Fathers.31 In 1505 Erasmus made a second journey to England. At first he focused his efforts on secular authors. Joining forces with Thomas More, he produced translations of some of Lucian's dialogues and essays. In addition, he polished a draft version of Euripides' Hecuba and began work on another Euripidean tragedy, Iphigenia in Aulis. The first of Erasmus' translations to be published, however, were his versions from Libanius, completed some years earlier. Commenting on the first-fruits of his Greek studies, Erasmus emphasized that they were merely practice pieces. Without denying their educational value or belittling their stylistic qualities, he noted that, within his own course of studies, they represented only stepping-stones to a more important task. He had chosen Libanius as his first text to avoid 'learning the potter's art on a great jar' (Ep 177:112-13). He repeated this tag in his dedication of the Euripides plays to Warham, adding, 'any mistake I made would thus be at the cost of my intellectual reputation alone, causing no harm to Holy Writ' (Ep 188:13-14). In letters to friends Erasmus also described his translations of secular authors as preliminary studies preparing him for a more serious enterprise: the restoration and elucidation of Scripture. He claimed to have been motivated by this quest in younger years as well: 'When in my youth I embraced the finer literature of the ancients and acquired, not without much midnight labour, a reasonable knowledge of the Greek as well as the Latin language, I did not aim at vain glory or childish self-gratification, but had long ago determined to adorn the Lord's temple, badly

20 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

desecrated as it has been by the ignorance and barbarism of some, with treasures from other realms, as far as in me lay' (Ep 164: 48-53). This pious interpretation of his youthful pursuits was, however, imposed in retrospect. In his early references to language studies, Erasmus spoke of them mainly as delightful and gratifying experiences. Subsequently, he tried to justify his interest in secular authors by saying that classical rhetoric could be used to illuminate Christian themes, and finally he came to appreciate the usefulness and applicability of philology to theological studies. It was from this vantage-point that he looked back on his youthful pursuits and cast them in a new light, describing them as a preparatory phase in which he had honed his skills until he felt ready to begin work on the New Testament. The justification he offered for continuing research in secular authors reflects this new perspective. Writing to Colet regarding his preparations for a new edition of the Adagia, he said: Though for the present I am concerned with what may be a rather mundane subject, still while I linger within the garden of the Greeks I am gathering by the way many flowers that will be useful for the future, even in sacred studies' (Ep 181:98-101). The dedicatory epistle to Warham quoted above hints at Erasmus' plans to engage in biblical studies,32 and until recently scholars believed that he was at that time already engaged in translating the New Testament.33 This belief rested on the existence of manuscript copies of such a translation in Pieter Meghen's hand bearing the colophon dates of October 1506 and September 1509 respectively.34The theory that Erasmus had begun work on a translation before 1506 was, however, at odds with his own testimony, for he consistently claimed that the idea of adding a translation to his New Testament edition occurred to him only when the project was already well advanced. In polemics against Edward Lee, Johannes Sutor, and Frans Titelmans, Erasmus declared that the plan was conceived by friends when the publication was already in progress.35 He claimed that it had not been his own intention to add a new translation - scholarly friends had urged him to do so36 - and insisted that nothing had been further from his mind at first. 37 He described the circumstances surrounding the publication of the translation in similar terms in a letter to Bude: 'When the work was already due to be published, certain people encouraged me to change the Vulgate text' (Ep 421:50-2). In 1533 he repeated this version of events: 'When I had first come to Basel I had not even

The Genesis of the Annotations 21

thought about translating the New Testament - I had merely noted down some brief explanatory notes and had decided to be content with that' (Allen Ep 2758:12-14). The apparent discrepancy between these statements and the manuscript evidence has now been explained thanks to the efforts of Andrew Brown, who has conclusively proved that the colophon dates in the Meghen manuscripts apply only to the Vulgate text contained in them and that Erasmus' translation (in one case interlinear, in the other in a wide margin) was added in the 1520s.38 The veracity of Erasmus' statements is therefore no longer in doubt. In the spring of 1506 Erasmus departed for Italy accompanying the sons of the physician Boerio. He explained to friends that he 'came to Italy mainly in order to learn Greek' (Ep 203:3-4). Few letters survive from this period, and we know next to nothing of his work, if any, on the Scriptures. He did inquire in a letter to Aldo Manuzio (Ep 207:17-21) about a planned edition of the Greek New Testament and may have discussed the state of biblical scholarship with Girolamo Aleandro (with whom he shared a room in Aide's household), for some years later Aleandro wrote to Erasmus complaining of the low standard of learning and referring to the New Testament glosses as 'regular dunghills' (Ep 256:131). There is a hiatus in our information about Erasmus' activities until his return to England in 1509 upon Henry VIII's accession to the throne. The letters of his friends had led Erasmus to expect royal patronage, but he soon found his hopes disappointed. Suffering considerable financial hardship, he took on a lectureship at Cambridge in the fall of 1511, teaching Greek grammar and theology. While his letters contain some details regarding the Greek course he taught, they are vague on the content of his theological lectures. His reports indicate only that negotiations for the Lady Margaret professorship were proceeding: 'Perhaps also I will undertake lecturing in theology, for that is under discussion at present. The pay is too small to tempt me, but in the meantime I am also doing some service to learning, to the best of my ability' (Ep 233:12-15). In a letter to Colet Erasmus gives us a hint of his plans, adding the postscript: 'I may even begin to tackle your own Paul' (Ep 225:22). The Pauline Epistles may thus have been the subject of his lectures, though another letter to Andrea Ammonio shows him immersed in the study of Jerome, 'whom I have undertaken to expound' (Ep 245:5-6). Both references may of course concern Erasmus' research rather than his lectures. Pronouncements regard-

22 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

ing his work on the New Testament were becoming more definite at this time. We know that he was engaged in comparing the Vulgate text with Greek and Latin manuscripts.39 In the fall of 1512 he wrote that he 'intended to finish the revision (castigatio) of the New Testament' (Ep 264:16) and in July 1513 he indicated to Colet that he had completed this task: 1 have finished the collation (collatio) of the New Testament' (Ep 270:67). Letters he received and wrote in 1514 show that his friends abroad were now aware of his ongoing research. In March of that year Jan Becker of Borsele referred to Erasmus' 'contributions to the critical revision (castigatio) of the New Testament' (Ep 291:31-2), In July Erasmus reported to Servatius Rogerus that he had 'revised (collatione castigavi) the whole of the New Testament from a collation of Greek manuscripts and ancient Latin manuscripts and had annotated almost a thousand places, with some benefit to theologians.'40 This is the first mention of the material to be incorporated in the Annotations; further references to the notes appear in contemporary letters. He tells Reuchlin: 'I have written annotations on the entire New Testament' (Ep 300:33-4), and Dorp writes: 'I understand that you have also revised (castigasse) the New Testament and written notes on over a thousand passages, to the great profit of theologians' (Ep 304:95-7). These references to Erasmus' scholarly pursuits are interesting for the chronology of his work but, being descriptive, say little about the exact nature of the product at that stage. It is tempting to put a precise modern construction on the terms collatio and castigatio. When a present-day scholar announces that he has collated and revised a text we take this to mean that he has in hand an emendated text accompanied by an apparatus recording the variants. Naturally such assumptions cannot be made regarding Erasmus' work. Moreover, our case is complicated by the fact that we are dealing, not with the edition of an original text, but with a translation, so that any textual criticism is at the same time also a form of literary criticism and involves, on a secondary plane, textual criticism of the original. It is therefore not immediately clear what Erasmus had in hand when he approached the Froben press with a publication project. It was not a Latin text, for we know that he produced the translation post-haste at a later stage. Did the discussions between Erasmus and Froben concern a Greek text? Erasmus had no doubt collated Greek and Latin manuscripts; the result, however, was not a text but an accumulation of notes. This is

The Genesis of the Annotations 23

clearly expressed in a letter from Beatus Rhenanus to his friend Michael Hummelberg, in which he announced Erasmus' arrival in Basel and reported on the manuscripts he brought with him: 'Erasmus of Rotterdam, a great scholar, has arrived in Basel most recently, weighed down with good books, among which are the following: Jerome revised, the complete works of Seneca revised, copious notes on the New Testament, a book of similes, a large number of translations from Plutarch, the Adages ...' (BRE 40, 2 Sept 1514). What Erasmus was offering, therefore, was a commentary on the New Testament, and it is likely that he envisaged for it the traditional format, that is, the notes appearing on their own or in conjunction with the Vulgate. Commentaries on the Vulgate existed in quantity - what made Erasmus' annotations conspicuously different from traditional commentaries were the full and consistent references to the original Greek text. It was this element that caught Froben's eye. He was probably aware that a Greek New Testament was being prepared at Alcala and that the Aldine press, too, had for some time now shown an interest in publishing the Greek text. There was a ready market for such a publication. Froben had obviously recognized a trend in scholarly interests and realized that it would be a financial coup to forestall his competitors. Erasmus was familiar with the Greek text and had the requisite skill and experience to hasten such a project to completion. In later years Erasmus implied that he had been pressured into undertaking the task: 'At that point Johann Froben - of blessed memory - took advantage of my being accommodating' (facilitate abusus, Allen Ep 2758:16). While Erasmus was still speaking of a journey to Italy - to approach Aldo Manuzio, one suspects41 - Beatus Rhenanus reported, somewhat optimistically, that negotiations between the Froben press and Erasmus had been concluded: 'Froben will print the New Testament in Greek with Erasmus' annotations' (BRE 40, 2 Sept 1514). Erasmus himself informed Reuchlin at about the same time that he had 'in mind to print the New Testament in Greek with my comments added' (Ep 300:34-5). A tentative agreement may have been reached that Erasmus would supervise the project, but that the actual work of preparing the printer's copy of the Greek text would be shared by the correctors of the press, notably by Nicolaus Gerbel.42 In the course of further discussions with the printer, a decision must have been reached to include a Latin text as well. The original plan was to print the Vulgate, to which Erasmus' notes were (and

24 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

still are) cued.43 That a revised Latin translation was to be included is, however, already mentioned in Ep 305 of 21 September 1514. Writing to Wimpfeling, Erasmus reported on his current projects: the Adagio, were being printed; further plans included Jerome, Seneca, and some smaller pieces. There remains the New Testament translated by me, with the Greek facing, and notes on it by me' (Ep 305:228-9). In contemporary letters to Zasius and Pirckheimer Erasmus also spoke of a revised text: The New Testament is being prepared, revised, and expounded in my notes' (Ep 307: 35-6); 'I have corrected the whole New Testament and added notes' (Ep 322:25-6). Despite these announcements from both the publisher and the author, it appears that plans had not been finalized, for in the spring of 1515 Erasmus departed for England on unstated business, and Beatus wrote to him with some urgency: 'Froben is asking if he may have your New Testament and says he will give you as much as you will get anywhere else for it.'44 Indications are that Erasmus had gone to England to do some research in connection with his work on Jerome.45 We can only speculate on the discussion that preceded this move. Perhaps Erasmus had planned to make only minor changes to the Vulgate text but came to the conclusion that such half-hearted measures were unsatisfactory. Perhaps it was at this point that his friends encouraged him to publish a substantially revised translation. At any rate the trip to England allowed Erasmus to consult with associates there. On his return he settled with Froben on the eventual format of the edition. It is significant that Erasmus' preface to the works of Jerome, which was written in March 1515, includes a vindication of translators and annotators who had dared to correct the text officially used by the church. Such corrections, Erasmus emphasized, did not endanger the authority of the Bible: 'Did the truth of the Gospel lose any of its authority when Lorenzo, who was a specialist in rhetoric rather than theology, condemned certain passages as mistranslations? Do we now read the Pauline Epistles with any less confidence because Jacques Lefevre ... has followed Lorenzo in altering many passages that were corrupt or wrongly translated? In this field I too was working ...' (Ep 326:92-100). While in England, Erasmus also announced plans for a revised translation to Cardinal Grimani: 'Next summer I intend to issue various not unprofitable annotations of mine (for so I think them) on the New Testament, together with the apostolic Epistles, designed to make them intelligible.'46 The collection of Annotations, which had been the nucleus of

The Genesis of the Annotations 25

the project, was greatly enlarged by Erasmus in preparation for the edition. Erasmus tells us that he 'had written some of his notes in England, the majority in Basel' (LB IX 308C; similarly 751D). Revisions continued throughout the actual printing process. The hectic atmosphere is described by Beatus Rhenanus: 'Erasmus edited them [the notes] hastily, as he found them in his papers, and made additions even among the clanging of the presses' (Allen I 64:281-3). It is therefore not surprising that Erasmus was 'weary and well-nigh exhausted' (Ep 421:72) when the final copy was produced. In December 1515 Erasmus reported to Gianpietro Carafa on the progress of the printing: The New Testament is now almost finished and has gone well enough, except that I am half dead with overwork';47 in February of the following year he wrote to Wimpfeling that the project was "hastening to its finish' (Ep 385:4). Finally, on 7 March, he was able to announce that the New Testament was published.48 Erasmus' publication plans for the New Testament took shape over a period of two years, undergoing a number of changes as a result of negotiations with Froben and consultations with friends. His magnum opus was really three works in one: the Greek text, the Latin translation, and the commentary. The Greek text - the first edition to be circulated - has received a great deal of attention from modern scholars,49 yet plans for it likely originated with the publisher and were hastily executed to further his commercial interests. Erasmus' translation (or revision) of the Vulgate was added almost as an afterthought and, according to Erasmus, done on the urging of his friends and against his better judgment. The annotations, on the other hand, had been part of Erasmus' own publication plans from the beginning. Indeed they embodied a significant part of his biblical scholarship for, as Erasmus explained, the text was liable to be corrupted again. The Annotations had the function of safeguarding his emendations: 'I included these pointers (so to call them) ... partly in hopes of preserving my work intact, that it might not be so easy in future for anyone to spoil a second time what had once been restored with such great exertion' (Ep 373: 49-54). While it would be simplistic to rank the three component parts of the edition in terms of value to biblical scholars, difficulty of the task involved, or success of execution, it is fair to say that the Annotations are the most enlightening to the reader interested in Erasmus' professional history and his development as a scholar. They allow a glimpse behind the scenes. We see Erasmus in his

26 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

workshop adding, deleting, and revising as he comes across new information and encounters new opposition. The Greek and Latin texts are mute witnesses to Erasmus' research; in the Annotations he engages in a kind of dialogue with the reader, explaining and justifying the changes he has introduced in the text. In this manner he wrote a commentary not only on the biblical text, but also on biblical scholarship. ERASMUS AND HIS READERSHIP

A writer's project embraces two distinct phases: the task-oriented phase of compiling the material and the reader-oriented phase of preparing a manuscript for publication. The first phase is essentially a private one. The author pursues the object of his intellectual curiosity and is concerned with fulfilling his own needs and satisfying his own standards. Once he decides to publish, however, he must turn outward and face his readership. He will be cordial with equals, didactic with beginners, pugnacious with critics. He will take a certain amount of knowledge for granted, expanding or curtailing his remarks in anticipation of the reader's reaction. Much of the success and efficacy of his work will depend on a correct assessment of his reader's needs and sensitivities. In his prefatory material to the New Testament Erasmus touched repeatedly on these issues. He explained how he conceived his role as author and what kind of relationship he wished to establish with his readership. Ideally he would have liked to involve all Christians in his work, for he firmly believed that everyone ought to be able to acquire a firsthand knowledge of God's word and not only to read it, but also to ponder it, interpret it, and discuss its significance. The corollary of this view appears in the Paraclesis, addressed to the reader of the New Testament, in which he expressed his disagreement with 'those who do not wish laymen to read Holy Writ translated into the vernacular, as if Christ's teaching was so complex that it could barely be understood by a chosen few theologians, as if the safeguard of the Christian religion lay in the people's ignorance [of the Gospel].'50This view is also maintained in a letter to Maarten Lips in which Erasmus refutes a common objection to his work - that it was not right to draw errors in the Vulgate to the common people's attention. 'On the contrary,' Erasmus maintained, 'there is every reason to publish things that all men ought to know' (Ep 843:345-7). He did not see the interpretation of the gos-

The Genesis of the Annotations 27

pel message as the exclusive domain of professional theologians. Acknowledging that not everyone could become a scholar, he declared that 'no one is prevented from being a Christian, no one from being pious, and, let me add boldly, no one from being a theologian' (Paraclesis Holborn 145:1-3). These were brave words indeed, but perhaps spoken with more enthusiasm than realism. Elsewhere Erasmus was more inclined to compromise. The Bible was to be read by all; the Annotations were addressed to a limited audience. In this context, at least, he admitted that 'not everything can be said to everyone at any time' (1 Tim 1 note 32). He referred with some nostalgia to the age of early Christianity, when 'the Gospel was read by all laymen ... since its language was common to all' (LB IX 137D). In his own time the author who wished to discuss the finer points of the text was necessarily restricted to addressing a learned audience. What he said in the Annotations was 'written for scholars ... it has nothing to do with the people' (LB IX 137C). Although Erasmus clearly recognized that it was not feasible to address a work such as the Annotations to 'all Christians,' he remained somewhat vague as to whom he was tendering his work: scholars in general or theologians in particular. A very broad readership is implied in the wish that 'the labours [he] had undertaken for the general good (omnibus iuvandis), and which were by no means inconsiderable, might prove of general use' (omnibus esse frugiferas, Ep 456:276-8). A statement in the Capita ad morosos is gradated. There Erasmus says that he is writing 'not for the multitude, but for scholars (eruditis), in particular for candidates of theology' (49). In a note on Romans, however, he almost seems to exclude scholars of other disciplines: 'I have written this for theologians, not grammarians' (Rom 5 note 14). Elsewhere, too, he implies that theologians are his prime audience: This laborious effort was made principally for the sake of theologians, especially those theologians who lacked the time or never had a chance to learn these languages, without which Holy Writ cannot be understood fully or discussed with authority' (Apologia Holborn 164:18-21). The weaker brethren are also taken into consideration when Erasmus explains that he did not avoid duplication in his notes in order 'to consult the interests of the reader who has a short memory or shies away from the effort of searching [for the material]' (Apologia Holborn 173:19-20). Thus he did not hesitate to include basic information that could be taken for granted in an experienced theologian: 'I know that what I am about to say will be rather ele-

28 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

mentary, but I do not begrudge saying it, since this work is written for the unskilled' (John 5 note 23). Of course Erasmus' references to the type of audience he expected to read his Annotations must be considered in a larger context; the passages quoted are apologetic rather than programmatic. A certain diplomatic manoeuvring is evident. Erasmus anticipated or had experienced certain kinds of criticism and had his answers ready: Did his remarks tread on dangerous ground? He was writing for professionals who could be expected to understand and cope with the implications. Was he fretting about details? Were his annotations 'crawling along the ground' (Ep 373:112)? He was writing for the beginner. Was it appropriate to use a philological approach to Scripture? It was, keeping in mind that these notes were destined, not for grammarians, but for those who would understand the theological significance of linguistic points. At any rate Erasmus hoped to find in his readers professional theologians or not - an element of pia curiositas, a combination of intellectual curiosity and devout obedience to the authority of the church. 'Let him have a burning desire to learn/ he said of the ideal candidate, but 'let him be free of sacrilegious meddlesomeness' Methodus Holburn 151:4,15). To such men, who had both the intellectual ability and the correct moral approach, Erasmus willingly offered his services and devoted his efforts. When he spoke of his own qualifications, Erasmus maintained a prudent balance between displaying modesty and inspiring confidence. He claimed no authority for himself, but nevertheless assured the reader of his competence by stressing his philological over his theological qualifications. Emphasizing the importance of language skills for the task at hand, he quoted Jerome's words that the best translator was the man who knew both the subject and the language and concluded that 'in neither aspect shall I appear to be inferior, at least not to the translator of the Vulgate' (Capita contra morosos 26). He would have his critics know that, as far as language skills were concerned, 'he was neither ignorant nor inexperienced' (ibidem 51). Elsewhere he said pointedly that 'the business at hand calls not for a mitre or red hat but for skill in the tongues' (Ep 843:357-8). Yet he wished it to be known that he was no tyro in the field of theology. He pointed out that 'he had been co-opted into the theological faculty [of Louvain]' (Ep 843:351); no one could therefore 'class [him] as one of the common herd' (Ep 456:128-9). The prudent approach we see in these references to his profes-

The Genesis of the Annotations 29

sional qualifications carries over into descriptions of his role: he was 'an annotator, not a dogmatist,'51 'he had taken on the duties of an indicator (indicis officio functus), deferring judgment to the reader' (Rom 1 note 8). Erasmus tried to disarm his critics by casting himself in the role of the disinterested scholar who merely raised questions but left the answers to others. Although he usually tendered his own explanation or opinion, he abnegated authority 'so that, notwithstanding my judgment, each man could use his own discretion' (Apologia Holborn 166:13-14). The purpose of his apparatus was to serve notice of changes, to justify them, but always 'leaving it up to [the reader's] judgment which of them [he] would rather follow' (Apologia Holborn 170:34-5). This point was also made abundantly clear in the preface to the first edition of the New Testament: he was 'leaving the final decision to the reader' (Ep 373:61); if there were textual variants, he would let those who preferred the Vulgate reading 'have it for their own and enjoy it: no man says them nay' (Ep 373:199-200). This is expressed more emphatically and in a more categorical manner in the Capita contra morosos, added to the second edition of the New Testament: 'I neither dictate to the judgment of scholars nor challenge the authority of recognized universities. Each man retains his right inviolate to pass judgment. I have written notes, not laws.'52 Similar statements of professed tolerance and submission are repeated throughout the Annotations, Erasmus frequently concludes a note with an expression of deference: 'I leave it to the scholars to ponder this point' (Mark 7 note 2, on a variant in the text); 'let theology professors (doctores) solve the difficulty inherent in these matters' (Mark 9 note 1, on a discrepancy between Matthew's and Mark's accounts); 'let the learned reader consider whether or not ta enonta is used in the absolute sense of what is possible ...' (Luke 11 note 24). In each case Erasmus pronounces his willingness to let the informed, the knowledgeable, the alert reader pass judgment.53 In addition to statements referring to specific points there are others of a more programmatic nature reaffirming Erasmus' general principles. He insisted that he was 'advising, not dictating to, the reader, and ... putting forth [his] views without prejudice to anyone' (Rom 8 note 40). He emphasized that many of his notes were on grammatical, not on dogmatic issues. In a note on Acts, for example, he states: 'My note does not preclude predestination; it explains the Greek idiom' (Acts 22 note 17); there is a similar statement in a note on 1 Corinthians: 'I have declared at the

30 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

beginning of this work - once and for all, as it must in fairness be understood - that I have no intention whatsoever to initiate a dispute on dogma anywhere in this body of work; I am motivated by a desire to help, I am merely acting as an adviser to those who take an interest in studies - without impugning or endangering the judgment rendered by the holy church or those who have been granted by Christ a richer gift of wisdom and learning' (1 Cor 7 note 42). In most cases the statements are humble, even apologetic; in one or two instances, however, a more temperamental Erasmus surfaces: They have my permission to commit as many grammatical errors as they please; no one is reproaching them, no one is gainsaying them - but may I for my part have their permission to speak the language properly?' (Matt 6 note 27). Despite Erasmus' expressions of deference to the judgment of the church, theologians generally feared that his work would undermine the authority of the Bible. Erasmus tried to counter their objections with two arguments: he was not criticizing the translation of Jerome, for the Vulgate could not be considered the unadulterated text of his translation; and he had never intended his revised translation to replace the Vulgate. His critics, for example Lee, assumed 'that the version of the New Testament now in common use was Jerome's.' As far as Erasmus was concerned, it was 'neither Cyprian's nor Hilary's nor Ambrose's nor Augustine's nor Jerome's, for he has different readings; much less is it the version which he tells us he corrected.'54 Thus it was neither disregard for Jerome's authority nor a challenge to the authority of the church to point out errors in the Vulgate. Erasmus was prepared to respect the official text of the New Testament: 'I am not in any way tearing apart or slandering our version, whatever and whosoever it is' (Apologia Holborn 165:29-30). He was willing to accept it 'as authentic, even though it be not Jerome's, because it is the textus receptus by the custom of almost the whole church.'ss Erasmus stressed repeatedly that he had no intention of investing his translation with an official character. The Vulgate was the publicly sanctioned version to be 'read in universities, recited in churches, and quoted from the pulpits' (Apologia Holborn 168:4-5). Jerome had been commissioned to revise the New Testament by Pope Damasus: 'He introduced a new text to the church; I am introducing it only into private rooms and studies ...; the church text remains intact and will remain so, at least as far as I am concerned' (LB IX 137A-C). He contrasted the Vulgate version,

The Genesis of the Annotations 31

which was to be recited publicly in church, with his text, which was to be read 'privately' (in privata lections, Apologia Holborn 168:34-6; LB IX 133D), 'in one's chambers' (in cubiculis LB IX 137A, 180A, 193E), 'in the scholar's study' (in museis LBIX291A, 137A), 'at home' (Apologia Holborn 168:6). Statements of this kind are prominent in Erasmus' prefaces and letters, but also appear in his notes and accompany, for example, the famous arguments on John 1:1 (John 1 note 2): 'I am publishing this to be read not in churches but in studies (museis). What sacrilege was there in substituting sermo for verbum in a book that was for private reading (privatim legitur)T Many comments in the Annotations indicate that Erasmus was sensitive to his readers' needs and conscious of their reactions. In anticipating their response he showed himself both protective and indulgent: protective of their intellectual welfare as he pointed out difficulties, warned of errors, instructed and explained; indulgent, perhaps in a somewhat self-serving manner, as he bore with timehonoured translations so as not to offend their ears or cut short the occasional detailed discussion, professing that he did not want to bore or fatigue them. Consideration for his readers and a prudent fear of causing outrage led Erasmus to respect certain linguistic conventions of the Bible even though they did not accord with classical usage, were grammatically questionable, or invited misinterpretation. He retained these words because they were too familiar to be changed without creating a stir. While he professed a certain readiness to recognize biblical idiom in its own right, he did not wholeheartedly embrace the idea. Rather he expressed some reservations about creating a new language, as it were, and saw the retention of established terms as a necessary evil.56 Erasmus the educator is very much in evidence in the Annotations. His remarks are strongly didactic. He wished to enlighten, to stimulate, to direct inquiry - these reader-oriented goals are stated time and again. He pointed out mistakes lest someone in his ignorance commit the same mistake again,'57 and so that the reader 'have less cause to err henceforth' (Acts 28 note 5). He wanted to ensure that a corrupt text was not transmitted or spread more widely (Phil 4 note 20) and criticized errors in interpretation, 'not to make the reader laugh, but make him more wary in future, distrusting magnificent interpretations of this kind' (1 Cor 14 note 17). Erasmus was at pains to establish the integrity of his motives: his criticism had an educational function; he was not acting out of in-

32 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

tellectual pride, spite, or contempt for his predecessors. He also lectured his readers on the attitude they must adopt. While inexperience and even ignorance could initially be excused, a stubborn refusal to be enlightened and to listen to the advice of a knowledgeable author was unpardonable: 'If someone has been advised of his error and obstinately persists in it, if instead of being grateful to the critic, he ridicules and persecutes him and, to cap it all, demands that he be a party to the error - that he, the man who has vision, follow the blind man in his error rather than changing his own erroneous views - is such a man not obviously very far from the Christian simplicity that is pardonable?' (Matt 1 note 12). Taking this process one step further, Erasmus aimed not only at removing manifest errors, but also at stimulating discussion regarding suspect and ambiguous passages. He touched on the problems underlying a particular interpretation for the purpose of 'providing studious and erudite men with an opportunity to investigate further' (Matt 1 note 31), 'providing the diligent reader with a basis for investigating the rest' (Luke 3 note 29), 'providing the scholar with material for thought' (John 1 note 38). In this manner he hoped to prepare the way for others who, once the foundations had been laid, could consider the question in more detail: 'May the diligent reader examine this in more detail'; let the inquisitive reader examine this more accurately' (1 Cor 9 note 7; Rom 8 note 6). Thus he might arrive at a decision that Erasmus himself was unwilling to make for him: 'I wished to give scholars a chance to decide which reading is better' (1 Cor 13 note 18). While Erasmus considered discussion the leaven of knowledge, he also saw the practical limits of debate which, taken to the extreme, deteriorated into speculation, quibbling, and sophistry. In Holy Writ some things were better left untouched. They remained articles of faith: pie nesciuntur (Rom 1 note 11). Erasmus frequently expressed his distaste for the scholastic kind of speculation that he considered unproductive, and he pointed out a number of specific passages in which the speculations of medieval theologians lacked substance and were in fact based on ignorance of Greek or misinterpretation of Latin usage. Nobody, for example, need quarrel over a geographical name (Judaeae or Judae, at Matt 2 note 2), for the meaning of the Gospel passage was not affected by it; no one need 'dream up' a negative meaning for magi (wise men), thinking that it referred to 'magic,' an interpretation that had no basis in classical literature (ibid; similarly Heb 11 note 40). Let no one read the con-

The Genesis of the Annotations 33

notation of 'willpower' or Volition' into nolite (literally, 'want not'), an expression that was simply used to introduce a negative imperative in Latin (Matt 7 note 6). Similarly, readers might be tempted to overinterpret the diminutive naviculum, which is repeatedly used in the Vulgate to render Greek ploion, 'boat' (Matt 8 note 17), although it was simply a preference of the translator and had no basis in the Greek. In the same vein Erasmus warned his readers not to theorize about the difference between canes (dogs) and catelli (puppies) (Matt 15 note 27) or audire (hear) and exaudire, an emphatic form of the same verb (John 9 note 16), since the distinction was random and the result of the translator's inconsistency in rendering the same Greek word by the same Latin term.58 Elsewhere Erasmus pointed out that the reader might ponder over a plural that had been introduced by the translator by mistake (Luke 4 note 29) or speculate about the mystical meaning of 'Mary's purification' when an antiquarian could tell him that the phrase referred to the ceremonial cleansing of mother and newborn child.59 On the whole, the general reader is addressed remarkably often in a work that might be expected to remain without this personal touch, evidence that Erasmus, the author of a number of educational treatises, liked to approach his readership as a flock to be taught rather than a learned audience with whom his findings were to be shared. Despite conventional expressions of modesty and disclaimers of authority, Erasmus leaves the impression of a man who is proud of his achievements and confident of his judgment, a man who has a right to be heard and expects to be thanked for his contributions. In the judgment of contemporary humanists he did indeed deserve gratitude and admiration for the unflagging devotion and extraordinary language skills he brought to his task. In the eyes of conservative theologians, however, he was a dangerous innovator, adding fuel to the arguments of Lutherans and other dissenters from the orthodox Catholic faith.

This page intentionally left blank

TWO

Sources and Authorities

Although Erasmus wrote a substantial part of his notes on the New Testament after his arrival in Basel in 1514, they represented the fruit of almost two decades of reading and continued, through the next four editions, to reflect Erasmus' research. This chapter examines Erasmus' sources, beginning with the manuscripts to which he referred in his notes and proceeding to the classical, patristic, and medieval authorities he cited in support of his textual criticism, translation, and interpretation. MANUSCRIPTS

The Annotations in their final form contained a large number of references to manuscripts consulted.1 In the first edition the references had been generic, merely separating the Greek from the Latin tradition. In later editions they became more specific, identifying manuscripts by descriptive titles or place of origin. Erasmus had been prompted to add this information by the sceptical remarks of his opponents, who alleged that he had invented variants or had not made a thorough survey of existing manuscripts. In fact, he anticipated criticism of this kind and attempted to forestall it in his Apologia, averring that he had examined a substantial number of manuscripts and had used the evidence judiciously.2 Similarly, he said in his dedicatory letter to Pope Leo X that he had checked the Vulgate against the manuscript tradition, 'not unadvisedly or with little effort, but calling in the assistance of a number of manuscripts in both languages, and those not the first comers, but both very old and very correct' (Ep 384:56-8). Later he protested Lee's insinuation that he 'had had only one single manuscript when [he] had

36 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

used so many, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally in Basel' (LB IX 277A). Similarly, he remonstrated against Zuniga's allegations that he had not been conscientious in his research: 'I had made some notes in Britain, the majority of them in Basel, and according to the circumstances used different manuscripts, not just one' (LBIX308C). We do not know with certainty what manuscripts Erasmus used when he worked on the New Testament in England, but among the Greek texts consulted by him was most likely the so-called Leicester Codex.3 This fifteenth-century manuscript was at one time in the possession of one Richard Brinkeley,4 a member of the Grey Friars in Cambridge and - as other manuscripts owned or used by him indicate - a biblical scholar. Richard Brinkeley or the Franciscans may therefore have been Erasmus' source of manuscripts during the Cambridge years, 1511-14. Also, Colet had provided him with two Latin manuscripts, as Erasmus tells us in the preface to the New Testament (Ep 373:21-3). These manuscripts - neither of them extant - are cited frequently in the Annotations as codices Paulini, texts from St Paul's. Acknowledging Colet's loan, for example, at Matt 1 note 17 and Rom 4 note 5, Erasmus claims in the vague terminology of his age that they were Very old' (pervetusti); at 1 Cor 8 note 8 he says that they were 'the most accurate of all [the manuscripts he] had seen.'5 In the preface to the New Testament he describes them as having been written 'in such ancient styles of writing that [he] had to learn to read them from the beginning, and in order to pick up the rudiments [he] had to become a schoolboy again' (Ep 373:23-5). As for the Greek manuscripts he consulted in Basel while preparing the first edition, Erasmus tells us in the Apologia that he used at the time of 'the first recension' four Greek texts.6 In his apology against Zuniga he counts three manuscripts, describing them as follows: 'During the printing in Basel I had at my disposal three texts, one lent to me by that excellent man Johann Reuchlin, and two provided by the Dominicans at Basel, one of which contained Greek commentaries of Theophylact, whom I have so many times cited by the name of Vulgarius7 because the word Theophylact was barely legible on account of the letters being worn off (LB IX 311D-E). The manuscript provided by Reuchlin can be identified as AN IV.2 (leap), which contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. It dates from the twelfth century and is considered by modern scholars an important witness to the text, but was in Erasmus' estimate

Sources and Authorities 37

'a beautiful rather than an accurate text' (LBIX 1049D). The fact that Reuchlin had AN IV.2 on loan is noted in the manuscript itself.8 We have, moreover, a letter from Reuchlin requesting the manuscript and describing it accurately as written 'in very small letters ... you could call it a pocketbook.' 9 The manuscript came from the library of Cardinal Ivan Stojkovic of Ragusa who had travelled to the Council of Basel and died in Lausanne in 1443, leaving his books to the Dominicans of Basel. Erasmus was aware of the circumstances, for he noted in his apology against Zuniga that 'some cardinal had brought books with him from Rome when there was a synod in Basel and, on his death, bequeathed the whole library, which was Greek, to the Carthusian monastery.'10 The two copies from the Dominican library are AN IV.1 (2e), a text of the Gospels, and AN III.15, which contains Theophylact's commentary. The former was used as printer's copy and still contains Erasmus' emendations in pale brown ink, mostly interlinear but in a few cases marginal, and the printers' red chalk marks concurring with the pages of the 1516 edition.11 The manuscript, which dates from the twelfth century, contains a note12 indicating that it was bought by the Dominicans for two Rhenish florins. The second manuscript from their library is mentioned by Erasmus on several occasions, most significantly in his controversy with Lee. There he relates that Oecolampadius and Gerbel, who supervised the printing, corrected the copy provided by Erasmus (AN IV.1) against Reuchlin's more elegant manuscript (AN IV.2). 'But/ Erasmus noted, 'an elegant book is not necessarily an accurate one. They had changed a great deal in my text after Reuchlin's before I realized it. When I realized it, I gave them instructions to follow the text that was less neat, but more accurate' (Opuscula 274:913-275:916). This was AN 111.15, as becomes clear from the Apologia ad monachos Hispaniae, where Erasmus repeats the story in more detail: Those who presided over the corrections preferred to follow Reuchlin's beautiful manuscript although they had a very ancient one of Theophylact/ ie, containing Theophylact's commentary (LB IX 1049D). The discrepancy between the number of manuscripts Erasmus says he consulted (three mentioned in the controversy with Zuniga, four in the Apologia) can be accounted for if we assume that Erasmus in his reply to Zuniga was referring only to Gospel manuscripts. For the Acts and Epistles he used AN IV.4 (2ap), which was once the property of Johann Amerbach and also contains Erasmus' emendations and the printer's marks.13 He mentions this manu-

38 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

script in his apology against Zuniga, stating that it was the only text of the Acts and Epistles at his disposal when he was preparing the first edition of the New Testament, 'the only one, but of reverent age and wonderfully correct' (LB IX 323A). None of the codices at hand contained the Apocalypse. Erasmus therefore borrowed a manuscript from Reuchlin that contained the Book of Revelation.14 In his notes Erasmus described it as being 'of such great age that it might be thought to have been written in the time of the apostles' (Rev 3 note 2). Since the text was imbedded in the commentary and difficult to read, Erasmus had a clean copy made, returning the original to its owner.15 The unknown copyist16 introduced a number of mistakes that made their way also into the printed text.17 For the second edition Erasmus acknowledged having used five Greek manuscripts (Apologia Holborn 166:5). Which ones he was referring to is difficult to say. We know that he consulted a Greek manuscript of the Gospels from Mount St Agnes, the house of Augustinian canons near Zwolle. He had asked Gerardus Listrius to obtain the manuscript for him, but a first attempt to get it was unsuccessful: The prior had lent it to some reverend father near Cleves' (Ep 504:4-5). The manuscript was eventually forwarded to Erasmus by Pieter Gillis in January 1517 (cf Ep 515:5-6). It has also been suggested, on tentative evidence, that Erasmus made use of AN III.11 (7p), a manuscript of the Pauline Epistles from the eleventh century,18 and AN IV.5 (4ap), a text of the Acts and apostolic Epistles dating from the fifteenth century,19 both now in the Universitatsbibliothek of Basel. In addition, Erasmus himself tells us that he was supplied by the Augustinians of Corsendonck near Turnhout with two manuscripts, one Greek (from the twelfth century), the other Latin (from the ninth or tenth century). The fact that Erasmus used the Greek manuscript for his second edition is inscribed on the first leaf, which bears a note in Erasmus' hand: T have used this manuscript, among many others, for the second edition of the New Testament; for I have found it beautifully written and barely corrected because, it seems, no one used it. I, Erasmus of Rotterdam, have written this with my own hand on 17 June 1519.'20 At the end of the Gospel according to Luke there is another entry in Erasmus' hand, written in Greek: 'I have used this book for the second edition.'21 The two manuscripts are now in the Imperial Library at Vienna (Suppl gr 52) and in the Royal Library at Berlin (Lat theol 4.4) respectively. Erasmus frequently refers to them in his

Sources and Authorities 39

Annotations as exemplaria Corsendoncensia; he describes the Latin codex as Very neatly corrected/22 and the Greek, which was copied by a 'Brother Amandus' (LB IX 972D), as Very elegant indeed but of greater beauty than accuracy.'23 The latter manuscript is also mentioned in the controversy with Titelmans, where it is again described as unreliable: 'nothing can be more faulty ... it has been corrected against the Latin text' (LB IX 972D). Similarly Erasmus says in the apology against Lee that he 'trusted no manuscript less than this one even though none was more elegant' (Opuscula 282:1087-8). Among the Latin manuscripts used for the second edition (1519) the most impressive one was the so-called Codex Aureus lent to Erasmus by Margaret of Austria. This text of the Gospels dating from the eleventh century originally belonged to Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, then passed into the hands of Maximilian's daughter Margaret, and was in Erasmus' time in the library at Mechelen.24 Erasmus frequently expressed his gratitude to the lender, for example at Matt 1 note 5 where he describes the manuscript as a 'splendid codex, completely written in golden letters.'25 He also borrowed from the abbot of St Bavo at Ghent, perhaps during one of his visits there in 1517, a Latin manuscript of the Gospels that he described in the apology against Sutor as a text 'from which St Livinus [the ninth-century Scottish bishop whose relics were preserved in the monastery] used to recite the Gospel' (LB IX 766F). Furthermore, he mentioned in the apology against Lee that Tunstall had loaned him a manuscript in the summer of 1517 and helped him collate its text against the Greek.26 He also had at his disposal texts supplied by the Amerbach brothers, which he mentions a number of times in his Annotations as well as in the preface to the reader and in apologies against Zuniga and Lee.27 He means the manuscripts used by the Amerbachs for Jerome's commentary on Matthew, for he explains to Lee that 'in the [Basel] edition they did not follow my translation but relied on very old manuscripts' (LB IX 139A). These, as he tells Zuniga, had been requested 'from some monastery' and were to be trusted all the more 'as the scribe did not understand what he was writing' and was therefore less likely to introduce 'improvements' after his own taste (LBIX335D). For the third edition (1522) Erasmus was able to consult the Aldine edition of the Greek New Testament, which appeared in February 1518, but which he inspected only 'as he was preparing

40 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

the third edition' (John 14 note 13). He cited it frequently in his controversy with Lee, noting that it was now widely available.28 In addition, he was referred to a Greek manuscript containing the socalled Comma Johanneum. Erasmus had omitted it from the text, challenging his critics to produce a Greek manuscript that contained it.29 In the third edition he reported that one had been found in England.30 This was the Codex Montfortianus, now at Trinity College, Dublin (G 97). Another manuscript located in the library of the Minorites of Antwerp had also been brought to his attention. It, too, contained the Comma but 'added in the margin in a more recent hand.'31 In his critical notes, Zuniga repeatedly referred Erasmus to a 'Rhodian manuscript/ a Greek manuscript of the Epistles, made available to him by Cardinal Jimenes. This is occasionally cited by Erasmus in his Annotations,32 though with misgivings, for in his opinion it was corrupt: 'I have found that some Greek manuscripts had been corrected against our copies, one of which I suspect this Rhodian to be.'33 Similar doubts are voiced about variants relayed by Paolo Bombace, who had access to the famous uncial B in the Vatican Library. These variants are recorded by Erasmus, for example at 1 John 5 note 3, where he explains: 'On my request [Bombace] copied it out verbatim from a very old manuscript in the Vatican Library ... if anyone is impressed by age, the book was very ancient; if by the authority of the pope, this testimony was sought from his library.'34 Readings from the same Vatican manuscript were also relayed to Erasmus by Sepulveda in 1533 and were incorporated in Erasmus' fifth edition, again with expressly stated doubts.35 Among the Latin manuscripts consulted by Erasmus for the third edition were several codices belonging to the College of St Donatian, which he visited in August 1521. He mentions two of the texts in his apology against Zuniga: 'When I was recently in Bruges in the retinue of the emperor I consulted two manuscripts of wonderful age from the library of St Donatian.'36The dean there was Erasmus' friend Marcus Laurinus. The manuscripts are described at some length at Matt 3 note 22, in an addition of 1522: When I was recently in Bruges ... I scrutinized the library of the ancient college commonly called St Donatian, which even today has not a few vestiges of the old learning and discipline. There I found many manuscripts of the Gospels, some more than eight hundred years old, as inscriptions in them testify.

Sources and Authorities 41

One had the whole New Testament; another, the oldest of all and very worn by use, mutilated, and cut, in which there was nothing of the New Testament except Paul's Epistle to the Romans and the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude. These were made available to me by Marcus Laurinus, the dean of the college, a man excelling in all kinds of skills. The library had several other books of venerable age that perished by the negligence of some men - such are now the customs of the clergy, who care more about plates than pages and are more interested in money than manuscripts. Another piece of evidence regarding a text used for the third edition comes from Allen, who discovered an autograph note from Paul Tilia of Mechelen to Pieter Wichmans, canon of Anderlecht, acknowledging the return of a book Erasmus had used, presumably when he was Wichmans' guest in the summer of 1521.37 Bentley suggests that this text is identical with one cited by Erasmus at Phil 4 note 20 and designated as a loan from the 'monastery of the Carthusians near Brussels, in the vicinity of the college of Anderlecht, where I was then resting for health reasons.'38 For the fourth edition Erasmus consulted two Latin manuscripts from Constance, made available to him by John Botzheim, one 'a Gospel manuscript which was preserved because of its miraculous age in the College of Constance, and which John Botzheim, a canon of that brotherhood and a man of great personal integrity, made possible for me to inspect' (John 21 note 15). Erasmus mentioned the exemplaria Constantiniensia many times in his Annotations, for example at Matt 15 note 9 and 20 note 11, Eph 1 note 15, Col 1 note 22 and 2 note 10. Nothing is known about them today, but according to Erasmus one of them had a large number of erasures and marginal additions.39 By this time he also had the use of the Complutensian edition of the Greek New Testament, as he acknowledged in the Apologia: Tor the fourth edition I also had at my disposal the Spanish edition' (Apologia Holborn 166:6). It had been printed in 1514, received the papal imprimatur in 1520, but was not widely distributed until 1522.40 Finally it should be noted that Erasmus himself possessed an edition of the New Testament which he describes in the apology against Sutor as 'about sixty years old.'41 Clearly Erasmus consulted a respectable number of manuscripts over the years. While he based the Greek text of his first edition on

42 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

manuscripts readily available in Basel and hastily corrected for the printer, the Annotations incorporated the result of collations done earlier during his stay in England. Moreover, Erasmus did not rest content with these findings but, in the years following the publication of his first edition, personally visited a number of libraries, obtained manuscripts on loan, consulted the Aldine and Complutensian editions, and had variants recorded for him by friends. The copious additions to the Annotations bear witness to his continued research. Scholars of the late nineteenth century, which had seen a great advance in methods of textual criticism, tended to be patronizing or contemptuous of Erasmus' efforts. Bludau, whose verdict is representative of his time, accuses Erasmus of having promised much in the title of his publication and offered little in its pages.42 Contemporary scholars have been kinder in their judgment, though some still cling to the notion that Erasmus based his text on few manuscripts of doubtful value.43 As a rule, however, it is now acknowledged that Erasmus and his contemporaries worked under difficult circumstances and were pioneers in the science of textual criticism. CLASSICAL AUTHORITIES

Erasmus had come to biblical studies with a background in classical philology, and it was the philologist in him that was offended by the solecisms and mistranslations he found in the Vulgate text. While he recognized the allegorical significance of the apostles' simple and unadorned language, which commended to Christians a corresponding simplicity of life, he also believed that the character of the apostles' speech could be preserved without sacrificing linguistic purity. A revision of the Vulgate would not change the message of the gospel, but would make it more intelligible. The apostles' speech would remain simple yet conform to the rules of the Latin language. Simplex quidem sed tamen Latinus (Capita contra morosos 4) was Erasmus' motto in correcting the Vulgate text. Traditional theologians who had been brought up on the pedestrian language of medieval commentators had become inured to a style that grated on the classically trained ears of humanists. With the dawn of the new learning a higher literary standard had been set in belles lettres, and Erasmus now sought to introduce this standard into biblical studies. Discussions of grammatical, stylistic, and semantic points were an important constituent of the Annotations

Sources and Authorities 43

and often accompanied by examples from classical literature - indeed, what could be more appropriate than quoting the native speakers on questions concerning their language? A cursory examination of the Annotations shows that Erasmus' references to the classics cover an array of Latin and Greek authors. Among the latter Homer, Plato, and Aristotle are quoted with some frequency; Plutarch, Herodotus, Lucian, Demosthenes, and Aristophanes are each mentioned half a dozen times; Galen, Xenophon, and Isocrates are cited occasionally; and a host of others receive incidental mention. A broader range of Latin authors are cited, with more quotations per author. There are references to such obvious witnesses as Cicero, Horace, and Virgil, the grandees of Latin literature, but also to Juvenal and Terence, personal favourites of Erasmus and equally popular with his contemporaries. The historians Suetonius and Livy, along with other authors of the Silver Age, are quoted as witnesses to rare words; specialists such as the orator Quintilian, the grammarians Julius Pollux and Festus Pompeius, the antiquarians Valerius Maximus and Aulus Gellius, and the natural historian Pliny are cited as authorities in their respective fields. In all, some twenty Greek and more than thirty Roman authors are mentioned in the notes, spanning several centuries of literary history, from Homer to Galen and from Ennius to Aulus Gellius. Erasmus' purpose in citing classical sources was twofold: to document usage and to elucidate difficult terms. Detailed study of a representative sample - the notes on the Gospel of Matthew - will demonstrate these purposes and yield information on the relative importance of classical sources for individual editions of the Annotations. There are forty-nine notes on Matthew containing single or multiple references to classical authors. The majority (twenty-eight) deal with usage. In these instances Erasmus aims primarily to establish the precise meaning of a word or to discuss its grammatical properties. A question that frequently arises in this context is whether or not a certain word constitutes 'good Latin/ that is, appears in standard authors.44 At Matt 5 note 32, for example, Erasmus noted that ita (yes) was used 'by uneducated men' as if it corresponded to 'no.' Such usage was documented in Terence, but the phrase in question 'was spoken by a character giving a rather boorish answer.' At 1 note 8 Erasmus changed transmigratio to demigratio in order to clarify the meaning and eliminate a word he

44 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

considered unclassical. In 1527, however, he was obliged to concede that 'the verb transmigrare occurred in Suetonius' Tiberius Caesar.' Suetonius' authority could not be rejected out of hand, but Erasmus insisted that demigrare was 'better Latin' (Latinius).' In the original note (Matt 13 note 1) Erasmus cited critics who said it was 'barbarous' to use secus in the sense of 'by the side of.' Yet it had to be admitted that good Latin authors used it: 'Pliny used it in book 24.15 ... and Quintilian in his Institutions, book 8.2.' Similar qualifications were introduced at 13 note 18. Whereas Erasmus had claimed in 1519 that centesimum could not be substituted for centenum, or rather that such usage could not be documented 'in standard authors,' he added in 1535: 'Pliny, however, appears to have used it in this sense in book 5.4. and again at 18.10.' An adjustment was also called for at 14 note 11, this time perhaps at the prompting of Erasmus' critic Zuniga. In the original note Erasmus had criticized the verb decollare: 'Seneca used the verb in his play about the death of Claudius, but one would think in jest';45 in 1519 the sentence continues with the restrictive clause: 'if the same word did not also occur in Suetonius' Caligula Caesar and in the same Seneca in the book De ira, addressed to Novatius.' Matthew 22 note 6 was also revised as a result of Zunigas' criticism. It dealt with the participle impletus (filled), which normally requires an ablative construction, but in the Vulgate is combined with a genitive. This construction was, in Erasmus' opinion, either poetic licence or a plain mistake. In 1519 he commented, rather ironically, that it was 'hardly likely that the translator attempted to speak in Virgilian fashion.' Confronted with Zuniga's argument that this or similar usage could also be documented in prose authors, for example in Cicero and Livy, Erasmus added this comment in 1535, acknowledging Zuniga's point, but at the same time diluting its effect: 'I would allow that the translator attempted to speak in Livy's style if he had not committed the same mistake elsewhere [ie, adopted a Greek case construction], so that this cannot be adduced as an excuse.'46 Here as in other cases idiomatic propriety was not the only criterion. Another consideration, poetic versus prosaic usage, entered into the discussion as well. Erasmus raises this point at Matt 2 note 10, where he rejects the phrase gaudium gaudere as a Grecism, 'even if Terence said solidum gaudere gaudium and Virgil furere furorem.' The phrase may be defended as a proper Latin phrase, but it belongs in the realm of poetry. Similarly the verb

Sources and Authorities 45

form geno cannot be used interchangeably with gigno. The former was used by Varro and Lucretius, 'but in poetry' (Matt 3 note 7). 47 The same argument applies to the phrase morti tradere. It would be better to say morte afficere, 'even though Virgil said dede neci' (Matt 26 note 55). Erasmus' concern for classical usage included a preference for indigenous over loan-words. Commenting on the Vulgate's phantasma (spectre) in Matt 14 note 31, he notes that the 'translator could have said in Latin spectrum, a word used by Tully and Pliny.' The same concern also surfaces at 3 note 4, where Erasmus suggests cingulum for zona (belt), 'although I know that the word zona has been accepted by Latin speakers.'48 In some notes, the point is neither stylistic nor idiomatic, but grammatical. The proper noun Hierosolyma (Jerusalem), as Erasmus points out at 2 note 2, is neuter plural, not feminine singular, as found in the Vulgate. To my recolletion, I have read Hierosylam [ie, the feminine form] only once, in Cornelius Tacitus' History of the Roman Emperors book 21... but I am not sure that it was not as an adjective, as in Juvenal's Satires: interpres legum Solimarum.' Elsewhere (5 note 25) Erasmus points out that the verb moechari (to commit adultery), a Greek loan-word, cannot be used with a direct object. 'Granted that moechari has been received into the Latin language, for Catullus says moechari and Terence moechus, what Latin speaker ever said moechatur illaml ... Instead he should have said stupravit earn or, as Suetonius has it, adulteravit earn.'*9 Similarly, nubere (to marry) cannot be used transitively or applied to a man. Such usage is at any rate obsolete: Testus Pompeius indicates that nubere was once a term common to men and women' (19 note 10). In the examples given above classical authors are cited to illustrate points of grammar, style, and idiom; in a number of notes, however, the quotations from Roman and Greek literature serve to establish the meaning of a word and to determine whether or not it constitutes an appropriate translation of the Greek original. Thus Erasmus comments on the meaning of Greek therapeuein: 'Therapeuein means to heal by means of drugs, hence Galen called his work on remedies of illness Therapeutice (4 note 20). The preposition trans (across) usually indicates a movement in a direction away from the speaker, but in the passage noted by Erasmus it indicates a reverse movement: 'from across.' This usage, Erasmus points out, has a classical precedent: 'We sometimes find it used in

46 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

the sense of a movement from a place, as in Quintilian: to seek almost twice as much across the sea (trans mare), that is from the regions across the sea' (4 note 24). Classical references are used to clarify meaning throughout: at 5 note 10 he comments on fatuus: 'Martial calls beets fatuas because they are tasteless [ie 'insipid']'; at 9 note 17 on assumentum: 'Horace calls this pannus, "patch" '; at 15 note 22 on amittere: Terence uses the verb amittere, "to cast away," as opposed to retinere, "to retain" '; at 16 note 26 on anima: 'by anima he means "life," as does Horace, too'; and at 18 note 22 on ratio, meaning 'amount': 'hence Terence too said subducta ratione, "an amount having been deducted." ' In some instances theological significance is attached to the interpretation of a word. Matthew contains two prominent examples: traducere50 and poenitentiam agere.51 In both instances Erasmus defends his own translations by reference to classical authors. Erasmus acknowledged that the literal meaning of traducere, 'to lead across,' could be documented in classical authors - he cited Terence, Cicero, and Suetonius - but pointed out that the Greek did not allow such an interpretation. He then proceeded to illustrate the metaphorical meaning, 'to make an example of someone, to accuse publicly,' by quoting relevant passages from Martial, Seneca, and Livy. Regarding poenitentiam agere (to do penance), the Vulgate translation of metanoeite (repent), Erasmus noted that the Greek word referred to a mental process, not a rite. He illustrated this by quoting Homer. He then went on to discuss the phrase poenitentiam agere, showing its meaning in classical literature. 'When Pliny uses the phrase poenitentiam agere, he seems to have used it in a construction analogous to vitam agere (to live a life) as a substitute for the simple verb vivere (to live).' He goes on to cite other relevant passages from Valerius Maximus and Sallust to show that the phrase poenitentiam agere means 'to regret,' not 'to do penance.' While the majority of quotations from the classics serve to illustrate correct usage, there are also a considerable number of references that offer background information and explanations of technical terms. In these cases it is not the stylistic or idiomatic quality of a word that is in question, but its factual meaning. In such cases Erasmus felt that the reader might not be sufficiently familiar with the word and would benefit from an explanation. For example, he comments on the meaning of Greek akrides. Quoting Aristotle, Aelius, and Pliny, he shows that akrides are locusts, not, as

Sources and Authorities 47

assumed by some exegetes, a kind of grain (3 note 5). In several instances he comments on monetary terms such as quadrans (5 note 24), assis (10 note 26), and didrachma (17 note 19), explaining their value and quoting as his authorities Pliny, Cicero, Catullus, and Julius Pollux. He explains battologia (long-winded speech) with a reference to Ovid, who 'has Battus, the slanderer, repeat the same things over' (6 note 18); he notes, concerning margaritae (pearls) that 'Pliny is an abundant witness of their worth' (7 note 7); he states that cophinus (basket) 'was a kind of measure, according to the author Julius Pollux' (14 note 22); and cites Pliny (Naturalis historia 9.41) to elucidate the meaning of coccina, a plant that was used for red dye (27 note 26). In a very few cases the classics are cited for their anecdotal value, to inject a note of interest or give a lively turn to the discussion, for example at 8 note 17: 'If anyone should ask the translator why he so often used navicula [the diminutive form of navis, 'ship'] he would have no answer except perhaps the answer Lucian's Homer gave when someone in the Blessed Islands asked him why he had begun his Iliad with the word menin: Because it so pleased me at that time.' This type of reference is usually brief. Erasmus is content with a hint rather than a full narrative. Thus he comments on the parable about fishing with nets (They gather the good into vessels, but cast the bad away'): 'And I think I do not have to mention here that sometimes other things are carried into the net, as happened to the character in Plautus who cast his net and caught a trunk.'52 On the phrase 'to become one in the flesh' Erasmus refers the reader to 'the story adduced by Aristophanes in Plato's Banquet - though it is rather obscene.'53 In these examples Erasmus refrains from expanding on a theme because he considers it extraneous to his subject-matter. It is with respect to language and grammar that he considers quotations from the classics most relevant and appropriate. An analysis of Erasmus' quotations of the classics also reveals some interesting chronological data. Almost three-quarters of the references in Matthew (thirty-three out of forty-nine) date back to the first edition of the Annotations; in 1519 fourteen new quotations or references appear, either initiating a discussion or complementing a point made earlier. Thereafter very few classical references are added: four in 1522, three in 1527 and another three in 1535. This ratio does not parallel the overall growth pattern of the Annotations, which, for example, incorporated significant new

48 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

material from patristic sources in 1527 and continuously added new references to manuscripts used, with the most significant additions occurring in 1522 and 1527. On the whole, Erasmus' references to the classics are a static element in an otherwise changing body of notes. They are indicative of his earliest interests and the original function of the Annotations as a philological commentary. The retardation in their growth rate parallels the stagnation of Erasmus' interest in secular literature and the preoccupation with theological issues that characterized his later years. It is useful to compare Erasmus' references to classical authors in his notes on the Gospels with those of Lorenzo Valla,54 who also relies frequently on classical authors to document meaning and usage. The scope of Latin authors consulted by Valla is about the same as that of Erasmus; references to Greek writers, however, are more sparing.55 Valla focuses on Cicero, Virgil, and Terence, whom he quotes with some frequency; he also repeatedly refers his readers to Quintilian, Varro, and Valerius Maxim us; his grammatical specialist is usually Priscian.56 He quotes Greek authors somewhat apologetically, explaining that, after all, 'the words of the Bible are Greek' (805b). In the Gospels he cites Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Aristophanes, Aeschines, Isocrates, Thucydides, and Demosthenes once or twice each, but refers only to Xenophon with any frequency.57 Examination of Valla's and Erasmus' respective notes on the four Gospels reveals surprisingly little correspondence between their quotations from the classics. In Matthew Erasmus follows Valla's lead in only two cases: at 1 note 22 he quotes Petronius to illustrate the literal meaning of traducere (compare Valla 806a), and at 4 note 24 he quotes Quintilian to document the meaning of trans (compare Valla 808b). In Mark 5 note 25 Erasmus uses Valla's reference to Varro, giving due credit to his predecessor (compare Valla 825b); in Luke 10 note 18 and 16 note 1 he repeats Valla's references and quotes his praise of Xenophon literally without giving credit; in John 4 note 5 and 6 note 31 he cites some of Valla's references, mentioning his name, at 6 note 14, however, he does not give him credit. In all other instances Valla's references are not coextensive with those of Erasmus. In some cases Valla illustrates points passed over by Erasmus. Thus he quotes Plautus, for example, to document the loan-word thesaurus (806b), Varro and Virgil to show that the word columba could refer to male or female doves (807b), Virgil to establish the metric quantity of hie (814a), Varro to ex-

Sources and Authorities 49

plain the etymology of aeternus (817b), and Plautus, Martial, Aulus Gellius, and Terence to show the meaning of plectilis (822a). Erasmus obviously considered these points too insignificant to merit a mention of his source. Conversely Erasmus gives classical references where Valla does not, for example, at Matt 1 note 1 (Homer), note 2 (Herodotus, Lucian), note 4 (Aristophanes), note 8 (Quintilian, Suetonius), and note 21 (Aristotle); Matt 2 note 2 (Suetonius, Tacitus), note 7 (Suetonius), and note 10 (Terence, Virgil); Matt 3 note 1 (Pliny, Valerius Maximus, Quintilian), note 5 (Pliny), and note 7 (Varro, Lucretius). In a number of cases Erasmus refers the reader to Valla's note without quoting his examples: 'Valla has provided suitable examples to prove that ... gignere and gigni can be said of men as well as women' (Matt 1 note 11); 'Valla supported the argument with some examples from pagan writers' (Matt 1 note 18). Occasionally he shows impatience, referring the reader to Valla for further references, saying that he himself 'was aiming at brevity' (Matt 4 note 10; Luke 9 note 20). In other cases he reports the substance of Valla's argument without either offering or referring the reader to classical evidence. Thus he states at Matt 2 note 2 that the biblical magi (wise men) are not magicians, as general usage would suggest, but whereas Valla cites Xenophon, Plato, and Herodotus to document the negative connotation (806a), Erasmus offers no documentation. Similarly Erasmus notes at Matt 21 note 17 that the proper adjective form is ficulneus, not, as the Vulgate has it, ficulnus; the same point is made by Valla, who cites Horace in his support (817b). At Luke 10 note 14 he echoes Valla's remark that the translator was inconsistent in his rendering of nai, but does not repeat Valla's references to Terence and Cicero (834b) to document the meaning. Neither here nor at John 14 note 21 does he offer classical examples, though he refers the reader to Valla in the latter case. Whereas Erasmus and Valla quote the classics for similar purposes, that is, to document meaning and usage, comparison of specific instances shows that Erasmus was influenced by, but not strictly dependent on, Valla. He was certainly able to draw on his own knowledge of classical literature to illustrate the point he wished to make or to add to Valla's examples. He obviously exercised his judgment in using Valla's references, adopting some and passing over others. With regard to the use of classical authorities, at least, there is no reason not to concur with Erasmus' claim that he was not duplicating Valla's efforts but going beyond them. For a

50 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

final word on this matter, however, we shall subject the two men's work to a more general comparison at a later point.58 The overall pattern of Erasmus' use of the classics in the Annotations must also be considered. As is to be expected, the frequency with which an author is quoted relates to his historical and literary prominence. Thus Cicero, Virgil, and Horace are conspicuous among Latin writers cited; Homer, Plato, and Aristotle among the Greeks. The expected pattern is, however, somewhat distorted for a number of reasons. Latin authors are more frequently cited than Greek ones because it is more often the Latin translation than the Greek original that is discussed in Erasmus' notes. Moreover, some authors are consulted more frequently than their literary merits warrant because they are specialists in a given field. Pliny is an example of this phenomenon: he ranks second in the list of Latin authors, being surpassed only by Horace. Erasmus' own preferences and experience are also in evidence. He cites authors whose works he has edited or translated himself more frequently than might otherwise be expected. A case in point is Suetonius, who ranks third among the Latin writers, surpassing Cicero and Virgil in number of quotations. Similarly Lucian and Terence, two authors whom Erasmus personally favoured and who were popular with his generation, appear more prominently than their relevance and applicability would lead us to expect. And one suspects that Isocrates and Galen might not have received a mention if it had not been for Erasmus' translations of, and interest in, their works. What is most surprising about Erasmus' use of Latin writers in the Annotations is that Cicero, with a little more than a dozen references, barely merits a place in the top category and lags badly behind Horace, the leader of the pack with more than two dozen quotations. The reason for this comparative neglect may well be Erasmus' antagonism to the Ciceronian cult of his time.59 He considered Cicero's style overrated and noted, somewhat defiantly, at Rom 15 note 7 that his usage was not a determining factor when dealing with Holy Writ. He declared this also in the Ciceronianus: 'If the better speaker is the one who speaks more appropriately to the subject, then to speak as they did on sacred subjects was certainly preferable to copying Cicero in such a context - though there is something in between the extremes of the Scotuses and Cicero's apes' (CWE 28 390). He did, of course, respect Cicero's expertise in the field of translation and quoted his opinion in this area. Thus he

Sources and Authorities 51

noted at Heb 7 note 23 that Cicero thought Latin lacked a term equivalent and coextensive with akakos (free of vice), or at 2 Cor 7 note 11 that he considered Latin convivium a word that more aptly denoted the substance of 'party' than its Greek equivalent, symposion. Among the passages containing references to Cicero Luke 16 note 13 is a curiosum: there Erasmus quotes a Greek term coined by Cicero!60 Erasmus was also conscious of the fact that Terence and Plautus were in some way 'translators,' presenting time-honoured Greek comedies to Latin audiences.61 He referred to Terence's use of the phrase in ipso articulo (at that very instant), commenting that 'no doubt ... it was the equivalent of Greek kairo (Acts 1 note 14); similarly, he believed that Terence had 'translated' phronema (perception, feeling) as sensus (Rom 8 note 36) and that he 'appears to have reflected a Greek figure' (ie, the conjunction ei me) when he used nisi 'unless' in the sense of utcumque 'at any rate' (1 Cor 7 note 20). We find similar comments on Plautus: he rendered the Greek meaning of a proper name into Latin when he called the Hydra Aqualis (John 2 note 3); he 'translated alazona [braggart, in the title of the original The Braggart Soldier] as gloriosum' (Rom 1 note 73). In these cases Latin authors are cited, not, as might be expected, to document Latin usage, but to establish an equivalence. Erasmus quotes poets as frequently as prose authors, although their usage had only limited applicability to a prose text. He himself was of course aware of this limitation, and so it is no coincidence that he cites the poets more often on non-linguistic issues, introducing their testimony to make a factual point or simply to clinch an argument with a salient line. Thus he quotes Euripides on the sanctity of a father's name: Tor to know his father's or his mother's sin makes a coward of a man, however stout of heart' (Matt 6 note 23). Similarly, Virgil is quoted on extorted gifts (2 Cor 9 note 14), uncharacteristic behaviour (2 Cor 11 note 6), and the reliability of eyewitness reports (Luke 1 note 5); Horace on the similarity between parent and offspring (1 Cor 4 note 21), on luxury as a disease (Col 3 note 3 and Rom 1 note 58), and on friendship (2 Cor 7 note 4). In a number of cases quotations from poets serve as sources of antiquarian information. Horace's verses are cited to show that there was a temple of Venus on Cnidos (Acts 27 note 6) and that the Forum Appii was some distance away from the centre of Rome (ibid 28 note 7); Juvenal's lines serve as proof that divorce was fre-

52 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

quent in his time (1 Cor 7 note 42), that the Egyptians were in bad repute (Acts 21 not 21), and that Greek was commonly spoken in Rome (Rom 1 note 14). Among the Greek authors Plato and Aristotle are singled out for both praise and blame. Erasmus considered them excellent examples of correct usage. If Paul had spent his days in their company, he says, 'he would have been able to express in pure Greek what he meant.'62 Aristotle had 'nothing foreign in his diction but was a pure and Attic speaker' (Col 2 note 28). While praising their command of language, Erasmus also used Plato and Aristotle as examples of pagan philosophers whose influence on Christians must be curtailed: 'Christ's name is despised by many, especially by men who are puffed up with pseudo-knowledge and who think highly of men like Plato, Pythagoras, Zeno, and Aristotle' (Rom 1 note 34). Plato's thought could have no true significance for a Christian, for 'the philosophers knew God but did not acknowledge him' (Eph 1 note 39). Regrettably, 'Aristotle's pronouncements have greater authority ... than Christ's' (Matt 5 note 9); some men 'argue too zealously in the Aristotelian manner' (nimis Aristotelice, Matt 22 note 22). In pronouncing such verdicts Erasmus displays a conservative attitude to fend off the objections of conservative critics. Although he had in his youth embraced the classics with few reservations, he became increasingly more guarded in his statements regarding pagan authors and carefully circumscribed the usefulness of their writings. He still valued the classics as rhetorical models and transmitters of knowledge, but considered such learning ornamental trim to the substance of the Christian religion. He therefore condemned those who would introduce 'in an affected and artificial manner not only material from the poets and orators but any sort of sophistical philosophy ... into Christ's doctrine, which ought to be perfectly simple and pure.'63 PATRISTIC WRITINGS

The sixteenth century saw a revival of interest in patristic literature that paralleled the renaissance of classical literature. Just as the advocates of the new learning had rejected the pedestrian style of medieval writers and emulated the elegant diction of the classics, so the new generation of theologians rejected scholastic exegesis, which seemed barren to them, and preached instead a return to the

Sources and Authorities 53

golden age of theology. Erasmus epitomized this movement toward spiritual renewal through a return to the vetus theologia, when he contrasted the 'golden river' of patristic theology with the 'shallow runnels' of scholasticism (Ratio Holborn 189:32) and contended that the teaching of the Fathers was more conducive to a pious life than that of the schoolmen, whose books were 'crammed full with Aristotelian principles and sophistical nonsense' (first preface to the 1516 edition of Jerome II f 2r). In the theological controversies that marked Erasmus' age the humanistic interest in patristic writings took on a new significance. Both conservatives and reformers sought confirmation of their views in the writings of the Fathers as the authentic transmitters of Christ's teaching.64 Each side claimed the Fathers as their own. Reformers consistently sidestepped medieval exegesis and, in the humanistic vein, advocated a return to the sources, that is, the apostolic and patristic tradition. Conservative theologians were outraged by this strategy: 'Where do those who subscribe to the Augsburg Confession take refuge?' Stanislaus Hosius, the chief organizer of the Counter-Reformation in Poland, asked, 'Exactly where Catholics usually take refuge: in the writings of the holy Fathers. When [patristic] authority is cited by us, it is thought to be objectionable; but when it is to your [ie, the reformers'] advantage, the consensus of the Fathers and the whole church has great authority with you' (Confutatio prolegomenon Brentii, 1557 edition, f 217r). When Bartholomaeus Latomus represented the Trier council in a controversy with Bucer, he had a similar complaint: 'You do not believe in the Fathers, yet you use their judgment against me' (Adversus M. Bucerum 18). And John Fisher asserted indignantly that the reformers had no right to quote the Fathers: 'Your opinion and belief regarding the Fathers' writings and accounts are such that in justice they ought not to be witnesses to your judgment.'65 In the fifteenth century Italian scholars - Traversari, Guarini, Aretino, Balbi, and the emigre George of Trebizond - had laid the foundations for a patristic renaissance by providing translations from the Greek; in the sixteenth century their work was carried on by the northern humanists. Lefevre and Pirckheimer in the Catholic camp, Oecolampadius, Gelenius, and Pellicanus in the reform party, were among the scholars who provided an eager readership with editions and translations of patristic texts. Erasmus' own contribution to the field was remarkable: between 1516 and 1536 he

54 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament published, among others, works of Jerome, Augustine, Cyprian, Hilary, Chrysostom, Irenaeus, and Origen. The fruit of this research can be seen in the Annotations. Erasmus made extensive use of patristic writings in his notes, consulting them as witnesses to the text, as glossaries of terms, and as hermeneutic guides. References to the Fathers increased with each edition, but as the volume of annotations grew, the purpose of the quotations underwent a subtle change. In the first edition Erasmus had used patristic writings primarily as a philological tool, citing them as supplementary evidence for or against a disputed reading and using their commentaries as a translator's thesaurus. In later editions he cited them increasingly for exegetical purposes. The attacks of conservative theologians obliged him to enter into discussion of doctrinal matters, and to counter their arguments he often adduced the testimony of the Fathers. This development can be traced through the five editions of the Annotations published during Erasmus' lifetime by examining the scope of patristic writings consulted at each step. The notes on the four Gospels are a representative sample. The edition of 1516 was prepared in some haste, and Erasmus appears to have considered first of all the sources that were readily accessible and had an immediate bearing on his task. Patristic writings are cited some 350 times in the first edition of our sample and almost half of these references are to Jerome, whose work had inspired Erasmus as a young man and continued to occupy a central place in his scholarly research. In the Annotations Erasmus made comprehensive use of Jerome's writings, citing them for background information, to support emendations, to discuss suitable translations for individual words, and to put them into the proper theological context. The following examples will illustrate these uses. Erasmus often cited Jerome's Loca Hebraica on matters of historical and geographical interest. He informed his readers that 'there are two Galilees ... according to Jerome' (Matt 4 note 14); that 'the Jordan has two sources, lor and Dan, according to Jerome' (Matt 16 note 9); that 'the region across the Jordon has ten cities; hence the Greek call it Dekapolis ... as Jerome attests in Loca Hebraica' (Mark 7 note 25); and that Tiberias, sometimes termed a 'sea,' was in fact a lake: 'this lake is sometimes called "sea" by the evangelists, but Jerome in Loca Hebraica indicates that it is a lake' (Luke 8 note 18). Similarly Erasmus reminds the reader that 'St Jerome in the Loca Hebraica states that Bethsaida is a city in Galilee on lake

Sources and Authorities 55

Genezareth' (John 1 note 48) or that he 'indicates that there are two Canas, the larger one near Sidon, the smaller one in the tribal region of Aser' (John 2 note 1). He also relied on Jerome's expertise for scientific explanations: The sycamore is a species of tree native to Syria, as Jerome indicates' (Luke 17 note 7). Occasionally he added Jerome's testimony to that of classical witnesses: 'Celsus calls it morosycus, that is, foolish fig ... in Pliny and Theophrastus it is called Egyptian fig because they think it comes exclusively from that place, while Jerome ... attests that some thought it was a kind of tree native to Palestine' (Luke 19 note 2). As is to be expected, Jerome's testimony is involved in many notes with dogmatic issues, for example Heb 2 note 5 interpreting 'You have made him a little lower than the angels,' which has a bearing on Christology. The interpretation of the passage became the subject of a controversy with Lefevre, who had published a translation and commentary on the Pauline Epistles in 1512. Lefevre read 'a little lower than God'; Erasmus retained the traditional translation, interpreting it as a reference to Christ's human nature and explaining 'a little' in the temporal rather than the quantitative sense.66 In this context he records Jerome's reference to variants and his reservations ('Jerome appears not to have totally approved of applying this to Jesus proper') disputing Lefevre' claim that Jerome's testimony conclusivley proved his own interpretation and seriously undermined Erasmus' argument. Another example is Eph 5 note 37 (This is a great mystery') where the interpretation affects sacramental theology. Although Erasmus does not dispute that marriage is a sacrament, he points out that Jerome never called it one. Erasmus' note on 'In the beginning was the word,' which became a cause celebre, also contains references to Jerome's exegesis (John 1 note 2). Erasmus' translation of logos as sermo (as opposed to the Vulgate's verbum) caused outrage among conservative theologians.67 Erasmus argued that sermo and verbum were used interchangeably in the Bible as well as in patristic writings to denote the Son of God. He cited Jerome in support of this position: 'Greek logos has a variety of meanings: verbum, oratio, sermo, ratio, modus, supputatio ... most of which Jerome regards as referring to the Son of God in some way.' Jerome is also quoted in Rom 5 note 14 ('By one man sin entered into the world and death by it [sin]/through him') to support the claim that in quo (through him/it) refers to 'Adam' rather than to 'sin.' A further example is Matt 16 note 14 on Thou art Peter'. The passage, Eramus claimed,

56 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

could not be used to validate church doctrines on original sin and papal authority. He noted that Jerome 'seems to say that the church of Christ was founded on Peter'; he himself preferred the spiritual sense: 'Peter, "the rock," represents the solid faith of the Church.' In some cases the interpretation of a passage hinged on grammatical rather than contextual cues - there, too, Erasmus relied on Jerome's pronouncements. At John 8 note 17 Erasmus pointed out that the Greek phrase ho pater autou (his father) was ambiguous: 'Interpreters connect autou (his), not with the devil, but with "lie." In this way it was interpreted by ... St Jerome in his commentary on Isaiah.' A similar case is Matt 17 note 15 where, however, the reference to Jerome simply serves to point out the existing problem: 'Jerome is in doubt whether eum (him) refers to "man" or "devil." ' In many cases Jerome's writings serve as evidence for a particular reading, adding weight to Erasmus' own judgment. We are assured that 'Jerome certainly has this reading' (Matt 3 note 17), 'cites the passage in this manner' (Mark 10 note 25), or 'denies that this is found in old and reliable manuscripts' (Matt 5 note 17). Certain words 'cannot be found in Jerome' (Luke 2 note 16), 'are not added by Jerome,' who quotes this passage (Luke 4 note 19), or are confirmed by Jerome's argumentation (John 21 note 15). We are informed of relevant points of textual criticism: 'St Jerome points out that there are two versions' (Matt 11 note 32); 'Jerome thinks [that some words were omitted] through the error of a scribe who - as often happens - left out the words between indicium [where it occurs first] and iudicium [where it is repeated]' (Matt 12 note 19). Erasmus also relied on Jerome for the meaning of individual phrases and terms, taking into consideration, although not necessarily approving of, Jerome's translation or paraphrase in determining the most appropriate version for a given term. Thus he commented on the Vulgate translation of eunoon (well-meaning), 'that is, benevolus or, as Jerome adds, benignus - although I cannot see how benignus corresponds to eunoon' (Matt 5 note 22). At Matt 6 note 35 Erasmus noted that demolire (translating aphanizein) is seconded by Jerome, 'although I would rather have corrumpi, since we are speaking of worms and cockroaches.' At Luke 7 note 8 Erasmus commented on the passage To the poor the Gospel is preached,' noting that the Greek word ptochos (poor) 'was translated by Jerome as pauper (poor) ... in the Septuagint as praus or mansuetus (meek) because wealth is almost always accompanied by a fierce spirit.' At Luke 10 note 8 Erasmus indicated that the

Sources and Authorities 57

word athetein (despise) in 'He that despises you despises me' was translated by Jerome 'somewhere as "he that chides you (reprobat) chides me"; for in Greek we have the verb athetei which means reject as well as oppose.' At Luke 10 note 19 Erasmus changed the Vulgate's semivivo (half alive) to semimortuo (half dead), noting that 'Jerome in his epitaph for Paula translates it by seminece (half dead).' At Matt 12 note 7 Erasmus commented that anaitioi eisin means 'they are without blame, nothing is imputed to them, or, as I have translated, crimine vacant (they are free of blame); though the Vulgate's version sine crimine (without blame) is more appropriate than sine culpa (without fault), which is cited somewhere by Jerome.' At Matt 24 note 54 the Vulgate has super omnia bona (over all goods), 'that is, super omnes res suas, or, as cited by Jerome somewhere, super universam substantiam, which comes closer to expressing the meaning of the Greek phrase.' It is clear that Erasmus frequently drew on Jerome's testimony but did not accept his authority unreservedly, subjecting his comments to a critical review and occasionally rejecting them. This detached approach, which made no allowance for established rank, brought Erasmus in conflict with more conservative scholars and forced him to take a stand on the question whether divine inspiration extended beyond the apostles to biblical translators and commentators. The debate is reflected in the second edition of the Annotations, for example at Matt 2 note 7. In its original form the note merely pointed out an inconsistency in the evangelist's quotation of a psalm and an erroneous reference of Jerome's. In 1519 it was expanded to include the following clarification: The Holy Spirit was at St Cyprian's side - as is plausible - and yet orthodox believers reject some of his writings; he was at Jerome's side, yet some of his words are rejected, too; he was at Augustine's side, and Augustine himself retracted some things ... I have said this, dear reader, in case there are people who think that knotty passages of this kind that are sometimes of Jerome's making cannot be explained; and let them not think right away that on account of one or two little words the authority of sacred Scripture as a whole must be shaken, for that would mean being less equitable to sacred books than to profane literature.' The 1519 addition reveals a great deal about Erasmus' attitude toward patristic sources. We hear the voice of the Christian believer who speaks with deference of the Fathers of his church, but also that of the scholarly sceptic who insists on his own indepen-

58 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

dent judgment. Jerome was not exempt from criticism; his words were not sacrosanct, as Erasmus declares in Matt 26 note 28: 'I admit that he was a man of great learning, of equally great eloquence, and of incomparable saintliness, but I cannot deny that he was human.'68 This statement prompted an indignant reply from Diego Lopez Zuniga, who accused Erasmus of arrogance and reprehensible ambition. Erasmus, he said, 'was not afraid to accuse Jerome so that he himself might appear to have a keener mind and be more learned and knowledgeable about Holy Writ' (LB IX 302E). Zuniga'a criticism of Erasmus' New Testament and the controversy over St Jerome are also reflected in a justification added to Matt 26 note 28 in the third edition (1522): 'Such a tumult is raised by this troublesome man because I disagree with Jerome over a matter of little consequence, even though I prefaced my remarks with words of the greatest respect, and especially when Jerome is inconsistent with himself. Yet [they say that] I have committed sacrilege because I have called him human!' The accusation that Erasmus had not shown proper respect for the Fathers' views was revived in the Valladolid Articles, which incorporated the findings of scholars called together in 1527 by the inquisitor general of Spain for the purpose of determining the orthodoxy of Erasmus' writings. Under the heading 'Contra Christianitatem et Patres orthodoxos' (LB IX 1080ff) his Spanish critics referred in particular to Rom 5 note 14, where Erasmus had stated that neither Jerome nor Augustine were above twisting the sense of the Scripture to suit their purposes and to strengthen their side of the argument. In his apology, however, Erasmus denied that this constituted undue criticism; It does not mean that one "censures" the Catholic Doctors if one shows what should not have been done by them or could have been done better.'69 The charges brought against Erasmus were extended to 1 John 5 note 3, in which he had also dared to disagree with Jerome. In his response Erasmus pointed out that he had spoken in praise of Jerome on many occasions and had expressed a high opinion of the church Father: 'Who has ever praised Jerome with greater enthusiasm than I? Who has given him such preference?' Nevertheless he reserved for himself the right to differ. The orthodox doctors often disagree, not only among each other, but also were inconsistent within their own works - and I should not be allowed to disagree with Jerome?' (LB IX 1032B). While Jerome occupies a prominent position among the patristic

Sources and Authorities 59

sources cited in Erasmus' Annotations, his equally famous contemporary, St Augustine, is notably absent from the pages of the first edition. He is cited only eight times in Matthew, once in Mark, not at all in Luke, and fifteen times in John, where he is given a remarkably unfavourable review: 'Augustine was undeniably a saint and a man of integrity endowed with a keen mind, but immensely credulous, and moveover, lacking the equipment of languages ... In his knowledge of the biblical languages he was so inferior to Jerome that it would be impudent to compare one man with the other' (page 373 in the 1516 edition). This verdict was immediately challenged by Erasmus' contemporaries and he emended the note in 1519 without, however, changing its general import. Erasmus now conceded that Augustine, although 'lacking the equipment of languages,' was 'not without a rudimentary knowledge of Greek literature, yet not well instructed enough to be able to peruse the Greek commentaries with ease ...' (John 21 note 15, after 1516). Erasmus' assessment of Augustine's linguistic skills helps to explain the paucity of references to him in the first edition of his Annotations. One should perhaps also add that, apart from the Tractates on the Gospel of John, there was no convenient running commentary on the Gospels in the Augustinian corpus. Erasmus did consult pertinent works, for example the tractate on the Sermon on the Mount and the homilies on the Gospels of Matthew, but much of Augustine's testimony is scattered over the vast corpus of his writings. Searching out the relevant passages would have required time - and time was of the essence when the first edition of the Annotations went to press. Public reaction to Erasmus' harsh judgment and the insinuation that he was not sufficiently familiar with Augustine's writings70 prompted Erasmus to increase his references substantially in later editions. More than a hundred new passages appeared in the edition of 1519, and further material was added in later years, raising the total number of references to Augustine in the Gospels from twenty-six in 1516 to some two hundred in 1535. Preparatory work on an edition of Augustine's Opera - first mentioned in 1517 and published in 1527-971 - accounts for the impressive range of works cited in later editions. In Matthew, for example, references to the Sermon on the Mount and the homilies - the two works already mentioned in the first edition - increased considerably; in addition Erasmus cited evidence from more than twenty different works,

60 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

most frequently from the Quaestiones evangeliorum, the Locutionum in Heptateuchum libri, the commentaries on the Psalms, and the letters. The increased number of references to Augustine was not accompanied by a re-evaluation of his philological skills. Erasmus scoffed at Augustine's use of baptismum ('a barbarous word') as a neuter noun (Mark 11 note 13); criticized his misinterpretation of the epithet pisticus (Mark 14 note 5); pointedly mentioned that Augustine had thought abba a Greek word (Mark 14 note 26); and noted that he had been deceived by corrupt manuscripts or did not consult the Greek when he should have: If he had consulted the Greek manuscript, he would have had no cause to raise the question' (Mark 16 note 5); 'when he was in such difficulties that he could find no satisfactory answer, one wonders why he did not consult the Greek manuscripts' (John 18 note 5).72 Furthermore Erasmus accused Augustine of twisting the meaning of the text to suit his purpose: 'We must not attribute such importance to heretics that, to spite them, we twist Scripture' (John 17 note 3), and berated him for offering laboured interpretations instead of admitting his ignorance: To escape from the strait into which the question had led him, Augustine took refuge in allegory ... lest he appear to have given no answer at all' (Mark 6 note 9); elsewhere he noted 'with all respect due to such a great man that his argument is contrived, forced, and not easily reconciled with common sense' (John 1 note 38). On the whole, Erasmus maintained and defended his preference for Jerome, writing in a letter to Eck: 'Would a man tarnish the glory of silver who preferred gold? ... If some particular enthusiasm made me prefer Jerome, I should not, I think, lay myself open to attack' (Ep 844:143-6). Next to Jerome, Hilary and Ambrose are cited most often among the Latin Fathers. Hilary's commentary on Matthew - the first extant commentary on a Gospel produced in the Latin west - is mentioned more than two dozen times in the first edition of the Annotations. For John's Gospel Erasmus also consulted Hilary's dogmatic work De Trinitate and occasionally his commentaries on the Psalms. For his references Erasmus probably used Robert Fortune's text (Paris: J. Bade 1511), of which he published a substantially corrected and improved edition in 1523.73 The title page included the following aside on Bade's edition: 'I am not condemning the earlier edition, but if you compare the two, dear reader, you will see the difference yourself.'

Sources and Authorities 61

Erasmus usually cites Hilary as a witness to the readings discussed. Most of the references are brief, factual statements: 'St Hilary reads thus' (Matt 3 note 17) or 'agrees with ...' (Matt 6 note 48); 'these words are not added in Hilary' (Matt 7 note 1) or 'are not mentioned' by him (Matt 13 note 28). Occasionally Erasmus makes use of Hilary's exegesis to explain the meaning or background of a passage,74 or refers to him in the context of discussing an appropriate translation for individual terms. At Matt 1 note 22, for example, where he notes that the Vulgate's traducere is ambiguous, he supports his own interpretation by quoting Hilary, among others. At Matt 1 note 23 Erasmus defends his own translation of apolysai by repudiare in this manner: 'No one should take offence at this ... when Hilary, no less pious than he was erudite, was not afraid to use a harsher term [viz abicere, cast out]/ At Matt 24 note 16 he notes that himation does not mean tunica (tunic, the Vulgate translation), 'but cloaks or mantles, that is, outer garments though Hilary reads tunicam.' In the notes on John Erasmus repeatedly cites Hilary's commentaries on the Psalms and De Trinitate (the majority of references added in the fourth edition), both for the purpose of exegesis and to document textual variants, for example at John 3 note 17 ('Chrysostom and Theophylact read thus, and likewise Cyril and Hilary in the preface to the commentaries he wrote on the mystic Psalms') or at John 14 note 2 ('Hilary cites it this way in his ninth book of De Trinitate'). At John 6 note 34 he disagrees with Hilary's reading: 'I wonder what text Hilary followed in his book on the ineffable Trinity, chapter 10, when he quotes the passage thus ../ Hilary's support is invoked on a dogmatic point at John 14 note 29: 'When Hilary says that the Father is greater than the Son, yet the Son no lower than the Father, one must understand it in this way: the Father is the origin of the Son who nevertheless is his equal in nature, for Father and Son have the same nature/ Similarly at John 10 note 19 he quotes Hilary's commentaries on the Psalms to support a certain interpretation: The phrase et non potest solvi scriptura (and what has been written cannot be undone) could be interpreted thus: '...if this is written in the law and because it is written there, it must be true etc. Hilary certainly quotes it in this sense, commenting on Psalm 82, and again in De Trinitate 7.' In the preface to his edition of Hilary Erasmus noted that the church Father owed much of his theology to the Greeks and, following Jerome's somewhat exaggerated view, described him as a

62 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

'translator' of Origen: 'Hilary no doubt translated this work [the commentary on Matthew] from Origen, for it savours everywhere of Origen's genius and phrase' (Allen Ep 1334:625-7). Among the early Latin Fathers, Ambrose, too, occupies a prominent position in Erasmus' Annotations. His homilies on Luke are cited some twenty times in the first edition, a number that almost triples by 1519. Commenting on Ambrose at Luke 1 note 5, Erasmus makes an important point regarding exegesis. Although he did not favour a narrow literal approach, he generally sought a 'simple' interpretation75 and warned his readers off far-fetched allegorical interpretations. 'In these things a sober balance must be kept' (Ecdesiastes LB V 1043A-B). 'Some of the old theologians/ he said, 'devoted so much attention to allegory that it bordered on superstition' (Allen Ep 1333:398-9). In his Ratio he had singled out Origen and Ambrose as exegetes who were prone to excess and 'sometimes, in their zeal to teach an allegorical meaning, retreated from the grammatical sense when there was no need for it - the man who wishes to treat Holy Writ in an earnest fashion will preserve a balance in this matter' (Holborn 280:25-8). In his original note on Luke Erasmus had merely noted, rather impatiently, that Ambrose had 'twisted the words to fit another sense.' In 1522, however, he softened his remarks, saying that 'Origen's and Ambrose's ponderous thoughts on this passage are not without their attraction.' In 1522, also, he decided to add a more general comment on methods of exegesis: 'When a clouded allegory admits this kind of conjecture, I do not object to the reader's attention being diverted to comments like these, lest he leave off reading in desperation or be turned away, offended by the absurdity of the historical sense. Elsewhere in Holy Writ I prefer the simplest, least contorted (simplicissimum, minims detortum) sense.' In his notes on the Gospels Erasmus refers the reader to Ambrose both to establish the correct reading and to arrive at a suitable interpretation of the text.76 At Luke 1 note 6, for example, he noted that Ambrose 'wrote ex omnibus (ablative), not omnia (accusative)/ at 1 note 16 he pointed out that 'Zacharias went in, not out, as Ambrose would indicate when he says that he was chosen by lot to enter the temple as priest.' Conversely he noted that a certain word was not found 'in Ambrose or the oldest Latin manuscripts' (Luke 1 note 33) or wonders why 'Ambrose alone reads cognovi instead of cognosce, unless this was an error introduced by scribes who changed novi to cognovi' (Luke 1 note 42). Citing Ambrose to

Sources and Authorities 63

support his own exegesis he notes that 'he openly declares in the book De viduis with what weapons he wishes priests and true Christians to be armed. The arms of the church, he says, are faith ...' (Luke 3 note 17). He also wards off criticism of his own interpretation by linking it with Ambrose's exegesis: 'Lest anyone cry out that I am attributing to the virgin a fear unworthy of her: Ambrose praises it in her' (Luke 1 note 37). At Luke 2 note 52 Erasmus explains that Jesus 'almost reproached' his parents; 'for Ambrose was not afraid to express it thus.' Erasmus edited Ambrose's works for Froben in August 1527; his edition superseded John Amerbach's of 1492. He noted that Ambrose was indebted to the commentaries of his Greek predecessors: This must be confessed - though not criticized - that most of what Ambrose wrote he took from the commentaries of the Greeks, especially from Origen ... but no one held it against Cicero that he followed the Greeks in philosophical arguments, acting not as a translator but as an emulator' (Allen Ep 1855:241-53). Elsewhere he noted that Ambrose was a grammaticus (Ep 456:151-3), a teacher of grammar and rhetoric, that is, had philological skills. He praised Ambrose for both his orthodoxy and his smooth style. 'Jerome may be more skilled in languages and knowledge of the Scriptures, Hilary may be more elaborate in diction, Augustine keener in explaining knotty questions - and others, each excelling in his own gift - but whom can you name who treated Holy Writ with equal sincerity and more anxiously avoided suspect dogma ... Everywhere you sense that he felt what he wrote, and there is in his speech something modest, a devout cheer and agreeable civility, so that it is not without reason that they call him Doctor mellifluus' (Allen Ep 1855:21-30). Among the Greek Fathers, Erasmus' most prominent source is Chrysostom. His homilies on Matthew are cited about three dozen times in the first edition of the annotations on that Gospel. This number rises to over a hundred by 1535. Chrysostom's homilies on John are the most frequently cited authority in that Gospel - there are in all about seventy-five references to them. Erasmus first consulted a Greek text of Chrysostom during his stay in Cambridge in 1511 when he was engaged in translating Chrysostom's Mass (cf Ep 227:2); when he was preparing the first edition of the New Testament, he had a copy from the Dominican library in Basel, as he stated in the 1516 version of Matt 6 note 42: This is St Chrysostom's reading in the homilies, the Greek text of which I

64 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

have seen at Basel.' Erasmus had borrowed the Greek text from the Dominicans, describing it as so corrupt and deficient that he could not be sure that it was in fact Chrysostom's text.77 In 1520, however, when he was residing in Louvain, he did not have a Greek text at his disposal, for he was unable to verify a point in his reply to Lee.78 In 1525, however, Jerome Froben was dispatched to Italy to buy Greek manuscripts. Among them was a 'very old manuscript written in Greek' in which Erasmus found a number of Chrysostom's homilies;79 on making this discovery he 'felt as though I had received Croesus' treasure' (Allen Ep 1734:2). In the same year he quoted the Greek text of the homilies on Matthew at length in a letter to Pirckheimer (preface to De sacerdotio; Allen Ep 1558: 186-94). The Latin text he used was Anianus' version.80He referred to the translator by name at Matt 28 note 18, and repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction with that version, as in the letter to Pirckheimer: 'It is not translated with the felicity the author's scholarly ability and devout joy merit' (Allen Ep 1558:185-6). Quoting a sample passage, he criticized Anianus for adding some words of his own, translating inaccurately (eg, primum, 'first' for proteron, 'prior'; sublimius, 'finer' for ameinon, 'better'), and misinterpreting words (mistaking ploun, 'to sail' for plouton, 'wealth'). 'I could list countless examples of this kind,' Erasmus said, 'except that I prefer to serve scholarship by actively helping rather than by traducing those who contributed with their work, as far as they could, to the same goals as I' (Allen Ep 1558:244-6). For Chrysostom's homilies on John Erasmus used a 'recently published' Latin translation.'81 In 1516 he complained: 'I did not have a Greek text at my disposal (John 12 note 6). He was still without one when he replied to Lee in 1520: 'If I had a Greek Chrysostom ...' (LB IX 191B). His frustration with the translation is evident in a comment added in 1527: 'Had not Theophylact said the same thing more explicitly, I would hardly have understood the passage; it is so obscure either through the fault of the translator or of the scribes' (John 1 note 21, added in 1527). He himself translated two homilies on Philippians (Basel 1526), four homilies on Acts (1527), ten on 2 Corinthians (1530), and the commentary on Galatians (1527). He took a hand in Froben's edition of the Opera omnia (1530), although he made no explicit claims to any share in the editorial work in the catalogue he addressed to Boece (Ep 2283), and he took an interest in Chevallon's edition (Paris 1536) for which he revised his own translations.82

Sources and Authorities 65

Although Erasmus occasionally refers to Chrysostom's exegesis of a particular passage or cites him for background information, he makes use of the homilies more often to establish the correct reading. In most cases he simply states that the text quoted by Chrysostom is in agreement with, or diverging from, that of the Vulgate: This is Chrysostom's reading, although the old Latin manuscripts differ' (Matt 2 note 1); 'Chrysostom cites it in this form in the fourteenth homily' (Matt 3 note 2); 'Chrysostom does not add the words post me when he interprets the passage in the thirteenth homily' (Matt 4 note 9); and in John 1 note 29 'Chrysostom seems to have read thus, as can be concluded from the fact ... that he expresses no scruples about the article having been omitted.' Similarly he says at John 1 note 39 that 'Chrysostom appears to have read thus' and at John 1 note 48 'the preposition ek appears to be superfluous, especially since it is not added in the Latin translation of Chrysostom, nor in Cyril, nor in the old Latin manuscripts.' In some instances Erasmus refers to Chrysostom on matters of vocabulary. At Matt 1 note 21, for example, he points out that 'Scripture uses the term adikia for any type of sin - this is noted by Chrysostom.' He also refers to the Latin version of the homilies in establishing the correct tense and mood of the verb. In Matt 21 note 33 he explains: 'It is not habebimus [future] ... but occupemus or obtineamus, or, as Chrysostom reads [one would expect: as his translator reads], ut possideamus [subjunctive].' Using Chrysostom for exegetical purposes, Erasmus notes, for example, at John 1 note 19 that he 'interpreted the ambiguous Greek hos as if it did not signify a comparison here but indicated a semblance of truth.' Similarly at John 3 note 5 he points out that Chrysostom recognized the ambiguity of Greek anothen 'referring either to time past ... or to "the above." ' At 6 note 42 he discusses the Vulgate use of diabolus to denote a slanderer. 'I wonder why it pleased the translator to leave the Greek [loan-]word diabolus when he could have said informer or slanderer ... yet I have left the word diabolus in the text since I see that Chrysostom practically equates the slanderer with Satan.' When Erasmus edited the Greek text of Chrysostom's De sacerdotio for Froben in 1525 he encouraged scholars to do the same for his other works.83 In his preface he praised Chrysostom as 'the most useful teacher of Christian eloquence, who stands alone among all in combining learned piety with popular eloquence ... he has the ease, clarity, smoothness, and copious expression of a Lucian. But

66 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

in Lucian there are many things that sharpen the mind yet corrupt the soul, whereas Chrysostom gives us spiritual piety no less than linguistic purity' (Allen Ep 1558:248-55). At times, however, he was mildly critical of Chrysostom's style, saying that he engaged excessively in digression (Allen Ep 2611:52-4) and was somewhat long-winded (nescio quid submolestae polymythias, Allen Ep 2526:14-15). His overall estimate of Chrysostom, however, was that of 'a great man as far as learning and eloquence are concerned, yet incredibly eager to help, adapting almost everything he wrote to the ears of the people and lowering his linguistic standards to captivate them - just like a teacher who speaks in a childlike manner to his young pupil' (Allen Ep 1800:135-8). Apart from Chrysostom, Erasmus frequently cited the works of three other Greek fathers: Origen, Cyril, and Theophylact. He valued Origen for his erudition and his acute mind: 'Apart from his admirable zeal in explaining and expounding Holy Writ, in which he is second to none, he seems to me also to have this special virtue: he leaves in the mind of the alert and skilled reader various stimuli and complex food for thought' (Allen Ep 1844:42-5). Erasmus therefore regretted that his works were extant only in fragments and especially lamented the loss of his exegetical work on the New Testament.84 In his notes on Matthew he refers most frequently to Origen's homilies, in which he took an interest as early as 1501 when he requested their loan from the library in St Omer (Ep 165:11-12). In 1504 he 'had gone through a good part of Origen's works' (Ep 181: 45). He referred to the anonymous translator of the homilies on Matthew [Rufinus] at 6 note 14, 'whoever he was, for the style argues against Jerome' and complained of the poor quality of the translation, which in his opinion, was too 'free, with many additions and omissions' (LB IX 1008E). Apart from the homilies, Erasmus also cited Origen's commentary on Matthew, of which he published a translation in 1527 (book 10 and part of book 11), using a Greek manuscript from the library in Ladenburg made available to him through the services of Wolfgang von Affenstein (Allen Ep 1844:94-7). He ascribed the anonymous version to Rufinus: T admit that the identity of the translator is in doubt because there is no preface, but at the same time one may assume that it is in all probability Rufinus. For Jerome makes no mention of the work and the free translation points to Rufinus.'85 For Luke Erasmus also used Origen's homilies86 though never

Sources and Authorities 67

without indicating his doubts about their authenticity.87 Because he considered them spurious, he refused to 'allow himself to be impressed by the authority of one whom no one knows' (Luke 1 note 53). He harboured the same doubts regarding the homilies on John: 'Some homilies on John are extant, bearing - quite wrongly - the name of Origen. The content itself declares as much without my saying anything, for there is nothing in it anywhere that is written in Origen's vein.'88 Godin, who examined the function of Origen in Erasmus' exegesis of Romans, found that four-fifths of the notes referring to the church Father served the purpose of textual criticism and of elucidating grammatical or stylistic points. Only one-fifth of the references formed departures for theological comments.89This ratio also applies to the Gospels. Erasmus cites Origen most often to confirm a reading different from the standard text. He may also refer to the Latin translation when he is discussing vocabulary. Occasionally he adopts Origen's exegesis, when, for example, he interprets the 'rock' ('On this rock I will build my church') as faith (Matt 16 note 14), insists that the 'sword' given to the apostles must be interpreted in the spiritual sense (Luke 22 note 19), or notes that Origen acknowledged 'just reasons' for divorce (Matt 19 note 2); elsewhere, however, he cites him ('or whoever it was in Homilies 14') with less confidence: Origen's contention that Mary's hymen had remained intact during the birth of Christ was pious, Erasmus said, but not arguable on the basis of scriptural evidence (Luke 2 note 28). At Matt 19 note 14 he went as far as warning the reader of Origen's latent Arianism. On the whole, however, he considered Origen deserving of the highest praise, regarding him 'without question the most learned among the theologians of old' (Luke 22 note 19). Theophylact, the eleventh-century bishop of Achrydas in Bulgaria, was an enigmatic figure to Erasmus at first. He is styled 'Vulgarius' (a corruption of the byname 'Bulgarius') in the editions of 1516 and 1519. The correct name was substituted in 1522. The reason for this embarrassing error was, according to Erasmus, that the Basel manuscript he used was so old and worn that the name of the author was illegible.90Moreover, the pages were out of order so that he often could not find what he was looking for. 91 Theophylact's biblical commentaries are based on the works of his predecessors which led Erasmus to describe him 'as a recent excerptor of Chrysostom.'92 This view was challenged by Lee, who pointed out to Erasmus that Theophylact was 'neither so recent a

68 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

writer, nor so bad' as Erasmus had made him out to be.93 Erasmus was also aware of a Latin translation that bore the name of Athanasius: They say that this was done, not through the carelessness of scribes, but the clever idea of Christopher Persona who translated the work and presented it to Pope Sixtus IV. He had Athanasius' name put on the title page in red uncials, though in the preface he makes no mention of either Athanasius or Theophylact' (1 Cor 12 note 27).94 Zuniga, who was taken in by the title, frequently quoted the manuscript to refute Erasmus. In his reply Erasmus correctly identified the text as a translation of Theophylact's commentary95 and characterized it as awkward and obscure.96 Erasmus rarely used Theophylact as an independent witness. Most references to him are brief and especially in the first two editions serve merely as a second line of defence. There is, however, a steep rise in the number of references to Theophylact in 1527, with further additions in 1535 when Erasmus apparently began to have more confidence in this writer. Cyril's commentaries are used by Erasmus in his notes on Luke and John both for the purpose of exegesis and to establish the correct reading. Erasmus speaks of Cyril's translators,97mentioning in particular the version by George of Trebizond (edited by Clichtove, Paris 1514; cf John 21 note 15). The number of references to Cyril increases over the five editions, rising from some fifteen citations in the Gospel of John in 1516 to almost forty in 1535, with substantial additions occurring in 1527 and 1535. Only three of Cyril's sermons on Luke are extant in their complete form, and therefore proportionately fewer citations appear in the notes on Luke, and only in additions dating from 1527 and 1535. There are the usual brief references testifying to a particular variant: 'Cyril's translator reads thus' (John 1 note 20); 'this is neither in Cyril nor in the old Latin manuscripts' (John 1 note 48); 'Cyril notes that the article was added to "father" so as to indicate that here was meant not just any father but God, that is, that true Father' (John 5 note 15). Erasmus also cites him in support of his own interpretations, for example at John 1 note 10: 'Light is a symbol for Christ. Cyril noted this, if anyone considers my authority too insignificant.' Similarly he refers the reader to Cyril for the interpretation of the notoriously difficult passage in 'I knew him not': 'Cyril extricates himself differently from this question [saying that it meant] "I did not know on my own but recognized him by the inspiration of the Spirit and the indication of the Father" ' (John 1 note 38).

Sources and Authorities 69

The ever-growing volume of annotations bore witness to Erasmus' patristic studies. The most significant increase in references to the Fathers came in the second edition of the New Testament. The number of quotations in the notes on the four Gospels doubled in 1519, then increased by smaller steps, reaching over a thousand in 1535. Apart from a substantial increase in the number of references to Jerome and Augustine, many additions in 1519 came from the works of Chrysostom and Origen. Theophylact, too, received a larger share in the second edition. In his case, as mentioned, the number of references increased steadily even in later editions, but they remained short. New patristic sources in the edition of 1519 were Ambrose, who has already been mentioned, Cyprian, whose works Erasmus published in 1520,9S and Bede. Among Cyprian's works Erasmus refers several times to his exposition of the Lord's Prayer, to his letters, to the tractate Ad Quirinum, and to the treatise Adversus ludaeos, which, however, he recognized as 'likely not Cyprian's' (Cypriani opera Basel 1521, page 261). He claimed at John 21 note 15 that Cyprian's text had been corrected to conform with the Vulgate: 'We encounter this type of corruption frequently in Jerome and Cyprian. If they cited the Scripture in a reading different from the Vulgate, some scribe who was offended and thought he was knowledgeable changed the quotation from memory to the Vulgate version.' Erasmus consulted Cyprian predominantly to establish the correct reading and only occasionally on exegetical questions." Bede, who along with Rhabanus Maurus and Remigius is cited frequently in the Gospels,100 is counted by Erasmus among the recentiores,101 that is, ranking below veteres scriptores like Jerome or Origen. The former were compilers rather than original thinkers, in Erasmus' view: They merely summarized what has been said more expansively by others' (Allen Ep 1790:27-8). This was not to gainsay their usefulness: They conferred no small benefit on the church by their industry' (Allen Ep 2771:12-13). Compared with Theophylact, however, they lost further ground, for he, though one of the recentiores (Allen Ep 1790:20-1), was a Greek; they, on the other hand, were often at a loss and 'could not understand the meaning of the text ... on account of their lack of Greek language skills' (Allen Ep 1680:133-4). Of the twenty or so references to Bede in the notes on the Gospels, about a quarter concern variants, the rest problems of exegesis. Erasmus rarely accepts Bede's explanations, however, and seems to cite them only for completeness' sake.102 Like Rhaba-

70 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

nus Maurus' works, Bede's writings had been 'literally quoted' (Allen Ep 1112:29) and incorporated in the Gloss, which in many cases was the intermediate source from which Erasmus took his reference.103 The quotations from patristic sources continued to grow. In the third edition (1522) more references to Cyprian were added, and Prudentius was quoted as well. In the fourth edition (1527) Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Arnobius joined the ranks of Fathers cited; Bede's commentary on Luke received a number of new mentions.104 The fifth edition (1535) contained only minor changes and additions, as far as patristic sources are concerned. The material added to later editions of the Annotations affected the nature of individual notes in different ways. Already in the first edition Erasmus had cited the Fathers in hopes of impressing his readers with their authority: 'When the intelligent reader has perceived that in certain definite places my corrections and their opinion coincide, he may give me his confidence in other places too' (Ep 373:40-2). In later editions Erasmus expanded the notes to include additional references to the Fathers and verbatim quotations from their works. In many cases the substance and tenor of the note remained unchanged, but the original statement was given the added weight of approved authorities. In other cases, however, the note acquired a new tone as Erasmus moved from casual comments to more determined arguments and explanations that often had a homiletic quality and showed a greater awareness of the theological issues involved. For a closer look at this development let us examine the annotations on Matthew, considering first examples of notes that retained their original, philological import, but acquired authenticity through added references. At Matt 16 note 10 Erasmus comments on the Vulgate text quern dicunt homines (whom men call). In 1516 he merely indicates that the pronoun me is missing from the current Latin texts. The brief note runs as follows: 'tina me legousin, that is, quern me dicunt this is what I have found in the oldest Latin manuscripts.' In 1519 he specifies: 'namely in the Pauline manuscript.' In 1522 he adds references to Jerome, Theophylact, and Origen. In 1527 Irenaeus and Chrysostom join the list of authorities. Matthew 16 note 23 offers another example of this process of authentication. In 1516 Erasmus justifies his translation propitius tibi sit for the Vulgate's absit a te, 'be it far from you' by referring to Jerome: 'Jerome notes that the Greek text is more expressive ...'In

Sources and Authorities 71

1519 he adds the testimony of Origen and Chrysostom: 'Origen read thus in his first homily on Matthew (as shown by his translator), and Chrysostom - who follows Origen - in his fiftyfifth homily.' In 1527 he appends a reference to Theophylact: 'and Theophylact is in agreement with them.' A similar process of consolidating the evidence presented can be seen at Matt 18 note 13. In 1516 the note reads: 'Venit enim Filius hominis servare quod perierat] In some Greek manuscripts these words are not added, nor is there any mention of them in Jerome's commentaries.' In 1519 Erasmus adds: They are found in others, however, for example in Chrysostom.' In 1527 Theophylact's testimony is joined to that of Chrysostom's. In 1535 references to Origen and Hilary are added, and the note in its final form reads: 'In some Greek manuscripts these words are not added, nor is there any mention of them in Jerome's commentaries. Not even Origen touches on this phrase. They are found in others, however, for example in Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Hilary.' The same kind of development can be seen in Matt 27 note 34. The original note (on dederunt ei vinum/implevit spongiam aceto, 'they gave him wine/they filled a sponge with vinegar') relates the diverging readings and interpretations of Hilary, Chrysostom, and Origen. In 1527 cross-references to accounts in other Gospels are given and a reference to Augustine is added. In 1535 Jerome and Theophylact are quoted as well. In each of these examples the note is confined to the original argument, which is, however, corroborated by added references. In a second category of notes a transformation takes place. A detached comment on a philological point acquires an emotional overtone, conveys a spiritual message, or acknowledges the theological significance of the proposed changes. Chagrined by the attacks of his opponents, who cast aspersions on his scholarly integrity and the orthodoxy of his beliefs, Erasmus engaged them in sharp polemics, which are also reflected in his revisions and additions to the notes on Matthew. The changes made at Matt 6 note 27 are a case in point. In its original form the note is a brief statement suggesting a small emendation in the Lord's Prayer: 'Et dimitte] aphes; why not rather remitte, for the Greek word is polysemous?' After encountering resistance to this change,105 Erasmus expanded the note, adding in 1519: 'I hear that some people are offended because I put remitte for dimitte in my translation. Why are

72 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

they not equally offended by 2 Chronicles 36 where Manasses prays ... remitte mihi, remitte mihil' He goes on to support his translation by citing Cyprian and Augustine, and adding cross-references to other Gospels later on. It is, however, the passage added in 1519 that changes the character of the note and turns it into an emotional plea: 'Pray, what sort of people are these men? I write a modest note, saying in a few words what is correct, never uttering a single word that need disturb anyone who finds dimitte more agreeable ... and these people rail against me in sermons before unlearned folk, provoking them to attack; they rave at drinking parties, they rant in servant's quarters, on ships, wagons, and who knows where else. Christian religion is done and over with, they say, they themselves studied theology in vain, for someone has appeared who does not shy away from corrupting the Lord's Prayer ...' Matthew 27 note 5 shows a similar development. In 1516 Erasmus discussed a textual variant, citing Jerome as his witness; in 1519 he added testimony from Origen and Chrysostom, in 1522 a reference to the Gloss, and in 1535 to Augustine. Again a personal note occurs first in the edition of 1519: 'Because of the slanderers I shall add Jerome's own words,' he says, inserting a lengthy quotation. In the same passage he tells his opponents that there is 'no need to be so contentious' if a lapse of memory is attributed to the apostle.106 At Matt 11 note 44 the note of 1516 deals with the meaning of chreston (good). It reads: 'Chreston is closer in meaning to facile, commodum, humanum, or blandum than [the Vulgate's] suave; elsewhere [the translator of the Vulgate] translates chreston as bonum or bonitas, as we shall demonstrate in the appropriate place.' Zuniga disputed Erasmus' arguments,107 and in 1519 Erasmus added references to Augustine and Ambrose, and 1522 Cyprian joined the list of authorities cited. In 1519, however, a new dimension had been added to the philological argument. Adopting a didactic tone, Erasmus declared: 'In one point we must all be admonished over and over again: according to the teaching of St Paul we ought to embrace the freedom given us by Christ in such a manner as not to make it an occasion for the flesh to serve sin ...' The contrast between the philological original and the catechetical final version is even more pronounced in the following example. Matthew 14 note 24 concerns a translation that Erasmus considered unidiomatic or at any rate lacking in meaning. At first he keeps the

Sources and Authorities 73

argument to a discussion of the dictionary meaning of anagkein, 'for in Greek enagkasen means more than iussit, ie, coegit or compulit.' He adds that this 'is also noted by Jerome, who reads compulit not iussit'; in 1522 he refers to a translation he found in the Codex Aureus; in 1527 he adds the testimony of Theophylact; and in 1535 remarks in addition that 'Origen, who antedates all of them, uses the same word repeatedly and even explains it.' In 1527, however, Erasmus shifts his concern from the philological problem of translating a polysemous word to the spiritual message it conveys: 'Indeed, that rather harsh word commends to us both the disciples' love for their Lord and their obedience to him. Although it was their greatest pleasure always to be near their preceptor, they nevertheless did what they were told to do without answering back - unlike the majority of disciples, who are quite willing to be out of their master's sight and, if they are given instructions contrary to their own wishes, make excuses and answer back.' Similarly, at Matt 19 note 14 the original note deals with a textual variant. Erasmus quotes Hilary, Jerome, Theophylact, and Chrysostom, adding the testimony of Origen in 1519. In the edition of 1516 it is only the correct reading that is in question. Should it be quid me interrogas de bono or quare me vocas bonuml In 1519 the textual criticism is expanded into a moral and theological argument: 'Moreover, a good man is one who does good deeds. And if there is nothing truly good in human deeds, no one will be called good. For whatever is good in us is so by the gift of God. Even if we accept the reading "why do you call me good," it does not follow that we must accept the interpretation of heretics who believe that the adjective "good" can properly belong only to the Father. Indeed, Christ indicates that he is God and reproaches the speaker according to some interpreters - because he ascribes to him the quality "good" when he does not yet believe in his divine nature and I do not know if any one of these apostles had come to believe in it at that time.'108 In 1527 Erasmus discussed the dogmatic aspect of this question further: 'Here Origen must be read with caution. Perhaps his language contains a notion of Arianism, as if not even the Son could properly be called "good" ...'In this case a note that was of purely philological interest has been transformed into a theologically significant statement. A similar development can be seen at Matt 25 note 1. The original, brief note concerns a textual variant: ' "Bride" is not added in the Greek manuscripts. Nor is there any mention of it in

74 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

Chrysostom or Hilary, but someone added it in the text of Origen's thirty-second homily, though in his own interpretation he makes no mention of "bride." ' In the second edition Erasmus gives the exact reference to Chrysostom and quotes Origen's exegesis in full, but, more importantly, he concludes the addition of 1519 with an interpretation of his own: The bridegroom is Christ, and that is the purport of the whole parable, that on his imminent arrival we meet him with faith and pious deeds.' - Thus the original textual criticism has become a starting-point for scriptural exegesis and a spiritual message. In the five editions published during Erasmus' lifetime, the Annotations underwent significant changes. They evolved from an essentially philological commentary into a much more complex and comprehensive body of notes with an exegetical dimension and a moral, devotional, and homiletical appeal. The ever-increasing patristic content no doubt contributed to this development. More specifically, patristic sources lent credibility and authority to Erasmus' philological investigations and constituted a powerful defence against the accusations that were brought against him in the wake of his publication of the New Testament. In his preface to the Annotations Erasmus had referred to his notes as 'pointers' that would not only draw the reader's attention to a particular phrase but also explain and corroborate changes and ensure the preservation of the text in its revised form (Ep 373:48-54). The addition of patristic references served this purpose well and at the same time documented the progress of Erasmus' patristic studies. Often paralleling his involvement in editorial projects, the changes and additions bear witness to Erasmus' ongoing research and his untiring efforts on behalf of Christian scholarship. THEOLOGI NEOTERICI

Erasmus frequently expressed disapproval of 'modern' theologians,109 whom he contrasted with the 'theologians of old/ that is, the writers of the apostolic age and the early Fathers of the church. 'When you tell me you dislike the modern class of theologians who spend their lives in sheer hair-splitting and sophistic quibbling, you have my emphatic agreement,' he wrote to Colet during his first stay in England (Ep 108:23-6). Both men objected to the scholastic brand of theology, which sought to apply human logic to revealed truth. They were disenchanted with the formalistic approach of the

Sources and Authorities 75

schoolmen, with their definitions, divisions, and classifications pursuits that did not foster spiritual goals. The 'wrestling schools' of the Sorbonne equipped men with textbooks instead of faith. There are almost as many commentaries on the Sentences as you can name theologians. Of makers of summaries there is no end' (Ep 858:39-46). In view of these remarks it comes as no surprise that the Sorbonne in its official verdict on Erasmus' writings devoted a separate chapter to his pronouncements on modern theologians. In fact, the faculty suggested that Erasmus would do well to acquaint himself better with scholastic writings: 'He could easily have avoided a number of shameful errors that now pervade his writings if he had been knowledgeable about these doctors' (LB IX 917F). In his reply Erasmus justified his remarks by saying that he had never intended them as wholesale criticism of the theological profession, but that they were meant for those of its representatives 'who do not treat an excellent subject in an excellent fashion' (LB IX 918C). He was not condemning the discipline, but the vices of its adherents, who took more interest in their own than in Christ's glory, looked to monetary rather than spiritual gains, wished to please temporal authorities rather than the eternal Lord, and valued the display of faith more than faith itself. If all theologians practised their profession in a worthy manner, Erasmus could rightly be accused of empty talk, 'but if there is more than a crowd of [unworthy] men everywhere, it is not an insult but a service to the theological profession to have issued a warning' (LB IX 918E). He went on to quote John Gerson, who had also been critical of certain forms of scholasticism, calling them sophistic bluster. Why, Erasmus argued, were his own remarks considered injurious, 'if scholastic theology is not hurt by complaints of this sort, which are found in a writer who is in such favour and has such authority with the Paris theologians?' (LB IX 919B). In his controversy with Beda, who had also attacked his negative attitude, Erasmus anticipated some of the arguments he used against the censures of the faculty: 'I admit the truth of it: I have in a number of passages criticized theologians who have neglected languages and literature, all knowledge of antiquity, in fact, the scriptural sources themselves together with the old Doctors of the church, and grown old in petty and thorny questions' (LB IX 520A). He repeated that this criticism was not directed against the theological profession but only against certain individuals. If Beda was

76 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

suggesting that his criticism applied 'to a few, I admit it to be true/ Erasmus said, 'if he speaks of the majority, I call it untrue; if he speaks of all theologians, an impudent lie' (LBIX 522D). Erasmus insisted that what he had said about the scholastics' obscure and convoluted style was justified: 'But let me ignore for the time being the fact that [Beda] attributes to Scotus and similar authors on easy and lucid style when he obscured many passages that had been lucid with his absurd speech, his made-up words, and a multitude of difficulties. Yes, I admit that recent theologians have discussed certain points that had been passed over by the ancient commentators or had been left in doubt or had not been treated properly, but they have also introduced a multitude of difficult questions that are more for show than for piety' (LB IX 523F-524A). Erasmus believed that students of theology should leave these questions and commentaries alone and return to the source of God's word, the Bible. It is not surprising, therefore, that one of the most popular exegetical tools of his time, the Glossa ordinaria, had no official place in the 1516 edition of the Annotationsno and in later editions was often referred to in derogatory terms. Erasmus considered the Gloss, which commanded much respect among theologians, a compilation without creative worth, a rhapsodia, as he called it,111 not unlike a minstrel's epic song made up of traditional verses and recited by rote. The Gloss was nothing but a string of quotations 'stuck' (concinnarunt, Acts 27 note 30) or 'patched' together (pannum assutum, LB IX 316B). Erasmus lamented the fact that the works of earlier, more scholarly, writers had been absorbed in the Gloss, whose authors purposely suppressed their sources so as to receive the more credit themselves: The sum of human learning began to be found only in certain summary compilers and makers of excerpts, whose impudence stood in inverse proportion to their knowledge. And so they easily allowed those old authors to fall out of use or, what is more like the truth, they deliberately contrived their disappearance' (Ep 396:90-4).112 The medieval glossae, summae, sententiae, and quaestiones had grown into an impenetrable thicket of 'thorns and briars' (Ep 373: 166) that impeded the Christian's progress and kept him from the plain words of God. In Erasmus' view this labyrinth was the creation of Thomists and Scotists - two schools Erasmus habitually names as the betes noires of theology. There were plenty of people to extol the precepts of Scotus and of Thomas,' he says. Yet it was the duty of the preacher to 'instil Christ pure and simple' into the

Sources and Authorities 77

hearts of his congregation (Ep 952:51). Why, asked Erasmus, do we seek out Thomas and Scotus when God has sent us his Son, 'who is the only Doctor' (Paraclesis Holborn 147:27-8). Christians should use Christ's language, not a 'thorny and cumbersome tangle of words, disputing instances, relations, quiddities, and formalities' (Paraclesis Holborn 145:35-146:2). Only Christ's commandments should carry weight with us; no man should feel more beholden to the human decrees of Thomas and Scotus than to the teaching of the Gospel (Ratio Holborn 204:34-205:5). Erasmus did 'not think that the works of Thomas or Scotus should be rejected in their entirety ... but could not approve of the rude minds who put so much value on this kind of author that they feel obliged to clamour against good literature' (Allen Ep 1334:915-19). In the Annotations we find Erasmus expanding on the same theme. Too much emphasis was being placed on scholastic teaching. In church 'the congregation is told what Scotus, what Thomas, what Durandus said rather than what Christ taught' (Matt 17 note 9). Preachers 'are silent before the people on what is the essence of all religion and teach what is irrelevant such as ... the views of Thomists and Scotists' (Matt 23 note 13). In Erasmus' writings Thomas Aquinas, the master builder of scholastic thought, often fared no better than his less distinguished colleagues.113 In the Ecclesiastes he is linked with Gerson and Scotus. Gerson had no word power; Scotus was only good for factual information and was useless as a model of style; Thomas was 'by nature not inept, if he had practised speaking as much as he did philosophical disputations' (LB V 857D). In De contemptu mundi (ASD V-l 80:100-1) we find Thomas arraigned with Albertus Magnus: both offer a 'frugal repast' to the reader. Elsewhere Erasmus includes Thomas among authors whose works lacked the timeless quality of patristic writings: They wrote for their own age' (Allen Epl334:926). Thomas is one of the writers whose heyday is past: 'Once Alexander of Hales reigned, then came Thomas, then Scotus. Albertus had his day, and so did Gerson' - none of them had stood the test of time.114 Erasmus was generally, but not always, critical of Thomas. He called him a 'most noble writer' in the Antibarbari (CWE 23 112:4) and described him as 'the most learned among modern theologians' in the Apologia (Holborn 171:22). In the Annotations, too, he gave him qualified praise, saying that he was 'a great man, and not only in his own time; for in my mind none of the recent theologians

78 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

equals him in diligence, has a saner mind, a more solid erudition; he would certainly have deserved to be equipped also with knowledge in languages and good literature, since he used what his time offered with such dexterity' (Rom 1 note 5). Elsewhere, however, Erasmus was more sparing with his praise and, in most cases, cited Thomas only to disagree with him or to point out errors. The criticisms most often found are that Aquinas' explanations are contrived, that his comments are superfluous, and that he has missed the point owing to his ignorance of Greek. We often find Erasmus describing Aquinas' argument as forced (coactius, 1 Cor 1 note 2) or insipid (frigidum, I Cor 14 note 24, 16 note 10) or distorting the meaning: 'how he twists and turns, how often he looks for loopholes through which he might escape' (1 Tim 2 note 21). Erasmus also frequently belittles Aquinas' views as irrelevant: 'how does what Aquinas adds belong here?' (1 Cor 14 note 35); 'what Thomas adds does not agree very well with Paul's meaning' (Phil 2 note 10) or 'is not very relevant' (Col 1 note 15) or 'does not contribute much' (John 1 note 36). 'What Thomas writes is very true ... but Paul is not concerned with this here' (Col 2 note 13); Thomas' distinction has no place here' (Tit 3 note 4). In a number of notes Erasmus points out that Aquinas' linguistic skills were deficient: 'He only knew Latin, and that not accurately' (Apologia Holborn 172:21-2). It was not surprising that Thomas sometimes did not arrive at a correct interpretation, 'for who could understand from these words what Paul meant if he was ignorant of Greek?' (Rom 11 note 16). At 1 Cor 13 note 8 Erasmus notes that Aquinas' ludicrous attempt at etymology (deriving benignitas from bona igneitas) only served to show that 'he did not seek information in the sources themselves, but in second-hand collections and notes' where such nonsense was commonly found. Not to know Greek was a serious drawback, whereas the reader who was able to consult the Greek could often immediately spot and rectify a textual corruption. For example, Greek gnesion, 'genuine,' suggested that the Vulgate's ingenium, 'character,' was a corruption of ingenuum, 'genuine' (2 Cor 8 note 16); Greek prothymia, 'eagerness' was wrongly interpreted as destinatam voluntatem 'predestinated will' (2 Cor 8 note 40). In both cases ignorance of Greek had led Aquinas astray and prompted him to engage in futile speculation: 'What else can one do who is ignorant of Greek letters? And the more studiously he labours, the more he necessarily errs ... however I certainly think that Aquinas deserves forgiveness since

Sources and Authorities 79

he lacked nothing but a knowledge of languages. Yet it would have been better to be less of an Aristotelian expert than to be without this aid' (2 Cor 8 note 16). At 2 Cor 8 note 40 Erasmus is similarly indulgent with Aquinas' shortcomings, but nevertheless insists on stating the facts: 1 do not like to inveigh against such an erudite and famous man; I would rather ascribe to his century whatever fault there is; if only the reader realizes that even the most learned man cannot interpret divine letters without the risk of making a mistake when he is without skill in the languages, and if only he understands that what Thomas adduces is a world removed from Paul's meaning.' Similarly he uses Thomas' tortuous interpretation of 'She shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith ...' (1 Tim 2 note 21) as an opportunity to champion language studies: 'Let [the reader] realize what it means to write commentaries on the New Testament without consulting the Greek manuscripts.' Having found so many faulty interpretations in Aquinas, Erasmus is particularly offended by the widely circulating story that St Paul himself had appeared to Aquinas, affirming that no one had ever understood his Epistles so well: In this instance at least I wish the people who are so pleased with that trite story about Thomas would tell me this: where does that leave Paul, who supposedly said his Epistles had never really been understood by anyone until Aquinas came along and illuminated them with his commentaries?' (1 Tim 2 note 21). How could this fiction be maintained in the face of Thomas' numerous errors? The error could be overlooked if some people were not forcing on us the fairy tale of Paul having approved of his commentaries' (1 Cor 9 note 33). Erasmus could not understand why people were prepared to accept uncritically what was offered by a man 'who knew no Greek and indicated a variant without supporting evidence, but are indignant with me when I am equipped for the task at hand in so many ways and indicate, not some dream vision, but what old and approved authors of both lanuages read' (Heb 12 note 37). Though Erasmus does not mince his words and is harshly critical of Aquinas in many of his notes, he insists that his criticism is benevolent: 1 am not reproaching Thomas; I clearly feel sorry for men who learn nothing else and am less displeased with myself for not having spent all that much time on writers of this kind' (Eph 5 note 22). The patronizing tone adopted here serves of course only to underline the gravity of Aquinas' faults. Similarly damaging is another remark, also prefaced by a disclaimer: 'I am reluctant to

80 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

point out [Thomas' error], but the authority of divine letters demands it, public interest demands it' (1 Tim 5 note 18). Such words were bound to offend conservative theologians who had imbibed Thomas in their youth and remained his staunch defenders. Erasmus, for his part, maintained his right to disagree and to correct even so great an authority as Aquinas and insisted that he was in fact doing him and his acolytes a favour: They must admit how much they have stood to profit from my work - work from which Thomas too would have benefited, were he still alive' (Ep 809: 85-7). He boldly asserts that not only Aquinas but other commentators criticized by him 'would be grateful even to a humble creature like myself for the way in which I put them right. They were very great men, but only men after all. Let my opponents show that they were right and refute what I say with argument and not abuse' (Ep 456:132-5). Thomas often shared a place with Duns Scotus in Erasmus' criticism. Scotus, the thirteenth-century Franciscan dubbed the 'Subtle Doctor' by an admiring posterity, epitomized sophistical theology for Erasmus.115 He frequently cited him as an example of unscholarly writing, bad Latin, and convoluted argumentation.116 Using a colourful parallel from Pliny and applying it to Scotus he wrote: 'Food which smells unpleasant seems to have no smell to those who have eaten it. The filthy literature of Scotists and sophisters is like that: it gives great offence to others, who have had a more liberal education, and makes them feel sick, but to men soaked in that sort of rubbish it gives no offence ... The panther has a sweet smell, but only for wild animals ... Scotus is like that, evil-smelling to enlightened minds, but to those stupid numbskulls more fragrant than any spice' (Parabolas CWE 23 272-3). In the Annotations Scotus remains unnamed, though his complex definitions are ridiculed and his approach to theology is berated in general terms.117 Among the scholastic commentators of the thirteenth century Erasmus frequently cited Hugh of St Cher and Nicolaus of Lyra. References to them are almost always harshly critical and disparaging. Hugh of St Cher (c 1200-63) had a distinguished ecclesiastical career; he was provincial of the Dominican order, cardinal of S Sabina, and taught at the Sorbonne from 1236 to 1244. He compiled a Latin concordance of the Bible that served as a prototype for later efforts in this field and made a noble attempt at textual criticism in his 'Correctory' of the Vulgate (extant in manuscript only). His best-known work, however, was the Postillae

Sources and Authorities 81

which contained exegetical notes on the Bible according to the literal and spiritual senses and was reprinted many times up until the seventeenth century.118 Erasmus, who had a very low estimate of Hugh's scholarship, declared that to make all the corrections needed in this author was 'a foolish waste of time; I noted only a few passages that were exceptionally absurd, in order to encourage caution in those who read such writers with complete confidence and no critical sense' (Ep 456:138-40). He makes a similar statement at 1 Tim 1 note 34: 'What is the use of marking out one or two passages when it is easier to find than to miss the mistakes in this kind of author?' Writing such arrant nonsense, he says, St Cher coulcl easily fill a number of volumes: 'It's no great matter to fill huge tomes in this fashion, if a man is pleased to sully poor pages with such nonsense.'119 With biting irony he calls St Cher a 'copious writer' and 'a pillar of theology' before going on to cite embarrassing mistakes.120 In one rare case in which St Cher proposed an interpretation acceptable to Erasmus, the latter exclaims sarcastically: It is a wonder that St Cher knew that much!'121 Elsewhere Erasmus' criticism is put in plain words. He calls St Cher's comments 'nonsense' (2 Cor 3 note 11), 'ridiculous' (1 Tim 1 note 34), 'irrelevant' (James 2 note 20), and 'a crime worthy of a flogging' (2 Tim 3 note 2). He cites a number of meaningless etymologies: 'Parcae (the Fates), so named because they spare (parcent) no one'; 'sycamore from sicut morus, like a blackberry' (John 5 note 2). He quotes in full, cum suo flore, St Cher's simplistic comment on 'self-love': 'in a severe cold spell, when a knave hugs himself to keep warm somehow, one says derisively, "that knave loves himself a great deal when he so hugs himself." ' Erasmus comments with chagrin: 'And that stuff they read in stunned admiration while they cannot bear the humour of my Moria' (2 Tim 3 note 2). It angered Erasmus that a writer of this calibre could command a loyal following and pronounce judgment with confidence on matters about which he was ignorant and ill-informed. Erasmus acknowleged that certain biblical passages were problematic and that it was pardonable to err in their interpretation, but what he could not excuse was that authors like Hugh of St Cher 'were not ashamed to teach with such authority what they did not understand at all' (John 10 note 11). Thus, of the twenty-odd passages cited in the Annotations on the Gospels, only four serve to support Erasmus' interpretation - the rest, it seems, are merely cited to hold the author up to ridicule, for they certainly do not contribute to the elucidation of the passage.

82 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

In his criticism Erasmus often couples St Cher with Nicolaus of Lyra, for example, at 1 Tim 1 note 34, where he notes that 'there are men who are indignant and cannot bear that anything in such writings be criticized: in St Cher's because he is a cardinal or rather because he belongs to the Dominican order; in Lyra's for no other reason but that he was a Franciscan.'122 Normally one would preface criticism with an expression of polite respect, at least for those who deserve it, but - says Erasmus - 'I do not reckon Lyra or St Cher among them' (Ep 843:592). Lyra, the French theologian and exegete (c 1270-1349), had the distinction of knowing Hebrew, a rare achievement in his time. His chief works, the Postillae perpetuae, biblical commentaries setting forth the literal and moral sense of Scripture, became a standard text in medieval schools and were among the first commentaries to be printed.123 Lyra placed great emphasis on the literal or historical sense, regarding it as the necessary basis of any interpretation: 'Just as a house which shifts from its foundation is prone to collapse, so an exposition in the mystical sense which diverges from the literal sense must be considered inopportune or inept,' he explained in the second prologue to the Postilla literalis (Paris 1590, s p). In his opinion traditional commentators had obscured the meaning of Scripture by concentrating on the spiritual sense: 'Granted that they said many good things, they nevertheless did not touch sufficiently on the literal sense' (ibidem). To right the balance Lyra devoted almost a decade of his life to the task of composing the Postilla literalis, in which he explained the historical sense word for word. Some years later, almost as an afterthought - 'since God has granted me the time' - he added to it the Postilla moralis, but did so in a more compendious form, declaring that he had no intention 'to write down all the mystical senses or to go through each single word but comment briefly ... when it appears useful' (prologue to Postilla Moralis Paris 1590, s p). Although modern scholars consider Lyra remarkably erudite for his age, Erasmus thought his notes simple-minded and uninformed. 'Who can fail to be astonished,' he asks at 1 Tim 1 note 18, 'at Lyra's ... lack of experience for not knowing [this point] or his carelessness for not investigating it, or his insolence for so blithely offering an interpretation?' Of the numerous interpretations cited, hardly any meet with Erasmus' approval. In several cases he ridicules Lyra's fanciful etymologies: 'Lyra derives poderes, a long gown, from pos ... which means "foot" and haereo, haeres (I cling,

Sources and Authorities 83

you cling), because it clings to the heels' (Rev 1 note 12). Erasmus gleefully reports another highly imaginative interpretation at Matt 6 note 34: 'I cannot resist citing the ridiculous explanation added in Lyra's commentary ... He derives hypocrita from hypos, meaning "under," and crisis, "gold," because under the golden exterior of honest words is hidden the base metal of deceit.' Erasmus clinches this example with the remark: 'Now let them go and say that it does not matter whether or not a man knows Greek.' The same point is made at Luke 1 note 7, where Erasmus remarks contemptuously: 'Lyra had read this in some gloss which he could read but not likewise understand because of his ignorance of Greek.' Almost all references to Lyra contain implied or express criticism: Lyra uses a 'plainly frivolous argument' (Luke 2 note 29), 'gives a puerile explanation' (1 Peter 2 note 12), or twists the sense of Scripture (Luke 22 note 19). One cannot read his nonsense without amusement (Matt 17 note 20) or exasperation, a feeling Erasmus vents in the ironic exclamation: 'Oh grave interpreter of Holy Writ' (1 Cor 5 note 14). At 2 Peter 1 note 27 Erasmus couches his opinion of Lyra in more conciliatory, though no less damaging, terms: 'I do not wish to inveigh against men who offered what was within their ability, but I consider them pitiful because they were obliged to deal with Holy Writ without being sufficiently instructed in letters - and without letters Holy Writ cannot be dealt with as it deserves to be.' The reverence theologians felt for scholastic authorities and the indignation with which they greeted any criticism of their work are exemplified in the polemics of Lee, Zuniga, and Titelmans. In some cases Erasmus responded to their attacks by rewording his note, but more often he claimed that his critics were over-reacting in their eagerness to protect their idols. For example, when he had used the word mataiologus ('vain,' a word-play on theologus) to describe St Cher at 1 Tim 4 note 23, he had been severely reprimanded by Zuniga. Erasmus, for his part, replied with cheerful innocence: 1 merely said jokingly that he was more than a theologian - by one syllable' (LB IX 344A). He did, however, remove the offensive term in later editions. His criticism of Lyra caused similar ill feeling. In view of Lee's protest Erasmus conceded he had perhaps rejected 'Lyra's commentary in harsher terms than was fair' (LB IX 242C), but Zuniga and Titelmans went too far when they called such criticism 'slander' (LB IX 350F) and 'intolerable sacrilege' (LB IX 1014C). Erasmus insisted that his comments had been justified: It is patently

84 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

false to say that I ridicule Lyra throughout my work' (LB IX 312B). Defending Lyra against Erasmus' criticism, Lee had used the rather unfortunate phrase that even 'those who brought hides and goat's wool into the temple of the Lord must be thanked' (f 30r). Erasmus immediately seized on this wording and, switching roles, blithely defended Lyra against his would-be champion, saying that he personally would not go as far as calling Lyra's contribution 'goat's wool' (LB IX 221E). He also made fun of Titelmans, who had described Lyra as 'one of the sacrosanct and old Doctors of the church who now rule with Christ in heaven, contemplating the face of God with the angels and the apostles' (LB IX1014C). Such adulation was too much for Erasmus, who replied: 'First of all it is uncertain that Lyra is in heaven, secondly I am not saying anything against him up in heaven, but against his books which he, an earthling, wrote down here on earth' (LB IX 1015B). While Hugh of St Cher and Nicolaus of Lyra are Erasmus' favourite targets among the scholastic exegetes, he occasionally quotes other medieval theologians: Petrus Comestor (c 1100-80) whose Historia scholastica had become a standard textbook, Petrus Lombardus, the 'Master of the Sentences,' and among his commentators, Durandus and Gerson.124 In most cases the references are derogative and serve only to blacken the reputation of the theologian in question. Erasmus reported that Comestor 'thought eunuchos meant "easy winner" from eu (well) and nyche (victory) ... Such writers the theologians once embraced, and nowadays there are some who cannot bear Erasmus' (Matt 19 note 12). He also noted Gerson's awkward arguments - 'he twists and turns' (Luke 1 note 70) - and Lombardus' misinterpretations - 'some famous theologians erred in this point ... for example Petrus Lombardus' (Matt 1 note 22). He did not, however, completely deny the merits of these exegetes and declared his willingness to ascribe their mistakes not to personal shortcomings but to the limitations of their age. Thus he said of Lombardus: 1 certainly consider him a good man and erudite - among the men his age bore. Yet I wish his work had been as beneficial for the Christian world as it was undertaken by him with pious zeal. Indeed, it appears that his purpose was to collect once and for all the pertinent material and thus exclude any further questions. But the outcome was different: for we see that from his work a troop, no, a sea of never-ending questions has burst forth' (Matt 1 note 22). In sum, Erasmus developed a strong distaste for the medieval

Sources and Authorities 85

commentators' style, which he considered barbarous, and their approach to theology, which he considered contrived and useless. Yet he made use of their writings when it suited his purpose, either to offer a complete range of references or to show up the worthlessness of their exegesis. On the whole Erasmus compared their writings unfavourably with those of the Fathers and regarded their authority in schools as the chief obstacle to the revival of patristic literature. Insisting on certain stylistic standards even in technical writing and appealing for a return to the 'classics' of the church, Erasmus introduced humanist ideals and methods into theological studies. Having examined Erasmus' use of classical, patristic, and medieval authorities, we turn now to comment on his citations of a source closer to his own time: Lorenzo Valla. The question of Erasmus' dependence on Valla has already been explored within a specific context.127 It will be useful, however, to examine their relationship in more general terms. Like Valla, Erasmus adopted a philological approach to scriptural studies. Among the general views he shared with the Italian humanist were a recognition of the corrupt state of the Vulgate text and the importance of consulting the Greek original to determine the correct reading; doubt about the person of the translator traditionally indentified as Jerome; a reliance on manuscripts to establish the text, classical authorities to decide on grammatical points, and patristic writings to ascertain the meaning of a passage; an attentiveness to correct idiom and stylistic appeal; a certain reluctance to engage in theological discussions and a corresponding emphasis on the grammatical nature of the undertaking at hand. Specific references to Valla in the Annotations are numerous. Many - but not all - of Valla's suggestions met with Erasmus' approval. In most cases he cited Valla's remarks without comment, tacitly signalling his approval. In a few cases he pointed out errors, but in a discreet manner: 'Valla thinks Greek tekton means "woodworker," when Suidas clearly shows that the term is common to wood- and stone-workers' (Matt 13 note 44); 'it is surprising that Lorenzo is bothered by the word "mute," as if kophos could only mean deaf (Luke 1 note 28). Even when Erasmus criticizes his predecessor, he does so with polite restraint. He indicates his disagreement in a neutral tone: The participle schizomenous (being torn) is passive present tense and should not be translated by scissos [a perfect participle], as Lorenzo thinks, but by a verb [ie,

86 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

the passive infinitive diffindi}' (Mark 1 note 18); 'when Valla changes [the Vulgate's sine querela, without blame] to innoxii or insontes, it does not quite win my approval' (Luke 1 note 13). The most frequent complaint Erasmus brings against Valla is that his arguments are petty or unnecessarily long-winded: 'Valla prattles about I know not what' (Matt 12 note 18, 26 note 41, Mark 1 note 5), 'debates at length' (Matt 27 note 14), 'uses more subtle irony than befits a man of grave authority' (Mark 7 note 27), 'hints at I know not what in a subtle argument' (argutulum, Luke 1 note 37), 'is an excessively keen observer of Latinity' (Luke 1 note 76). 'What he points out here is petty' (Luke 2 note 42) or 'beside the point' (Luke 1 note 5). While Erasmus may show impatience with Valla's arguments, he does not, as a rule, make an issue of their disagreement but refers to it only cursorily, as if he wanted to gloss over it. In the few cases where he expands on a difference of opinion, he does so for strategic reasons. At John 21 note 15, for example, Erasmus shields himself from censure by putting an unpopular view into Valla's mouth. In a neat diplomatic manoeuvre he quotes Valla's opinion, displays reluctance to accept it, then in the name of fairness and as if to convince himself he notes the good points, and, in the end, gives his qualified assent. He is thus able to present a view he shares with Valla, but which is not expedient to express under his own name. As has been mentioned, a critical remark about Augustine in the first edition earned Erasmus the reproof of theologians. In the second edition he changed his tactics. Instead of giving his own opinion, he quoted Valla's criticism of Augustine and then remarked: This very great man should not have been pursued with insults, as he was so harshly by Valla' (John 21 note 15). Valla had berated Augustine for not having consulted the Greek original, a point raised by Erasmus himself. Now he commented on Valla's criticism, declaring magnanimously: The man who errs thus must not be pursued with reproaches ... he must be pitied and offered help.' Similarly he defended Thomas Aquinas, a frequent target of his own attacks, against Valla's criticism: 'Valla was carried away in the heat of emotion' (1 Cor 9 note 18). Yet, Erasmus admitted, his criticism did not lack substance. 1 myself cannot completely reject what Valla writes, but I think that such men, especially when their sanctity commends them, deserve some indulgence. One must take into account the times in which they lived. Finally one must remember that they are only human.' In both examples Erasmus

Sources and Authorities 87

quotes Valla on controversial issues. Although he is on the whole in agreement with Valla's view, he creates the impression that he is reluctant to accept it or contrives to appear as the more moderate critic. Thus the professed disagreement turns out to be a stratagem that allows Erasmus to state an unpopular view without risk. It goes without saying that Erasmus, who published Valla's notes on the New Testament, admired his work, but while he expressed his admiration elsewhere, he is somewhat sparing with his praise in the Annotations. Moreover, he is not overly conscientious in giving Valla credit for material extracted from his work. A sample probe of the notes on the first three chapters of Matthew and the first six chapters of Hebrews reveals that Erasmus incorporated almost all of Valla's material, yet rarely mentioned his source (three times in the first three chapters of Matthew, five times in the first six chapters of Hebrew). The resemblance between Erasmus' and Valla's notes is often verbal, as the following examples will demonstrate. Commenting on the Vulgate's translation of epideiknymai by traducere, Valla writes: The translator might appear to have spoken very elegantly' (806a). Erasmus makes the same point: 1 am surprised that such an elegant word occurred to the translator' (1 note 22). In chapter 2 of Matthew, Valla comments on exetasate akribos: This could have been translated "go forth and investigate, ferret out, find out" ' (806a); Erasmus says: 'and the meaning is not "ask" but "find out or examine" ' (2 note 9). Further on Valla explains that 'responsum must be interpreted as "oracle," so that it would best be translated accepto oraculo' (806b); Erasmus echoes his words: 'He could have translated more suitably oraculo moniti or oraculo accepto' (2 note 11). In chapter 3 Valla comments on the expression sicut columba, 'like a dove': The Holy Spirit did not descend like a dove ... but in the likeness of a dove' (807b). Erasmus criticizes the phrase in the same terms: 'He seems to say "in the manner of a dove" ... when he means "in the likeness of a dove" ' (3 note 22). In Hebrews we find similar verbal dependences. Valla says: 'to avoid using locutus twice, the translator says loquens' (885b). Erasmus echoes him: 'the translator seems to have avoided using locutus twice' (1 note 2). Valla corrects the Vulgate's fidelis ... ad Deum, 'faithful to God': 'rather, "in matters concerning or regarding God" ' (885b). Erasmus introduces the same improvement: 'that is, "in matters pertaining to God" ' (2 note 16). Similarly Valla corrects the Vulgate's interpretabilis, a mistranslation of dyserymneutos; 'no, difficult to interpret' (886a). Erasmus has

88 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

the same correction: 'that is, "difficult to interpret" ' (5 note 9). Valla adds: 'and I would not have said inchoationis but rather primordii or principii' (886a). Erasmus echoes his words: 'He would have done better to use the translation primordii or principii rather than inchoationis (6 note 1). Valla comments on nisi: This is not the nisi corresponding to Greek ei me, but a rather similar expression, ei men, which is affirmative (886a). Erasmus makes the same point: 'In Greek it is not ei me, nisi, but ei men which, as Theophylact indicates, is here an affirmative adverb' (6 note 21). In none of these cases, except in the last - where he acknowledges a patristic source rather than Valla, who may well have been the intermediary - does Erasmus hint at the source of his information. Thus it is with some justification that Zuniga and Lee accused Erasmus of plagiarizing.126 In Erasmus' defence one must say that much of what Valla proffered was obvious. Many of his findings were intrinsically connected with the subject and would be discovered by any philologist in the course of collating manuscripts. Factual similarities in the two sets of notes can therefore be explained as inherent in the task. Moreover, it is only fair to point out that the material taken from Valla was used by Erasmus in a creative fashion. In many cases Valla's findings formed no more than a point of departure for Erasmus, a minor contribution to his own, full investigation. It must also be acknowledged that the sum total of Valla's notes is small by comparison with Erasmus' detailed commentary. Chomarat therefore aptly characterized their relationship when he said: 'Valla fut 1'initiateur et Erasme le champion'; 'ce que Valla suggere, Erasme l'affirme.'127 Erasmus did not studiously conceal the work of his predecessor but gave credit, if not consistently, at least when he thought the point merited a reference to his source. On one occasion, at any rate, he freely expressed his admiration for Valla, saying in Acts 22 note 11: 'I cannot but vigorously approve the diligence of Lorenzo Valla who, although he is a rhetorician (or is commonly regarded as such - and certainly he was no teacher of theology), investigated with such care what was contradictory, what was suitable, what was corrupt in Holy Writ.'

THREE

The Task and Its Execution

The Annotations form a running commentary not only on the biblical text but also on the commentator's or translator's aims and methods. The changes proposed by Erasmus served a threefold purpose. They were aimed at producing a text that was a faithful, intelligible, and idiomatically correct version of the Greek original. This trinity of objectives forms a recurrent theme in Erasmus' prolegomena to the New Testament. They are, for example, repeatedly stated in the Apologia that acccompanied the edition of 1516. There Erasmus said that his purpose was to render the text more accurate and lucid, and to improve the Latin: fidelius, dilucidius, elegantius (Holborn 167:30-1). He promised the reader an unadulterated text, free of ambiguities, in terms that correctly and meaningfully rendered the Greek original. The result of his revision would be a more faithful, more accessible, and more precise text: fidelius, apertius, significantius (Holborn 170:18-19). He returned to the subject once more, this time listing instead of his goals the corresponding obstacles: he was forced to deal with a faulty, obscure, and unnatural translation: portenta mendarum, crassissimas tenebras, sensus praepostere ... redditos (Holborn 173: 11-13). In the preface to the Annotations he described his task in the same terms his purpose had been to explain what was obscure, to correct the translator's mistakes, and to remove solecisms and stylistic impurities: obscure dictum illustravimus ... sicubi res ipsa palam clamitat ilium vel dormitasse vel hallucinatum fuisse, non veriti sumus et hoc indicare lectori ... soloecismos submovimus ... sermonis elegantiam secuti sumus (Allen Ep 373:52-63).

90 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

The three main objectives - fidelity, lucidity, and purity of language - appear again in Ep 843, an apologetic letter addressed to Maarten Lips. Erasmus declares that he emended corrupt passages, explained ambiguities, and changed what was expressed in barbarous language: emendans ... depravatum, explanans ... ambigue dictum, mutans ... insigniter barbare dictum (Allen Ep 843:29-31). In later editions he again defended his work in terms of these ideals. Addressing the reader in a second preface accompanying the edition of 1519 he repeated that he had successfully dealt with corrupt, obscure, and unidiomatic passages: loca depravata, nonnulla vel obscure vel ambigue vel barbare reddita (Allen Ep 1010:11-12). We find the familiar formula again in the Capita argumentorum contra morosos et indoctos, which were added to the second edition. There Erasmus explained once more that he had expected gratitude, not criticism, for having corrected so many mistakes, explained so many obscurely translated passages, and removed so many monstrous solecisms: tot mendas sustulimus, tot loca male reddita explicuimus, tot prodigiosos soloecismos amovimus (59). The frequent and consistent references to a three-pronged attack on the faults of the Vulgate establish fidelity to the original, clarity of expression, and purity of language as the ideals governing Erasmus' enterprise. To these three objectives, which focus on the translation, may be added a fourth, which concerns the history of the text: the establishment of the correct reading. Indeed Erasmus' claim that he had emended the New Testament must be given a double meaning. It involved ferreting out corruptions in the Greek and Latin texts as well as uncovering errors in the translation. Let us now examine how the aims Erasmus set for himself are reflected in the explanations and justifications offered in his Annotations. We begin with the aim of clarity, an overriding principle that governed many of Erasmus' corrections and operated both in its own right and as a moderating factor in the application of other criteria. CLARITY

Erasmus' quest for clarity met with two major obstacles: obscurities inherent in the Greek text and ambiguities foisted on it by an inept translator. The first case called for theological exegesis, the second for an improved translation, the domain Erasmus considered more properly his own and which concerns us at this point. Erasmus

The Task and Its Execution 91

employed a number of methods to resolve problems of ambiguity and obscurity: in some cases it was a matter of correcting a grammatical error or replacing an unidiomatic expression with a proper Latin phrase; in other instances a polysemous and therefore ambiguous word had to be replaced with an unequivocal term; sometimes the meaning of a sentence could be clarified by restructuring it, at other times a fuller translation was required to convey the meaning of a succinct Greek phrase. It is obvious from the corrective measures listed that the aim of achieving clarity overlapped with another goal: correct Latin usage. The two ojectives are closely linked by the tenet that a grammatically and idiomatically correct translation is at the same time also a lucid version. Erasmus himself repeatedly expressed this principle. 'Nothing is clearer than correct speech,' he said (Capita contra morosos 12). There was only one way of correctly expressing a particular idea, but 'a thousand ways of expressing it incorrectly' (ibidem 19). It was important therefore to translate the Bible in a form that agreed with the linguistic conventions familiar to all good scholars: the conventions embodied in classical literature. A return to classical standards was needed. There was no merit in retaining solecisms because - as some theologians argued - people were familiar with them. If the purpose of translating the sacred books in an unlearned manner is to make them accessible to more people, it would be better to translate them into German or French' (Capita contra morosos 17). The connection Erasmus draws between lucidity and linguistic purity is evident from his comments in the Annotations. He expressly links the two ideals, postulating a cause and effect relationship between correct usage and clarity. At Matt 24 note 15, for example, he criticizes the Vulgate's non revertatur (translating me epistrepsato opiso, 'lest he turn back'). This translation was incorrect according to the rules of classical grammar since a clause of purpose must be introduced by the conjunction ne. Ne redeat retro or ne rursum redeat was better Latin and more readily intelligible (Latinius et apertius). At Luke 16 note 23 Erasmus points out that in classical Latin the verb consolari (to comfort) was passive in form but active in meaning. Since a passive meaning was required in context, consolatur was an inadequate rendition. It was preferable to substitute solatia fruitur or solatia afficitur, phrases that clearly indicated who was being comforted. The translator could have avoided ambiguity' by staying within the rules of classical Latin. For the same reason Erasmus noted at 2 Cor 11 note 22 that a sub-

92 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

junctive mood was required in an indirect question. There was no such stipulation in Greek. The indicative in the Vulgate was a literal rendition, but it would have been better to depart from the Greek and follow the rules of Latin grammar. As a result the sentence would have become more intelligible (apertius). In the last example the translator had to choose between a faithful, literal translation and a lucid, grammatically correct, but freer version. Facing a plurality of criteria Erasmus often focuses on the ideal of clarity. A slavish literal translation tends to confuse the reader because it invariably involves unfamiliar expressions or constructions. Thus Erasmus notes at Luke 21 note 7 that dicentes quia ego sum (saying that I am) was a literal, but grammatically questionable rendition. A subjunctive was required (quod ego sim); an accusative plus infinitive construction was a feasible alternative, though somewhat removed from the Greek original. In this case Erasmus favoured the freer translation, that is, a smooth and easily comprehensible over an awkward, literal translation (aperte magis quam ad verbum). At Matt 13 note 32 he criticized the Vulgate translation filii nequam (for hoi hyoi ton ponerou, 'sons of the evil one'), saying: Tray, who could possibly understand the meaning of the Greek from these Latin words?' He explained that nequam (indeclinable in Latin) represented a Greek genitive and that it referred to the person of the devil, as the Greek article showed. The inept, literal translation of the Vulgate totally obscured the meaning of the phrase. Erasmus substituted for it the more intelligible/i'/n illius mali. At Matt 20 note 22 Erasmus also expressed his dissatisfaction with an unidiomatic and therefore ambiguous expression: 'Whoever said hominem ministrari, meaning "to serve a man"? ... this is how the Greeks express it, but it sounds very odd to Latin ears.' A literal translation was obviously unsatisfactory - it violated Latin grammar twice, by using an infinitive to express purpose and a direct object with a verb that required a dative. Erasmus substituted a more lucid version: ut sibi ministraretur. Although fidelity to the original must be the objective of the conscientious translator, it was permissible to retreat from a literal translation for the sake of clarity. In the above examples Erasmus improved his version with an eye to Latin grammar; in the following he introduced changes for stylistic reasons. In either case lucidity was his ultimate goal. At Matt 2 note 9 he changed the Vulgate didicit ... tempus stellae quae apparuit (learned ... the time of the star that appeared) to quo tempore stella apparuisset (at what time

The Task and Its Execution 93

the star had appeared), 'to make the meaning of the phrase more obvious.' Similarly he changed the literal translation of apelthen he akoe (Vulgate: abiit opinio, 'his fame went out') to a freer dimanavit fama, 'if for no other reason than to avoid ambiguity' (Matt 4 note 21). John 21 note 17 is a similar case. Commenting on the literal translation exiit ergo sermo iste inter fratres (then this word went out among the brethren), Erasmus asked: 'How did it go out if it was among the brethren? ... It would be clearer and better Latin (dilucidius ac Latinius) to say permanavit rumor inter fratres (the rumour spread among the brethren).' In the same vein Erasmus criticized an obsure translation at John 4 note 9, asking 'Pray, how can one interpret these words [dixisse quia non habeo virum] other than the woman saying that Christ did not have a husband? Do we really think that it matters nothing how we phrase it or how the reader will understand it?'1 In these instances Erasmus took a stand on the issue of literal versus lucid translation. He usually aimed at the latter, allowing a departure from the original and advocating the use of a parallel Latin expression rather than a transfer of the Greek idiom into Latin. For the same purpose he sometimes suggested paraphrasing as an adequate means of achieving lucidity. Thus he noted at Eph 4 note 14 that the Vulgate offered a clouded rendition of a clear Greek passage: Translated literally, the sense is obscure.' Although fidelity to the original is important, additions must sometimes be allowed 'for the sake of explanation' or 'to make the meaning more explicit.'2 Rom 2 note 33 is a case in point. The succinct nature of the Greek prepositional phrase en to phanero (manifestly) makes paraphrasing necessary. 'I have unfolded the meaning in a few words [qui manifesto Judaeus sit, 'who is manifestly a Jew'] to make the sense clearer, but in such a manner as not to change the meaning one bit.' At Matt 16 note 9 Erasmus again favours a fuller translation than the Greek text suggests: ' "Caesarea, the one with the byname Philippi" would have been more explicit than "Caesarea Philippi." ' In his desire to achieve clarity Erasmus pays close attention to transitions and sentence structure. Using the right conjunctions to co-ordinate two clauses can help clarify the meaning of a sentence. Thus Erasmus suggests at Heb 10 note 27 that a more lucid translation could have been achieved by using the paired conjunctions turn ... turn, partim ... partim, or non modum ... sed etiam. At Eph 4 note 16 he indicates that the meaning of the sentence could have

94 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

been clarified 'by using sed or sed potius instead of the [weaker] autem, for the phrase is a correction of the preceding statement/ At John 6 note 38 'the translator should have added a conjunction corresponding to sicut in order to make the sense of the phrase clearer.'3 Conversely, he noted at Phil 1 note 22 that the conjunction et should have been omitted 'because it only served to obscure the meaning.' In his corrections of the Vulgate Erasmus shows an inclination to use prepositional phrases rather than simple case constructions. What appears at first glance to be a personal preference is soon revealed as another practical step toward the goal of realizing lucidity. Prepositional phrases are more explicit than case constructions. For example, the genitive in centurio cohortis (the cohort's centurion) is good Latin but not nearly as precise as the prepositional phrase centurio ex cohorte (a centurion from the cohort). The genitive, as Erasmus pointed out, might well indicate that the centurion was 'the leader of the whole cohort, which has about a thousand soldiers, when he was in fact one of the centurions in the cohort' (Acts 10 note 1). In this case it was better to use the prepositional phrase, which was unequivocal. Similarly, an ablative of comparison does not clearly distinguish between the subject and object of the comparison, whereas a construction with quam (than) does not present the same difficulty: 'Why did the translator not avoid ambiguity by saying diligis me plus quam hi (you love me more than they); diligis me plus his [ablative of comparison] could be interpreted as meaning "you like me more than them" ' (John 21 note 10). Similarly, the instrumental ablative is more ambiguous than a preposition indicating instrumentality because the former may be taken by the reader as a dative of interest. The translator could have avoided ambiguity if he had said mortui per peccata, dead through their sins, rather than mortui peccatis, which can mean dead "through" or "to" their sins - the case ending being ambiguous' (Eph 2 note 10). Erasmus did not concern himself only with syntax; in a large number of notes he dealt with the meaning of individual words, for two reasons: he wished the Latin to reflect the evocative quality of the Greek term as well as to render its meaning. It is the second aspect that concerns us in the context of clarity. A term may be misunderstood for a variety of reasons. The reader may be unfamiliar with it or, at any rate, unfamiliar with its primary meaning, as often happens when the word is a loan-word or a technical

The Task and Its Execution 95

term. Misunderstandings can also arise from the translator's use of polysemous words, when the reader in his own mind chooses the wrong meaning. In each case Erasmus attempts to substitute a more precise or a more customary term in the text or alternatively to supply an explanation in the notes. At Mark 6 note 9, for example, he explains that sandalium (sandal, a Greek loan-word) 'is a type of footgear appropriate to women, which protects only the footsole from injury and is tied above by means of some hooks and string.' Similarly at John 2 note 5 he explains that architriclinus 'denotes the person who is in charge of preparing a banquet' and gives the etymology of the word: 'triclinium is the place where three dining couches are set up.' In other cases, too, he indicates the primary meaning of a term. At Mark 1 note 2 he mentions in passing that angelus (angel) means 'messenger'; at Matt 4 note 1 he comments on the meaning of diabolus (devil): 'it is derived from the Greek verb diaballesthai, that is, "to denounce, to slander, to give a bad name" '; at Matt 6 note 4 he explains that hypocrita in the literal sense means 'one who acts in a play before an audience under the guise of a mask.' The purpose of these explanations is to make the context more intelligible to the reader. For the same reason Erasmus advocates the use of Latin words proper and criticizes the Vulgate translator's predilection for loan-words. 'It is odd/ he says, 'that he took such pleasure in the Greek word scandalizare (to offend) when he could have said offenderit or obstaculo or offendiculo fuerit.'* Similarly he says at Matt 6 note 34, 'I am surprised that the Greek word hypocrita (hyprocrite) was so popular with Christian Latin speakers when one could have said simulator in Latin.' 5 Erasmus usually suggests an alternative Latin term: 'For thesaurizate (store up) one could have said reponite, recondite, colligite.' As for parabola, 'why not rather similitude! What need was there for a Greek word?'6 In a few cases, however, Erasmus accepts the loanword as the more appropriate choice, acknowledging that it has become the theological technical term. Mysterium, for example, literally translated, means 'a secret, although it is often used to denote holy matters' (Matt 13 note 10). The primary meaning occurs for example in Eph 1 note 19, where Erasmus translates it as arcanum. In Holy Writ, however, it is found more frequently in the sense of 'sacrament,'7 and in fact the reader of biblical texts will tend to interpret it in this manner. Similarly baptismus (Mark 11 note 13) has the primary meaning of 'ablution' but is normally

96 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

associated with the sacrament of baptism.8 If it occurs in the nontechnical sense, a different term ought to be employed to avoid confusion. Thus Erasmus says at Mark 7 note 5: 'I wonder why the translator preferred to use the Greek term rather than saying in Latin lotiones or ablutiones, for here the reference is to washing in the ordinary sense.'9 Polysemous terms are another category that merits the special attention of the translator aiming at clarity. A Greek word may have a wide range of meanings embracing a number of Latin words. To avoid ambiguity the translator must choose the word best reflecting the specific meaning wanted in context. Heurein, for example, is a Greek verb incorporating all aspects of discovery; in Latin, however, 'we find (invenimus) what we look for, we discover (deprehendimus) what was hidden ... we come upon (reperimus) what presents itself by chance or is brought to our attention contrary to expectation' (Matt 1 note 19).10 The appropriate Latin verb must be selected for the sake of clarity. Similarly, epitiman (to reproach) has a threatening or a chiding quality. It may therefore be translated either by increpari or comminari.uThe translator of the Vulgate used these words indiscriminately, whereas it was important to choose the right term to convey the nuance wanted in a particular context. Matt 15 note 24 is another example of Erasmus' concern for the right choice of word, though his criteria appear idiosyncratic. Latin has two verbs to express the action of helping: adiuvare and succurrere. Greek boethein is best translated by the latter term, Erasmus says, 'for we help (sucurrimus) the man who is labouring; and boethein derives its meaning from "running up to one in danger and shouting for help." ' For the same reason Erasmus expresses his concern for the translator's indiscriminate use of tristis, an adjective denoting distress. A more specific translation was wanted to distinguish Greek lypoumenoi meaning 'suffering or aggrieved' and skythropoi meaning 'looking somber.'12 Similarly Erasmus finds the Latin term concilium vague: he would like to see a distinction made between Greek symboulion (council) and synedrion (meeting) and suggests conciliabulum for the former, consessus or conventus for the latter.13 The last few examples cited illustrate an aspect of the Vulgate version that especially annoys Erasmus, the translator's inconsistency. Erasmus maintains that a Greek term should be rendered by the same Latin word each time it occurs. He is sharply critical of the translator when he does not abide by this rule, calling him 'sur-

The Task and Its Execution 97

prisingly wanton,' 'excessive, not to say untimely, in his affectation of copia,' and a 'man full of variety indeed.'14 He reacts indignantly: 'I ask, what is this playfulness when dealing with Holy Writ?' (Matt 3 note 21). Such 'delicate concern for stylistic effect is uncalled for.'15 He sternly declares that 'the translator ought to be consistent/ 'ought always to use the same translation,' and 'should not avoid repetition of the same word when the evangelist did not avoid it.'16 Consistency is important for the reader who has no opportunity, or lacks the ability, to compare the Latin with the Greek original. 'Someone who does not know Greek may dream up some mysterious reason for the change in wording' (John 1 note 10). Erasmus is therefore careful to point out unjustified variations in the Vulgate: 'Principes, pontifices, summi sacerdotes are all translations for the same Greek word, archiereis (highpriests)'; 'cellaria, penetralia, cubicula are variations for tameia (inner chambers)'; 'habitare and nidificare both translate kataskenoun (to settle).'17 The purpose of Erasmus' note in each case is to avoid confusion and to prevent useless speculation about the choice of a particular word when there is no basis for it in the Greek. Erasmus' critical remarks on choice of words, awkward literal translations, and questionable grammatical constructions evidence his concern for clarity. The same shortcomings and corresponding emendations will confront us again in the following sections, but with a different slant. Whereas in the preceding examples we saw Erasmus concerned with eliminating ambiguity we shall see him next dealing with similar faults for the sake of style or grammar. STYLE Erasmus expunged unidiomatic expressions and solecisms for the sake of clarifying the meaning of the text. In addition he also considered the stylistic aspects of the translation, introducing changes for the sake of improving its literary quality. This, more than any other innovations he suggested, raised the hackles of conservative theologians. Changes for clarity's sake could somehow be justified on religious grounds since they had the pious objective of making the gospel message more accessible to the reader, but to look for stylistic appeal in Holy Writ was frivolous. Predictably, this argument (declared a locus communis by Erasmus in LB IX 777C) was frequently brought up in attacks on the paraphrases and Annotations .

98 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

The controversy was of long standing. Petrarch, quoting Jerome's verdict on Holy Writ, sermo horrebat incultus ('its uncouth language was horrid'), implied that such a reaction was common among learned men, although he hastened to add that the salutary contents of the Bible more than compensated for its stylistic deficiencies (De otio religioso Rotondi 103-4). That the Bible was considered not only revelation but also literature is furthermore indicated by Salutati, who defended writers 'setting the evangelical histories in the elegance of divine verse' (Epistolario IV Novati 231). Similarly Manetti, who had produced a translation of the New Testament from the Greek, noted that a literal translation could never be satisfactory. Both he and Brandolini, who had paraphrased the historical portions of the Old Testament, were, however, called upon to defend their concern for the literary qualities of the Bible. Brandolini, like Petrarch before him, pointed out that the standard translation was turning many people away 'because of its inelegance' (inconcinnitas). He insisted that stylistic improvements would make Holy Writ more moving, more convincing, and more readily accessible. Erasmus faced the same arguments as the Italian humanists who had supported the idea of a theologia rhetorica before him.18 As Beda put it, when he investigated Erasmus' writings on behalf of the University of Paris: The man who complains of the style in which holy books are written comes very close to blasphemy; for he implies that God lacks skill' (quoted LB IX 657D). He expressed a commonly held view when he said elsewhere: To Erasmus it may seem a beautiful thing ... and very useful in promoting religion to treat Holy Writ in a new style, that is, in a more refined and polished manner, but prudent and knowledgeable men have always judged it to be a very rash thing and approaching sin and sacrilege zealously to introduce into a pious and humble doctrine the arrogance and blandishment of pagan letters, as if they by themselves led to salvation' (quoted LB IX 529C). Erasmus disagreed with this assessment of secular literature and its formative powers. In his opinion rhetoric had a beneficial role to play in attracting men to Christian doctrine. Its purpose was 'not only to stroke our ears with fleeting pleasure, but to leave tenacious hooks in the hearts of the listener' (Paraclesis Holborn 139:22-5). He denied that an attempt to reach men's hearts through the persuasive powers of speech could in any way be labelled blasphemous or sinful: 'What crime could it be for

The Task and Its Execution 99 anyone to draw the fastidious reader to love of divine books through the beauty of language?'19 Although Erasmus indicated that it was not one of his priorities to make stylistic improvements and that his intention was 'to make the language more correct and lucid, not to polish it' (Ep 373:204; similarly Apologia Holborn 167:30-1), he was keenly aware of the rhetorical qualities of the Greek original and sought to convey them in translation or at least to bring them to the reader's attention in his notes. This practice was neither wrong nor unprecedented, as he pointed out to his critics. If it was unlawful to pay attention to style in sacred literature, 'why did Augustine indicate the divisions into members and periods, the gradations, parallel constructions, the omission of connecting particles, quantities, and sentence structure in the writings of Paul?' (LB IX 661D). Erasmus claimed that there was merit in this undertaking. Even if the Vulgate version had been free of errors, even if there had been no need for Erasmus to emend the text, it was useful to draw attention to the Greek original and point out its literary qualities, 'the significance of the Greek diction which often cannot be rendered into Latin ... the charm of an idiomatic expression that has no equivalent in translation' (Capita contra morosos 68). To introduce stylistic changes was a process comparable to other innovations in the church: 'In former days it was appropriate that the speech of the apostles should be somewhat crude, but perhaps it would be better to change this now - just as bishops no longer use the apostles' garb since the church has now acquired splendour in all its aspects' (Capita contra morosos 16). The Pauline letters afford a number of examples illustrating Erasmus' concern for style. He had been accused of irreverence toward the Apostle for characterizing Paul's speech as rustic, 20 but he felt that there was no reproach in such a pronouncement, for he saw Paul as a product of his environment: 'Had he associated with Demosthenes, Plato, or Isocrates in Athens, he would have written in a more learned style' (1 Cor 4 note 3). In spite of unflattering references to Paul's Greek language skills, Erasmus did not neglect to point out the attractive features in the Apostle's speech. At Rom 12 note 37, for example, he draws the reader's attention to the poetic quality of the passage at hand: 'His speech is so melodious with its parallel clauses and sections, similar endings and forms, that no poem could be more attractive.' Conscious of the fact that

100 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

too much attention to stylistic matters might invite criticism, Erasmus cut short his comments 'lest I fatigue my reader or seem to digress from my set purpose.' Elsewhere, however, he seems less concerned about negative reaction and goes on at some length about the stylistic merits of the passage: The pleasing effect of the speech lies partly in the gradations ... partly in similar endings and forms ... partly in the repetition of the same word (called traductio) ... partly in contrast ... for parallel construction and asyndeton make for rhetorical power, as do questions. And this whole passage is full of questions and interrogatives' (Rom 8 note 45). Similar comments on style are found throughout the notes on the Pauline Epistles, for example at Rom 13 note 9 ('there is much in this passage that is charming: parallels, asyndeta, the taking over of words, and finally also the repetition of the initial cui') and again at 1 Cor 12 note 14: 'Here all of Paul's speech is florid on account of the resolutions, the repetition of the same word - sometimes at the beginning, at other times in the middle or at the end, the division into clauses, corresponding parts with similar forms and endings, and periods.' There are comparable remarks in Acts on methods of composition: Translations of this kind are very enlightening: connecting parts, for example, in which what has been said is reviewed in a few words to refresh the readers' memory and what is to be said is projected to make the reader receptive to the remainder' (Acts 1 note 4). Erasmus thought it important to bring the stylistic qualities of the original to the reader's attention since the translator had not always conveyed them in his version. He acknowledged that this was not necessarily a matter for reproach: 'We do not always have these figures in common with Greek' (Rom 13 note 22). It was therefore impossible to parallel all expressions in Latin. Erasmus believed, however, that the translator must make an effort to render the stylistic devices used in the original text whenever possible, and he took notice when this was not the case. At Matt 15 note 12 he stated that 'the translator ruined the charming effect of prosonomasia and enantiosis, the figures contained in the words to eiserchomenon and to exerchomenon, ie "what goes in" and "what goes out." ' He changed the text to make allowance for this parallel construction, substituting ingreditur/egreditur for the Vulgate's procedit/egreditur. Similarly in Matt 22 note 15 he had rejected the Vulgate nubent/nubentur (marry, to be married) as grammatically wrong; however, he was aware of the rhetorical appeal of the

The Task and Its Execution 101

paired expression and, wishing to preserve the correspondence between active and passive voice, suggested neque ducunt uxores neque ducuntur. He confined this proposal to the note, however, and in the text merely corrected the faulty grammatical construction. In Rom 9 note 24 he showed the same reluctance to change the text for purely stylistic reasons. There he praised a translation proposed by Valla (decus/dedecus) that was superior to the Vulgate's honor/contumelia because it reflected the parallelism of the Greek timen kai atimian (honour and dishonour): 'In the expression decus et dedecus the charm of the rhetorical figure is conveyed.' Although Erasmus clearly favoured Valla's suggested translation, he did not in this case consider stylistic appeal an important enough issue to change the Vulgate translation.21 Elsewhere he did introduce a suggested improvement into the text: at 1 Cor 6 note 21 he noted that 'the translator could not preserve the pleasing word-play between exestin/exousiasthesomai (it is in my power, I shall be in someone's power) ... I somehow conveyed it in this manner: omnium mihi potestas est et ego non redigar sub ullius potestatem,' that is, he used a phrase that allowed repetition of potestas to reflect the repetition of the root word in Greek. 1 Cor 12 note 19 points out a similar case: The translator did not convey the attractive wordplay atimotera/timen.' Erasmus succeeded in preserving the correspondence of words, using the paired expression inhonoratum/honorem. In these cases he is concerned with the figure of enantiosis, opposition;22 in the following instances he draws the reader's attention to sound qualities in corresponding Greek terms. At John 10 note 9 he remarks that 'the beauty of the Greek figure contained in poimne and poimen (herd of sheep, shepherd) is lost ... it could have been rendered by using the words ovile and opilio.' At Rom 13 note 22 he points out that the Greek words apothometha and endysometha, skotous and photos are homoioteleuta, words with endings identical or similar in sound, 'while in our text there is none of this.' In this instance Erasmus himself could not supply a parallel construction in Latin. Another case in which he was unable to do more than point out the figure of speech is Matt 24 note 9 where 'the translator could not convey the pleasant affinity between limoi and loimoi (plague, famine).' 23 Sometimes the Vulgate text ignores the figure of repetition, in one instance with justification, as Erasmus notes: The Greek has phtheirei/phtherei (destroyed/will destroy) - an appealing wordplay. The translator, however, varied the verb, which is repeated

102 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament in Greek, and rightly so, because in Latin there would be no corresponding word-play. In Greek phtherein can mean violate ... or ruin; in Latin two different verbs [Vulgate: violavit, disperdet] must be used to convey the two meanings' (1 Cor 3 note 19). In other cases, however, Erasmus demands that the translator preserve the figure of speech and copy the repetition found in the original. He says in Col 1 note 9 that 'the Greek phrase is more attractive' because of the repetition of dynamei dynamoumenoi (strengthened by strength). This is ignored in the Vulgate version, which has virtute confortati. As Erasmus shows, it is possible to duplicate the Greek construction in Latin by saying robore corroborati. At Col 2 note 33 he points out that the Greek contains 'a figure of speech analogous to saying "live a life," "enjoy joy." ' He suggests reproducing auxei ten auxesin by saying augescit augmentum, 'increase the increase.'24 Just as the choice of word gives rhetorical flair to a passage, sentence structure can also distinguish an expression. At Luke 17 note 11, for example, Erasmus explains that 'the Greek expression has more charm because the verb is omitted.' It was possible to imitate this structure in Latin by doing the same. Similarly at Matt 6 note 44 Erasmus says that the sentence would have been more lively 'if the translator had not added [the verb] erunt - it is not added in Greek.' In all but one of the examples cited the Vulgate translation is grammatically correct and lucidly expressed, yet it does not satisfy Erasmus. In each case the point of his note or correction is a stylistic one; his fine ear for rhetorical devices made him an exacting translator. Wishing to approach as closely as possible to the original, he attempted to render both the meaning and the rhetorical effect of the Greek, 'for speech is made up of two things: words, which are akin to the body, and meaning, which is akin to the soul' (Capita contra morosos 28). Erasmus not only concerned himself with words as part of a pattern or structure, but also focused his attention on single words and discussed whether they constituted proper Latin. When he suggested possible improvements, he labelled his own preferences smoother, more elegant, or better Latin.25 At issue here are the evocative qualities and the idiomatic propriety of words rather than their meaning. Quite a few terms are rejected. Apostolatus is 'not quite approved by Latin ears' (Rom 1 note 10); incorruptio - 'I don't know

The Task and Its Execution 103 if there is such a word in Latin' (Rom 2 note 14); recapitulari 'I doubt that this is found in Latin' (Rom 13 note 12); humiliare 'has not yet been found in a good author' (Phil 2 note 12); couti, cousus - 'unheard words' (John 4 note 3); donationes in the sense of 'favours' - 'not quite Latin' (Rom 12 note 13); solutio for 'divorce' (1 Cor 7 note 26); pretiosus as applied to a person - This is a novel expression; for charus (dear) can refer to either a thing or a person: pretiosus only to a thing, except metaphorically speaking' (Luke 7 note 3); hora for time - 'using a Greek expression' (Mark 11 note 4). In a number of cases Erasmus suggested a smoother and more elegant translation or praised the translator for providing it. At Rom 3 note 20 he proposes agnitio for cognitio, the former being 'more elegant and meaningful'; at Matt 3 note 2 he suggests that eggiken (translated in the Vulgate as appropinquabit) 'is more smoothly rendered by instat, adest, or [Erasmus' choice in the text] in propinquo est.' He also points out to the reader that piscatores hominum (fishers of men) is harsher than Greek halieis anthropon because of the mixed metaphor it contains: 'piscator (fisherman) is derived from "fish" whereas halieus [salt, as in 'Old Salt'] is derived from "sea" ' (Matt 4 note 19). In other instances he criticizes a choice of words as 'common' (Rom 9 note 6) or one that will not be supported by 'learned men' (Mark 11 note 6). Occasionally he praises the Vulgate version, saying that a particular translation is elegant.26 In a few instances, however, the praise is tinged with irony: 'In this case I wonder what happened that the Latin translator, who usually neglects polished phrases, thought of such an elegant verb' (Matt 1 note 22). Here as in other cases Erasmus' first concern is clarity. If the more refined term is so unusual as to invite misinterpretation, nothing is gained by choosing it over a less elegant term. Thus he warns the reader in Luke 10 note 24 that 'the translator gives a more elegant version than the unlearned reader can understand' and again in Heb 11 note 41: This is not badly rendered by the translator, if only the reader realizes what vertere means here, ie "to put to flight." '27 While Erasmus was sensitive to the beauty of language and promoted a classical style, it is important to qualify any statement about his esthetic exigencies by adding that he respected biblical idiom as a technical language in its own right. He often noted phrases, words, or constructions that were peculiar to Scripture, secundum consuetudinem sermonis scripturarum. According to

104 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

biblical usage, for example, honorare (to honour) contains the notion of support rather than honour (Matt 15 note 5); by the phrase ante te (before your eyes) 'Holy Writ signals divine favour and benevolence' (Matt 11 note 42); 'the expression acceptio personae means nothing to Latin ears though it is frequent in Holy Writ' (Rom 2 note 18); Holy Scripture generally uses the phrase auferre malum (to take away the evil) 'when it decrees capital punishment for the culprit' (1 Cor 5 note 19); in divine letters eucharistos (agreeable, grateful) has the meaning of gratiosus and amabilis (Col 3 note 21); 'Scripture frequently uses si in a negative oath, nisi in an affirmative oath' (Heb 6 note 21). The question confronting Erasmus here was to what extent biblical idiom ought to be preserved. He fully recognized that theology, like any other discipline, had its own set of technical terms. He criticized men who accepted 'words used in a peculiar sense by rhetoricians, dialecticians, and grammarians - words which, except in a technical context, mean something very different or nothing at all - yet would not tolerate similar practices in Holy Writ' (LBIX 664A). At Matt 10 note 32 he defended biblical idiom in similar terms: 'In my opinion people are too peevish when they never grant the Gospel its peculiar usage yet tolerate it in rhetoric.' Erasmus respected biblical idiom not only as a technical language but also because of its traditional value. Certain expressions were 'sacrosanct in Holy Writ' (Matt 1 note 29), 'so frequent in Holy Writ that one must not change it' (Matt 6 note 24), 'too ingrained to be removed' (Matt 6 note 58). He respected the linguistic conventions of the Bible and even incorporated them into his own speech. Thus he says of his Paraphrases: 'I am being praised by scholars who are knowledgeable about language because I restrained my style according to the ideal of Christian simplicity and was not adverse on occasion to using terms that ought to be avoided, had I not wanted to be thought a Christian rather than a Ciceronian' (LB IX 530B). Such considerations are, however, occasionally set aside. Commenting on the translation of eulogetos by benedict us28 Erasmus says: This word occurs throughout Holy Writ though it is foreign to the Latin language.' Classical authors used benedicere only as an intransitive verb; later Latin writers, however, also used it with an accusative object, which would make the participle benedictus acceptable. In this context Erasmus notes: 'If it is a Christian virtue to overlook Latin usage and to accept a foreign idiom, considering it a new form of speech peculiar to Christians, why is that not done in all

The Task and Its Execution 105

other cases as well? For what is correct and done with justification must be done consistently. But if it somehow occurred to the translator by chance and he sometimes avoided foreign idiom, at other times accepted it, what prevents other scholars from changing some phrases to the better?' (Matt 21 note 10). Clearly Erasmus was not comfortable with non-classical usage. While he did not wish to give offence to the conservative reader, he would have liked to eradicate all unidiomatic expressions, as a wistful remark at John 1 note 27 indicates: 'I understood this, not because of my knowledge of Latin, but because I am used to solecisms of this kind. But how much simpler would it be to render the meaning of the evangelist in a manner that would make it unnecessary, for the sake of understanding him, to learn a new kind of babbling and that instead whoever knew Latin could forthwith understand the evangelist's meaning.' GRAMMAR The last two sections examined changes in the Vulgate text advocated for the sake of clarity or style; a third concern that induced Erasmus to emend the Vulgate was the observation of grammatical rules. Erasmus consistently noted and corrected a number of recurring errors - by classical standards, that is - in the Vulgate: the improper use of personal pronouns; the translation of the Greek active perfect participle by a present participle; the unidiomatic translation of Greek phrases consisting of a main verb and present participle; the use of quoniam for Greek hoti; the translator's disregard for Greek articles; the unidiomatic rendition of disjunctives. The translator of the Vulgate, Erasmus noted, often ignored the difference between reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns, using the latter indiscriminately. At Matt 12 note 18, for example, the phrase 'And he charged them that they should not make him known' requires a reflexive pronoun for 'him.' The Vulgate has eum; Erasmus notes that 'ne se or ne ipsum would have been better Latin.' This is also the point of 1 Cor 1 note 2: In the phrase 'both their place and ours/ Erasmus says, 'suo would have been better Latin [than ipsorum}.' At Matt 6 note 33 we find a similar remark, with the added comment: The translator consistently overlooks this point' (ie, the difference between reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns). The tone of Erasmus' note is more impatient at Mark 4 note 34: 'I

106 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

have already pointed this out a number of times. Indeed the translator errs consistently in the use of [the pronoun is], as if he were doing it on purpose.' In one case Erasmus takes a more lenient view: 'It would have been better Latin to say ... suis rather than eorum, but I think the translator was trying to avoid ambiguity; yet in avoiding one problem he incurred another' (Matt 1 note 28). The Greek active perfect participle lacks an equivalent in Latin, and in the Vulgate is often rendered by a present participle. This, however, is unacceptable to Erasmus, who notes that in doing so the translator changes the time relationship between main and subordinate clause. He suggests replacing the Greek participle by a Latin ablative absolute. This is the point of Erasmus' correction at Matt 2 note 14, where he suggests missis (having been sent) for the Vulgate's mittens (sending), explaining that 'Latin usage does not allow' a literal translation. He makes the same point at Luke 4 note 32, criticizing the Vulgate's surgens ministrabat illis (rising she served them) for Greek anastasa diekonei autois (having risen she served them): This is an awkward rendition; he should have said erecta ministravit illis [using a passive participle "having been raised" to duplicate the meaning of the active Greek "having risen"] or surrexit ac ministravit illis [using two co-ordinated verbs].' Conversely he approves of the Vulgate when he finds the ablative absolute occasione accepta ('the opportunity having been seized,' for Greek aphormen labousa, 'having seized the opportunity'): 'Not without flair did the translator change the participle from the active to the passive mood to make it fit the time relationship; for labousa is past tense' (Rom 7 note 14). In a number of constructions the Greek allows the use of a main verb with the complementary infinitive where the Latin requires a subordinate clause. This is often ignored in the Vulgate text, which offers a literal rather than a grammatically correct translation of such phrases as diablepseis ekbalein (you will look [for it] to throw [it] out). In Latin this purpose clause requires the conjunction ut followed by a verb in the subjunctive mood. Erasmus suggests dispicies ut ejici'as (Matt 7 note 5). The Vulgate version, he says, is 'too Greek.' A similar point is made at Acts 4 note 27. In Greek an infinitive is used to convey purpose: echrisas poiesai (you have anointed ... to do). The Vulgate text has a literal translation, unxeras facere, which violates grammatical rules in Latin. A purpose clause requires a construction with ut followed by a subjunctive: 'the translator translated the Greek figure of speech; he could have

The Task and Its Execution 107

avoided it if he had said ut facerent.' The same point is made at Mark 7 note 29 regarding the Vulgate's surdos fecit audire (he made the deaf hear). This result clause requires a different construction in classical Latin. Erasmus expresses his concern about the 'integrity of Latin speech, for facit loqui and facit currere [ie facere with an infinitive] had a different meaning for Latin ears [ie, "to direct someone to do something"]; it would have been more correct to say efficit ut surdi audiant (he brings about that deaf men hear).' Similarly, indirect questions in classical Latin follow a set of rules different from the Greek: si cannot introduce an indirect question, 'num ... or an ... would have been a more correct translation' (Acts 1 note 12). Another Greek construction that had no literal equivalent in classical Latin was the combination of a main verb and a present participle, as in the phrase 'to finish doing something.' At Eph 1 note 36, for example, Erasmus criticized the literal Vulgate translation of ou pauomai euchariston as non cesso gratias agens (I do not cease thanking): 'he translated the Greek idiom; he should have said in Latin non cesso gratias agere [an infinitive construction].' Similarly at Matt 11 note 1 Erasmus comments on the Vulgate's cum consummasset praecipiens for hote etelese diatasson (when he stopped teaching): The translator wrongly rendered a Greek figure of speech, for according to Greek usage he put a participle instead of a verb in the infinitive ... therefore I translated cum finem fecisset Jesus mandandi (when Jesus made an end of teaching).' Conversely Erasmus expressed his approval for the idiomatic cessavit osculari (translating Greek dielipe kataphilousa, 'stopped kissing'): 'He did well to change the participle to a verb [in the infinitive]' (Luke 7 note 27). The lack of an article in Latin and the resulting difficulties in rendering the Greek also attracted Erasmus' attention, especially when an inaccurate translation affected the meaning. In the majority of cases Greek articles could be left untranslated without impairing the sense; however, if the function of the Greek article was to give the noun a specific rather than a generic meaning, it was necessary to convey this sense by using a demonstrative pronoun in Latin. Examples of such usage are numerous. At Matt 24 note 12 Erasmus notes that 'the article makes you understand that he means a certain goal, to telos, as if you said "that goal" '; in the phrase 'the son of man' the Vulgate had suppressed the Greek articles 'although neither is without function, for it denotes a particular son and a

108 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament particular man.' Erasmus translates: filium ilium hominis (Matt 16 note 11). Similarly, the Vulgate's dominus autem spiritus est (God is spirit) is deficient; 'he does not simply say that God is a spiritual being, denying that he is corporeal; he has added an article, to pneuma, that is, "that" spirit, namely of the law' (2 Cor 3 note 19). Conversely the article may be omitted where no particular instance is meant: 'it would not have been necessary to add an article here because tou prophetou cannot apply to any particular prophet' (Matt 11 note 9); 'I must point out that here "man" is not preceded by an article of its own so as to indicate merely the essence of the word man' (John 1 note 7). Erasmus also came to grips with the translation of hoti, which like Latin quod can mean either 'that' or 'because.' In a number of cases hoti introduces a verbal quotation 'he said that ...' In Latin this may be rendered by a direct speech, in which case hoti remains untranslated; by a subordinate clause, in which case hoti is rendered as quod; or by indirect speech, in which case the Greek hoti clause is replaced by a Latin accusative plus infinitive construction. Matt 26 note 63 is an illustration of the first possibility: Greek legon hoti eblasphemese (saying that he blasphemed) is rendered as dicens: blasphemit ... (saying: 'He blasphemed ...'). Erasmus commends this practice in Mark 1 note 56 and Matt 21 note 38, complaining only that it is not done consistently: 'Why does he not do it whenever [Latin] usage demands it?' An example of the second possibility is Matt 16 note 14: soi lego hoti su ei Petros (I tell you that you are Peter) which is translated in the Vulgate as tibi dico quia tu es Petrus. Erasmus suggests using 'quod, not quia.' He complains that the translator of the Vulgate 'always translates hoti incorrectly as quia' (Matt 9 note 26); 'the conjunction hoti should have been omitted or translated by quod, not quoniam' (Matt 3 note 11); 'oidas hoti (you know that) should have been translated by quod; or at any rate by the infinitve' (Matt 15 note 13). Paired disjunctives are another area in which Greek idiom differs from Latin. Whereas Greek uses ho/ho (one/the other). Latin uses two different words, unus/'alter - a literal translation unus/ unus is idiomatically wrong (Matt 24 note 45); the combination unus/alius is similarly offensive: 'the translator should have said unus et alter or alter et alter if he had wished to speak Latin' (Luke 7 note 22). These are grammatical points that come up frequently in the notes; however, Erasmus' remarks on this topic cover a wide range

The Task and Its Execution 109

and diverse issues. The following examples offer a cross-section of comments on individual points of grammar. At Acts 17 note 20 the Vulgate has quam celeriter (as quickly as possible, a phrase which requires the superlative in Latin). Erasmus notes that 'quam celerrime would have been Latin and closer to the Greek.' At Acts 18 note 25 he points out that the Vulgate has omitted the preposition 'to' in the phrase ire Achaiam (to go to Achaia): 'I wonder why the translator omitted the preposition in defiance of grammatical rules; for Achaia is the name of a region, not of a town.' (In the latter case Latin does not require a preposition.) At Heb 9 note 9 Erasmus explains that grammatical rules demand that 'in the first/in the second' be translated by in primum/in secundum (not priore, as found in the Vulgate). At Matt 18 note 23 the Vulgate has decem milia talenta (ten thousand talents). 'Here the rules of Latin grammar were violated': the expression 'thousands' must be followed by the genitive. At John 1 note 47 Erasmus notes that epaurion (the following day) had been rendered by altera die, elsewhere by in crastinum, 'neither being satisfactory Latin or offering a convenient version; he should have said postero die or postridie.' In all of the above examples the rules of grammar are Erasmus' primary reason for introducing changes. However, in many cases considerations of clarity and style are also involved, although they remain unstated. The distinction between changes motivated by concerns for clarity, style, and grammar respectively, though useful, remains academic. In practice the three criteria are interwoven. They operate jointly and effect Erasmus' judgment in a subtle manner, perhaps without ever penetrating into the sphere of conscious decision making. THE CORRECT READING

So far we have been dealing with problems of translation; in the following we turn to textual criticism. To establish the correct reading Erasmus used a number of criteria. He collated the Greek and Latin manuscripts at his disposal, he inferred readings from patristic commentaries, and he took into consideration the context, structure, and grammatical exigencies of the passage in question. In this process Erasmus carefully balanced the factors making one reading more plausible than another: he considered the age and general accuracy of each manuscript; he also realized that commen-

110 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

taries could not be relied on for an exact quotation, that an argument from context must remain subjective, and that arguments from classical grammar and style had only limited applicability to Holy Writ. By visually inspecting manuscripts and identifying problematic features such as marginalia, interlinear comments, erasures, ligatures, and the physical position of words on a page Erasmus was able to argue convincingly for one or another reading. At 1 Cor 8 note 8, for example, he supported his choice by reference to the socalled Pauline codex, lent to him by Colet. On inspecting it, Erasmus had discovered that the reading favoured by him had indeed been the original one and could still be traced through the correction. At Matt 5 note 21 the Greek text suggested a corruption in the Vulgate version: the imperative reconciliare had been changed to the infinitive reconciliari. The Corsendonck manuscript confirmed the correct reading. It had been changed to conform with the Vulgate, but the original -e ending, which had been only partially erased, was still visible. Elsewhere, too, 'some corruptor had penned a dot on the -e' of an active infinitive so that it could no longer be clearly identified as such but looked rather like a passive infinitive ending in -i (Heb 2 note 9). Philippians 2 note 2 mentions a similar case. The phrase viscera et miserationes, which corresponded to the Greek, had been partially altered to conform with the Vulgate viscera miserationis: 'the conjunction et had been deleted, miserationes was still in the nominative case, but the -e had been dotted with a pen.' At Matt 23 note 9 Erasmus noted that in one of the Constance manuscripts the conjunction quia (which translated the Greek hoti) had been changed to qui. Elsewhere he was able to ascertain that a certain phrase was a later addition: it had been 'inserted' (Acts 6 note 10), written 'by a more recent hand' (Heb 11 note 16), 'by a different hand' (1 Cor 4 note 21), had been squeezed into the space between two verses (1 Cor 10 note 17), or into the margin (1 Cor 11 note 27). Other examples of notes in which Erasmus was helped by a physical inspection of manuscripts are Matt 23 note 16 ('in the Constance manuscript a corruptor had erased the genuine reading'), Matt 27 note 42 ('In the Constance manuscript an erasure attests to the corruption') Matt 10 note 12 ('in some very old Latin manuscript I found it added, but in the margin'), and Rom 4 note 11 ('in the manuscript I used the scribe had through carelessness omitted ou. Someone had inserted that little word, but not in its place'). Elsewhere Erasmus pointed out that

The Task and Its Execution 111

his manuscripts were in agreement with the Greek 'and there is no erasure in either.'29 In all of these cases Erasmus was able, by visual inspection, to trace a corruption to its origin or to demonstrate how an error had been perpetrated. In many other instances, however, he was reduced to conjecture. It is a notable feature of Erasmus' textual criticism that in seeking to arrive at the correct reading he not only pointed out plausible errors but also attempted to explain why they had come about. He notes a number of causes: the transference into the text of words from the margin or from another part of the text; confusion between homonyms; the substitution of one letter for another resulting in the formation of a new word; the scribe's difficulties in deciphering ligatures; omission of one item in a list due to faulty memory; deliberate changes introduced by the scribe either to round off the sentence structure, to clarify the context, to make the text conform with other scriptural or liturgical texts, or to allay religious scruples. In his notes Erasmus comments on these sources of errors or corruptions. In one case, 'as the reader can easily conjecture, a scribe, on finding what someone had zealously noted in the margin and believing that it had been omitted by the copyist, transferred it into the middle of the verse.' The marginal comment had noted that the word hemas was found in many manuscripts, and this comment 'that ignorant writer mixed in with Paul's speech, producing a ridiculous result' (2 Cor 8 note 9). A similar conjecture appears at Matt 7 note 1. Erasmus notes that a group of words is found neither in the Greek manuscripts nor in the Fathers, 'wherefore they appear to have been transferred to the text from the margin.' At Acts 9 note 7 he notes that 'it happens not infrequently that some scribe with a little knowledge adds something somewhere in an empty space and thereafter a less learned man puts it into the text.' One of the most common errors, stemming from a confusion of similar sounds, are changes from the future to the perfect tense and vice versa. The third person endings for verbs of the first conjugation are -bit and -vit respectively. We find approprinquavit for appropinquabit (Matt 3 note 2), mandavit for mandabit (Matt 4 note 5), and evacuavit for evacuabit (Rom 3 note 4), the explanation being that 'some nationalities mispronounce b, saying v instead, for example vivere/bibere, and vice versa' (Matt 3 note 2). Erasmus noted that this scribal error was very common, that 'the future is perpetually read for the perfect' (Matt 3 note 2). Similarly an er-

112 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

roneous interchange of -e and -i would alter a future to a present tense in third conjugation verbs, for example, traditur/tradetur (Matt 26 note 43), praecedit/preacedet (Matt 28 note 10), exciditur/excidetur (Matt 3 note 14). Another error pointed out by Erasmus as being based on similar sound is the confusion between Greek ei (if) and e (whether): 'it appears that a mistake in hearing caused a variant, for ei, if, and e, whether, had the same sound in Greek' (Matt 20 note 11). There are a number of other cases in which a mistaken change of one letter resulted in a new word. In these cases it was usually the Greek text that allowed discovery and correction of the error. At Matt 5 note 50, for example, sic had been changed to hoc, as Greek houtos showed; at Matt 23 note 9 quia had been changed to qui, as the Greek hoti suggested. At Matt 17 note 5 Erasmus remarks that all Greek manuscrips have phos (light) whereas the Latin ones have nix (snow); he conjectures that lux (light) had been corrupted to read nix. Similarly he points out at Matt 8 note 18 that the Latin reading imperavit (he ordered) differed significantly in meaning from the Greek epetimesen (he reproached). He had the following ingenious explanation: 'I think that the original word in the text was increpavit; then someone who was offended by the dative [object] ventis, which the translator uses habitually in imitation of the Greek, changed increpavit to imperavit.' While corruptions like these suggest hearing mistakes, others point to errors of sight. At Acts 17 note 25 Erasmus conjectures that someone misread the Greek letter x (ch) for x (k) and made 'Stoics' (Stoikoi) out of 'elements' (stoichoi) .M He also notes cases in which the scribe deciphered ligatures incorrectly. 'It appears plausible to me,' he says at Acts 13 note 22, 'that this erroneous Greek reading arose from their ligatures; for perhaps a scribe who was not attentive enough or had poor sight made soterian out of sra in [an abbreviation for sotera iesoun].' Such mistakes were particularly frequent in interpreting signs for numerals: 'scribes widely err with respect to signs for numerals, nor are they easily recognized even by someone who knows them.'31 Lists of items are another frequent source of errors: 'Whenever there occurs a list of nouns/ Erasmus says at Rom 1 note 66, '... whether you consult the Greek or the Latin manuscripts, there are some discrepancies. This happens on account of the forgetfulness of scribes, since it is difficult to remember things of this kind.' He says much the same at Rom 8 note 49: 'It almost always happens in this

The Task and Its Execution 113 kind of list of single nouns that the manuscripts vary in places because of the scribes' lapse of memory.' Similarly he notes at Matt 5 note 3 that the order of beatitudes is reversed in some Greek manuscripts: 'I believe this happened by mistake because in recensions of this kind scribes usually commit errors.' In the examples given so far variants in readings were the result of scribal errors; in other instances, however, the text was altered deliberately by the copyist. For various reasons scribes added something 'of their own.'32 In some cases they did so for stylistic or contextual reasons: This appeared harsh to the reader and he therefore changed quern to quam so that it could more smoothly be referred to fides (2 Thess 2 note 25); some words were added, 'perhaps for the sake of explanation';33 Latin readers sensed that 'there was something missing and added these two words on their own account' (Rom 1 note 80); 'offended by these meaningless words someone added a few more' (Rom 9 note 15; similarly Act 8 note 7); 'a reader was offended by this absurd phrase, transferred the conjunction hoti, deleted the pronoun ea, and put ea for eis at the end' (Rom 10 note 5); 'a reader was offended by the incomplete sentence and removed quod' (Acts 10 note 31). In some cases a scribe may have been bothered by the fact that an account was verbally inconsistent with a parallel account in another Gospel, or a quotation was inaccurate, or a passage did not conform to the liturgical custom of his day: 'I suspect that "Jesus" was added ... because the passage is customarily recited in this way by the church' (Matt 1 note 15); 'it appears to have been added on account of hallowed custom' (Matt 6 note 32). In fact Erasmus suggests that scribes frequently put down 'not what they find in the manuscripts but what is fixed in their memory' (LB IX 128B). The copyist sometimes changed one biblical passage to make it conform with another: 'We often find one place changed on account of another when the reader thinks that what he has read elsewhere is better or suspects that the passage at hand has been corrupted because it is different' (Matt 13 note 12). At Matt 19 note 14, for example, Erasmus thinks that the text 'was transferred here from another Gospel'; at Matt 20 note 16 he wonders 'whether this was transferred here from Mark, a thing that often happens.' Elsewhere we find similar comments: 'it could seem to have been added from Mark, chapter 13' (Matt 25 note 7); 'this appears to have been transcribed from the other Gospels' (Matt 25 note 21); 'here someone inserted eight short verses into Psalm 13 because he could not find a suitable passage

114 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

from which Paul had drawn this testimony' (Rom 3 note 18); 'it could be that someone corrected this passage from Paul' (Rom 10 note 7). A scribe may add words to complete a quotation, thinking that they were omitted by mistake; he may do so for the sake of 'restoring' a parallel structure by adding words to make the passage correspond to the preceding one; or he may insert a word to bring it into accord with a preceding reference.34 Finally a copyist may change the text if theological scruples induce him to do so. He may act 'from a hatred of heretical views.'35 He may have been offended by a proverbial phrase like 'serving the time/ which has a pagan origin and appears to commend a kind of cleverness incompatible with Christian simplicity, and changed it to 'serving the Lord' (Rom 12 note 21); or he may have considered a passage implausible and attempted to introduce what he regarded as an improvement, 'as if it were really necessary for parables to be consistent in every detail.'36 Erasmus takes a dim view of this kind of editing, in which the scribe assumes superior knowledge. He considers such correctors audacious and pretentious and their interference plainly unwarranted.37 When Erasmus can plausibly explain variants in the manuscripts as scribal errors or corruptions, he restores the genuine reading. In other instances, however, the origin of the corruption is not obvious and a decision must be made between two possible readings, relying on other criteria. In such cases Erasmus often takes refuge in patristic commentaries, paraphrases, or quotations. An examination of a sample from the Pauline Epistles reveals a large number of instances in which this process of verification is used. At Eph 1 note 48 Erasmus emends super omnem ecclesiam to read super omnia ... ecclesiae. Although this reading is clearly indicated by the wording in the Greek manuscripts and is, moreover, confirmed by the Constance manuscripts, Erasmus adds the testimony of the Fathers: This is what Jerome read ... though Ambrose appears to have followed a different reading. Theophylact's paraphrase clearly indicates that he read the passage in the form given by me ... Chrysostom wrote in the same sense.' Erasmus makes a similar point at 1 Cor 15 note 20. He argues that the adverb novissime should be changed to novissima, an adjective modifying inimica. The Greek text indicates as much, but Erasmus also cites Jerome, Augustine, and Hilary in support of the change.

The Task and Its Execution 115

The reading adopted at 1 Cor 1 note 37 is almost completely based on the authority of the Fathers. The Vulgate lacks the phrase a deo, 'yet Ambrose has it and so does the Pauline manuscript. Ambrose even comments on it; similarly Theophylact notes that a deo was added with good reason.' At Rom 16 note 23 Erasmus comments on the name Terentius/ which is found in the Vulgate. He points out that Ambrose, Chrysostom and Theophylact all read Tertius/ and adopts this form in accordance with the Fathers' readings. At Rom 4 note 1 the word order - crucial for the interpretation of the sentence - is in doubt. Most Greek manuscripts point one way, but Origen, Ambrose, Theophylact, Chrysostom, and the Latin manuscripts another; Erasmus follows the patristic sources, which support the Latin tradition. A little further on (Rom 5 note 3) the Latin manuscripts have in spe filiorum del, while the Greek manuscripts lack filiorum. Neither the interpretations of Origen and Ambrose nor the texts accompanying Origen, Theophylact, or Chrysostom contain a reference to filiorum. Based on this argument e silentio, Erasmus does not include filiorum in the text. At Rom 5 note 1 the question arises whether the verb should be in the indicative or in the subjunctive (ie, hortative) mood. The patristic sources are not in agreement. In Theophylact's commentary it appears in the subjunctive but as an indicative in the accompanying text. In Chrysostom the subjunctive is used, but in Erasmus' opinion this is a corruption. Ambrose and Origen read the indicative. Erasmus adopts the opinion of the majority, adding that 'in any case the context here does not admit of a hortative mood.' At Rom 14 note 17 Erasmus corrects the Vulgate text, which postulates the reading di autou (a version supported by Ambrose). The context as well as the remarks of Origen, Chrysostom, and Theophylact suggest di hautou (reflexive). Once again Erasmus follows the opinion of the majority. At Rom 10 note 15 the Vulgate has 'Christ,' while the Greek manuscripts have 'God.' Chrysostom and Theophylact read 'God'; Ambrose's commentary contains no hint as to the reading; Origen's translator reads 'Christ.' As there is no consensus among the Fathers, Erasmus bases his final decision on the meaning in context. Aware that he is using a subjective criterion, he explains apologetically: 'It does not greatly affect the meaning [whether one reads

116 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

God of Christ] except in the sense that the phrase "voice of God" lends more dignity to the words of the Apostle and has a wider application.' In a number of cases Erasmus decides on the correct reading by considering the context, the structure, or the demands of grammar. Again, there are many examples in the Pauline Epistles.38 At Rom 1 note 51 Erasmus contends that the correct reading is in mendacio (ablative), not in mendacium (accusative). The context favours the former reading, for, as Erasmus explains, 'they did not turn God's truth into a lie' (in mendacium); they themselves were living a lie (in mendacio). They had changed God's truth in their own minds.' At Rom 1 note 4 Erasmus rejects the pronoun ei (for him) which occurs only in the Latin manuscripts. Noting that a literal translation of the Greek sounded odd to Latin ears, he conjectured that ei was added by the translator for clarification: 'but the addition of this pronoun not only fails to contribute to the understanding, it impedes it; for it is not Paul's purpose to explain for whom Christ was born, but that... his nature was truly divine as well as human.' Resting his case here, Erasmus deleted ei from the text. At Rom 1 note 54 Erasmus' argument is based on stylistic considerations. The Greek manuscripts vary, some reading 'God,' others the pronoun 'his.' Erasmus translates the pronoun, noting that' "God" occurred shortly before - it would be somewhat harsh to repeat it immediately afterwards.' A stylistic argument is also advanced at Rom 9 note 29. Some Greek manuscripts have the pronoun 'his,' others omit it. Erasmus favours the latter reading 'so as to avoid saying the same thing twice.' He gives similar reasons at Rom 1 note 59; deleting a word that occurs in the Vulgate as well as in a number of Greek manuscripts, he argues that it was repeated by mistake, that is, transferred from the sentence above. At Rom 2 note 26 Erasmus bases his argument on sentence structure. The Greek manuscripts have either ide (behold) or ei de (if however). The latter is the correct reading in Erasmus' opinion, 'or else the arrangement does not agree with the clause that comes next.' Note 21 on Rom 12 is significant because Erasmus chooses to disregard the majority opinion of the patristic sources, adopting instead a reading which in his opinion better suited the context. 'May each man follow whichever reading pleases him/ he says by way of preface, 'I myself like tempori servientes (serving the time) better

The Task and Its Execution 117

than domino servientes (serving the Lord) ... the latter does not at all fit the overall meaning of the passage.' He noted that the Greek words kairos and kyrios (time, Lord) could easily be interchanged because of their similarity, 'especially considering that copyists often abbreviate syllables in their writing.' In this case Erasmus made meaning his overriding concern and corroborated his argument by pointing to the possible origin of the error. At Rom 14 note 1 Erasmus adds a phrase which is found in the Greek manuscripts and supported by Theophylact even though it is missing from the Latin manuscripts and not mentioned by either Ambrose or Origen. He bases his decision on a combination of two factors: flow of thought and structural balance. The Vulgate reads: 'He who observes the day does so in the Lord's honour; he who eats eats in the Lord's honour, for he gives thanks to God. And he who abstains from eating does so in the Lord's honour and gives thanks to God.' Erasmus explains: The Greeks have an additional phrase, "and he who does not observe the day does so in the Lord's honour." Then comes "and he who eats, eats in the name of the Lord, for he gives thanks" etc. If this phrase is not added there is no counterpart to balance the preceding part "he who observes the day does so in the Lord's honour." ' It might appear from these examples that Erasmus used the same criteria in editing the text that he had earlier condemned as bold and arrogant. We must not forget, however, that he did not rely on contextual clues and structural demands exclusively, but usually listed such points as one of several arguments, to strengthen a case that was built on the more solid criteria of manuscript tradition or patristic testimony. At Rom 12 note 23 Erasmus introduces a modern concept of textual criticism: the argument from the harder reading (lectio difficilior). It is not at all unlikely that some half-learned copyist changed mneias to chreias,' he says, 'especially since the former yields an odd meaning.' The argument from the harder reading is one of the most important principles of modern textual criticism. It can be deduced from Erasmus' practices, but more importantly, it is stated expressly at 1 Cor 15 note 44: 'And whenever the ancients note a variant reading, the reading that appears absurd at first glance always tends to be the more suspect one, in my opinion;39 for it stands to reason that a reader who lacked either education or concentration was offended by the absurdity of the expression and changed what was written here.'

118 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

The examples given have shown the individual criteria Erasmus used to determine the correct reading. In practice, however, he applied a combination of criteria: textual evidence, possible causes of corruption, testimony from patristic sources, and contextual clues. The following examples will illustrate this combined approach. Colossians 3 note 10, part two, contains the combined method in a nutshell. The text of the note runs: 'Masculus et femina] I do not find this in the Greek manuscripts. Nor does Theophylact comment on it. Chrysostom does not even have this reading; neither does Ambrose. It appears to have been added from the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 3. Here, too, both Constance manuscripts lend their support.' Erasmus deleted the words from the text on the evidence of Greek and Latin manuscripts as well as on patristic authority, offering in addition an explanation for the corruption: the scribe's attempt to reconcile two biblical accounts. Romans 5 note 16 is another example of the combined approach. Erasmus comments on the Vulgate reading non imputabatur (it was not imputed): Ouk ellogeitai, that is, imputatur in the present tense, to give the phrase a more general meaning; for the [preceding] phrase me ontos nomou, 'there being no law,' fits either tense; as if one spoke generally: there being no law, no sin is imputed; ie, where there is no law there is no sin to be imputed. Origen read thus at any rate. And I found it written in this way in the Pauline manuscript, the oldest and most correct text ... A certain scholar in a published book opines that the Greek reading was corrupt and that we ought to write ellogeito rather than ellogeitai - as if it were not impudent to dispute the reading in view of the great consensus among Greek manuscripts and as if the imperfect tense (if that was wanted) was not enelogeito rather than ellogeito. And this man claims to be a great scholar and never ceases to say haughtily that I know absolutely nothing. Cum lex non est (when there is no law) was written in the Donatian manuscript; hence one may conjecture that imputabatur [the imperfect] is a corruption and should read imputatur [present tense]. Elogeito would be acceptable if the verb was logeo rather than logizomai. The commentary of Chrysostom had elogeito, Theophylact's ellogeito, but both are errors, if I am not mistaken. Here the situation is more complicated. Although there exists a consensus among the Greek manuscripts and the context supports

The Task and Its Execution 119 an emendation of the imperfect to the present tense, Erasmus also has to deal with an emendation proposed by the contemporary scholar40 and the corrupt verb forms found in patristic commentaries. He arrives at his final decision by combining the evidence of Greek and Latin manuscripts with contextual and grammatical arguments. In 1 Cor 1 note 14 on the phrase in eadem mente et in eadem sententia (one mind, one judgment) Erasmus presents a similar combination of arguments for his reading. The Vulgate has in eadem scientia (one knowledge). The similarity between the Latin words scientia and sententia suggests that the copyist confused them; another explanation offered by Erasmus is that the translator read gnosei (knowledge), a reading adopted in the Aldine edition, rather than gnome (judgment). Gnome is the more likely reading, in Erasmus' opinion, because the Greek manuscripts are in agreement and because the oldest Latin copies also have sententia for scientia, namely the Pauline codex, a very reliable manuscript, which is equal in worth to many; also the manuscript which was supplied to me by the college of canons of Constance. Moreover, if one pays closer attention to what Ambrose adds here as a commentary, one realizes that he too read sententia, not scientia ... It is obvious that Hilary at least read sententia, not scientia (on Ps 132); Augustine too, in his book against the Donatists (De baptismo 1.10), reads sententia, not scientia. And anyone who reads attentively the interpretations of Chrysostom and Theophylact will gather that they too read sententia ... The error arose from the fact that the word gnosei occurs a little earlier in the phrase en panti logo kai pase gnosei. But there the Apostle was talking about an abundance of knowledge and education, here he is talking about unanimity. And there may be unanimity though there is diversity of knowledge. In this note Erasmus bases his decision on the readings he found in the manuscripts at his disposal, specifying two of them; he gives a plausible explanation for the source of the variant; he puts the reading he preferred into context; and supports his views with references to Hilary, Augustine, and Theophylact. A final example (Matt 5 note 17) will illustrate the carefully balanced use of independent reasoning, observation of evidence, and recourse to authoritative interpretation. In this case Erasmus

120 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

observed that some Greek manuscripts added eike (without reason) to the phrase 'he who is angry with his brother.' He explains: In his commentary as well as in the second dialogue against Pelagius Jerome says that this phrase is not found in the old and reliable manuscripts. It appears to have been added by some bold fellow who perhaps wished to soften what seemed otherwise harsh words. But then why did he not, by the same token, add eike to the other phrases: 'who says "racha" without reason, who says "fool" without reason'? Jerome, then, wanted to have these two words, 'without reason' removed; yet the former reading finds more favour with Lorenzo [Valla]; and Chrysostom in his sixteenth homily on Matthew appears to have read eike, for he distinguishes appropriate from inappropriate anger and says that passions are not completely denied to us, though we should restrain and control them. What Theophylact writes is in agreement with this ... But to return to the word eike, 'without reason.' St Jerome says that it is absent from the genuine texts - what argument will they proffer now who contend that his translation was corrected by Jerome? What he condemns has been retained; what has been retained gives the meaning rather than the words - a principle seemingly neglected elsewhere. Augustine affirms in his Retractationes, book 1, chapter 19 that the Greek manuscripts did not add 'without reason.' Again Erasmus uses a combination of criteria to arrive at a decision: evidence from manuscripts, the comments of Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine, the opinion of Valla, and the logical and doctrinal implications of either reading for the meaning of the text. In their judgment of Erasmus as a textual critic modern scholars usually adopt a patronizing attitude: his efforts are laudible but do not measure up to the standards of modern textual criticism.41 The implication is that he fell short of these standards in two respects: he used only a very few manuscripts to establish the text and he proceeded haphazardly, making ad hoc decisions. But Erasmus did, over the course of five editions, consult a respectable number of manuscripts, although it is true that he was not well equipped to judge their relative age and value. Moreover, his decisions were based on sound principles. Although he expressly stated only the principle of the lectio difficilior, he consistently applied a full range of criteria. Indeed, he pointed out that certain errors 'usually hap-

The Task and Its Execution 121

pened' or 'happened all the time' - expressions that amount to a statement of principle. On the whole Erasmus provided the kind of intelligent and commonsense textual criticism that stands up well to contemporary methods. Where Erasmus does deserve criticism and indeed falls short of contemporary standards is in the area of documentation. This applies not only to references - or the lack of them - in the published notes, but also, one suspects, to his private record keeping. He gathered material in many places and over a number of years, jotting notes down on schedae, scraps of paper, so that he himself was often overwhelmed by the mountain of unstructured evidence he had collected and was unable to verify what he had read and where he had read it;42moreover, at the time of the printing he was rushed and in poor health.43 These circumstances and a distaste for proofreading kept him from checking the printer's copy conscientiously. In accordance with the practices of his time he did not bother to cite his sources consistently or accurately, although he was induced to add precise references to later editions to counter the attacks of opponents questioning his integrity. In sum, Erasmus successfully overcame the handicaps of his own time - the lack of a philological tradition and the difficulties associated with obtaining manuscripts - but he did not overcome his personal (rather pardonable) shortcomings: an impetuous style of composition and an impatience to see his work in print.

This page intentionally left blank

FOUR

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions

ERASMUS' B A T T L E WITH THE CONSERVATIVE THEOLOGIANS

When Erasmus composed a catalogue of his works in 1523 he noted with some misgivings the large share taken up by religious controversies. The stormy dispute over his translation and annotation of the New Testament broke out almost immediately after its publication - indeed some rumblings preceded it. As soon as Erasmus' plan had become known in Louvain, Maarten van Dorp advised him of the objections of the theological faculty. He emphasized that he was writing 'in the friendliest possible spirit to issue a warning.'1 Theologians, he said, would not tolerate the idea that the Vulgate contained mistakes or corruptions, 'for it is not reasonable that the whole church, which has always used this edition and still both approves and uses it, should for all these centuries have been wrong' (Ep 304:109-11). Any undertaking to correct the Vulgate therefore was based on false premises. Even more ludicrous was the attempt to revise it on the basis of Greek manuscripts, which were suspect on doctrinal grounds. He reminded Erasmus of the hostility encountered by his predecessors, Valla and Lefevre. Their notes on grammar and style might have some value, 'if however they contend that a sentence as rendered by the Latin translator varies in point of truth from the Greek manuscript, at that point I bid the Greeks goodbye and cleave to the Latins' (ibidem lines 139-42). It goes without saying that Dorp and his colleagues were concerned about the larger consequences of such textual criticism: Tor a great many people will discuss the integrity of the Scriptures, and many will have doubts about it' (ibidem lines 150-1).

124 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

In his reply (Ep 337) Erasmus rejected Dorp's arguments out of hand. He defended the principle of consulting biblical texts in the original language; he denied that tradition must be upheld at any price, reminding his correspondent that the Vulgate's authority rested on general usage, not on any official sanction;2 and he dispeJled the idea that emendation and textual criticism underminded the authority of the Bible. In the year following the publication of the New Testament Erasmus found himself in conflict with a fellow humanist, Lefevre d'Etaples, over the interpretation of Heb 2.3 Friends on both sides did their best to reconcile the two men, reminding them that it was essential to join forces against the common enemy, conservative theologians who rejected the philological approach to biblical studies. Lefevre obliged by letting the dispute lapse, and Erasmus in turn praised his scholarship in the Annotations, emphasizing that their disagreement was not a personal one, but a scholarly exchange of opinion. Dorp, too, was reconciled to Erasmus' undertaking. Soon, however, the conservative members of the Louvain faculty found two new champions of their cause, Jacobus Latomus (Jacques Masson)4 and Edward Lee.5 Latomus published an attack on the study of languages (De trium linguarum et studii theologici ratione Antwerp 1519) with the programmatic subtitle 'Whether a knowledge of the three languages is necessary for a theologian.' Although Erasmus was not mentioned by name he considered himself the principal object of the attack and replied with an Apologia contra Latomi dialogum.6 In the mean time Edward Lee had gathered a large number of critical notes in which he attacked Erasmus mostly on philological, but also on doctrinal, grounds. Erasmus, who had initially been on good terms with Lee, was greatly annoyed by this development. He described his critic as a tyro who wished to make a name for himself at the expense of another man's reputation. Friends felt that he was giving more attention to the affair than was warranted, but Erasmus insisted that his opponent must be put in his place. He wrote an Apologia invectivis Lei7 in which he described the events leading up to the publication of Lee's notes in 1520, claiming that Lee had refused to settle the dispute privately and denying that he had tried to impede the publication of Lee's criticism. Soon afterwards he published a full reply to Lee's notes, answering them point by point in the Responsio ad annotationes Ed. Lei.6 The matter did not rest there. Lee, who was sent to France as

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 125

Henry VIII's envoy, agitated against Erasmus at the University of Paris and was also suspected by Erasmus of having actively encouraged opposition against him in Spain. There the Complutensian scholar Diego Lopez Zuniga9 had attacked Erasmus' New Testament as soon as the first edition appeared. He was prevented from publishing his notes during the lifetime of Cardinal Jimenes, but after his death had them printed at Alcala in 1520. At first Zuniga concentrated his criticism on linguistic points, but soon he attacked the translation and notes on doctrinal grounds as well and extended his criticism beyond the New Testament to the Moria, the Ratio verae theologiae, and the Enchiridion. The sometimes acerbic exchanges between the two men continued until Zuniga's death and beyond, for the latter's unpublished notes on the fourth edition of the New Testament were conveyed to Erasmus by the executors of his will. Spanish opposition culminated in an investigation of Erasmus' works by a panel of theologians called together at Valladolid in 1527 by the inquisitor general, Alonso Manrique. The panel investigated his pronouncements on the Holy Trinity, the sacraments, the observation of church ceremonies, the authority of the pope, and the inspiration of the evangelists and church Fathers. However, the conference adjourned abruptly because of an outbreak of the plague and was never reconvened. Although the proceedings remained unpublished, their contents were soon public knowledge and Erasmus felt obliged to defend himself against the so-called Valladolid Articles in an Apologia adversus monachos.10 In France, Noel Beda, the syndic of the theological faculty, had been commissioned to examine Erasmus' writings for heresies.11 In this case, too, the censures, though unpublished, circulated widely. Erasmus' protests that they lacked authorization and ought to be suppressed remained unheeded at the time. He wrote several apologies against Beda, both before and after the eventual publication of his censures in 1526.12 After considerable procrastination the theological faculty issued its own verdict in 1531, condemning a number of passages in Erasmus' work and occasioning a prudently restrained reply from Erasmus.13 Meanwhile Louvain had produced yet another champion of the old theology, Frans Titelmans,14 who published in Antwerp in 1529 Collationes ... super Epistolam ad Romanos, a critical commentary on Erasmus' annotations on the Pauline Epistle. Erasmus answered in an apology addressed 'to the youthful teacher of an old man,'15 in which he took issue with individual points of Titelmans' work that

126 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

he considered preposterous and spiteful: 'He goes astray so often, so often spouts bombastic talk, so many times prides himself on other men's achievements, so often speaks ill of his neighbour without reason - a young man slandering his senior - so often with his viper's fang secretly spreads lethal poison' (LB IX 1015C1016A). The centre of the dispute now moved to Rome, where Alberto Pio had taken it upon himself to investigate Erasmus' writings for Lutheran tenets. His work was continued after his death by his protege, Juan Gines Sepulveda. Erasmus replied with two apologies in which he vigorously denied any seminal influence on Luther and rejected the notion that he was in any way encouraging, supporting, or sympathizing with, Lutheran followers.16 The changes introduced in the revised Annotations reveal Erasmus' annoyance and indignation at the critical reception of his work. Although he refrained from using the Annotations as a forum to voice protests against his opponents (he reserved most of his arguments for the apologies addressed to them individually), there are frequent covert references to them. Contemporaries are mentioned by name only in complimentary references expressing Erasmus' respect and affection for them. His enemies, on the other hand, remain anonymous.17 We read, for example, that 'a certain man raised a tragic outcry and another started [the commotion] all over again' by saying that Erasmus' remarks on the angel's greeting were irreverent (Luke 1 note 37); that 'people' (isti) called him arrogant for criticizing the Vulgate (John 14 note 22); or that 'one of the herd' of preachers was particularly offended because Erasmus had changed the wording of the Lord's Prayer (1 Peter 4 note 9). While these critics remain nameless in the Annotations, they are often identified in contemporary letters or apologies. Isti and similarly vague expressions are of course too general to be pinpointed, but the two critics of Luke 1 note 37 are Lee and Sutor, as the apologies addressed to them reveal.18The critic of 1 Peter 4 note 9 is Sebastian Craeys, the prior of the Carmelites in Antwerp. Erasmus repeatedly told of the Carmelite's protests in his correspondence, identifying him in a letter to Maarten Lips in 1528.19 In another note 'two men who have attacked this passage with grave slander' (Matt 21 note 31) can be identified as Zufiiga and Lee by cross-reference to the apologies directed against them.20 The 'Paris theologian who considers himself a veritable Atlas upholding the tottering church' (Luke 1 note 53) is Noel Beda,21 and the 'Domin-

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 127

lean bachelor of sacred theology, preacher of the gospel message' mentioned at Matt 17 note 6 is identified in a marginal note in a contemporary hand as 'Oggsenfardius Paulensis.'22 Thus the anonymous critics can be traced through contemporary references and were probably recognizable to readers of the time. Erasmus himself felt that he had done the proper thing and had in fact practised restraint. In his controversy with Lee, he noted that he had prudently and discreetly suppressed his opponents' names: 'Having been provoked many times and in such hateful terms, I have so far maintained self-control, accusing no one by name although I could have done so by right' (LB IX 282E). SORTIES ON THE ENEMY Although Erasmus did not name his critics their attacks often prompted him to revise his notes. His reactions to ongoing controversies can be traced in the changes he made in the Annotations. This chapter will focus on a number of select issues: the importance of a knowledge of Greek and of consulting Greek manuscripts, the inspiration of the evangelists, the nature of scholastic theology, the sacraments of penance and communion, the significance of church institutions and their basis in the Bible, Christ's pronouncements on the oath, the allegorical interpretation of Peter's sword, and the angelic greeting. The Importance of knowing Greek and consulting Greek manuscripts: Matt 1 note 22, 1 John 5 note 3, Matt 21 note 31 One of the principal questions raised by Erasmus' critics concerns the role of language studies in biblical scholarship. Erasmus defended the principle Ad fontes throughout his writings, most notably in his apologies against Latomus and Sutor as well as in the Capita contra morosos. In his Apologia contra Latomi dialogum Erasmus made a strong case for the study of the three biblical tongues, 'for no subject area depends more on languages than theology' (LB IX 85E). He emphasized the importance of Greek fo an understanding of the Bible: 'With the help of Greek ... many passages in the Vulgate have been restored that before were corrupt; many passages have been clarified that before were misinterpreted by commentators of great renown; much light has been shed on passages that before were covered by a cloud of ambiguity. If

128 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

you can deny this, I shall admit that a candidate for theology may rightly neglect the knowledge of Greek' (LB IX 85E-F). The argument that a collation of Greek and Latin texts helped clarify obscure passages is also advanced in the Capita contra morosos: 'We should turn to the sources for many reasons: on account of ambivalent words, on account of some passages that are obscurely translated' (68). The same arguments are put forward in greater detail in the apology against Sutor, where Erasmus offers a convincing example illustrating the advantages of knowing Greek and using Greek commentaries: In Psalm [91:15] I read benepatientes erunt ut annuncient. I wonder what benepatientes means, for I know the word patientes. I consult the commentaries ascribed to Jerome: I find nothing. I turn to Augustine: I find another reading, tranquilli erunt instead of benepatientes erunt. On to Lyra, who is dreaming up I know not what about the philosophers, calling beneficiati those who have received a favour (bene passi sint) from a benefactor. On to Hugh [of St Cher]; he interprets it as patience in perfection. From there to Arnobius: he has passed over the passage. Cassiodorus sheds some light on it, mentioning rewards that are to be received. Stuck in this quandary I consult the Greek texts and find written there eupathontes esontai. I recognize the meaning of Greek eupathein, 'those who receive a favour or are in a state of bliss,' for in Greek emotional states or affections are called pathe, and immediately I realize the meaning of Augustine's reading tranquilli erunt and of Jerome's translation from the Hebrew pingues et frondentes erunt, 'they will be fat and flourishing.' I shall not repeat here what I have said, demonstrated, and taught so many times about the special meaning of words, the idiomatic expressions of languages, the corruptions of scribes, the ambiguous and obscure translations. Let Sutor go now and claim that a knowledge of languages has no useful application to Sacred Writ. Let him claim that it is insane and heretical to pursue a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew for this purpose. He will sooner persuade all sane men that he who writes such stuff is the least sane. (LB IX 793D-F). The same example from Psalm 91:15, illustrating the importance of knowing Greek, had already appeared in Ep 149 (lines 40-8) of

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 129

1501, where Erasmus first postulated that philological skills were necessary to interpret Holy Writ correctly. The debate about the usefulness and importance of Greek studies is reflected throughout the Annotations. In fact, Erasmus claimed allegorical significance for the trilingual inscription 'Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews' on the cross: it commended language studies to Christians (Luke 23 note 23). We have seen that he criticized both St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas for their lack of language skills and missed no opportunity to point out errors they had committed on account of it. 23 We have also seen that he referred to the Greek text to cut short unnecessary quibbling about polysemous Latin words and to show the origin of textual corruptions.24 His consultation of the Greek original and the resulting successful emendations highlighted the importance of language skills. Matthew 1 note 22 (on traducere) is the locus classicus demonstrating the value of knowing Greek and of consulting the Greek manuscripts.25The note puts to rest centuries of speculation regarding the meaning of traducere and emphasizes the crucial role a knowledge of Greek plays in the correct interpretation of a polysemous Latin word. It also illustrates Erasmus' reaction to criticism, for the text of the note underwent considerable change in response to arguments advanced by Lee. The original note pointed out that the Vulgate translation was ambiguous and had led to misinterpretations. Paradeigmatisai (to expose, disgrace) had been rendered by traducere, a correct translation if the word is understood in the metaphorical sense (ie, that Joseph did not wish to 'expose' Mary). The literal meaning of the Latin verb, 'to lead across,' which was mistakenly adopted by some interpreters, led to speculation about the status of Joseph's engagement to Mary. Erasmus names Peter Lombard as one of the theologians who erred in their exegesis of the passage, perhaps through a misinterpretation of Jerome's words. Lombard explained that a marriage contract came in force only after the bride had been 'led across' to the bridegroom's house and a carnal union had taken place. Erasmus ascribes Lombard's error and attendant irrelevant explanation to the times in which he lived: 'Greek was practically extinct, Hebrew literature dead and buried, patristic writings obliterated. If anything needed explaining, the theologians of that time looked up Isidore, regarding him as their sacred anchor.' Lyra's commentary, Erasmus notes, offered a correct interpretation; the

130 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

compiler of the Gloss, however, perpetuated the misunderstanding. Here Erasmus digresses to complain about inept translations that leave the Greekless reader stranded. Returning to his subject, he then documents the meaning of the word traducere by reference to its usage in classical Latin and adds the testimony of Chrysostom and Hilary to support his own interpretation. He concludes the note with cross-references to the Pauline Epistles in which traducere is also used in the sense of 'exposing to criticism.' After the first edition of the New Testament had been published, Erasmus learned through a mutual friend, Maarten Lips, that Lee had criticized the note and defended Lombard against Erasmus' reproaches. He immediately wrote to Lips, refuting Lee's arguments: the emphasis could not simply be shifted to the notion of consent supposedly implied in traducere. '[Lee thinks] he has made good his escape "if traductio means consent to live as man and wife." This is as if a man had used "pumpkin" for a donkey's back and was thought to have escaped censure when someone else explained that he had used "pumpkin" not for the donkey's back but for the panniers on the donkey ... Since the consent which forms a binding union embraces within itself, once and for all, all the duties which either party to a marriage owes to the other, how does this traductio of yours come to be separated from all the other studies? Consent forms the cement of matrimony, and intercourse consummates it; traductio has no place at all ... Once you see that all this is forced and distorted, let us admit openly that Peter Lombard thought the verb traducere, which he found in St Matthew, meant the union of the spouses' (Ep 750:23-7, 34-8, 41-3). Although Lee did not include this criticism in his published book, Erasmus incorporated his own reply in the second edition of the Annotations: 'I am well aware that some people want to escape saying that traductio here refers to consenting to cohabit, which is even more absurd; as if someone in rebutting a man who said that "pumpkin" means an ass's back were to argue that it did not mean the back itself, but rather the panniers placed on his back. And if traductio means consenting to cohabit, why is it separated from the other duties of marriage partners ... Thus the matter indicates sufficiently that Peter Lombard or someone else whom he followed drew from this passage an erroneous conclusion, believing that Joseph suspected adultery and did not want to confirm the marriage by cohabitation.' To make his arguments more convincing

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 131

Erasmus now gave exact references to Lombard's Sentences and Jerome's commentary, quoting both verbatim; he also added further classical examples documenting the meaning of traducere and cited Augustine, Ambrose, and Hugh of St Cher to shore up his interpretation. The revision of the note serves as an example of Erasmus' reaction to criticism: without mentioning that his original comments had been attacked, he covertly answered the points made by his critic and strengthened his own position. Erasmus' opponents generally advanced two arguments against relying on Greek manuscripts: there was no proof that they were superior to Latin manuscripts, and there was reason to believe that they had been corrupted after the schism to support Greek orthodox doctrine. These arguments, already advanced by Dorp, resurfaced in the attacks of Latomus and Sutor. Erasmus had answered Dorp, saying that Greek manuscripts were indeed superior to Latin ones because 'the difference between the letters, the accents, and the actual difficulty of writing all mean that they are less easily corrupted and that any corruption is more easily mended' (Ep 337:803-5). He added to this defence in the Capita contra morosos: 'Granted that the Greek books are just as corrupt as the Latin ones, yet by collating manuscripts that are equally corrupt one can often discover the true reading, for it frequently happens that what has been corrupted by chance in one is found intact in another' (69). He offered a similar argument in his apology against Latomus: 'Now granted that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are as corrupt as ours, does it follow that we are deprived of any hope of ever emending what is found to be corrupted in our manuscripts? Does it not happen frequently that from several faulty manuscripts - though not faulty in the same way - the true and genuine reading is found?' (LB IX 88C-D). Answering his critics on the second point - the deliberate corruption of Greek manuscripts - Erasmus says: 'Yet I hear some men are denying that the books of the Greeks are reliable after they separated from the Roman church. But in the same vein one must not trust the Hebrew books since the Jews are most hostile, not only against the Roman pope, but against Christ and all Christians. And yet Jerome relied on them ... If the Greeks had had in mind to corrupt their manuscripts, they would have corrupted first and foremost the passages in which they dissent from us ... yet these agree with ours ... I rather suspect, if anything has been corrupted

132 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

in the books of the Greeks, it stems from the Latin manuscripts and from a time when the Roman church began to absorb the Greek' (Capita contra morosos 72-3, 76). This debate was carried over into the Annotations. There, too, Erasmus claimed that some Greek manuscripts had been corrected against the Vulgate text. He said as much of the so-called Rhodian manuscript often cited by Zuniga,26 claiming that it was worthless: Texts of this kind are like a white line on a white stone' (2 Cor 2 note 2). He repeated the accusation with reference to the Codex Vaticanus B, saying that it, too, was unreliable: 'As if we did not know that after the Greeks were united with the Roman church, their texts were amended after the Latin manuscripts. Among these, I gather from many circumstances, was the one written in uncials' (Luke 10 note 1). There are a number of celebrated cases in which Erasmus' reliance on Greek manuscripts caused an uproar among contemporary theologians. One of them, already mentioned in another context,27 was 1 John 5 note 3 on the heavenly witnesses, which was rewritten and expanded in response to public criticism. The first and second editions contain only a brief comment: Tn the Greek text I find only this about the threefold testimony: "because there are three witnesses, spirit, water, and blood." ' The retention of the Vulgate phrase was of doctrinal importance because the passage was used as one of the standard defences against Arianism. Lee therefore immediately objected to Erasmus' note, arguing that the absence of any comment in Valla indicated that he at any rate had found the disputed passage in his manuscripts. Erasmus countered in his apology that he himself had at times more than seven manuscripts (ie, the number cited by Valla) at his disposal and yet had not found the Vulgate reading in any one of them. 'If I had gotten hold of even one manuscript in which our reading was preserved,' he wrote, 1 would of course have added from it what was missing in the rest' (LBIX 275B). He rejected Lee's argument that Jerome had indicated in so many words that the passage was corrupt and defended his own position by quoting Cyril and Bede. He did, however, admit that he had seen a manuscript in Antwerp that had the Comma Johanneum in a marginal addition. Lee had used the opportunity to question in general 'whether it was right to take whatever the Greek manuscripts have as oracle truth' (f 56r). He had, moreover, accused Erasmus of 'inattention, not to say, dissembling' (supinitas, ne dicam, dissimilatio,

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 133

ibidem f 56r) and suggested that he had not done enough research or was concealing what he had found in his manuscripts. In reply Erasmus challenged Lee to 'produce a Greek manuscript that has what is missing in my edition' (277B). In the critical notes he published in 1520, Zuniga attacked Erasmus' note on similar grounds, saying that the manuscripts Erasmus had consulted were corrupt. 'Well, then,' Erasmus replied in his apology of 1521, 'where is that Rhodian manuscript of his hiding out?' (351F). Zuniga had frequently cited readings from it to correct Erasmus; in this case the manuscript apparently supported Erasmus' reading and was therefore not brought into play. As in the apology against Lee, Erasmus discounted the suspicions voiced by Jerome and cited Cyril and Bede in his own support. He also specified the manuscripts he had consulted. 'Finally,' he added, 'the whole passage is so obscure that it cannot be very valuable in refuting the [Arian] heretics' (353C). He acknowledged, however, that an Irish manuscript had recently come to light that contained the disputed phrase and noted that he had therefore willingly restored it in the third edition of his New Testament. The note (1 John 5 note 3) was amended accordingly. Much of what Erasmus added in 1522 and 1527 recalls his arguments in the apologies against Lee and Zuniga: Jerome, Cyril, and Bede are quoted; references to individual manuscripts and editions are added. Throughout, there are verbal resemblances to the apologies. For example, the passage in 1 John 5 note 3 beginning 'But on what basis has Jerome criticized the translator's error' echoes Erasmus' defence against Lee and quotes verbatim the apology against Zuniga (LB IX 352E-F).28 In the same note the passage beginning 'Although my friend Zuniga so often flaunts his Rhodian manuscript' is also found in the apology against Zuniga;29 similarly, Erasmus' indignation at being accused of 'concealing' evidence, openly expressed in his apology against Lee, is reflected in a pointed reference in his note to the Dublin manuscript, which he mentions 'so as not to conceal anything.'30 The note also contains direct references to the ongoing controversy. Erasmus points out to the reader that 'I have given a fuller reply in an apology addressed to my detractor' (ie, Lee, LB VI1080C). He mentions Zumga's name in connection with the Rhodian manuscript (1080C) but does not identify him as one of the protagonists of the controversy. Another hint at his opponents' attacks is contained in the remark: 1 have restored the text ... so as not to give anyone an occasion for

134 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

slander' (LB VI 1080D). Erasmus concludes the note with a defiant assertion of the principle that Greek manuscripts represent a valid textual tradition: 'But to return to the business of the reading: from our remarks it is clear that the Greek and Latin manuscripts vary, and in my opinion there is no danger in accepting either reading' (LB VI1081E). Matthew 21 note 31 is a similar case. The Vulgate reads verebuntur forte filium meum (they will perhaps reverence my son). In the original note Erasmus points out that forte (perhaps) is not found in the Greek manuscripts, nor indeed in the old Latin ones. The note was soon attacked by Lee and Zuniga. Lee referred Erasmus to Chrysostom and Jerome, whose commentaries contained the word forte. Erasmus accepted this argument and even acknowledged that he 'had not examined the passage attentively enough' (LB IX 139A). He suggested, however, that the church Fathers (or a corrector) had transferred the word from Luke, and in turn cited Origen's commentaries in support of his own position. In answer to Zuniga's criticism, Erasmus succinctly referred the reader to the controversy with Lee: 'Anyone who wishes to do so may look up my arguments there, lest I lose time by repeating the same things here' (LB IX 301B). The additions to Matt 21 note 31 in 1522 and 1527 are responses to Lee's arguments. Erasmus consolidates his position by adding references to specific Latin manuscripts and to patristic testimony supporting his reading. Some of the arguments are taken almost verbatim from his reply to Lee.31 Again Erasmus does not refer to his opponent by name but indicates that he has enlarged the original note in response to criticism: This passage was attacked and gravely slandered by two men'; 'I decided to add this ... to defend the true reading and my labour from calumny' (inserted 1522). One case in which Erasmus gave preference to the Vulgate text even though he found scant evidence for that reading in the Greek manuscript is John 8 note 1 concerning the woman taken in adultery. In 1516 Erasmus wrote: The story of the adulterous woman is not contained in the majority of Greek manuscripts; in some it was added at the end.' He also noted (erroneously) that Augustine had not touched on the story. In this point he was immediately corrected by Lee32 and found himself obliged to rewrite the note accordingly in 1519. Indeed later additions smoothed over his original reservations. Thus he acknowledged in 1519 that Valla, who discussed the passage, had obviously seen Greek manuscripts containing the story. Later he added a reference to Chrysostom's

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 135

homilies supporting its inclusion. In 1522 he included an argument in its favour advanced originally by Lee, who had pointed out that Eusebius thought the story had its source in the apocryphal tradition.33 Although Erasmus gamely included this information in his note, he had this rejoinder for Lee in his apology: 'In Lee's opinion the stem and stern of Christian religion was in grave danger because a few words in our version were redundant according to the Greek manuscripts' (LB IX 190B). Yet Lee's own evidence did nothing to bolster scriptural authority, in Erasmus' opinion: Tor if we accept that so long a section was taken from the apocrypha, what is left but to cast doubt on the rest also?' (ibidem). In the note itself Erasmus made no mention of the opposition he had encountered to his original comment, but his amendments clearly indicate that he considered his critic's arguments pertinent. In another instance Erasmus was willing to jettison the Greek reading, yet wished to preserve the principle of consulting the Greek manuscripts. Matt 6 note 32 deals with the concluding words of the Lord's Prayer, 'for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever.' These words, Erasmus noted in the first edition, were not in the Latin manuscripts; they were only found in the Greek, and might have been added in accordance with Greek liturgical custom. This position was attacked by Lee and Zuniga, both of whom pointed out that there was also a patristic witness to the phrase: Chrysostom, for example, had commented on the passage. Erasmus acknowledged, somewhat peevishly, that he had overlooked the comment: 'What can I say other than that we must prepare a triumph with white horses for Zuniga!' (LB IX 296D). In his reply to Lee he used the occasion to taunt his opponent, who habitually rejected testimony from Greek manuscripts: 'Since these words cannot be added, except out of Greek manuscripts, those, indeed, which the Greeks use today, where is that law he touts elsewhere, forbidding us to correct anything in our manuscripts after the Greek texts?' (LB IX 133A). The development of the note on the passage reflects the criticism Erasmus had encountered. An addition of 1519 contains a reference to Chrysostom - included, most likely, at Lee's prompting.34 In 1522 and 1535, however, Erasmus added further references to strengthen his own position. Moreover, he put his opponents in their place: 'Will those who contend that this final clause was included by the evangelist and maintain at the same time that this edition is Jerome's translation or was at any rate corrected by him,

136 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

please explain why he dared to omit so large a portion of the sacred prayer - for he did not even mention it in his commentaries. Although this is too obvious to need proof, there was nevertheless no lack of men who built up a case of grave slander against me on the basis of this passage.' On several occasions Erasmus manifests impatience with his opponents, in particular Lee, for basing their arguments on Latin texts when they were obviously irrelevant to the case at hand and could not shed light on the issue. For example, at John 14 note 13 the question arises whether the text should read 'and whatsoever you shall ask my father,' since variants omit 'my father.' Lee quotes Chrysostom in support of the full phrase; Erasmus answers him with obvious irritation: This is what the translator reads; whether Chrysostom did so is uncertain' (LB IX 192C). He makes the same point on other occasions: 'Since we are dealing here with Greek idiom, it is not very relevant to adduce Chrysostom in a Latin translation' (LB IX 193B); 'again he casts into my teeth the Latin text of Chrysostom, which is rather impudent, especially since from that translation one can in no way argue or deduce what he read' (LB IX 193C). He reacts in the same manner against Sutor's arguments: 'It is ridiculous when Sutor throws at us Chrysostom, translated into Latin' (LB IX 819F). In each of the examples cited there is a direct correspondence between the arguments advanced in the controversies and the additions and changes introduced in the relevant notes. While Erasmus' comments are more elaborate in the apologies, the basic argument is reiterated in the notes. The message remains the same: a knowledge of Greek is indispensable to the biblical scholar, and Greek manuscripts and commentaries are important witnesses to the textual tradition of the Bible: 'In discussing sacred texts, the authority of the Greeks has always been predominant.' (LB X 1315D). The inspiration of the evangelists: Matt 2 note 7, Mark 1 note 2, Acts 10 note 33 Another focus of complaint was Erasmus' suggestion that the evangelists had occasionally suffered from a lapse of memory or that their accounts did not completely tally. Such suggestions were considered blasphemous by his opponents because they cast doubts on the inspirational principle, the belief that the evangelists had written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Three notes in partic-

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 137

ular aroused the ire of conservative theologians. The first two, Matt 2 note 7 and Mark 1 note 2, pointed out inaccurate quotations from the Old Testament; the third, Acts 10 note 33, criticized the apostles' style. In the first two notes Erasmus expressed the opinion that the evangelists had quoted from memory and erred, a statement that immediately embroiled him in controversy and prompted him to add a lengthy justification to the pertinent notes in later editions. In 1516 Erasmus had commented as follows on the passage 'And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, are not the last among the princes of Juda': This testimony is taken from Micah, chapter 5. St Jerome says openly that the quotation in Matthew does not completely agree either with the Septuagint or with the Hebrew original, be it that the evangelist wished to quote verbatim what was replied by the Pharisees to show up the negligence of scribes and Pharisees in dealing with the Holy Writ or be it that the evangelists themselves did not take testimonies of this kind from books but trusted to memory and consequently made mistakes.'35 In February 1518 Johann Eck, professor at Ingolstadt and soon to become known for his unremitting opposition to Lutheranism, wrote to Erasmus expressing his disapproval of the Annotations. Addressing Erasmus with some deference, he began his letter with compliments and insisted that the criticism he was about to voice reflected the opinion of a third party. He was merely giving Erasmus an opportunity to clarify his position. Referrring specifically to Matt 2 note 7 he pointed out what had offended many theologians: 'You seem to suggest that the evangelists wrote like ordinary men, in that they wrote this in reliance on their memories and failed to inspect the written sources, and so for this reason made a mistake. Listen, dear Erasmus: do you suppose any Christian will patiently endure to be told that the evangelists in their Gospels made mistakes? If the authority of Holy Scripture at this point is shaky, can any other passage be free from the suspicion of error? (Ep 769:47-53). Eck's letter clearly expressed the two concerns raised by Erasmus' remarks: the question of the evangelists' divine inspiration and the reliability of scriptural testimony. Erasmus dealt with both questions in his reply to Eck, Ep 844 of May 1518. He acknowledged the principle of inspiration but insisted that it did not govern all aspects of the apostles' lives. '[The Spirit] was present in them so far as pertained to the business of the Gospel, but with this limita-

138 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

tion, that in other respects he allowed them to be human none the less' (lines 50-2). Here as elsewhere Erasmus vigorously denied that his corrections affected the authority of the Bible: 'I deny that the presence of some mistakes must needs shake the credibility of the whole of Scripture' (lines 53-4). The debate was carried over into the Annotations. In the second edition Erasmus carefully built up a defence. He qualified his remark about the evangelists' lapse by adding 'according to some people's opinion.' He aligned his views with those of patristic authorities, emphasizing that he was merely following Jerome's lead and quoting him fully: 'And here indeed, lest any weaker (or at any rate, more critical) spirit be offended, I shall willingly add the ipsissima verba of Jerome.' On the central issue of inspiration Erasmus made this statement: 'Indeed, the apostles and evangelists deserve to be given the foremost authority, yet it could be that Christ by a plan hidden from us wished to leave a human element in them, recognizing that this in itself would help towards the salvation of humankind. He could have freed his followers once and for all from all ignorance and error, but according to Augustine, Peter sinned after having received the Holy Spirit, and committed so grave an error that he deserved to be sharply rebuked by Paul. Paul disagreed with Barnabas, which could not have happened unless one of them was wrong.' He goes on to the second point raised by his critics, the authority of the Bible: 'If we think that the authority of all Holy Writ was to collapse directly the slightest error was ever found in it, and if it is certainly more than plausible that in all the texts now used by the Catholic church none is so perfect as not to have been blemished with some error either by chance or intention - if one accepts the above premises one must either deny all mistakes or say that all belief in divine Scripture must collapse.' Both positions were absurd in Erasmus' opinion. It was an undeniable fact that errors had crept into the sacred texts. To admit this and to correct the mistakes did not affect the authority of the Bible as a whole. Despite this justification, or clarification, of his views, the note remained a contentious issue and was singled out for criticism at the Valladolid conference in 1527. Answering the charges laid against him, Erasmus first referred his Spanish critics to his expanded note: 1 shall ask no more than that my note be examined and it will be obvious that I have answered this section [of the censures]' (LB IX 1070C). He repeated the arguments advanced

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 139

there, that divine inspiration only protected the evangelists from making errors in matters pertaining to faith and concluded with an impatient rejection of all petty criticism that blamed the restorers rather than the corrupters of Holy Writ: 'And now ... when so much is confounded or corrupted in the sacred texts, they have nothing better to do than din into our ears their chant of "church authority," "scriptural authority," "authority of the Holy Spirit." Instead of disputing about instances and relations they should have been vigilant when everything was corrupted with impunity. At that time they should have taken care that nothing of what was uttered by the Holy Spirit be vitiated through the boldness of scribes. Instead, they raise a fuss now - at the wrong time - against those who try to restore the Scriptures to their pristine integrity' (LB IX 1071 A). Luis de Carvajal, who had also attacked the note, received a more succinct answer: 'In Matthew 2 I say that the evangelists sometimes suffered from a lapse of memory. What does a lapse of memory mean? A moment of inattention. Go ahead and read my note and you will see that is is not I who attributes a lapse of memory to the apostles. I quote Jerome's words ... I do say "but they were men and could err" - though only in matters that do not affect our mode of salvation and the Gospel truth.' Here as in his reply to the Spanish orders, Erasmus refers the reader to his note: 'But read my note and you will see Carvajal's remarkable slander' (LB IX 1676D). Mark 1 note 2, which had been widely attacked on similar grounds, is dealt with in replies to Eck, Lee, Zuniga, and the Spanish orders. The relevant passage in the original note runs as follows: 'Although the gist of the meaning is the same, the words of the evangelists sometimes differ a little, both from the Septuagint and from the Hebrew original ... because the evangelists, knowing Hebrew, had no need of the Septuagint translation. And because they did not anxiously pluck from the Hebrew what was written there but wrote down what their memory suggested, they differed occasionally in their words, though not in their meaning.' In the same note an error was also attributed to Jerome: he had said that the question came 'at the end of Malachi' when it came in fact much earlier in the prophecy. The note was first described as objectionable by Eck in Ep 844 and was also criticized by Dorp in private conservation with Erasmus.36 It was also attacked by Lee and Zuniga. For a reply Erasmus

140 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

referred his opponents to his revised edition of 1519.37 In the expanded note - additions and changes were introduced in 1519 as well as in 1522 and 1535 - Erasmus maintained the view that Jerome had erred in his reference. Without naming Zuniga, he rejected an explanation offered by him as far-fetched and implausible.38 Although he introduced some modifications in the note,39 he declared in his reply to Lee that he had done so 'not because it was irreverently worded but because I wanted to avoid any chance of giving offence' (LB IX 142B-C). He would only make one concession: 'If someone objects that Jerome relates this as another man's opinion I admit that this is true, but if he had judged this opinion to be impious and blasphemous, that most holy man would have rejected it in no uncertain terms' (LB IX 142C-D). The matter was raised again at the Valladolid conference. In his reply to the Spanish orders Erasmus entrenched his position. He repeated that the apostles' lapse of memory should not 'be ascribed to the Holy Spirit ... but to human nature' (LB IX 1072A). The accusation brought against Erasmus regarding his remarks in Acts 10 note 33 are of a different nature. They concern the form rather than the content of apostolic writings. In his original note Erasmus had commented on the apostles' idiomatic lapses, explaining that 'they had learned Greek not from the speeches of Demosthenes, but from popular speech.' In a letter to Adrian VI he put it in even plainer terms: the language of the apostles reflected how 'wagoners and sailors spoke then' (Allen Ep 1304:142). The passage in the Annotations was considered objectionable by Eck,40 and sharply attacked by Lee, who wrote: 'You criticize their speech, applying the rules of grammar, and say that it contains exorbitant flaws. I cannot allow anything in God's work to be called flawed. And the word of the apostle is a work of God which I revere for it majesty in whatever form' (f 24v). Erasmus staunchly defended his own comments, appealing to the reader: 'Examine my note, dear reader, and you will find no improper words about the apostles' (LB IX208C). In his reply to Eck Erasmus had cited the authority of the Fathers, in particular Jerome and Origen, in support of his verdict on the apostles' style. He reiterated what he had said with respect to the apostles' divine inspiration, acknowledging the gift of tongues but adding certain qualifications: the divine gift did not extend to all aspects of the apostles' language. 'It is not necessary that whatever was in the apostles should at once be attributed to a

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 141

miracle. Christ allowed his chosen ones to make mistakes even after they had received the Paraclete, but not to the extent of imperilling faith' (Ep 844:100-2). In a lengthy addition to Acts 10 note 33 in 1519 and in another expansion in 1527 Erasmus advanced similar arguments, quoting his reply to Eck almost verbatim: Tor that gift of tongues was not necessarily perpetual. It was sufficient if it was present whenever the need arose ... Nor do I think it necessary to attribute to a miracle whatever there is in the apostles. They were human, they were ignorant of some things, and they erred in a few instances.' As in his letter to Eck, he cited the church Fathers to confirm his own judgment: 'How often does Origen find Paul's Greek lacking in purity, how often is he offended by transpositions, suppressed consequent clauses, and ambiguities. Nor does Chrysostom deny it. And Jerome says as much in many places, openly charging Paul with lack of skill in the Greek language.' Toward the end of the 1519 addition, Erasmus apologized for having 'perhaps discussed this at greater length than the scope of a note requires' - he had feared misinterpretation. He not only rejected his critics' allegations that he had spoken boldly and irreverently but lectured them in turn: The authority of the apostles must not be measured in terms of their style but in terms of their character. And the apostles' unsophisticated language should offend a pious man no more than an unwashed body or a mean garment. Indeed, Christ himself ... spoke in a very common and popular style, speaking Syriac and sometimes perhaps Chaldaean, and sometimes maybe Greek, for at that time the speech of common people was mixed [lit. 'corrupted'] with a variety of dialects.' Although Lee considered Erasmus vanquished because he had said in his 1519 addition that he 'had no mind to fight over this' (LB IX 208D), others were far from appeased by his remarks. On the contrary, the words 'they were human, they were ignorant ... they erred' raised a new furore and were singled out as blasphemous by Beda and the Spanish orders at the Valladolid conference. Erasmus, however, stood firm: 'Well, is it not true that the apostles were human?' he asked in his reply to the Valladolid Articles, 'I think, it is true! Is there nothing they did not know? On the contrary, there is a great deal they did not know. Did they not err in some things? Why was Peter reproached to his face by Paul? Why was there a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas?' (LB IX 1073C). He refused to enter into the whole discussion anew, referring his reader

142 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

instead to his apologies against Beda, Zuniga, and Lee. In his propositions Beda had censured Erasmus for calling the apostles human. 'He assumes that the apostles were nothing short of divine, and slanders me who believes that they had some human qualities. To reply briefly: I agree that as far as the business of the Gospels is concerned Christ tempered all the apostles said or did, in the best interests of the propagation of the faith. As for the rest, I do not think it is true that they had only qualities especially given to them by the Holy Spirit' (LBIX 656D-E). Again he cited the disagreements between the apostles; once more he pointed out that many passages in the apostles' writings were obscure because of idiomatic peculiarities. Beda had concluded his critical remarks with the verdict: 'Erasmus greatly increases his blasphemy by complaining about the style of the sacred books: for he insinuates that God lacked skill' (quoted at LB IX 657D). Erasmus denied this implication in the strongest possible terms: This is such an impudent lie that he should not have uttered it even in the company of buffoons.' The note had also been castigated by another theologian of the Sorbonne: Johannes Sutor.41 His remarks prompted Erasmus to add the following comments to his note in 1527: 1 shall add something worth a laugh. Because I wrote somewhere [in his 1519 addition] that the Lord used a dialect which was not pure Hebrew but "corrupted" with Syrian and Chaldaean words, some thrice-great theologian from the Sorbonne42 clamours in a published book, declaring with tragic exaggeration that I called the Lord's and the apostles' language "corrupt." He would clamour the same, I think, if I had written that the Lord drank his wine not pure but diluted with water. That is what the verdicts of some "rabbis" have come to.' Here as in the examples cited earlier Erasmus transfers arguments from the controversies to the annotations and, vice versa, refers the reader of his apologies to his notes ad locum. Scholastic theology: Luke 6 note 10, 1 Tim 1 note 13 In his controversies Erasmus was frequently obliged to defend his views on scholastic theology. We have seen that he criticized its representatives for their barbarous Latin, their sepculative philosophy, and their preoccupation with futile and absurd questions.43 Two notes that expressed these opinions became the target of attacks: Luke 6 note 10, which was retained by Erasmus in its original

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 143

sense, and 1 Tim 1 note 13, which was considerably expanded and edited in response to criticism. Luke 6 note 10, which comments on the passage 'Blessed are the poor,' runs as follows: 'Here that heavenly Doctor unfolds that mysterious philosophy of his - to teach this philosophy to his people he had descended from heaven to earth - and this teaching we, the Christian people, allow freely to become obsolete and fall into disuse, and while this philosophy should be the first and foremost to be inculcated in everyone's heart, we busy ourselves with other stuff. If it were inculcated, it would not happen that all men everywhere fight for frivolous things, for filthy lucre, for vain imperial titles, on account of any small injury. Christ's words are what makes us true Christians, not the subtle arguments of Scotists and Ockhamists, nor the insipid, meaningless institutions of men.' The passage was attacked by Lee, who accused Erasmus of having 'used the occasion to rail against the Scotists and recent theologians out of turn, that is, in an irrelevant manner,' and claimed that he was 'protecting their doctrine from [Erasmus'] calumny because it is neither impious nor averse from the doctrine of Christ, but on the contrary, conducive to piety' (f [15r]). Erasmus staunchly maintained his point of view: 'When I saw the common run of theologians neglecting the precepts of the Gospel as simple-minded and not quite convenient and spending their whole life on unimportant questions and the subtle logic of Scotists and Ockhamists to show off their erudition, I wanted to call it to the reader's attention, so that he would realize that the beatitudes, even though they appear simple-minded, are nevertheless what makes us truly Christians ... I don't see why Lee thinks this was said out of turn' (LBIX 163A-C). He saw no reason, therefore, to change or rewrite his note substantially. 1 Tim 1 note 13, however, which treats of the same subject and was the target of similar attacks, underwent considerable change. In the first edition Erasmus took his cue from Paul's warning to Timotheus not to 'give heed to fables and endless genealogies which minister questions' in his comment on verse 6 ('from which some, having swerved, turned aside into mataiologia, "vain blathering" '): 'As far as the pronunciation is concerned, mataiologia is not far away from theologia, though the subjects differ very much from each other. Thus we too must take care not to pursue theology in such a manner as to fall into mataiologia, fighting endlessly about frivolous claptrap. Let us rather be concerned with

144 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

those things that transform us into Christians and make us worthy of heaven. How important is it to argue in how many ways sin can be interpreted, whether it is only a privation or leaves a blot on the soul? Let the theologian rather effect that all men fear and hate sin!' Erasmus was fond of the pun theologia/mataiologia**and, finding this too good an opportunity to be missed, trotted out his old favourite. In 1519, however, his relatively innocuous remarks acquired a sharper tone: he added a long harangue on scholasticism, or rather a tour de force in which he listed some fifty highly speculative and somewhat ludicrous quaestiones to show the absurdity of scholastic disputations. Most of the questions are taken from, or at any rate originated with, William of Ockham's commentary on the Sentences. They ask, for example, whether God can teach evil, whether he could have made the world better, whether he could communicate the power of creating to the creature, whether it was more appropriate to say that God could not do the impossible or that the impossible could not be done by God, whether there were ideas of all things in God's mind and whether they were practical or speculative, whether the number of the divine persons pertained to substance or relation and whether to the first or second intention.45 These Ockhamist questions are interspersed with questions from Thomas Aquinas' Quaestiones quodlibeticae, such as whether God could restore lost virginity and whether fire, which is corporeal, could affect souls, which are incorporeal.46 The section on the authority and powers of the pope is less clear-cut in its origin. It includes the famous Thomist question 'whether the pope can add to the Apostle's Creed'47 as well as the commonplaces 'whether the pope is the head of the universal church' and 'whether he is superior to a council.'48 Most of the questions can be traced verbatim to the publicists of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, for example, 'whether the pope could give orders to the angels,' 'whether he was simply a man or quasi divine,' 'whether he participated in both natures with Christ.'49However, some of these questions had found new prominence in Erasmus' own day in light of the church's confrontation with Luther and consequently reappeared in contemporary literature.50 A number of the questions listed here may recall disputations Erasmus attended during his student years. Masters were required to hold disputations with their students and with other masters, who were assigned the roles of respondents and opponents. 'Whether it can be said that God is a scarab or a pumpkin' may have been a question raised in a quodlibetical dispute with

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 145

John Major, whom Erasmus most likely heard in Paris and who had apparently discussed whether God could become an ass or an ox.51 The list of questions, punctuated by ironic and deprecating remarks,52 was further expanded in 1522. Erasmus added an attack on Duns Scotus (who remained unnamed, however), quoting some of his complex and obscure definitions; one, for example, concerned the divine and human nature of Christ: The personal or hypostatic union is a relation of real heteronomy in one extreme to which in the other extreme no real characteristic corresponds.'53 Another section added in 1527 sharpened the attack and more generally decried the modern theologian's preoccupation with Aristotle and his commentator, Averroes. The note was first attacked by Lee, who accused Erasmus of wanting to do away with theology. Erasmus, however, insisted that he was not pronouncing judgment on the theological profession in general but had 'expressly referred to certain frivolous subtleties and "endlessly disputing" ' (LB IX 230E). We have seen that he did not retreat from the position taken in the original note but rather reinforced it in later editions. It is notable, however, that he eliminated three examples. The question regarding the pope's authority over the councils was settled by Leo X in the bull Pastor aeternus in 1516, and the question whether the pope was the head of the universal church had in fact been defined by the Council of Florence in 1439.54 Neither of these questions could very well be labelled a 'frivolous subtlety.' The third question, however, 'whether the pope could prevent someone from entering heaven even if he was deserving/ was perhaps too absurd to ever really have been discussed by the scholastics, although the idea appears in the Julius exclusus: 'I had the three cardinals who persisted in their enterprise stripped of their rank in public ceremonies ... I consigned their persons to Satan' (CWE 27184); and the converse - whether souls could be freed from purgatory - was indeed a topic of contemporary debate.55 The arguments used by Erasmus in his apology against Lee recur in his controversy with Beda and his reply to the censures of the Paris faculty, which had not expressly attacked this note, but brought charges against Erasmus similar to those Lee had brought against him. Both Lee and Beda had defended scholastic theology, saying that it provided efficient defences against heretics. In his apology Erasmus had answered contemptuously: 'It is plain non-

146 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

sense when [Beda] adds that the tenets of the heretics could be refuted only with the aid of scholastic theology. Where were those bulwarks of scholastic theology when some years ago Luther, like a wild boar, wasted the vineyards of the Lord?' (LB IX 524B). He added similar remarks to 1 Tim 1 note 13 in 1522: 'And some pretend that such subtle logic is necessary to refute pagans and heretics, when it is useless except among colleagues of the same school.' In the apology against Beda Erasmus also spoke of Scotus' obscure 'made-up' terms (LB IX 523F), and a reflection of this argument appears in a 1522 addition to the note on Timothy: 'Circumincessio, a new word indeed, he defines in a novel manner.' The note was also attacked by Pio, who said that Erasmus was treating Thomas and Scotus 'like dumb beasts and fools' (ac si pecudes ac moriones essent, LB IX 1168B). Again Erasmus uses the familiar defence: he was not railing against scholasticism in general, only against 'innumerable useless or harmful questions or at least questions keeping us from more pressing matters by their difficulty' (LBIX1167E). The note on Timothy echoes many of the sentiments expressed in, and made notorious through, the Moria, where Erasmus lists similar questions as pearls of scholastic philosophy and ironically compares the practical wisdom of the apostles with the windy sophistry of the theologians.56 In the preface to the Hilary edition there is another attack on scholastic quibbling illustrated by a brief list of questions reminiscent of the note on 1 Timothy.57 In the Hyperaspistessthe examples appear once again.58 Thus the passage in the Annotations represents both a response to specific circumstances and a permanent outlook. Fasting and the choice of foods: Matt 11 note 44, Col 2 notes 36-7 In 1522 Erasmus addressed to Christopher von Utenheim, bishop of Basel, an apology entitled Epistola de interdicto esu carnium, about the prohibition on eating meat.59 The contents of the epistle exceeded the title, however, for Erasmus discussed other regulations as well and considered more generally the role church institutions and their observance played in promoting true piety. Regulations regarding fasting and the choice of foods concerned Erasmus personally. Reasons of health had obliged him to disregard some of them,60 and he feared that people not sufficiently familiar with his

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 147

circumstances might misinterpret his actions and think that he was siding with the reform party, whose members were known to defy the rules. Observance of church regulations had become a sensitive issue. It is not permitted these days to open one's mouth about things that earlier one could debate, taking either side/ Erasmus complained. 'Once no one caused trouble if someone, for health reasons, ate in the privacy of his own home what was suitable. Now, although a man may be justified many times over and have a written permission from the pope, he is called a Lutheran if he does not fast' (LB IX 1334B). A number of annotations in which Erasmus belittled the superstitious and ritualistic observance of church practices had come under fire from conservative theologians who saw in such pronouncements Lutheran tendencies. The open letter to the bishop of Basel afforded him an opportunity to clarify his views on the matter. He took the position that practices introduced by the church were in themselves conducive to piety, but cautioned that rigidity in their observance was not in keeping with the liberal spirit of the Gospel. In a key passage summing up his views he says: 'If rules are applied in an excessive manner, they overcome evangelical freedom. To trust in ceremonies - as the common run of men practically do - is a blight on true piety; to disparage one's brother on account of them is poison for evangelical love. Paul saw this clearly when he fiercely battled against the threatening inroads of Judaism ... and for the sake of this kind of petty observance we see so many men suffering, in danger, and dying, while many others are foolishly pleased with themselves and consider themselves true Christians when they are Jews and, trusting in such things, neglect what constitutes true piety' (ASD IX-1 45:809-13, 46:826-9). The epistle did not satisfy Eramus' opponents and together with his Annotations became the focus of protests by Walter Ruys,61 Josse Clichtove, and Alberto Pio. To counter their criticism Erasmus added scholia to the epistle in 1532.62 Pio charged Erasmus with questioning the authority of the church and condemning all ceremony. Erasmus replied: To some men I seem to condemn ceremonies, but first of all I do not speak of all ceremonies nor do I categorically condemn those I speak of; I only indicate the underlying dangers' (ASDIX-1 87:619-21). Clichtove, too, had interpreted Erasmus' words as total rejection of ceremonies. He himself considered the observance of church institutions crucial. In his opinion this constituted a significant part of Christian piety. In his scholia Erasmus quoted Clichtove's Propugnaculum without naming the

148 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

author and restated his own views: 'Now some men teach that the strength of the church rests on three things: the mass, fasting, and the continence of priests. These are indeed significant elements, but in my opinion the strength of the church consists primarily in faith, hope, and love, and in those things that Christ so vividly teaches in Matthew, chapter 5.'63 In 1525 Ruys had published a polemic, Libellus quo taxatur delectus ciborum, in which he printed selected passages from De esu carnium, adding notes that described the position taken by Erasmus as Lutheran. This accusation had arisen from remarks in the Annotations that are occasionally echoed in De esu carnium, as an examination of Matt 11 note 44 and Col 2 notes 36-7 will demonstrate. The first note, which comments on 'My yoke is light' (iugum meum suave est), was originally a brief comment questioning the Vulgate's translation of Greek chreston by Latin suave: 'chreston means easy, pleasant, or agreeable rather than suave, "light"; elsewhere [the translator] translates it as "good" or "goodness," as I shall show in its place.' Zuniga critized the note, expressing his preference for suave, but offering no justification 64 other than citing Chrysostom and Jerome in favour of the Vulgate translation. Erasmus countered with additions to the note in 1519 and 1522, citing patristic evidence in favour of the translation he himself had proposed. He also added a lengthy moralizing passage on human institutions which encumber the simple philosophy of Christ and make his yoke hard to bear. Contrasting the freedom of the Gospel with the oppressive character of the Mosaic law he wrote: 'Christ gave no other command but that of mutual love ... we must constantly be on our guard lest we render Christ's law, which is in itself gentle and light, grave and harsh through the aggregation of dogma and human institutions.' This notion recurs in De esu carnium, where Erasmus also asserts that laws instituted by man 'make the yoke twice as much of a burden' (ASD IX-1 23:121). He warns against introducing new customs which, once received, take on a life of their own to form an inexorable tyranny. The words he uses to describe the increasing power of human customs (sic primum obrepunt ... paulatim gliscunt, augescuntque) are reiterated in De esu carnium: ceremoniis semper in maius gliscentibus, sic paulatim irrepsit consuetude (ASD IX-1 46:822, 824). The Apostles' Creed was simple, but much was added by the church in later centuries in an effort to combat or forestall heresies. Erasmus likens such efforts to lengthy contracts which are drawn up to

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 149

preclude arguments: 'yet the more cautiously they are worded, the more numerous legal wrangles they usually beget.' Matters had now progressed to the point where every theologian's 'opinion or dreamed-up notion' took on the importance of articles of faith. Once again we hear the familiar Erasmian complaint about scholastic theology questioning everything: There are some things on which it is impious for men to pronounce, for example, on the essential nature of God, on the distinction of persons ... and we publicly vaunt our knowledge of things that not even angels can understand sufficiently, a knowledge which is in my opinion neither pious nor useful ... There are men who string out frigid syllogisms and create articles of faith based on a passage insufficiently understood or from insignificant human institutions. On this basis we are judged Christians or not Christians, yet such things have not the least bearing on Christian piety. How friendly, how simple is the doctrine of Christ, the apostles, and the apostolic Fathers, how complicated it has now been made, how thorny, not to say dark, partly by the admixture of laws and human disciplines, partly from the inventions dreamed up by ambitious men, after the profession of sacred theology has begun to be showy and theatrical (scenica quaedam ac theatrica res esse coepit). Among the institutions Erasmus marks out for censure are regulations governing dress, choice of food, feast-days, and vows. He notes that the sacraments devised for human benefit are not encumbered by rules and regulations and mentions in particular the rigmarole surrounding marriage and confession. 'Priestly functions are now so complicated that one could learn faster the complete philosophy of Aristotle than the practice of priests; in church there is hardly time to expound the Gospel.' The congregation is no longer able to look to its ecclesiastical rulers for spiritual comfort. They have become tyrants instead of fatherly protectors and advisers of their flock. 'Let us drive out the heavy yoke of men so that we may be truly under the light yoke of Christ. Evangelical love commands less and achieves more.' This sentiment, too, recurs in De esu carnium: 'Fatherly exhortation always achieves more than tyrannical commands' (ASD IX-1 41:667-8). The note in its extended form attracted a great deal of criticism from theologians. Beda in his preliminary inquiry and the theolog-

150 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

ical faculty in its official censures noted Erasmus' criticisms of human institutions. The faculty immediately seized on Erasmus' characterization of theology as 'theatrical' and pronounced his views on fasting and choice of foods heretical: This proposition, which indicates that it would be more in keeping with the Gospel and apostolic doctrine to remove all distinction between foods among Christians ... is an assertion based on an erroneous interpretation of Scripture ... and agrees with the heresies of Arius, Jovinian, the Waldensians, and Luther' (LB IX 827B-C). In his reply Erasmus tried in vain to clarify his position: No passage will be found in my writings in which I reprehend the custom of the church regarding abstinence from meat: on the contrary, there are some passages in which I battle against those who boldly and without necessity eat forbidden foods. Nor do I make any assertions, but simply express my opinion, in no way prejudicing the decrees and customs of the church ... However, I believe the Christian religion was purer in the time of the apostles and martyrs than it is now, when the love of men has grown cold. In those times there were no laws prescribing choice of foods, yet more men abstained voluntarily from the consumption of meat and even fish than do nowadays coerced by law ... Thus if anyone asked the church which it preferred: a congregation as it once was - led on by spiritual fervour and requiring no external prescriptions regarding food or drink - or today's sluggish congregation barely forced into some semblance of self-discipline by a great many laws, impossible to restrain though hemmed in by a great many sermons, and breaking out into luxury and drunkenness - would the church not immediately give preference to the former? Yet Erasmus is stoned to death if he wishes what the church and - if I'm not mistaken - even the theologians themselves wish. (LB IX 827E-F) When Pio labelled Erasmus' pronouncements on fasting and, more generally, on human institutions blasphemous, Erasmus replied by citing his note on Matthew 11 as a clear expression of his views: There I do not criticize institutions introduced by the authority of councils or received into the custom of all Christians; I reproach excessive regulations, not by councils, but by individuals - bishops, princes, priors, deans - and I censure even certain papal regulations, such as the constitutions of the Chamber' (LB IX1144A).

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 151

Even though Erasmus revised the note on Matthew 11 in 1522 (adding Cyprian to the list of patristic authorities on the meaning of chreston), he left the tirade against the strict observance of human institutions unchanged, having acknowledged that he had digressed rather far from his topic: 'I see that I have discussed this at greater length than I had in mind or was appropriate for someone claiming to write notes.' In Col 2 note 37 (Touch not, taste not, handle not') he also commented on human regulations: These words appear to be spoken by Paul mimetikos, ie by mimicry, which is listed among the figures of speech; for thus did men talk who burdened Christians with their decrees: Do not taste this, do not touch that, do not handle this. And by these ceremonies, they subjected them to a tyranny, so to speak, although Christ wished them to be free. And I wish only that in this day and age certain priests did not do the same, neglecting matters that are more pertinent to piety.' In 1519 Erasmus elaborated on this theme: 'Such priests have their own profit at heart. One must interpret Paul's words, not as his own command, but rather as mocking the superstition of others.' In support of the latter interpretation Erasmus quotes Augustine; Ambrose, who maintains the former interpretation was, in Erasmus' opinion, 'not attentive enough, though I say this with due respect for such a great man.' In his apology De esu carnium he quoted the passage in the sense expounded by him in the note: Paul ridiculed the prohibitions of superstitious men (ASDIX-1 43:733-5). In 1527 he shored up his own interpretation by citing, in addition to Augustine, Theophylact and Chrysostom. In the same year he answered the objections of the Spanish orders in the Valladolid Articles: 'Choice of foods, which Paul condemns, must be condemned by Christians today as well ... The apostles prescribed nothing regarding this matter, rather they taught their people indifference toward it, lest it become an occasion to weak men to be drawn into Judaism' (LB IX 1089D). A few years later he answered Pio's objections, also with special reference to his note on Colossians, noting first that Pio's quotation was inaccurate and made his own views appear more categorical than they were. He had said that 'certain' priests were acting like tyrants and was therefore not condemning the church as a whole. He had said that they neglected certain practices which were, in Erasmus' opinion, more conducive to piety than abstaining from meat: Thus I do not categorically condemn men's abstinence

152 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

from meat, I condemn their preposterous scale of values' (LB IX 1144C). Here as in the note on Matthew 11, Erasmus refused to change the offending passage and merely clarified or qualified his remarks in the apologies occasioned by attacks on the Annotations. Penance: Matt 3 note 1, Acts 19 note 8 In 1524 Erasmus wrote Exomologesis, a treatise on the practice of confession.65 Although he acknowledged the salutary nature of the sacrament of penance and its importance in reconciling the sinner to God, he also listed the abuses to which church practices related to secret confession had led: the tyranny of the priest, the unnecessary dwelling on types and occasions of sin, the perfunctory observance of confession without real contrition, and the betrayal of the secret of the confessional. While he was careful to assert his belief in the sacrament, he had noted elsewhere with approval that Luther had 'made bold to discuss some doubtful points on the subject of confession; but this is a subject on which the monks set endless traps for men's consciences' (Ep 1033:148-50). This rapprochement between Erasmus' and Luther's views was noted by conservative theologians, who saw Lutheran heresies in some of Erasmus' remarks on penance in the Annotations. They therefore accused him of trying to abolish the practice of confession and of denying that penance was a sacrament. Indeed, Erasmus continued to voice strong doubts about its divine institution and to be sharply critical of contemporary confessional practices. Two notes that are of interest in this context are Matt 3 note 1 and Acts 19 note 8. At Matt 3 note 1 Erasmus had changed the Vulgate's poenitentiam agite (do penance) to poeniteat vos (repent). In 1519 he introduced another change, this time substituting resipiscite (come to your senses) for the verb. In 1522, however, he reverted to the traditional translation, poenitentiam agite, adding prioris vitae (of your former life). Already in the original note he objected to the common interpretation of the Vulgate phrase: 'Our people think that poenitentiam agite means to wash away one's sins with some prescribed penalty ... yet metanoia is derived from metanoein, that is, to come to one's senses afterwards - when someone who sinned, finally, after the fact, recognizes his error.' In 1519 Erasmus elaborated on this definition: The man who comes to his senses (resipiscit) is displeased with his former life.' He emphasized, more-

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 153

over, that it was wrong, not to say a barbarous solecism, to connect poenitentiam agere with satisfaction. There was no precedent for such usage in classical Latin. He added examples from Roman authors to show the correct meaning, quoting Suetonius (1519), Pliny (1522), Valerius Maximus (1527), and Sallust (1535). A remark added to the note in 1522 hints at the fact that it had attracted criticism, for Erasmus comments that 'there were men, both pious and erudite, who preferred the circuitous poenitentiam agite - [I am saying this] lest someone slander me, as often happens in this day and age, saying that I eliminate penance from the Gospel.' The critic was Nicolaas Baechem (Egmondanus), whose objections are cited by Erasmus in a letter to Botzheim: 'In the third chapter of Matthew, for the old reading poenitentiam agite my version had resipiscite. "Here," says our friend, "Erasmus denies penitence" ' (Allen 126:4-5). In later editions Erasmus strengthened his own interpretation by citing patristic evidence (Tertullian in 1527, Augustine in 1535) and clarified his own stance: 'Yet I do not eliminate the salutary satisfaction which accompanies a change of heart and erases ... sin with tears and pious works, even if the Greek word is not derived from poena, "penalty" ... but from resipiscere "coming to one's senses, changing one's mind." I have therefore included both notions in my translation poenitentiam agite prioris vitae, so as to gratify everyone, as far as possible' (added in 1522). The changes introduced in the first and second edition had been criticized by Zuniga, who was offended by their novelty and claimed that there was no patristic support for Erasmus' translation: 'None of the old doctors ... ever cited this passage in a form diverging from the traditional translation' (f [A5v]). The evidence cited by Erasmus in 1527 and 1535 proved him wrong. More important, the dogmatic significance of Erasmus' changes was not lost on Luther, who wrote to Staupitz in 1518: 'I learned that this word (poenitentia) means metanoia in Greek which is derived from meta and noun, ie "afterwards" and "mind," so that poenitentia or metanoia means a coming to one's senses ... The emphasis on works of penance had come from the misleading [Vulgate] translation, which indicates an action rather than a change of heart and in no way corresponds to Greek metanoia (WA 1-1 525:24-7). Such an acknowledgment could only give credence to the tag 'Luther hatched the egg that Erasmus laid.' The note on Acts 19 ('and many that believed came and confessed and showed their deeds') added fuel to the debate about

154 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

Erasmus' leanings. In this note Erasmus appeared to throw doubt on the validity of secret, aural confession. In 1516 he wrote: There was of old some form of confessing a life of evil-doing, but it was a public confession, in my opinion, and a general one, and we do not read that it was compulsory.' An addition of 1519 did little to dispel his opponents' uneasiness: 'the secret, aural form of confession practised now,' Erasmus wrote, 'seems to have originated in consultations with bishops.' These words were interpreted as a denial of the sacrament of penance, which incorporated confession. Lee was the first to strike up an argument with Erasmus, saying 'if secret confession has no other authority than one based on human decree it could become obsolete by falling into disuse ... if no one confesses his sins to a priest, how can he be absolved? ... To me it appears truer and at the same time safer to declare that this form of confession was instituted by the authority of God' (50v). Erasmus denied that such a view was supported by Holy Writ and insisted that confession was not a prerequisite for absolution: 'If this is true, how is it that sins are forgiven through baptism, even when there is no confession?' (LB IX 256E). He rejected Lee's arguments, which were based on a figurative interpretation of the command 'show yourself to the priest/ emphasizing, however, that he did not wish to denigrate a well-established custom: The purpose of what I have said so far is not to disturb in any way the practice of the church, but to show that Lee's quotations are not effective enough to prove that this form of confession is a divine law. I am in favour of confession, as I should be, nor is anything to the contrary found in my writings' (LB IX 258C). He insisted, however, that the matter was far from clear and had never been settled by an official pronouncement. 'If anyone asks me whether [confession] has been instituted by Christ, I shall answer openly that, as far as I am concerned, it does not seem to have been the case, and this denial I shall willingly submit to the judgment of the church ... nor do I think that all opinions given out by theologians should have the force of articles of faith or canonical Scripture, especially since they often diagree among each other. And I am not yet certain what the church has decided in this matter. When it has been decided, I shall adopt whatever view I recognize as being that of the church' (LB IX 259B-C). He concluded his defence with a pious wish: If only all of us lived in such a manner that we did not need the remedy of confession' (LBIX262E). Erasmus' views on confession had involved him in a conflict

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 155

with the Carmelite Egmondanus, who expressly linked Erasmus with Luther in a confrontation before Godschalk Rosemondt, the chancellor of the University of Louvain, in 1520. The meeting had been called so that the two opponents could air their views and come to some agreement, but the discussion quickly turned into an acerbic exchange. Erasmus protested that he had never favoured Luther's views, but Egmondanus, 'not just hotheaded, but like a madman, said "Yes, indeed, you are the author of all his views."'66 The issue is also reflected in Erasmus' correspondence of 1522, when Egmondanus revived the debate over a passage in the colloquy Confabulatio pia. One of the characters in the colloquy raised the question whether Christ 'instituted this confession such as the Church now uses' (Thompson 39). Egmondanus thought this remark smacked of Lutheranism, but Erasmus protested that he was not 'imparting principles of faith but the art of self-expression' (Allen Ep 1299:55-6). In spite of this disclaimer the opinion expressed in the colloquy is clearly Erasmus' own, for he repeats it in an open letter to the theologians of Louvain: 'I myself am not yet entirely clear that the church has laid it down that the practice of confession, as it now exists, is of Christ's instituting' (Allen Ep 1301:45-6). The accusations brought against Erasmus by Lee and Egmondanus were renewed in the Valladolid Articles which cited, in addition to his notes on Matthew and Acts, the comments he had made on the topic in his Colloquia and in the Exomologesis. The dispute involved two questions: whether confession was instituted by Christ and whether it was part of the sacrament of penance? In summarizing his views in his reply to the Spanish orders, Erasmus took a somewhat more conservative stand than before, for in the meantime Leo X had published his bull Exsurge Domine branding Luther's views on penance as blasphemous and heretical.67 In his reply to the Spanish orders Erasmus therefore carefully adhered to the formula used in the papal bull: I accept confession as it is now practised with all its conditions, ie, those pertaining to a suitable priest, to the cases reserved for bishops and the pontiff, to the necessity of confessing, to the enumeration of the type, kind, occasion, and whatever other conditions there are. I am not denying that it was instituted by Christ, I merely say that it seems to me instituted by the Fathers on a certain occasion. At the same time

156 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

I myself both practise confession and teach that it must be observed with the same deference as if it had been instituted by Christ. That it was instituted by Christ himself I cannot teach because I have not yet been sufficiently instructed in its proof. Whenever this comes to pass, I shall bear witness to this also. Nor do I believe that there is a church decree68bidding us to believe that confession, in that form in which it is now practised, is Christ's legacy. (LB IX 1062E-F) The issue was raised once more by Pio, making another reply necessary. Pio had written: 'Since penance is a sacrament - and this has been decreed by the church - it follows that confession has been instituted by Christ and is not an invention of theologians.' Erasmus rejected this conclusion and moreover denied that he had ever labelled confession 'an invention of theologians.' He examined Pio's reasoning: 'He says that confession is part of the sacrament and that it cannot be that a sacrament is instituted by men. He takes for granted what he ought to have proved when dealing with a person who disagrees. Those who deny that confession was instituted by Christ also deny that it is part of the sacrament; they say instead that it is something sacramental, conducive to absolution' (LB IX 1190B). Erasmus speaks of this dissenting party in the third person and is careful not to link himself directly with the stated doubts. In fact, he does not reject Pio's arguments but rather his method of reasoning: 'I am not saying that his argument is false, merely that it needs shoring up' (LB IX 1190D). The Eucharist: 1 Cor 11 notes 28-9, Mark 14 note 18, Matt 26 note 21 Erasmus' comments on the Eucharist69 gave rise to a two-pronged attack on his Annotations: in some notes he had indicated that the exact words used by Jesus to consecrate bread and wine were unknown; in others he had aroused the suspicion of conservative theologians who thought they detected in Erasmus' words traces of Zwinglian views.70 The key notes on the subject are Matt 26 note 21, Mark 14 note 18, and 1 Cor 11 notes 28-9. In his notes on 1 Cor 11 Erasmus had commented on the absence of the copula 'is' in the Greek words for This is my body.' Following the consensus of Greek manuscripts, furthermore, he changed the Vulgate's 'which will be given to you' to 'which is being broken for you.' In 1519 he

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 157

entrenched these changes by pointing out that Thomas Aquinas had acknowledged the existence of variants in the words of consecration71 and by citing Augustine and Theophylact in support of the reading he himself favoured. He used the opportunity to berate theologians who made authoritative statements without offering proof for their theories: In my opinion it would be better not to make such bold assertions and demand that our opinion be considered the oracular truth when we are dealing with matters of a kind that cannot be demonstrated on the basis of definite evidence from Holy Writ but rest on human conjecture; and perhaps it would be safer for our ecclesiastical leaders not to make pronouncements on anything that comes into their heads when these things cannot be proven and they themselves are human and can err.' A similar remark is found in Mark 14 note 18. In the original note Erasmus had only pointed out that the verb in the phrase 'my blood will be shed for many' should be in the present tense. In 1519 he added: Those who cite with such certainty the words Christ used in consecration, when there is no exact reference anywhere, should take note of this passage, where the description of the event suggests that Christ first offered the cup, then finally spoke after having drunk.' In 1522, however, he moderated his remarks, saying that 'in this matter I do not wish to be wrongheaded and contentious, for the passage can be explained as a rhetorical figure, prothysteron [ie, a reversing of words without a reversing of the time relationship].'72 To allow this option did nothing to support the conventional view; in fact, it raised more questions than it answered. However, leaving certain options open gave Erasmus' remarks a tentative character, and that was the purpose of the exercise: to throw his critics off the scent by deliberate vagueness. Not all of his opponents were silenced by these tergiversations. Stan dish had preached against Erasmus, accusing him of harbouring wrong ideas about the Eucharist.73 Beda, too, had criticized him for casting doubt on the words of consecration, referring in particular to the changes proposed by him in 1 Cor 11. Erasmus answered Beda's reproaches in the Divinationes ad notata Bedae (LB IX 474F) and at greater length in the Supputatio: Why is Beda so madly offended by the word 'break,' when he can read the following words about the cup in Luke: 'Receive it and divide it among yourselves'? Just as Paul said 'break' in

158 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

speaking of the body, so Luke said 'divide' speaking of the cup ... Where then is that horrendous blasphemy which Beda thunders about because in my paraphrase interpreting Paul I had written 'this is my body which is being broken for you'? Where is that preposterous and blasphemous phrase which Erasmus has picked out of his own head and is spreading around the world? I have demonstrated that there is no blasphemy, and Beda himself cannot deny it. But with what effrontery does he dare to say that I picked this phrase out of my head when there is a wonderful consensus of Greek manuscripts, when orthodox Greek commentators and, among the Latins, Ambrose and Bede - so different from our Beda - read and interpret the passage in this manner? (LBIX 681F-682C) Erasmus points out that he treated the question in his annotation on 1 Cor 11, 'but lest this passage be cast into his teeth ... Beda asserts in his preface that he did not look at my Annotations. Well, he should have looked at them before publishing such blasphemous stuff against his neighbour' (LB IX 683F-684A). The issue of Erasmus' orthodoxy was raised again in the Valladolid Articles of 1527. The censure referred specifically to Erasmus' note on Mark 14. In his reply Erasmus defended his views and insisted that 'it has not been expressly declared by the church' that Christ used these words in consecration (LB IX 1065B). Nevertheless he rewrote the relevant notes. The additions and deletions of 1527 reflect the ongoing controversy. We have seen that he tempered his remarks on Mark 14. In 1 Cor 11 note 28 he deleted the passage in which he had cautioned theologians not to assert their views too boldly and added instead these docile words: 'One can only accept the decrees of the church, for it will be difficult to prove by human reasoning which words the priest ought to use in consecration ... but there is the more merit in faith, the less human understanding can follow it.' Thus he reiterated his belief that nothing certain could be said about the words of consecration on the basis of scriptural evidence but acknowledged the teaching authority of the church. In 1 Cor 11 note 29 Erasmus added further evidence from patristic authors (Bede, Chrysostom) to corroborate the reading proposed by him (frangere for tradere), then proceeded to another point that had aroused his opponents' suspicions: his views on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He did not deny the concept of transubstantiation, but invited his readers to consider

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 159

whether Paul's reference to the Corinthian fellowship meal dealt with 'the sacerdotal consecration of the Lord's body and blood' and whether in light of this ambiguity the passage could serve as evidence in a dogmatic dispute. He concluded with the pious words: 'I personally prefer the interpretation that this passage refers to consecration but I decided nevertheless to warn the reader so that he may study the passage with greater attention.' Erasmus was also forced to take a stand on transubstantiation by the appearance in 1525 of a booklet whose author, Leo Jud, attempted to show that Erasmus shared Zwingli's views on the symbolic nature of the Eucharist.74 The book, a collection of passages from Erasmus' works, prompted him to write an apology, Detectio praestigiarum ,75 in which he complained that he had been quoted out of context and clarified his views on the Eucharist, citing in turn passages from his Annotations and paraphrases on Matthew, Luke, and 1 Corinthians that would prove the orthodoxy of his views. He rejected the construction Jud had put on the passages quoted from his writings and stated that he had merely expressed doubts whether Christ was present each time bread was broken. 1 Cor 11 was an example of a passage in which it was uncertain 'whether Paul speaks specifically of the consecrated body and blood of our Lord' (LB X 1566A). Erasmus denied that his note on the passage contained objectionable views. Quoting it verbatim, he asked: 'What is there in this note that gives ground for sinister suspicions?' (LB X 1565D-E). Nowhere in his work had he given an exclusively symbolic explanation for the Last Supper. Quoting the disputed note on Mark 14, Erasmus insisted that 'there was not even a syllable to indicate that the Eucharist was not the true body of the Lord' (LB X 1565B), 'there was not even one word that could arouse suspicion' (LB X 1564C). Erasmus had added a clarification to his note on 1 Cor 11 for the purpose of defending his views against Beda, the Vallodolid Articles, and the implications of Jud's book. The same intention is also evident from an addition to Matt 26 note 21 in which he comments on accipite et comedite. The original note is a succinct remark noting the absence of the copula 'and' in the Greek. In 1522 the note is expanded to incorporate references to a variant found in Chrysostom and a cross-reference to Luke which likely inspired the variant. A further addition in 1527 is designed to establish the orthodoxy of Erasmus' belief on the Eucharist; he notes that 'this was his true body, not the symbol of his body, because the bread is

160 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

transformed in a mysterious manner.' The added words reflect the controversy caused by Jud's book and represent the defence mounted by Erasmus against those 'who say that I call bread and wine symbols, that is, the signs of things' (LB X 1567A). The oath: Matt 5 note 32, 1 Cor 15 note 22 In 1516, commenting on 'Let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay - whatsoever more than these comes of evil/ Erasmus wrote: 'It is amazing how the theologians twist these words. Some interpret "comes of evil" as meaning from the evil of disbelief, not from the evil of swearing, others interpret it as meaning from the evil of punishment, not from the evil of guilt. But, 76 in my opinion, Christ simply meant that perfect men (for the words pertain to them) must not swear at all in matters concerning which the common people swear. As for the rest, concerning matters of faith and piety even Christ and the apostles swear oaths.' In 1519 Erasmus added a passage elaborating on his views and clarifying his position: 'for he wished his people to be of such character that there would be no need for oaths. For what is the use of swearing an oath if no one wishes to cheat anyone else even if he could do so with impunity, but each man, judging the other by his own intention, trusts everyone else? For a true Christian considers his neighbour's convenience, even at his own inconvenience ... In this manner we shall be able to solve many knotty questions, if we realize that Christ did not forbid the swearing of oaths absolutely but only swearing in the vulgar manner of men.' A similar development and in fact verbal echoes occur in 1 Cor 15 note 22, on 'by your glory.' In 1516 Erasmus notes that Augustine quoted this passage as an example of Paul swearing an oath. 'We cannot equivocate and deny that the apostle swore an oath when elsewhere - and in not a few instances - he openly does so. But in the affairs of this world it is perhaps not truly Christian to swear for gain and money, but when dealing in the affairs of Christ, it is not unlawful to interject an oath.' In 1519 Erasmus added this clarification: 'for Christ did not absolutely forbid us to swear, rather he wished us to be of such character that oaths were not needed; he did not want us to swear as the common people swore then.' When Erasmus made these additions in 1519 he may have been informed by Maarten Lips that Lee had taken offence at the note.77

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 161

Erasmus' words had widely been interpreted as a categorical denial of the legitimacy of oaths and were criticized in succession by Lee, Beda, and Pio. Erasmus' position was, moreover, condemned by the theological faculty of the University of Paris. In his apology against Lee Erasmus defended his position at length. He reiterated that he did not reject oaths out of hand, but accepted the practice with certain qualifications: Here I sought a fourfold way out of the quandary of objections: first let us distinguish the person, secondly the reason, furthermore let us consider the tropological meaning of the passage, and finally the spirit and manner in which an oath is sworn. As far as the person is concerned, Jews and imperfect man are permitted to swear, Christians pursuing perfection are forbidden to do so; as for the reason, that is, the subjectmatter and content of the oath, I propose that oaths need not be avoided in matters pertaining to the glory of Christ and the business of piety and Christian faith - in unimportant matters this is not the case; as for the tropological meaning, I show that words of this kind must not be examined with sophistic subtlety, but according to their general meaning; ... as for the spirit and manner of swearing, although this fourth point is not much different from the previous ones, I point out that Christ has not absolutely forbidden us to swear oaths, but only to swear oaths in the manner of common people. (LB IX 131D-F) He noted that Lee had seized on the wording of his note on Mark rather than on its general purport by suggesting that Erasmus' use of the word 'but' (verum, a conjunction which has an adversative significance/ f 6r) indicated his opposition to the traditional interpretation of the passage. Erasmus concluded his reply with the exasperated question: 'I ask you, dear reader, what is the use of doing battle in this manner with such puerile arguments? Indeed, the Christian religion would have been on the verge of extreme danger, had Lee not taken up this point!' (LB IX 132D). Although Erasmus had offered a lucid exposition of his views on the oath, the question was raised again by Beda in his examination of Erasmus' paraphrase of Matthew. In his criticism he linked Erasmus' views with those of Luther, prompting this reply: 'Let him look up my Annotations and he will see that I have taught nothing wrong in terms of faith or ethics, as Beda foolishly babbles. What

162 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

Luther teaches regarding oaths I do not know' (LB IX 575D). Erasmus pointed out that he was willing to accept the practice of swearing oaths under certain conditions listed in his note, t>ut Beda says in his preface that he has not looked through my Annotations. And why not? Because he had no time in his eagerness to slander me and because he did not want to spoil his censures.'78 Beda's preliminary examination resulted in an official censure by the Paris faculty of theology which pronounced Erasmus' statements in the paraphrase on Matthew heretical.79 In his reply Erasmus reiterated what he had said in his note on Matthew: Tor the Lord proposed an image of perfect Christianity - if we possessed it, oaths would be superfluous and "yea, yea, nay, nay" would be all that was needed indeed among men none of whom distrusted the other, none of whom thought of defrauding the other.' He also cited patristic evidence, referring in particular to Augustine, who prohibited oaths to avoid the risk of perjury, but also to Jerome, Theophylact, Hilary, and Ambrose. His purpose was to show that the Fathers, too, had reservations about the use of oaths and in many ways were more categorical in their rejection of the practice than Erasmus. He therefore asked indignantly: 'Why then does my proposition go against the law of the Gospel and Christ its author when I explain what he himself expressly teaches and the orthodox Doctors expressly interpret, giving the same reasons on account of which one ought to be allowed to swear an oath?' (LB IX 835E). He refers specifically to his note on Matthew 5 and quotes a passage from it to clarify what he had meant in the paraphrases: 'for there I could say what would have been inappropriate in a paraphrase' (LB IX 837A). He also refers to his note on 1 Cor 15, refuting theologians who would deny that Paul ever swore an oath: 'And yet if we rely on Paul's example, let us swear in Paul's way. He does not swear an oath unless the business of the Gospel demands an oath before weak men' (LB IX 837D). Erasmus concludes on a moralizing note: 'Isocrates, a pagan - an orator rather than a philosopher - was against accepting testimony on oath unless one wished to free oneself from a shameful accusation or save friends from grave risk; he was against anyone swearing an oath for the sake of money, even if he was to swear the truth. Yet in our Christian lives the oath is more common than it once was among pagans and there is less scruple to swear an oath - as if the Lord had taught those things in vain' (LBIX837E). The matter did not rest there, however. Alberto Pio raised the

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 163

point anew and was answered succinctly and impatiently by Erasmus. He noted that, after all, they were both looking for a way out of a quandary, a reasonable and workable interpretation of words that on the surface appeared to be a categorical prohibition of the oath. Erasmus himself had offered a number of solutions; he rejected as 'insipid' (LB IX 1193F) the one suggested by Pio (f 245v): that it was permissible to swear 'by God' but not by any other formula, such as 'by heaven and earth,' 'by Jerusalem/ or 'by your head/ Despite the continued criticism of his remarks on the swearing of oaths, Erasmus considered his notes on the subject a sufficiently clear and innocuous statement of his views and did not change their wording after 1519. Just war: Luke 3 note 17, 22 note 36 Erasmus' pacificm, which was expressed throughout his writings, most notably in his adage Dulce helium inexpertis and the Querela pads, is well known.80 It is not surprising, therefore, that relevant passages in the Gospel prompted him to comment on the morality of war in the corresponding annotations. Two notes in particular (Luke 3 note 17, 22 note 19) expressed his views on the subject and promptly involved him in controversy with more traditional theologians. When he commented in 1516 on John the Baptist's command to the soldiers 'Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely/ Erasmus wrote: 'It is ridiculous when some men seek to prove the validity of warfare on the basis of this passage:81 as if John had said this to Christians rather than pagans, in fact, the most profane of Jews - if there were any Jews serving under pagans; and as if he had spoken these words in order to instruct them what kind of soldiers they ought to be, rather than to effect that the most evil of men would begin to be less evil. For thus he prepared everywhere the paths of the Lord. Otherwise how could John have exacted military service from them when Christ did not exact from the Jews the observance of ceremonies, superstition of the Judaic law, and petty human regulations?' In 1519 Erasmus added a lengthy clarification of his views to the original note. The Jews, he said, fought at the command of God. Did this justify Christian fighting, against the command of Christ?

164 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

True, Augustine defended the concept of a just war, 82 but he begged to differ: T think it is permitted to prefer the doctrine of Christ and the apostles to the views of Augustine. Yet he does not approve the type of war in which we now engage without end. He permitted emperors and their deputies the use of arms for the preservation of public peace in the Christian commonwealth. But [the state] is not the purest member of Christ's body. At that time an emperor was held in respect when he refrained from oppressing the church and somehow favoured it. Now bishops go to war and do hardly anything else but go to war.' He contrasted Augustine's view with Ambrose's dictum: The arms of the church are its faith; the arms of the church are prayers which overcome the enemy.' Erasmus himself did not categorically condemn war, rather he made this reluctant concession: 'Let war, if you wish, be among the necessary evils as long as it is lawful; but it is not necessary to deduce this right to wage war from instructions in the Gospels.' In 1527 he shored up his interpretation of the passage in Ambrose's sense by referring to Theophylact, who encouraged a similar view. In 1535 he inserted another bitter condemnation of war, ridiculing the concept of 'just war': 1 heard some leader encourage his troop to rob whatever they could, whether the possessions of friend or foe, so that if worse came to worst and they were forced to make restitution, some portion at least of the spoils would remain with the despoilers.' In Luke 22 note 19 Erasmus commented on another passage used by theologians in defence of the concept of just war: 'and he that hath no sword ... let him buy one.' In his original note Erasmus rejected the literal interpretations of Lyra and Hugh of St Cher in favour of Chrysostom's and Ambrose's view that the 'sword' was the divine word of God. Expansions in 1519 and 1527 made this note a plea for peace and a tirade against warmongering. In the history of the church, men who had totally rejected war had been branded heretics83 but, Erasmus declared in 1519, 'no heresy seems to me more pernicious, no blasphemy more wicked than ... to turn the spiritual sense into a carnal one.' War was an atrocity and denied the spirit of the Gospel: 'I cannot bear it when we refer views of this kind to Christ as their author. If there are certain necessities inherent in human life - as there are many necessary evils - and if some things must be granted to the crass multitude, what has that to do with the heavenly philosophy of Christ?' The comments made in the two notes parallel views expressed by Erasmus in his other irenic works. The adage Dulce helium inex-

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 165

pertis (first published in 1515) will serve as an illustration, but examples could be multiplied. In the adage, as in the note, Erasmus rejected the practice of justifying war on the basis of the Gospel: 'Why do we mix up Christ in this diabolical practice?' (LB II 957A). As in his note on Luke 3, he acknowledged that 'the Jews fought by divine command' (LB II 963A), but denied that this could be construed as permission for Christians to engage in warfare. Alluding to Luke 22, he made comments similar to those in his note, interpreting the sword in the spiritual sense (LB II 963D-E). In the Annotations he had cited Augustine only to disagree with him. In the adage he cited Bernard and Thomas, rejecting them in similar terms: 'Why should I be more impressed by the writings of Bernard or the arguments of Thomas than by the words of Christ?'84 In his note on Luke he had protested against pacifists being labelled heretics; in the adage he said pointedly: 'One is suspected of heresy if one earnestly tries to dissuade men from war' (LB II 964A). Erasmus' age was a turbulent one. Pacifism did not suit the plans of potentates who were engaged in territorial squabbles in Europe and involved in conquest in the New World. It did not suit popes who sought contributions to their campaign against the Turks; it did not suit the era of Macchiavelli, who subscribed to the view that 'the world is effeminate and heaven disarmed because of the cravenness of men who have interpreted our religion as indolence rather than as manliness' (Discorsi 2.2). The canonists of the sixteenth century had built their case for a 'just war' on Augustine's pronouncements and had listed the conditions that made war legitimate for Christians. They stated that a just cause, pious intentions, and proper authority made war lawful. 85 The pacifism of Erasmus and likeminded men such as More, Colet,86 and Vives was the more suspect as Luther and his party univocally rejected crusades, while in the other camp men like Francisco de Vitoria and Sepulveda defended the concept of just war. 87 In this climate, which promoted the apologists of war, Erasmus' words soon embroiled him in controversy. Zuniga was the first to criticize the views expressed by Erasmus. In his Blasphemiae et impietates (Rome 1522) he listed a number of passages supposedly violating doctrine. In his apology Erasmus explained that he was not rejecting the principle of just war, adding sarcastically: 'but if priests and theologians fear that we will run out of wars, let them rest content, their prayers will be answered: they have and will have their full pleasure' (LB IX 370D). Beda attacked Erasmus along

166 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

the same lines as Zuniga, claiming that he had rejected 'fighting violence with violence as unlawful' (LB IX 493C). This accusation Erasmus answered with a simple affirmation of his views: 'Yes, it is unlawful for Christians to fight violence with violence - in the manner of common people' (LB IX 493C). Beda's censure was incorporated in the declarations of the Faculty of Theology at Paris who dealt specifically with Erasmus' paraphrase on Luke. Erasmus defended himself by saying that he was speaking in the person of the evangelist, who was referring to the apostles, not to princes, thus drawing a distinction between worldly and ecclesiastical involvement in warfare.88 As in his Annotations he cited the authority of the Fathers on this question, aligning himself with those who decried war, yet pointing out that 'in many places I declare that I do not absolutely disapprove of war' (LB IX 841A). The faculty's censure stated that 'although wars and strife must be avoided as much as possible among Christians, Erasmus' proposition which, as it stands, suggests that it is never permitted to go to war against the violence of impious men ... enervates all polities and contradicts both natural and divine law' (LB IX 840E). In his defence Erasmus insisted that his views had been misinterpreted and were not at variance with those stated by the faculty: 'Indeed I agree that what the theologians teach is right for our times, although Christians are - alas - too ready to obey views of this kind' (LBIX842F). When Alberto Pio examined Erasmus' writings for Lutheran leanings, he again raised the question of his views on the just war. Erasmus' reply may serve as a summary of the arguments advanced in his Annotations and in earlier controversies: 'So as not to repeat what I have said so many times in response to the complaint, I grant that I have written some things in a rather sharp tone ... but when I argue whether or not, strictly speaking, war is somehow permitted to Christians, I admit that the right must be granted them when a great necessity urges us or great profit invites us - honest profit, I mean (utilitas ... honesta). But Pio blames me for inconsistencies [f 240r]: I admit that much as long as it is agreed that I share this blame with Jerome and Augustine' (LB IX 1192F-1193A). He goes on to cite patristic evidence in support of his own views and concludes his argument with the words: 'Pio says that bishops too have a right to go to war [f 244v]. It may be their right, but I consider it inappropriate. And this conviction I base on Ambrose

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 167

who wrote that a priest's weapons are prayer and tears' (LB IX 1193E). Hard pressed by his opponents, Erasmus expanded his note on Luke 22, coming directly to the crux of the matter: 'If someone urges me to make a statement whether or not in my opinion warfare is forbidden to Christians ... I shall say that war does not become apostolic men and that the Christian religion should not be propagated by arms only, and that princes ought not to undertake a war if it can by some means be avoided ... and this I wish to be understood as a proposition, not as a verdict (pro disputatis ... non pro decretis).' Was the angel's greeting amorous? Luke 1 notes 35-7 In a number of instances, Erasmus was charged by his opponents with disrespect towards Mary, the mother of God.89 In particular, his comments on the angelic greeting in Luke 1 gave a great deal of offence. The criticism concerned two points: Erasmus' translation of Greek kecharismene by gratiosa (graceful) replacing the traditional gratia plena (full of grace), a change that had dogmatic implications; and his description of the angel's salutation as amatorium (loving), which was considered inappropriate. Both issues were raised first by Lee and then again by Sutor and in the Valladolid Articles. In 1516 Luke 1 note 35 ran as follows: 'gratia plena] But to render it literally: gratificata (endowed with grace). Homer used the participle in the sense of "uniquely beloved," emo kecharismene thymo, that is, beloved to my heart. The word is used as of someone declaring his love for the virgin, for it has the connotation of loving (amatorium quiddam). Hence the virgin was disquieted and pondered the meaning of this greeting.' Gratia plena had traditionally been understood in the technical sense of 'full of divine grace.' Erasmus' interpretation of kecharismene in the conversational sense appeared to cast doubt on the orthodox belief that Mary had remained free of sin by the extraordinary grace of God.90 Erasmus' precarious position was aggravated by the fact that his view was adopted and maintained in the most aggressive manner by Luther, whose German translation of gratia plena by holdselig (lovely, gracious) reflected Erasmus' arguments. When Luther's translation was attacked, he vowed in

168 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

his Sendschreiben to defy his critics: 'Let the papists rage against me for having spoiled the angelic greeting ... what do I care? They rant and rave ... but I want to translate it into German, not as they please, but as I please' (WA 30-2, 638:20-9). In 1519 Erasmus reinforced his interpretation of kecharismene by adding further examples to illustrate its meaning: 'Paul uses it in his Epistles to the Ephesians, chapter 1: "He has blessed us in his beloved son," echaritosen, that is, he has made us dear and beloved.' He denied that gratia was used here in the technical sense and cited Origen, who had described it as a common form of affectionate greeting. Unfortunately, Erasmus said, some theologians had gone astray in their interpretation of the passage: 'I see that some theologians, even men otherwise learned and pious, like Bernard, speculated in a surprising manner about the words gratia plena, as if it were a special attribute of Mary to be called gratia plena when Luke never said gratia plena [ie, those are the translator's words] and this phrase can be found attributed indiscriminately to many persons in Holy Writ ... however, while it may be a fine thing to speculate in a proper manner about such minutiae in Holy Writ, it is unseemly to prattle on beside the point.' In 1522 Erasmus added: 'I have therefore translated it gratiosa, that henceforth no one should trip over the same stone again.' While he insisted on the correctness of his interpretation of kecharismene, he did yield to his critics on the second point, his description of the angelic greeting as 'loving.' The conflict involved not only Luke 1 note 35, but also the next two entries. In note 36 Erasmus had written in 1516: 'At first glance the words have something loving and nuptial (amatorium quiddam ... ac nuptiale) so that the virgin was even more disturbed, for she had not yet been apprised of the heavenly mystery.' Similarly he wrote in note 37: 'I myself think that the evangelist used these words to show that the virgin was disturbed on two counts: first, when she saw the young man entering the room and secondly, when she heard his greeting, which has a loving quality and somehow sounded like a suitor's words (amatoriam et nescio quid procorum prae se ferentem).' These words were criticized by Lee and Sutor as showing a lack of respect and implying an improper relationship between the angel and Mary. Erasmus yielded to his critics and in 1527 replaced the word 'loving' in note 35 by 'gentle' (blandum). In note 36 he removed the offensive phrase entirely; in note 37 he replaced it by 'novel and unusually gentle' (novam ac praetersolitum blonde). How-

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 169

ever, he did not suppress his chagrin at his critics' captious disputations, adding the following comment to his note: 'When I pointed out in a few words that the angel's greeting had something loving in it, akin to a suitor's words, and that for this reason Mary was at first perturbed, Good God! what a tragic outcry was raised by someone and echoed by yet another, even though St Thomas in the Catena had related this and would by no means have done so if it had been blasphemous or impious. I had said "something loving," "akin to a suitor's words," qualifying both expressions - Thomas had spoken in a more daring manner using the word "libidinous"!' In his censures, Lee had suggested that Erasmus' words were indiscreet and contained a vulgar notion: 'I am saddened rather than angry that you are so frivolous' (f llv). Erasmus replied: 'Lee recoils from the word "suitor," he recoils from the word "loving," from the word "groomsman," crying out that I used these words in a frivolous manner, as if I had in mind something unchaste. Why does he not recoil from that loving canticle the church uses today, referring it to the virgin mother? Why does he not recoil whenever Mary is said to be the bride of God?' (LB IX 152B-C). He answered Sutor in the same vein: 'He adds other things about Gabriel that did not occur to me even in my sleep, as if he had impregnated the virgin by his embrace ... and he took this calumny from Lee's notes, suppressing my reply' (LB IX 807B). The note was also made an issue in the Valladolid Articles. In his reply Erasmus summed up the defence already offered in his modified note and in the apology against Lee: 'I have answered Lee's slander abundantly and in the note itself I declare that what I say is pious and in agreement with the comments of saintly men - unless one insists that "loving" and "suitor" sound obscene. As for the phrase gratia plena, I show the facts lest someone make a mistake here ... Luke did not say gratia plena and other saints have given the attribute gratia plena. I wished to point out this mistake - a pious one, perhaps - and I did so by prefacing my correction with expressions of due respect' (LB IX 1084F-1085A). The examples given in this chapter illustrate the close relationship between the controversies and Annotations and document the interchange of ideas that characterizes them. It is only natural that the accusations brought against Erasmus in the wake of his publication of the New Testament should weigh heavily on his mind and find their expression in writings dating from that period. Erasmus used a number of means to bring his position to the attention of the

170 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

public. His correspondence contains many references to the religious controversies surrounding him: informal complaints to friends and formal protests to opponents as well as to ecclesiastical and secular authorities. He also answered accusations in his apologiae, that is, monographs dealing with specific points raised by his adversaries. However, since it was the stated purpose of the Annotations to explain and justify the changes Erasmus advocated, one would expect them to be the chief means of rebuttal. Indeed, additions to the notes reflect ongoing debates, but direct and full replies are rare. Erasmus refrained from naming his opponents in the Annotations and in many cases concealed the fact that he was introducing changes in response to criticism. This is especially the case when such criticism was justified and he found himself obliged to correct an error. The background history becomes clear only in the corresponding apologies. Both in the apologies and in the notes Erasmus tends to adopt a defiant attitude. He revises his note, but he rarely reverses his stand. In most cases the function of the revision is to expand the existing argument, to crystallize a point of view, or to cite additional evidence in favour of the original position. When he has been proven wrong and has no choice but to concede, he shows little inclination to give credit to the mentor; on the contrary, he claims on several occasions that he discovered the error without help. In a sense Erasmus' readership benefited from the controversies because they obliged Erasmus to enlarge the scope of his work and provide a broader commentary than he originally planned. Thanks to Erasmus' unrelenting critics the brief notes on textual corruptions, ambiguous translations, and exegetical problems were bolstered in subsequent editions by cogent arguments, additional quotations from patristic and medieval commentaries, and expanded references to manuscript sources. While the major controversies are documented in published exchanges, we are largely uninformed about the criticism that came to Erasmus' attention in a more informal manner, through hearsay, admonitions in casual conversation, or exchanges in letters now lost. Thus it is impossible to say with certainty which part of Erasmus' revisions is due to the prompting of critics, which part to his own initiative. Whereas Erasmus was at first eager to engage in battle with his opponents - as can be seen from the drawn-out controversies with Lee and Zuniga - he became more cautious in later years, avoiding acknowledgment of criticism and - as for example

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions '171

with Pio - delaying a published response. A number of additions to the notes can be identified as reactions to criticism, but the restraint Erasmus practised in the Annotations, his increasing weariness of controversy, and a natural reluctance to give his enemies credit for scholarly advice mean that he cannot hope to discover in each case the rationale behind the revision or to separate clearly the fruit of Erasmus' own investigations from the input of his opponents. FROM THE HEART: FRANK OBSERVATIONS ABOUT MONKS, THEOLOGY PROFESSORS, P R I N C E S , AND THE COMMON RUN OF MEN Not all of the additions in the Annotations are strictly related to the subject-matter. A considerable number, especially those inserted in 1519, are asides:91 incidental remarks addressed to the reader in an almost intimate tone, as if the author were, for a moment, doffing his professional role and adopting instead that of a counsellor or familiar friend. Speaking from the heart, Erasmus comments on the mores of his time: he complains, he criticizes, he exhorts, and he shares with the reader his vision of a better world. Erasmus likes to leave his own mark on the material he is working with. We find the Erasmian stamp on all his publications, even when the nature of the task imposed limitations on personal expression. In his translations from the Greek classics, for example, he could not bear to be merely a purveyor of other men's thoughts but practiced censorship without qualms and even threatened to rewrite whole portions of the text to suit his own taste.92 In his compilations of proverbs, parallels, and apophthegms, he liked to append his own moral and favoured tendentious illustrations.93 In his educational works he used examples that constituted programmatic statements, and dispensing with 'John Doe,' made his personal friends the protagonists.94 Although his work on the New Testament was undertaken in a humbler spirit and was intended to present him in the role of the neutral agent and catalyst of scholarly debate, the author's persona is not completely effaced. The Annotations are an appropriate vehicle for expressing opinions. The exposition of scriptural passages allows for, and indeed invites, meditations of a personal nature. Erasmus seizes on this legitimate opportunity to proffer his views and occasionally ranges rather far afield. Following his own train of thought, he often pursues topics suggested by his personal situation rather than by the scriptural

172 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

text. Apart from a host of asides on such diverse topics as eunuchs, soldiers, converted Jews, married priests, and courtiers,95 we find certain recurring themes. They express concerns familiar from his other writings: the quest for peace, the equality of men before God, the pastoral function of church leaders. They voice his disapproval of the partisan spirit of religious orders, the pettifoggery of theologians, and the 'Judaic' observation of religious ceremonies. Erasmus believed in a brotherhood of men, a 'classless' society in Christ. 'In my opinion,' he says, 'the term "brother" applies to all men' (Matt 5 note 18). True artistocracy is found in a noble heart, 'if we want to measure men by their virtues' (Mark 10 note 25). Christ is no respecter of persons, and it is shameful therefore 'to hear the terms "master" and "servant" among Christians; for since baptism makes us all brothers, how can brother address brother as "servant"? Let him who will regard this as Caesar's law as long as he does not regard it as the Gospel's law; for according to the latter the servant obeys his master willingly; the master, in turn, treats his servant as his brother in Christ' (Eph 6 note 9). A concern for the well-being of their fellow man must govern the actions of princes. Ecclesiastical rulers, in particular, have a duty to care for, and protect, their subjects: 'Nothing ought to be more sacred to them than the safety of the flock entrusted to them' (John 21 note 12). Erasmus lambastes bishops who 'think of the priesthood as nothing but a source of income and absolute power. Have they forgotten how earnestly Christ entrusted his sheep to Peter, and under what conditions? He did not entrust them to him that he might devour them, but that he might pasture them. Pasture them by the example of a pious life, pasture them with the food of the gospel doctrine, whether they want solid nourishment or milk, pasture them even with financial support if matters require it' (John 21 note 12). Erasmus reminds bishops that their title - episcopus means 'one who looks out' for his flock, and laments the reversal of roles. They are the ones who set the snares now, whereas they ought in fairness to come to the aid of those caught in them' (Matt 11 note 44). In a eulogy of Warham he sets this model before the bishops' eyes: While he surpasses even the greatest men in his other virtues, he surpasses himself in one point: he does not regard himself as a great man. If one considers his exalted rank, the magnitude and extent of his business, the godlike power of his judgment, his incomparable strength of character, his consum-

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 173

mate learning, the purity of his life, and the splendour of his wealth, which he tolerates rather than possesses according to the custom of the time and place - you cannot find, even among the greatest dignitaries, a man whom you would dare to compare with him. Yet he is so accessible, so much in the eyes of all men, that you can hardly find anyone among the ordinary people, among the lowliest men, whom he does not surpass in civility, friendliness, and mild manners. O truly heroic mind, worthy of your apostolic role - although you have passed the measure of man, you reduce yourself to his rank, and disdain no one, not even the lowest man. (1 Thess 2 note 8) With this glowing praise one may contrast the description of bishops who abuse their position, 'who constitute and reconstitute laws at their convenience and exercise a flagrant tyranny over their people, measuring everything in terms of profit and grandeur; who ensnare the people with petty laws thought up for profit and tyranny; and who sit not on the apostolic seat, but on the seat of Simon Magus or Caiphas' (Matt 23 note 1). Erasmus decries the secular aspirations of ecclesiastical rulers, for 'Christ did not lay claim to the wealth and power of this world; if Christ's vicar seeks them, he appears to claim more for himself than Christ did' (Luke 6 note 24). Those who are 'completely devoted to the comforts of this world and disdain, or even ridicule, the poverty and humility of Christ' ought to read the Gospel more attentively to see that heavenly glory surpasses all wordly splendour (Acts 5 note 12). It is wrong for the followers of the apostles to seek power over others. 'Faith is freedom ... We must take note of this; for we abuse faith and religion and make them a pretext for tyranny. And it is perhaps for no other reason that some of us wish to bring the world into the Christian realm than to extend our own rule' (2 Cor 1 note 38). Erasmus is wary of the motives of the crusaders. They seem to have lost their missionary zeal. Today,' Erasmus says, 'those who invade the Turks to slaughter and plunder them prefer to capture them dead rather than alive. Indeed, we are after the Turks' money more than the Turks themselves' (Luke 5 note 7). Those noble Christian warriors, it seems, are 'looking after their wealth and dominion under the pretext of spreading religion' (Matt 23 note 12). 'Making Christians by the use of arms' (ibidem) is a reprehensible practice. The church should not lend its support to such military

174 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

enterprises. Erasmus reports with disapproval that 'war is being praised in churches, by bishops, theologians, and monks' (Matt 5 note 9). Promoting war goes against Christ's express command to love one another. The apostles 'commanded us to overwhelm the enemy with kindness, to heap coals of fire on their heads. Paul bids us to overcome evil with good. He boasts of the misfortunes he has borne, he does not boast of the enemies he has overthrown and scattered. Many times he arms the Christian recruit: with the armour of the Gospel, the helmet of salvation, the shield of faith, the sword of the Spirit. Where, among these weapons, is there any mention of the kind of sword we are thinking of?' (Luke 22 note 19). The Christian soldier is armed with the word of God. His purpose is 'to destroy sinful thoughts, not towns or citadels. These are the arms, these the wars, the battles, the victories, the triumphs worthy of the apostles' successors. Nowadays we can see some who, when the business calls for it, have troops, swords, lances, cannons, and whatever else is worthy of a brave fighter. But when it comes to destroying the phalanx of vices with the sword of God's word, they have neither tongue nor hand' (2 Cor 10 note 7). It is bad enough that the common people should violate Christ's command and fail to preserve peace and concord; now 'prince is pitted against prince, kingdom against kingdom, city against city in continuous warfare' (John 13 note 19). And what is worse, 'not only do priests encourage war, they go to war themselves. They, who profess the gospel peace, exhort the people to war; while it is their duty to rouse them to piety, they sound the war trumpet and twist Holy Writ to this purpose, making our most gentle Christ the author of war. If he returned in our time - upon my life - he would receive a harsher treatment from this tribe of Pharisees than he once received at the hands of those others' (John 20 note 9). Not only are the representatives of religious orders counselling others to fight, they are pugnacious and quarrelsome among themselves. Far from showing Christian unity, they express a narrow partisan spirit. 'Franciscans do not allow anyone to disagree with Lyra, Dominicans will not tolerate that any dictum of Thomas or Hugh [of St Cher] be disputed; Augustinians permit no one to dissent from Augustine. Yet if we allow each one to hold on to his favourite author tooth and claw, we are no longer at liberty to disagree with any one of them, while the authors themselves do not agree with one another and some are on occasion inconsistent with themselves' (Luke 2 note 38). The religious orders are supposed to

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 175

profess Christ, but they give more weight 'to the statutes of Benedict or Bernard or Francis than to the teachings of Christ' (Matt 17 note 9). Instead of regarding themselves as members of one church, they insist on setting themselves apart, claiming that Christ resides more particularly with one than with another: The Observants say that Christ is with them, not with the Colettines or the Conventuals; the Jacobites clamour "Christ is here," not with the Augustinians; the Benedictines in turn cry "Christ is here," not with the mendicant friars. Finally the whole tribe shouts "Christ is here," not with the priests who wear no cowl' (Matt 24 note 23). Erasmus also finds fault with the orders for their hypocritical attitude toward wealth. 'Of what use is it not to carry a money belt if you carry your money in a handkerchief or have it deposited with bankers? What merit is there in wearing open sandals instead of thongs? How great is the number of those who take the vow of poverty to escape poverty? Or even to receive an abbey and possess abundant riches? The three vows do not bring with them evangelical perfection' (Mark 6 note 9). Friars beg in the streets and call themselves 'mendicants, when they possess at home the wealth of satraps. And I am not inveighing against the practice of men who actually live on alms, but in my opinion those who are ablebodied (as many of them are) would do better to produce their own wherewithal and the means to support others in need, by the work of their hands' (Luke 2 note 15). Erasmus dislikes the attitude of religious who think that the world owes them a living. He rejects the underlying idea that prayer is more conducive to virtue than work, as if 'those who work with their hands or are active in some other business could not live a good life. They [the religious] say they pray - so do all Christians; nor does work preclude prayer; and let us pass over those who live a life of sin in disguise, displaying vestments, a cingle, and sandals instead of a blameless character' (1 Thess 4 note 14). He castigates not only monks living a life of leisure but also donors who bestow gifts of money on them to the detriment of worthier causes. 'A man shows generosity toward the brethren, adds a wing to our monastery, patronizes our order, leaves a large bequest - defrauding his children - as if gifts to the order, perhaps for luxurious ends, were a gift to God, whereas what was left to needy children or relatives did not count. I say this, not to condemn generosity toward monks, especially pious ones, but to warn against those who have no other purpose than to ensnare the wealthy' (Luke 7 note 4). Christian charity is not vested

176 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

in donations to the church. Erasmus expresses doubt that the term 'charity' can be applied to the actions of those who 'by their generosity add to the wealth of monasteries or colleges that are perhaps affluent enough through papal subsidies, while at the same time they overlook the needy, sometimes even their relatives and children' (Luke 11 note 26). Professional theologians come in for a different kind of scolding. We have already seen that Erasmus criticized them for their emphasis on Aristotle,96 their attention to petty questions,97 and their hostility toward classical literature. Having neglected good literature 'they continually stumble, get stuck everywhere, make mistakes everywhere and move scholars to laughter or tears' (Matt 21 note 9). Erasmus frequently refers to his critics and occasionally comments not only on the men but also on the vice: contentiousness, he says, is unchristian. 'Just as it is a sign of Christian clemency not to pursue a man with harsh words or dishearten with insult those who err in their inexperience and simplicity or to raise a terrible stir on account of small mistakes of this kind - so it is a sign of Christian simplicity gladly to obey the admonition of learned men ... And if God hates puffed up knowledge how much more do we think will he be against supercilious and intractable ignorance?' (Matt 1 note 12). Only God can lay claim to perfection, yet 'with what pride and arrogance do we look down nowadays on another man's error, how cruelly do we rage against his mistakes when we ourselves are subject to graver evils' (Heb 5 note 2). Erasmus may well include himself in this royal plural, for he, too, is guilty of the vice, answering his enemies in a less than charitable spirit and maligning them in turn: They love to occupy the seat of honour in the schools, they enjoy the same privilege at sumptuous banquets, they love to be called 'Rabbi,' they hunt mitres and abbacies, they flatter men and flaw God's word, they obscure and obliterate the spark of evangelical charity by their petty doctrines and do so openly; because they have no confidence in the defences with which theologians ought to be armed, they resort to force: as if they could force the human heart to feel one thing and believe another. Oh that Christ might arise from sleep and free his people from this kind of Judaism and tyranny, or has

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 177

he redeemed us with his blood that we may serve monsters of this kind? (1 Cor 15 note 44) 'What beasts this age bears!' he exclaims, '... they hinder another man in his efforts with their stupid and slanderous accusations. They have a false reputation for learning and a false aspect of sanctity - obtained in the eyes of simple and inexperienced folk on account of their titles and pompous dress - they are regarded as the foundations and pillars of the Catholic church when they are, not members, but a blight' (Luke 1 note 66). The subject that moves Erasmus most often to comment is the hypocrisy of those who want to be thought devout men. In them observance of petty rules has replaced true piety. 'I wish this type of actor would not be so common among Christians,' Erasmus says; 'compared with them the Pharisees almost appear sincere and honest. I am not saying that piety should not also be expressed in neatness and simplicity of dress and diet, but that there should be no superstition and ostentation anywhere. The principal portion of piety ought to lie in our minds and character' (Matt 23 note 4). Over and over he criticizes the ostentatious display of piety, 'the arrogance of Pharisees who wish to be seen having commerce with heaven when they are most wicked' (Mark 8 note 9). Ceremonies are like crutches, instituted to support the weak of faith. Erasmus is eager to dispense with such aids. 'When will we be regarded as full-fledged Christians, strong in Christ?' he asks (1 Cor 8 note 7). What used to distinguish Christians from pagans was their spirituality, but now the only difference is in their 'name and in ceremonies' (Luke 6 note 17). 'Although we neglect the precepts of God we still somehow regard ourselves as Christians on account of our name and the ceremonies we observe' (John 13 note 19). To pay more attention to the letter than to the spirit of the law is a form of Judaism, Erasmus says. He therefore inveighs against all forms of external piety that are not matched by a corresponding frame of mind. Prayer, song, worship of saints, and feast-days are meaningless if they do not engender piety in the heart. Prayer becomes 'an empty moving of the lips' (Matt 6 note 4) if people anxiously guard the formula and neglect the content. They hesitate and worry about the exact wording, but they do not hesitate to 'tear apart the good name of their brother with virulent tongues - and I am saying this, not to make us less diligent in prayer, but to avoid

178 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

absurd superstition' (Luke 11 note 3). Yet this superstition is pervasive. Men consider reciting rote prayers the pinnacle of piety. 'It is better not to say what I think of priests being burdened with reciting lengthy - not to mention what kind of - prayers that are strictly prescribed, sometimes inept and ridiculous, not to say, impious' (Matt 6 note 18). Similarly, too much attention is paid to song in Erasmus' opinion: What do people hear nowadays but meaningless words, for such is the pronunciation that one cannot even hear words; only sounds strike the ear ... the populace is forced to listen to this and is diverted from the work by which they support wife and children - what can be holier than that? ... A man can be greedier than Crassus and have a more vicious tongue than Zoilus, yet he is regarded as pious if he chants those petty prayers in a loud voice, even if he does not understand a word. What concept do people have of Christ, I beg you, who think that he is pleased with this clamour of voices? And not content with that, we have introduced into the house of God an elaborate and theatrical kind of music, a dissonant croaking of diverse voices such as was never heard, I think, in the theatres of Greece and Rome. Everything is filled with noise, of trumpets, clarions, pipes, and shrill harps, competing with human voices. Filthy love songs are heard, and strumpets and mimes dance to their tune. People run to the house of God as to a theatre to stroke their ears. And for this purpose organists are hired with large salaries, and boy's choirs who spend all their time learning to yelp like this and in the mean time miss out on learning what is of value. The sordid, worthless dregs of men (most actors are like that) are being supported, and the church is saddled with great expense on account of a noxious practice. Calculate, if you please, how many poor people who are in danger of their lives could be supported on the salaries of singers? ... Let us recite psalms in our heart, but let us recite them in a Christian spirit; let us recite psalms sparingly, and more so in our minds. (1 Cor 14 note 26) In the same vein Erasmus also condemns the overzealous cult of saints, whom Christians ought to honour by emulating their example rather than by visiting their shrines: Here they show the cowl of Francis, there the inner garment of Mary or the comb of Anne, elsewhere the boot of Joseph,

Additions, Revisions, and Retractions 179

the shoe of Thomas of Canterbury, the foreskin of Jesus although the thing is dubious they worship it with greater awe than Christ in his entirety. And these displays go on, not as something to be tolerated and condoned in view of the feelings of silly people - no, on this is bestowed practically the whole of their devotion because of the avarice of priests and the hypocrisy of some monks who feed on the stupidity of the people. And in these comedies certain pseudo-bishops play a leading part and, lest they be regarded as good for nothing, they approve that stuff with their diplomas and honour it with their gifts, and act with such gravity that whenever I read their official sanction I have less faith in the relics than I had before.98 Feast-days, too, attract Erasmus' criticism. Tor Jews,' he says, 'one day is holy, another profane. For Christians every day is equally holy. Not that feast-days instituted by the holy Fathers should not be observed so as to make it easier for the Christian people to come together and hear sermon and mass in church ... but I don't know if it is so useful to accumulate feast-days for any reason whatsoever, especially since we see that Christian morals have deteriorated to the point where it appears as conducive to piety to abolish feast-days as it once was to institute them' (Rom 14 note 8). Although such personal remarks have a spontaneous quality and no doubt express genuine sentiment, they also work well as rhetorical devices, catching the reader's attention by their descriptiveness, vivid language, and controversial tone. This is especially true of autobiographical notes, such as the reference to the theology professor who could not explain, or did not recognize, a quotation from Luke (Luke 6 note 1) or the young country priest who misunderstood the instruction 'skip three [pages]' and leaped three times over the baptismal font (Acts 10 note 16) or Erasmus' description of Julius II 'celebrating splendid triumphs as might be compared with those of Caesar or Pompey' (Acts 5 note 12). As always, Erasmus is eminently quotable. Some of his pronouncements have a proverbial ring. In a variation on the theme 'fight to win,' he says at 1 Tim 1 note 32 that no effort is being made in scholarly disputes to reach a consensus. The aim is a personal victory: non concordia ... sed victoria. On the worship of idols he says that 'a monkey in the flesh is preferable to a man in effigy' (Rom 1 note 51). Although it cannot be said that Erasmus kept his opinion to himself, he recognized that it was impossible to go

180 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

against the current: non esse prudentis cum suo seculo pugnare, 'a wise man does not fight his century' (Matt 6 note 18). Finally he makes this pronouncement on the scholar's integrity: The champion of truth must not be beholden to any man,' Nullius auctoritati debet addictus esse, qui veritatis agit negotium (Luke 2 note 38).

Conclusion

Unlike the text of a book, an author's annotations are rarely read in their entirety. They are visually subordinated to the text by their position at the bottom of the page or the end of the text, and they remain in the eyes of many readers an adjunct of marginal importance. In the case of Erasmus' Annotations the visual aspect of the Leiden edition immediately declares their significance, for they often occupy as much or more space on the page than the corresponding text and occasionally displace it altogether. Erasmus himself emphasized the importance of his annotations. When Bade published a separate issue of the text without the notes, Erasmus registered his disapproval. His work, he said, had been 'cast into the teeth of critics naked and unarmed' (Allen Ep 1010:3). The text was a mute, and therefore defenceless, witness to his research; the notes, on the other hand, expressed his concerns. They justified his emendations, explained the changes introduced by him, and served as guardians against fresh corruptions and errors. The importance Erasmus assigned to his notes is reflected in the publication history of the New Testament: his original proposal to Froben centred on a manuscript of the annotations. Plans to combine the notes with a Greek text came later and, most likely, originated with the publisher. A new Latin translation was included, according to Erasmus, on the initiative of his friends. The genesis of the edition reveals the fundamental place of the annotations, and the reception accorded to the publication confirms it. Scholars disagreeing with Erasmus' emendations frequently took issue with, and quoted from, the Annotations, for it was there that they found his philological approach to scriptural studies documented and his criticism of the Vulgate articulated.

182 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

When Erasmus embarked on scriptural studies he soon came to realize that a knowledge of Greek was an indispensable prerequisite. He had begun his studies in an unstructured fashion as a young man in Deventer, but continued them with a new sense of direction and a definite purpose after his return from England in 1500. In his youth he had been motivated by love of literature and had read the Greek classics for their stylistic and rhetorical appeal. He did not, at this stage, envisage or appreciate their usefulness for biblical studies. In fact, theology held no appeal for the young Erasmus. He found the scholastic method taught at Paris objectionable both in content and in form. The barbarous language of medieval commentators repelled him; their speculative approach to Scripture annoyed and frustrated him. It was Colet who introduced him to a more congenial approach. In his lectures Erasmus heard the familiar humanistic call Ad fontes converted into a summons to study the sources of Christian religion. But whereas Colet believed that an understanding of Scripture was attained through pious meditation and divine grace, Erasmus argued that it involved philological skills, at least at the elementary level: 'Scripture could not be understood, much less discussed, without them' (Ep 149:54-5). He had absorbed this philological approach from the writings of Jerome; discrepancies between the Greek and Latin texts he collated convinced him of its practical necessity; and he was confirmed in his approach by the discovery of Valla's work on the New Testament. Like Valla, Erasmus based his notes on evidence from manuscripts, explained and documented correct usage by reference to classical authors, and relied on the Fathers and, to a lesser extent, on medieval commentators for exegesis. In each of these areas, however, he went far beyond his predecessor's work. Even in the first edition of the Annotations he made extensive use of the Fathers, both as witnesses to the text and as interpreters of the meaning. Further research and the need to counter the arguments of his critics added precision and scope to his annotations. He continued to inspect manuscripts but was now induced to identify his sources; he added to the patristic references but also corroborated existing references by inserting direct quotations. The overall effect of these additions was one of confirmation and consolidation. The task of editing and annotating the New Testament was twofold: it involved textual as well as literary criticism. Although Erasmus did not offer the reader a coherent theory of textual criticism

Conclusion 183

and perhaps never conceptualized some of the principles involved, a common sense approach and an alert mind allowed him to apply many of the rules that have now been canonized. Obvious sources of error and deliberate corruption are identified and the corrective measures implemented. In his literary criticism Erasmus kept three objectives in mind: clarity, purity, and stylistic appeal. He believed in a theologia rhetorica that would engender 'love of divine books through the beauty of language' (LB IX 658A). While he acknowledged that the biblical scholar, like any specialist, was entitled to the use of technical terms, Erasmus favoured the normalization of biblical language whenever possible. He recognized that correct usage and clarity of expression were interrelated. Solecisms and unidiomatic expressions tended to obscure the meaning of the text and confuse the reader. Clarity was the master goal of Erasmus' literary criticism and determined the extent of his corrections. He was inclined to respect biblical idiom even if it infringed on literary conventions and grated on the trained ear as long as it did not present the risk of misinterpretation. The Annotations contain philological, homiletic, and exegetical material. Their original purpose was, however, philological, and the philological content remained dominant in later editions. Discussions of the correct reading and translation continued to form the main point of departure. If the changes advocated affected doctrine, the note was expanded to include exegesis but rarely focused on this aspect. Comments on doctrinal matters are usually induced by external criticism rather than volunteered by the author; that is, they often make their appearance in later editions and are defensive or apologetic rather than expository. Homiletic and moralizing passages, on the other hand, have an element of spontaneity. They often express Erasmus' personal sense of injury in the face of the opposition he encountered and his frustration with uncomprehending and unlearned critics. They are characteristic of the author, for the same type of critical and didactic aside is common in his other editorial works. The Adagia, Parabolas, and Apophthegmata, for example, are enlivened with contemporary examples and satirical comment. The same subjective approach - though somewhat subdued, in keeping with the subject - is evident in the Annotations. It is not unusual for Erasmus to launch into an excursus on the theme O tempora, o mores. His favourite subjects are the institutionalization of religion, the sophistical nature of scholastic theology, and the wordly aspirations of the clergy. In addition we find cheers and

184 Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament

jeers for various representatives of biblical scholarship, with a notable bias in favour of patristic writings and a corresponding disdain for medieval exegesis. In his attitude towards predecessors in the field Erasmus displayed the characteristic insouciance. He was not intimidated by an author's status. Respect for his work did not preclude criticism of it. Jerome is a case in point. Although Erasmus felt the greatest admiration for him, he did not feel obliged to conceal his own opinion when it was at variance with the church Father's. His nonchalant remarks on such luminaries as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, whose errors he impugned with the same freedom as those of less illustrious commentators, involved Erasmus in a great deal of controversy. His references to discrepancies in the accounts of the apostles, his attention to the grammatical and stylistic flaws in their writings, and his criticism of the translator of the Vulgate ('whoever he was') aroused the ire of conservative theologians, who saw the authority of the Bible endangered by such remarks. The criticism of his opponents left Erasmus undaunted, however. He reaffirmed his belief in philology as the final arbiter of textual and literary disputes and drew a firm line between the task of the translator, who relied on human skill and experience, and the vocation of the evangelist, who wrote under divine guidance, between the unadulterated original, as it had flown from the evangelist's pen, and the corrupted text circulating in his own time. Although the Annotations grew enormously over the five editions printed in Erasmus' lifetime, the added or revised material rarely amounted to a volte-face. Ever the politician, Erasmus generally refrained from confessing or acknowledging his errors. In the apologies he was openly contemptuous of his opponents' criticism; in the Annotations he often answered them covertly. His revisions usually serve the purpose of buttressing his arguments and entrenching his position; they often reflect the more detailed arguments set out in the corresponding apologies. To grasp the significance of Erasmus' revisions it is essential to read the notes in conjunction with the controversies. The interplay between the two bodies of work is considerable, and an awareness of the cross-currents adds greatly to an understanding of the direction and point of certain remarks that may otherwise appear disjointed or rambling. In an important evaluation of Erasmus' Annotations, A. Godin rightly expressed doubts about the depth of Erasmus' theological insights and was reluctant to label the discussions in the notes 'theo-

Conclusion 185

logical.'1 His misgivings point the way to a constructive reading of the Annotations. They were not a biblical commentary in the usual sense, that is, they do not offer an interpretation of the historical and spiritual sense, backed up by the occasional antiquarian or philological explanation. In Erasmus' Annotations the priorities are reversed. He is primarily concerned with textual and literary criticism; exegetical material is added when necessary. Erasmus was an enthusiastic philologist but a reluctant theologian. He protested in vain that his task was 'grammatical' in nature and that he had no intention of replacing the Vulgate with his own version. The enterprise was bound to meet with resistance on various levels and for various reasons. Simple souls resisted all change and jealously guarded the familiar wording; professional theologians had practical objections. Textbooks and proofs were cued to the Vulgate, doctrinal disputes were settled with reference to the textus receptus, and verbal changes might render a passage irrelevant. Moreover, the reform movement had sensitized many issues. Discussions once thought innocuous were now construed as sectarian. Erasmus was walking a tightrope between the two camps. Reformers looked to his work for an endorsement of their position; conservative theologians urged him to condemn the dissenters. Erasmus was reluctant to mount the barricades, stressing that his declarations had no official status. He fully acknowledged the teaching authority of the church and declared his willingness to submit to the judgment of ecclesiastical authorities. The task of justifying and clarifying his views became a neverending process that took up much of Erasmus' time and energy in the years following the publication of his New Testament. In one of his last letters, written barely a month before his death, he sadly referred to his continuing struggle and commended his defence to God: 'Many are grateful to me because they have taken from my writings - whatever their quality - a spark of faith. Begrudging this spark of light to Christ, Satan has set these men against me. I in turn adopt Daniel's words, spoken as stones were cast at him and insults harder than any stone: "The Lord has bidden them to curse me. It may be that he will take pity on me" ' (Allen Ep 3127:50-4).

This page intentionally left blank

Notes

References to Erasmus' Annotations follow the arrangement in LB VI and indicate chapter and number of note. References to his correspondence are to CWE unless indicated as coming from Allen. Modern literature is cited in abbreviated form. For full references see bibliography and short-title list.

CHAPTER ONE

1 My title recalls J. IJsewijn's article 'Erasmus ex poeta theologus sive de literarum instauratarum apud Hollandos incunabulis' (Scrinium Erasmianum I 375-84.) IJsewijn sketched Erasmus' early career as a poet and did so in Latin, 'the language common to all scholars' (Capita argumentorum contra morosos quosdam ac indoctos 16). 2 Ep 447:347; cf Compendium vitae CWE 4 407:94-6. 3 Cf Ep 126:19: 'Our life holds no charms without the traffic of letters.' 4 Allen Ep 1110:7; cf Allen I 2:30 and also I 3:16-18: 'In boyhood my predilection for verse was such that I only reluctantly turned to prose compositions.' 5 The poem in question is Reedijk no 14. On the extent of Cornelis' contribution see Reedijk's headnote; all scriptural allusions in the dialogue are spoken by the character Cornelis. 6 Cf Allen I 2:31-2: 'I furtively drank in what I could from such books as I could acquire'; Ep 447:380-1: 'Within a few months they went right through the principal authors in furtive and nocturnal sessions.' On Erasmus' interest in the classics see M.M. Phillips 'Erasmus and the Classics' in Erasmus ed T.A. Dorey (London 1970) 1-30; on his study of Greek, which is of particular significance for

188 Notes to pages 6-12

7

8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15

16

his biblical scholarship, see H. Dibbelt 'Erasmus' griechische Studien' Gymnasium 57 (1950) 55-71; E. Rummel Erasmus as a Translator of the Classics (Toronto 1985) 3-19. Ep 49:110-11 full text quoted below 8; for this application of the topos 'Spoiling the Egyptians' see, eg, Jerome Ep 70.2 and Augustine De doctrina christiana 2.40.60-1. On Erasmus' use of the topos see E.-W. Kohls Die Theologie des Erasmus (Basel 1966) I 35-7. Composed ca 1489, published in 1521; cf the dedicatory preface, Ep 1194. Cf E. Rummel 'Quoting Poetry instead of Scripture' Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 45-3 (1983) 503-9. The poems are Reedijk nos 24-6. They first appeared in Silva carminum (Gouda 1513). See Ep 64, quoted at length below 9-10, where the scholastic theologians are called 'quasi-theologians' (theologastri). For Erasmus' attitude towards scholasticism see below 142-6. Ep 74:6-8; cf Ep 75:7-10, to Arnoldus Bostius: 'I only ask to be given leisure to live a life entirely devoted to God alone, in lamentations for the sins of my rash youth, absorption in holy writ, and either reading or writing something continually.' Tentatively identified as Jean Grillot by J.K. Farge in CEBR II He calls himself a poet in Ep 55:69, 73 to Christian Northoff, jokingly referring to their relationship as one between 'poet and merchant,' 'poet and tradesman.' The view that Colet had a decisive influence on Erasmus' philological approach to biblical studies originates with F. Seebohm Oxford Reformers 3d ed (London 1913) 355 (They [Erasmus and Colet] would go to the books themselves and read them in their original languages ...') and P.S. Allen Age of Erasmus (Oxford 1914) 141-3 and finds its way occasionally into contemporary literature. See, eg, C.A.L. Jarrott 'Erasmus' Biblical Humanism' 119: 'In pursuing this work [the revision of the New Testament] Erasmus followed the inspiration of John Colet'; M.W. Anderson The Battle for the Gospel (Grand Rapids 1978) 27: 'Erasmus studied Greek ... at Colet's inspiration'; similarly J.W. Aldridge The Hermeneutic of Erasmus (Zurich 1966) 10-12. Most modern scholars have, however, been more cautious in their pronouncements. Cf Schwarz Principles and Problems 109-21, who rightly says that the two men found common ground in their views on exegesis rather than on textual tradition; the limits of Colet's influence are also stressed by Holeczek Humanistische Bibelphilologie ... 108-10. On Gianozzo Manetti (1396-1459) see Trinkaus In Our Image and Likeness II 537ff and A. De Petris 'La teorie umanistiche del tradurre e I'Apologeticus di G. Manetti' Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 37 (1975) 15-32; on the Carmelite Giovanni Crastoni

Notes to pages 12-17 / 189

17

18

19

20

21 22 23

24 25 26

(Crastonus), compiler of the first Greek lexicon, see Schwarz Principles and Problems 106 and D. Geanakoplos Greek Scholars in Venice (Cambridge 1962) 121. On their relationship see J. Chomarat 'Les Annotations de Valla, celles d'Erasme et la grammaire' Histoire de I'exegese au XVIe siecle (Geneva 1978) 202-28 and, M.P. Gilmore 'Valla, Erasme et Bedier a propos du Nouveau Testament' L'Humanisme francais au debut de la Renaissance (Paris 1973) 173-84. On Valla's biblical scholarship see Bentley Humanists and Holy Writ 32-69; idem 'Biblical Philology and Christian Humanism' Sixteenth-Century Journal 8-2 (1977) 9-28; S.I. Camporeale Lorenzo Valla: Umanesimo e teologia (Florence 1972) 277-403; A. Perosa's introduction to his edition of Valla's Collatio Novi Testamenti (Rome 1970); R. Stupperich 'Schriftauslegung und Textkritik bei Laurentius Valla' Text-Wort-Glaube (Berlin 1980) 220-33. Cf his preface to Elegantiae book IV, where he compares the Fathers (veteres illi theologi) with bees who produce honey and medieval theologians (recentes) with ants who steal grains of corn and hide them away. 'I for one,' Valla says, 'want to be a bee rather than an ant' (120A Garin). The text is that of the second redaction. The manuscript Erasmus used is not extant, but a similar text (now in the Bibliotheque Royale in Brussels) bears the title 'Correctio Novi Testamenti ... sive annotacio locorum in quibus Latina translacio vel a Greca veritate vel a Latini sermonis proprietate discordat.' The other manuscripts cited by Perosa are entitled 'Collatio ...' Cf Ep 164:41-2 (autumn 1501): 'I have been carefully preparing an interpretation (enarratio) of [Paul] for some time'; also Ep 181:36-7 (December 1504): Three years ago, indeed, I ventured to do something on Paul's Epistle to the Romans.' For a more detailed study of the relationship between Erasmus' and Valla's annotations see below 48-50, 85-8 and notes. He first refers to Jerome's letters at Ep 22:19 (written ca 1489); for his occupation with Jerome during his studies in Paris cf his exchange of letters with Robert Gaguin, Epp 67, 68. See Capita contra morosos 25: 'Indeed, St Jerome compares the translator's efforts to translate the holy books into another language with Cicero's zeal to give to Latin readers some works of Xenophon, Plato, and Demosthenes.' Cf Jerome Ep 57:5.6: 'If something has been well said in another language is is difficult to preserve that beauty in translation.' Ep 182:157-60; the quotation comes from Jerome's perface to his translation of the Pentateuch (PL 28:182A). Capita contra morosos 2, similarly Apologia Holborn 168:4-7; for this attitude see also below 30-1.

190 Notes to pages 18-20 27 Ep 160:7-10; cf Ep 169:6 to Pierre de Courtebourne, asking him to buy a Psalter on his behalf. 28 Ep 165:13-14; he acknowledges receipt of the books at Ep 166:13-14 and promises their speedy return in Ep 168:3-5. 29 Cf above 13-14. Erasmus still had the draft among his papers in 1524 (cf Allen I 34:17). It is not extant but has presumably been incorporated in Erasmus' Annotations and his paraphrase on Romans (cf R.D. Sider in CWE 42 preface xiv). 30 Ep 181:103-4: 'It is one thing to guess, another to judge; one thing to trust your own eyes, and another again to trust those of others'; he repeats this view in his preface to his edition of Valla's Annotations, Ep 182:212-13: 'I should prefer to see with my own eyes rather than another man's.' 31 Ep 189:8, cf Epp 185:21-2, 186:9-11. 32 Cf Ep 188:92-5: 'And if it should be my fortune to win for my work the esteem of one who is so highly esteemed, certainly I shall ... [not] be reluctant in future to assist theology by some greater undertaking'; also ibidem lines 5-6, where he speaks of his resolve 'to translate Greek authorities in order to restore or promote, as far as I could, the science of theology.' 33 Eg Holeczek Humanistische Bibelphilologie 102-3; Bludau Die beiden ersten Erasmus-Ausgaben 33-4; Chomarat Grammaire et rhetorique 468-9; Schwarz Principles and Problems 142; and Bentley Humanists and Holy Writ 116-17. The view was canonized by H. Gibaud in his edition of the text of Erasmus' translation in Un inedit d'Erasme: La premiere version du Nouveau Testament (Angers 1982). 34 The copies were designed for Colet's father and for Henry VIII. See Gibaud preface 3. 35 LB IX 169B-C, answering Lee: 'I have already declared several times that the Annotations were written before it ever occurred to me to change anything in the Vulgate translation. For the plan to change it - not a very auspicious one for me - originated with friends when the work was in progress (in ipso negotio).' 36 LB IX 75lD, answering Sutor: 'I resolved to publish the New Testament in Greek with some notes. I had decided to add the Vulgate; that I added my own version was not my intention, but some scholarly friends drove me to it, and I yielded to their wishes rather than my judgment.' 37 LB IX 987A, answering Titelmans: 'It came to pass that the annotations differed in some places from the text because I had done the collation in England and Brabant; nothing was further from my mind than to add a new translation ... but when the edition was already being prepared, some friends urged me to

Notes to pages 21-6 / 191

38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48 49

50

compose a new text as well even though I was busy enough with other things and had neither the time nor the spirit to do it.' For the evidence see A. Brown The Date of Erasmus' Translation of the New Testament' Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 8-4 (1984) 351-8. For a more detailed study of the manuscripts consulted by Erasmus see below 35-42. Ep 296:164-6; cf Allen Ep 2758:13 (January 1533) where he refers to his first efforts as 'scholia set down in a few notes.' Cf Epp 305:223-4, 300:43-4, and 324:26-7 (March 1515): 'I am just off to Rome.' Allen suggests that Erasmus hoped to have his New Testament published in Italy: Allen Ep 328:36n. For Gerbel's involvement see his letter of 11 September 1515 (Ep 352) in which he promises to stand by his commitment to the Froben press and discusses the layout of the text. Erasmus later complained that he had to spend time 'on things that were not really my business or had been no part of the original plan' (Ep 421:71-2), 'although two educated men [Gerbel and Oecolampadius] had been hired for this purpose at great expense' (Ep 417:6-7; similarly Ep 421:55-62). For Gerbel's disregard of Erasmus' instructions see below 37. For an assessment of Gerbel's involvement see also B. Reicke 'Erasmus und die neutestamentliche Textgeschichte' Theologische Zeitschrift 22 (1966) 259-60 and H.J. de Jonge 'Novum Testamentum a nobis versum' Journal of Theological Studies 35 (1984) 401. Cf LB IX 751D quoted above nlO and Ep 421:50-2, quoted above 20. Ep 328:36-7: 'Froben wants to get your New Testament from you'; similarly Ep 330:2. The death of Aldo Manuzio in February 1515 may have helped Erasmus to make up his mind. Cf Ep 332:8: 'All my materials for Jerome are in [my luggage].' Ep 334:172-78. This would indicate a reduced scope, ie, a revised translation of the Epistles only. Ep 377:7-9; similarly to Andrea Ammonio, Ep 378:8 Ep 394:38. The colophon date is February 1516 for the text, 1 March 1516 for the Annotations. The tradition of overrating the Greek text started with Wettstein, Nestle, and Preserved Smith and has been perpetuated in the seventies and eighties by Metzger and others, most recently by Bentley (Humanists and Holy Writ 35), who says that 'Erasmus never devoted so much attention to the Vulgate as to the Greek New Testament.' For a history of this view, which has been refuted by H.J. de Jonge, see his article 'Novum Testamentum a nobis versum' Journal of Theological Studies 35 (1984) 394-413. Paraclesis Holborn 142:10-14; cf ibidem 7-8: The sun is not as

192 Notes to pages 26-36

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

common and accessible to all men as is Christ's doctrine'; Allen Ep 1253:21-3: [Erasmus teaches in the Paraclesis] 'that Scripture is the property of every Christian.' Allen Ep 1006:183, echoing Jerome Ep 49.14.2: interpres magis ... quam dogmatistes Capita contra morosos 2; cf Allen Ep 1010:9-10: 'to leave it up to the reader to decide which is the better reading.' doctus, cordatus, prudens: John 8 note 17, Rom 5 note 18, 2 Cor 11 note 46 Ep 843:21-5; cf Capita contra morosos 54: 'It is beyond discussion that Jerome's revised version is not extant.' LB IX 751F to Sutor; the Vulgate became the authoritative text of the church in 1546 by a decree of the Council of Trent. For a more detailed discussion of biblical idiom see below 103-4. Matt 6 note 18, similarly Luke 1 note 35 On Erasmus' demand for consistency in translation see below 96-7. Luke 2 note 26; cf Eph 1 note 32 (on the primary meaning of signati, 'sealed' - 'lest someone who wishes to philosophize on Holy Writ without knowing Greek run "past the olive trees," as the saying goes'); Phil 2 note 19, (on perficere, meaning 'accomplish,' not 'perfect' - 'lest someone see in this a new mystical meaning') CHAPTER TWO

1 For recent literature on manuscripts used by Erasmus see Bentley Humanists and Holy Writ 125-37 (with further bibliographical references); C.C. Tarelli 'Erasmus' Manuscripts of the Gospel' Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1943) 155-62; and B. Reicke 'Erasmus und die neutestamentliche Textgeschichte' Theologische Zeitschrift 22 (1966) 254-65. For literature on specific manuscripts see the following notes. 2 Neque tamen fidentes paucis aut quibuslibet (Apologia Holborn 166:2-3) 3 This can be deduced from variants cited by Erasmus that are peculiar to this manuscript. They have been collated by Wettstein (Prol I 120), whose conclusions have been corroborated by Bentley Humanists and Holy Writ (126 and 51n). 4 He was a student at Cambridge at the beginning of the fifteenth century and graduated DD from Oxford in 1524. At that time he was provincial of the Franciscans, succeeding Henry Standish, one of Erasmus' critics. He owned or borrowed various books that are extant and bear his name, among them a Greek Psalter and another Greek New Testament, Caius 403. For biographical data see Moorman 155-6; for his manuscripts Rendel Harris The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament (London 1887).

Notes to pages 36-8 / 193 5 Cf also LB IX 766E (to Sutor): 'two very old codices from the library of the College of St Paul's in London.' 6 Nos in prima recognitione quattuor Graecis adiuti sumus (Apologia Holborn 166:4-5). What Erasmus means by prima recognitione is, however, a matter of dispute. Allen, falsely assuming that the first translation was made in 1505/6, thinks that it was the first revision, which 'took place in England, probably in 1512-13' (Ep 373 headnote); de Jonge 'Novum Testamentum a nobis versum' 404 n40 says that 'it must refer to the first edition.' Since the term recognitio contains the idea of revision it must be a revision of earlier work; Allen may have a point after all if, in preparing for the first edition, Erasmus was going over work done in England. In addition to the manuscripts inspected by himself, Erasmus took into consideration Valla's readings; cf LB IX 146E (against Lee), where he refers to the reading found 'in all manuscripts accessible either to Valla or myself; similarly Mark 4 note 6, John 8 note 1. 7 See below 67. 8 Quoted by Wettstein Prol I 74 9 Cf Wettstein Prol I 43. 10 LB IX 333A-B ('Carthusian' is a slip of the pen); compare 1049D: 'It had been left behind here by some cardinal at the time of the synod.' When he speaks of books in the plural, he is referring to the cardinal's library. It is questionable whether he himself used others from this lot. A case has been made for it by Tarelli 159; his arguments are disputed by Bentley Humanists and Holy Writ 129-30. 11 Cf K.W. Clark 'Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2' Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 73 (1959) 749-56. 12 Quoted by Wettstein Prol I 44 13 Cf Gregory II 263; Clark 751. 14 The so-called Codex Capnionis now in the Ottingen Wallensteinsche Bibliothek I 1 40 1 15 Cf LB IX 246B-C, against Lee. In Reuchlin's manuscript the last six verses were missing and Erasmus retranslated the Vulgate into Greek. He made no secret of this: ex Latinis adiecimus (Annotations of 1516 page 675); ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca (LB IX 246C); and he countered Lee's indignant remarks by declaring nonchalantly that he had merely wished to avoid a 'gaping lacuna' in the text (ne hiaret lacuna, LB IX 246C). 16 Bludau 16 suggests that it was the poet laureate Henricus Glareanus, who was in Basel at that time and whose scholarly abilities Erasmus appreciated. 17 Eg kaiper esti for kai paresti, emais for en hais; for other examples see Gregory II 929.

194 Notes to pages 38-40 18 Cf Nestle 98, Bentley 128-9. 19 Cf Nestle 62, Reicke 264, Bentley 129. 20 Wettstein Prol I 45; or 19 May (Allen II 165). The manuscript was a gift of Radulfo de Rivo; cf Weiss Medieval and Humanist Greek 201. 21 Quoted by Wettstein Prol I 45 and Bludau 30 n2 22 Ep 373:31-2; but see the remarks written on the manuscript in Erasmus' hand (cf Wettstein 45): 'passably corrected' (satis emendatum); 'if only the corrector, whoever he was, had restrained his hand in this book; for he corrupted a great deal.' 23 For an example of the type of corruption found in this manuscript see below 111. The manuscripts are cited eg at Matt 4 note 9, 13 note 11, 21 note 41, 22 note 16. 24 Mentioned eg Matt 1 note 5, 1 note 23, Mark 1 note 10, 4 notes 20, 21. The manuscript is now in the Escorial (Vitrina 17). 25 Cf also Ep 373:25-8: 'clad in gold and finely written in gold letters.' 26 Opuscula 241:79-80. This manuscript is identified as a Greek one by Bentley 133, but in the passage Erasmus speaks of collating Latin and Greek manuscripts (collatis utriusque linguae voluminibus). It is therefore not clear whether Tunstall provided a Greek or a Latin manuscript. 27 Cf Ep 373:32-3; LB IX 136A against Lee; LB IX 335D against Zuniga. 28 'Everybody has access to it,' LB IX 136F; he also refers Lee to the Aldine edition eg 138C, 140B, 163A. 29 LB IX 277B; for similar challenges see LB IX 140E, 141B, 163A. On the controversy see H.J. de Jonge 'Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum' Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 (1980) 381-9. 30 Cf 1 John 5 note 3 and below 132-3. Modern scholars are inclined to think that this manuscript was produced for the express purpose of refuting Erasmus. Harris (48) argues plausibly that it was fabricated in Cambridge in the house of the Grey Friars (whose provincial was Erasmus' old enemy Henry Standish), with the Leicester Codex used as a model. He points out that the second manuscript verifying the disputed passage brought to Erasmus' attention (cf next note) had also been found in a Franciscan house. 31 LB IX 276D against Lee; also reported to Zuniga at LB IX 352C. H.J. de Jonge in his commentary ad locum (ASD IX-2 255) argues convincingly that this was not a manuscript of the New Testament, but one containing Bede's commentaries on it. 32 2 Cor 2 note 2, 1 John 5 note 3. The manuscript is now lost; cf de Jonge's commentary in ASD IX-2 147-9. 33 LB IX 333B; compare 2 Cor 2 note 2. The manuscript is also mentioned at LB IX 33lD, 349F, 351E-F. 34 Cf also LB IX 353A against Zuniga: 'Paolo Bombace consulted the book and copied out the passage verbatim.'

Notes to pages 40-4 / 195 35 For example, at Luke 1 note 1: Their codices were corrected against Latin manuscripts'; cf Sepulveda's letter Allen Ep 2873:334: 'I have noted down 365 passages in which the text differs'; he quotes a passage at lines 54-5. 36 LB IX 352F-353A; cf de Jonge's commentary ad locum, ASD IX-2 257, and also Ep 373:25-6. Erasmus cited the manuscripts at eg John 21 note 15, 5 note 22, Matt 1 note 17, 3 note 2, 1 John 5 note 3, Col 1 note 22. 37 Cf Allen Ep 373 headnote. 38 Bentley Humanists and Holy Writ 136 n79. The same text is mentioned at LB IX 340D. The identification is, however, complicated by the fact that Allen speaks of a 'manuscript,' Erasmus of a printed edition: 'I consulted a volume of an old edition (vetustae editionis) that had the ordinary gloss' (340o); 'I consulted a copy of a very old edition (pervetustae ... editionis codicem), a first edition, if I am not mistaken, which had the ordinary gloss, as they call it, added between the lines' (Phil 4 note 20). H.J. de Jonge, 'Erasmus und die Glossa ordinaria zum Neuen Testament' Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 56 (1975) 72, identifies this edition as Strassburg 1481. 39 He notes this at eg Matt 23 note 9, 23 note 16 ('a corruptor had erased the genuine text') and 24 note 23 ('between the verses someone in a barbarous hand had written est'), Mark 2 note 17 and 8 note 28 ('an erasure betrays the work of a corruptor'). 40 Erasmus cites it at eg 1 John 5 note 3, Matt 5 note 9 (both referring to a Vatican manuscript made available to the editors of the Complutensian edition), Mark 4 note 6 and Luke 2 note 17. 41 LB IX 766E; this editio typographica is also cited at eg Matt 27 note 35, Mark 2 note 3 and 8 note 28, Luke 1 note 48. 42 The title of the edition promised a great deal ... but we know what to think of those "old and correct codices" ... for the Greek text Erasmus used a few manuscripts of little value' (Bludau 14-15). 43 Cf Reicke 258; for a more balanced view see Holeczek 115; Hadot 752-6; Pfeiffer 76-8. 44 Probati or probi autores; cf LB IX 294E: 'I do not know whether genimina if found in probatos autores'; compare 290F on the equivalence of de and ex: 'he has not found an auctor probatus in Latin to prove what he asserts'; Matt 3 note 1: 'I do not remember reading poenitentiam agere in probos autores; Matt 13 note 18: 'I could not find ... in probos autores.' For a list of 'approved authors' see eg De rations studii CWE 24 669:1-16. Erasmus' attention to classical usage has also been noted by de Jonge The Character of Erasmus' Translation' 84. 45 Cf LB IX 300A: 'Zuniga points out that [decollare] occurs also in

196 Notes to pages 44-50

46

47

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

56

57 58

other authors and elsewhere in Seneca himself.' Erasmus claims, however, that he discovered this without Zuniga's help: This is exactly what I asserted in the second edition.' Cf LB IX 394E-F: 'Zuniga considered this Latin ... as if one could right away use in prose what the poets said either for the sake of specious archaism or according to their own licence ... for what he adduces out of Cicero is ridiculous. In the phrase neque ollam denariorum implere (nor fill the pot with money) the genitive does not modify "fill" but "pot" [ie, the meaning is: nor fill the money pot].' This argument is directed against Zuniga's criticism. Cf LB IX 294E-F: 'It would be most impudent if I wanted to use the obsolete verb geno drawn from old authorities, and poets at that, but it would be even more ridiculous to use a word derived from it [ie genimine}.' Cf also Acts 1 note 1 on actus, which Erasmus considered poetic usage. He himself preferred the neuter form actum; cf Ep 347:341-2 to Dorp: 'Excuse me if I use the common form [actus] when I know of course that men of taste and disciples of Valla have to say acta.' Cf also eg 4 note 1 on diabolus; 5 note 26 on scandalizare; 5 note 50 on ethnicus. 'or ... earn' was added in 1519. 1 note 22; for a more detailed study see below 129-30. 3 note 1; for a more detailed study see below 152-3. 13 note 38, a reference to Plautus' Rudens 19 note 7; a reference to Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Banquet 189C-193D On the relationship between Valla's and Erasmus' notes see also above 13-15 and below 85-8. Unless otherwise noted Valla is quoted from the text in Opera omnia (Turin 1962) I 803-95. Cf Perosa's introduction to the Collatio xxviii n48. Plato and Xenophon made their appearance only in the second redaction; Homer, however, who was cited frequently as a source of background information in the first redaction, all but disappears in the second, more concise, version, which omits a number of notes altogether (eg at Perosa 17:1, 90:10, 100:16, 125:6). In the Gospels Cicero is cited at 805b, 809b, 813b, 814b, 821b, 822a, 825a, 834a, 834b, 837a; Terence at 805b, 809b, 813b, 814b, 822a, 834b, 843a; Virgil at 807b, 814a, 835a, 842b, 844b; Quintilian at 804b, 808b, 834a, 842a; Varro at 807b, 817a, 817b, 837a; Valerius Maximus at 804b, 822b, 834a; Priscian at 804b, 808b, 812b, 831b, 841b. At 804a, 806a, 808a, 835a, 837a See also the more general comparison of the two men's work below 85-8.

Notes to pages 50-5 / 197 59 Expressed in his Ciceronianus; cf eg LB I 997A: 'Shall we set such store by the name of Ciceronian that we either hold our tongues on the only subjects it has ever been our duty to talk about or else reject the words handed on by the apostles or introduced by our founding fathers, received up to this very day by the consensus of all the intervening centuries ... turn up our noses at a group of expressions which we have received together with that marvellous heavenly philosophy, transmitted to us from hand to hand via Christ, the apostles, and the Fathers on whom the Holy Spirit breathed, and instead go running to Cicero in order to raise words from him?' (CWE 28 391). On Ciceronian standards being applied to Christian themes see LB 991E-999D. For Erasmus and Ciceronianism see Ch. Bene 'Erasmus et Ciceron' Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia II 571-9. 60 For the Greek hapax legomenon antimykterizein (to answer mocking with mocking) see Cicero Fam 15.19.14. 61 Both authors adapted plays by Menander, Philemon, Apollodorus, and other unidentified playwrights of the Middle Comedy. 62 1 Cor 4 note 3; compare Acts 10 note 33. On the apostles' style see also below 140-2. 63 Acts 17 note 44. For this development see E. Rummel Erasmus as a Translator of the Classics 11-13, 15-18. 64 For the use of patristic sources in the Renaissance see P. Polman L'element historique dans la controverse religieuse du XVIe siecle (Gembloux 1932); H.O. Old The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship (Zurich 1975) esp 101-80; Ch. Stinger Humanism and the Church Fathers (Albany 1977) esp 83-166; J.K. Luoma 'Who Own the Fathers?' Sixteenth-Century Journal 8-3 (1977) 45-59, W.P. Haaugaard 'Renaissance Patristic Scholarship and Theology in Sixteenth-Century England' Sixteenth-Century Journal 10-3 (1979) 37-60; R.W. Hunt The Need for a Guide to the Editors of Patristic Texts in the 16th Century' Studia Patristica 17-1 (1982) 365-71. For Erasmus' patristic studies, editions, and translations of patristic writings see John Olin 'Erasmus and the Church Fathers' Six Essays on Erasmus (New York 1979) 33-48; for his use of patristic writings in the Annotations see A. Rabil Erasmus and the New Testament (San Antonio 1972) 104-7, 115-22 (dealing with Romans only); for individual church Fathers see the following notes. 65 Assertionis Lutheranae confutatio, ed 1545, f 156v; the quotations are taken from Polman 213nn; on the selective use of patristic literature by later reformers see Luoma 'Who Owns the Fathers?' passim. 66 For the controversy see H. Feld 'Der Humanistenstreit um Heb 2, 7' Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 61 (1970) 5-35; J. Payne

198 Notes to pages 55-60

67

68

69 70

71 72

'Erasmus and Lefevre as Interpreters of Paul' Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 65 (1974) 54-82; G. Bedouelle Lefevre d'Etaples et I'intelligence des ecritures (Geneva 1976) 218-23; below 55. He was obliged to defend his position in the Apologia de 'In principio erat sermo' Basel 1520. Cf C.A.L. Jarrott 'Erasmus' In principio erat sermo: A controversial translation' Studies in Philology 61 (1964) 35-40; M. O'Rourke Boyle Erasmus on Language and Method in Theology (Toronto 1977) 3-31. See also Luke 6 note 1 relating that neither Jerome nor his conversation partner could explain the meaning of sabbatus secundus primus; compare also Ep 456:129-32: 'I show that in some places slips have been made by Hilary, by Augustine, by Thomas; and this I do, as is right and proper, with great respect ... They were very great men, but only men after all.' LB IX 1083F; cf John 17 note 3: 'Here they will cry out, I know, that I am censuring the holy Doctors of the church, when they sometimes twist Scripture to win an argument.' Cf John Eck's reaction in Ep 769:97-109: 'I am thus much distressed by the judgment you put forward regarding Augustine ... and there is no shortcoming in you which your supporters so much regret as your failure to have read Augustine.' Erasmus admitted that in his rush to complete the work for the first edition he could not always put his finger on relevant passages in Augustine: 'I could not find the place I was looking for, either because I was looking in a hurry or because the pages were mixed up and [information] was out of place' (LB IX 312E-F against Zuniga). The question of Erasmus' attitude toward Augustine is discussed at some length at LB IX 194F-200C in a defence against Lee's accusation that he had been irreverent. Lee is quoted by Erasmus as saying: 'You act as critic of so great a man ... whose saintliness and learning the whole Christian world has admired for so many centuries' (LB IX 198F). Erasmus, however, insists that he is entitled to his own judgment. This does not imply a desire to put himself above Augustine: 'Or can a man who is inferior not say what he thinks of Augustine?' On Erasmus and Augustine in general see Ch. Bene Erasme et St Augustin (Geneva 1969); Ch. Trinkaus 'Erasmus, Augustine, and the Nominalists' Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 67 (1976) 5-32; P.I. Kaufman Augustinian Piety and Catholic Reform (Macon 1982) 111-48. Cf Ep 581:22-3, May 1517, where Beatus Rhenanus first mentions the project: 'About the revision of St Augustine's works you shall have some news in September.' On the importance of knowing Greek and consulting Greek manuscripts see below 127-36.

Notes to pages 60-4 / 199 73 Published in Basel by J. Froben. See the preface addressed to Jean de Carondelet (Ep 1334) and John Olin 'Erasmus and His Edition of St Hilary' Erasmus in English 9 (1978) 8-11. For Erasmus' use of a Hilary manuscript (?) see Allen Ep 1289:18 and note. 74 Eg Matt 1 note 14 (on Christ's genealogy), 10 note 2 (quoting an explanatory addition), 24 note 42 (citing his paraphrase), but the reference to his exposition usually serves the purpose of confirming a variant. Erasmus was of the opinion that Hilary's language was 'difficult to understand and easily corrupted even when he treats of matters that are clear in themselves' (Allen Ep 1334:18-20). 75 For this ideal see also Rom 1 note 2: 'In Holy Writ the simplest, least constrained interpretation pleases most'; Rom 1 note 19: 'I am more pleased with a simple and natural (simplicia et gnesia) interpretation that shows the Apostle's meaning rather than the interpreter's cleverness.' Erasmus' preference for a simple interpretation is discussed by Chomarat Grammaire et rhetorique 558-62, where additional examples are cited. 76 In his notes on the Pauline Epistles he also refers to the commentaries of Ambrose [Ambrosiaster], now recognized as spurious. Erasmus himself eventually began to doubt the authenticity of the work; cf his prefatory note (n p) in the fifth volume of his edition of Ambrose: 'In the commentaries themselves there appears to be something added and something curtailed in places'; on the arguments that precede the commentaries he says: The reader should know that the arguments preceding the letters are not Ambrose's but some falsifier's'; compare 2 Cor 1 note 4: Today we have Ambrose's writings in multilated form, indeed mixed up.' 77 LB IX 132E against Lee: His commentaries on Matthew are 'so disparate that sometimes they are diametrically opposed to each other'; cf 134C: 'when I first published my work, I had at my disposal a Greek text of Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew from the library of the Dominicans, but it was incomplete'; cf 990E against Titelmans' 'I had a Greek Chrysostom, but so badly written and mutilated that I had doubts whether it really was Chrysostom.' Such considerations may explain why Chrysostom only makes his appearance in the 1527 edition of the annotations on Romans. For the use of Chrysostom in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance see Ch. Baur S. Jean Chrysostome et ses oeuvres dans I'histoire litteraire (Louvain 1907) 60-82; on Renaissance editions, Greek and Latin, 90ff. 78 LB IX 140F: 'I cannot at this time say what Chrysostom read, for I do not have access to the Greek text.' 79 Allen Ep 1800:82; for Jerome Froben's manuscripts see Allen Ep

200 Notes to pages 64-6

80

81

82 83

84 85

1705:6 and note. Erasmus himself dispatched Karl Harst to buy a Greek Chrysostom (Homilies on Acts; cf Allen Ep 1623:9). Cf Acts 1 note 2: 'When I was preparing the fourth edition [1527] I obtained by chance Greek commentaries ascribed to Chrysostom - whether rightly or wrongly I cannot as yet tell. I cited some things from it in the third edition from notes supplied to me by friends.' Cf Allen Epp 1558:202, 2359:42-5. Anianus, the Pelagian deacon of Celeda in Campagna, flourished at the beginning of the fifth century. His (corrected) version was published by Erasmus in the Froben Opera omnia of 1530. John 21 note 15, in the edition of 1516. For Corinthians Erasmus used the translation of Francesco Aretino. He borrowed a manuscript from Fisher and published a revised version in his Chrysostom edition of 1530 (cf Allen Epp 2359:56-7 and 2226:76n). Erasmus criticized Aretino's translation in Ep 2263:51-60, giving two examples of mistranslations. Cf Allen 2611:168-70 where he acknowledges Aretino's industry and effort. Aretino also translated Chrysostom's homilies on John (first printed Rome 1470). There was also a Venice edition of 1503 (Bernardinus, Stagninus, and Gregorius de Gregoriis), which contained George Trebizond's translation. In Allen Ep 2611:114-18 Erasmus says that this native Greek did not know enough Latin and was too inexperienced in theological matters to produce a good version. In 1504 De Pfortzen and Lachner published another Latin edition, followed by Froben (1517, mentioned by Beatus Rhenanus in Ep 575:39-40) and Cratander (1522; some volumes edited by Oecolampadius). Allen mentions a manuscript written by Erasmus' secretary, Gilbert Cousin, containing the corrections, almost all of which are incorporated in the Chevallon edition. See Allen Ep 2359 headnote. Cf Allen Ep 1349:21-3: 'If Froben printed the works of Chrysostom in Greek, especially those that have not been translated into Latin, they would sell well'; Allen Ep 1558:265-6: 'I hope that this foretaste will stimulate scholars in future to demand the other works of Chrysostom'; also Allen Ep 2526:9-10: 'For two years now Verona promises us a complete Greek edition of Chrysostom.' Giberti published three volumes of the homilies on the Pauline Epistles in 1529, but no further progress was made. The Veronese edition is mentioned eg at Rom 14 note 11, Col 1 note 2. Cf Allen Ep 3131:4-6: 'I cannot but be pained at this grave loss, and in particular I grievously miss what he wrote on the New Testament.' Allen Ep 3131:28-30 (preface to the reader); cf Ep 1844:65-6 (the original preface addressed to Nikolaus von Diesbach). He cited this version for example at Matt 27 note 43 and 23 note 10. On the use of Origen in Erasmus' Annotations on Romans see A. Godin

Notes to pages 66-9 / 201

86 87 88 89

90 91

92

93 94 95

96 97 98

Tonction d'Origene dans la pratique exegetique d'Erasme: les Annotations sur 1'epitre aux Remains' Histoire de I'exegese au XVIe siecle (Geneva 1978) 17-44; idem Erasme lecteur d'Origene (Geneva 1982) esp 120-97 where the annotations on Romans are subjected to a more comprehensive analysis; M. Schaer Das Nachleben des Origenes im Zeitalter des Humanismus (Basel 1980). That is, the Latin edition of 'a certain Merlin' (Luke 2 note 38), ie J. Merlin (Paris: Jean Petit 1512, reprinted 1519, 1522); the translation is also mentioned in Luke 1 note 7. Expressed at 1 notes 50, 58; 2 notes 26, 37; 3 note 28; 4 note 4 etc. John 1 note 6, compare LBIX 356A against Zuniga. Erasmus was right: the author was John Scotus Erigena, cf de Jonge's commentary ASD IX-2 266. Godin Tonction d'Origene' 26-7; see also his overall judgment in Erasme lecteur d'Origene 196: 'Le theme theologique inherent au mot ou groupe de mots annotes est dilue ... desamorce ... ramene a de plus justes limites ... En somme, dans la quasi totalite des exemples analyses, sont a 1'oeuvre des procedures de minimisation, de contamination, d'affadissement ou d'aplatissement theologique.' See above 36. LB IX 990E against Titelmans: 'I had the Greek text, but through the scribes' negligence the order of pages was so confused that I often could not find what I was looking for'; similarly LB IX 296E against Zuniga. Matt 6 note 32 (abbreviatorem recentem), cf Allen Ep 1790:30-2: Theophylact construed his commentaries out of the works of Chrysostom and various other writers'; similarly at John 1 notes 6, 33 (aemulus); 8 note 9; 12 note 16. Cited by Erasmus at L3 IX 147A Cf de Jonge's commentary in ASD IX-2 131; on the papal librarian Ch. Persona (c 1416-85) see Schaer 113-15. Cf LB IX 336A: 'What he quotes from his badly translated "Athanasius" ... does not show me up or go against me'; 323C-D: 'for under this name he sometimes quotes Theophylact'; cf Allen Ep 1790:9-11. To quote from a Latin text was in any case not relevant: 'I say that Zuniga has not read Theophylact in Greek but rather in a bad Latin version. On that basis he cannot effect much' (LB IX 337A). Cf LB IX 990D against Titelmans: incommode versum; 338A against Zuniga: The translator did not render the Greek with enough fidelity.' Allen Ep 1800:309 and note; cf John 15 note 18: 'Cyril's translator translates testimonium perhibite, following his own text, not that of my edition.' Cf Erasmus' request for manuscripts of Cyprian's works in 1519: Ep

202 Notes to pages 69-74 975:5-6. For his edition he used J. Andreas' edition (Rome 1471) as well as two others (Deventer 1480 and Paris 1512); cf Allen Ep 1000 headnote and Old 164-5. 99 Cyprian is quoted to establish the correct reading at eg Matt 3 notes 14, 17, 25, 6 note 32, 7 note 10; regarding translation at Matt 6 note 27, 11 note 44. 100 For Remigius (Haimo of Auxerre, d 853) to whom Erasmus gave qualified praise (Allen Ep 2771:14: 'if one considers the time and place in which [he] lived'), cf eg Matt 17 note 15, Luke 1 note 5, John 1 note 2; for Rhabanus Maurus (d 856) cf eg Matt 3 note 5; he is often quoted second-hand from the Glossa ordinaria, eg at Acts 8 note 41, 16 note 1, 24 note 17. 101 Luke 1 note 5, John 1 note 2; on the term recentiores see below n!09. Needless to say Erasmus did not draw an exact time line between 'older' and 'more recent' writers. I have adhered to Migne's classification; writers who are included in PL and PG are discussed in this section, scholastic authors below 74-85. 102 Cf Matt 5 note 2, Mark 1 note 3 (where his interpretation is said to be duriusculum, 'rather awkward'), 8 note 24, Luke 10 note 1 ('his reasoning is frigid'), etc. 103 Eg at 1 Cor 16 note 10, Acts 17 note 8, 24 notes 8, 13, 27 note 34, 28 note 5 104 Tertullian is cited about a dozen times in the Gospels; Irenaeus about the same number of times; Arnobius once or twice; Bede's commentary received nine new mentions. Beatus Rhenanus was the editor of the editio princeps of Tertullian (Basel August 1522). Ep 1232, which first mentions this edition, contains a review of Tertullian's language and methods. His style, Erasmus says, is harsh (subdurum, Allen line 7), and he tends to twist Scripture to suit his purpose (vim facit scripturis, Allen line 17), yet 'who could fail to admire that ever-ardent heart, that exact knowledge of the Scriptures and that ready memory? - and all this in those early days when there was still no regular profession of theology, no universities, no learned disquisitions, almost no commentators on sacred books' (Allen lines 9-13). 105 Cf Ep 948:117-19; one of the critics is identified in a letter to Botzheim (Allen I 26:4) as Baechem (Egmondanus). 106 Cf below 136-40. 107 Cf below 148 and Erasmus' reply to Stunica LBIX 299B-C. 108 This interpretation was criticized by Beda, who labelled it a 'Lutheran heresy' (cf LB IX 589F). 109 Recentiores, neoterici; such terms do not refer to a specific period of history but merely denote a contrast between periods, putting a distance between them and emphasizing the notion of change. Cf

Notes to pages 74-7 / 203

110

111 112

113 114

W. Freund Modernus und andere Zeitbegriffe des Mittelalters (Cologne 1957). Erasmus uses the terms to denote medieval theologians, eg at Matt 3 note 5 (recentiores, of Rhabanus Maurus and Lyra), at Matt 26 note 12 (recentiores, until 1519 only), John 8 note 9 (neotericum theologorum vulgus until 1519 only), Rom 5 note 14 (tot quaestionum volumina quibus recentiores theologi mundum impleverunt), compare Allen Ep 373:158 (huius recentioris theologiae studio veterem negligit). For the 'theologians of old' see eg Allen Ep 396:83 (veteres illos scriptores, of the Fathers), Allen Ep 373:155 (vetus ilia theologia). Erasmus thought that the decline of theology had set in some four hundred years before his time (cf Allen Ep 1333:324-5). Some of the recentiores have already been discussed in the previous section (patristic sources); the present section is concerned primarily with writers from the twelfth to the fourteenth century. At John 19 note 3 Erasmus expressed scorn for the 'dictionaries and summaries that have been heaped up and recycled (refusus - like Oceanus "going in circles") more than ten times over from any source whatsoever.' However, Zuniga gleefully pointed out that Erasmus, despite this show of superiority, had used the Glossa and had copied from it wrong information (cf LB IX 314C on Acts 1 note 21). Erasmus in turn told him to take his complaint to the theologians 'with whom the Glossa has such great authority, as we all know' (LB IX ibidem). For Erasmus' use of the Glossa see de Jonge 'Erasmus und die Glossa ordinaria 51-77. He uses this expression at 2 Tim 2 note 24, Acts 1 note 2, LB IX 345C-D; 438D; compare Plutarch (Moralia 514c) who uses the term to describe a garrulous man's twaddle. Cf Acts 1 note 2: 'I suspect that they were suppressed on purpose by those rhapsodists to make their own collection more valuable.' Erasmus obviously saw the Glossa as the scholar's last resort, for of the fifty citations in the fifth edition (I quote the figure given in de Jonge 'Erasmus und die Glossa ordinaria 55) almost half occur in the notes on Acts, presumably 'because none among the Latin writers of old ... elucidated it with commentaries; for there is nothing extant on it, as far as I know, except Jerome's comments on a few geographical names' (Acts 1 note 2; Erasmus only got hold of Chrysostom's homilies in time for the fourth edition; see above 64 and 200 n79. On Erasmus' attitude toward Thomas see Massaut 'Erasme et Saint Thomas' Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia (Tours 1969) II 581-611; Bentley Humanists and Holy Writ 175. Allen Ep 1581:589-91; compare Ep 952:50-1: 'the precepts of Scotus and Thomas, of which I do not wholly disapprove either.'

204 Notes to pages 80-8 115 For Erasmus' attitude toward Scotus see eg C.R. Thompson 'Better Teachers than Scotus or Aquinas' Proceedings of the South-east Institute of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 2 (Durham 1966) 114-45; Ch. Dolfen Die Stellung des Erasmus 84-6. 116 'Scotus and Albertus Magnus and still more unscholarly writers than these are noisily preached in every school' (Ep 141:25-6); 'we are perfectly satisfied with the most elementary rudiments of Latin, no doubt because we are convinced that we can get everything out of Scotus, as a sort of horn of plenty' (Ep 149:57-9); 'so many volumes of questions with which modern theologians have filled the world ... especially Scotus, whose paradoxical arguments, which they call ante oppositum, are sometimes crazier than the counterarguments' (Rom 5 note 14). 117 See below 145. 118 For biographical details see C. Zeman 'Hugh of St Cher' Dominicana 44 (1959) 338-47; G. Hendrix 'Les Postillae de Hugues de Saint-Cher et la traite De doctrina cordis' Recherches theologiques 47 (1980) 114-30. 119 John 5 note 2; cf Matt 9 note 19 and 1 James 2 note 20: 'Such is the bounty of ignorance; the speech of truth, however, is simple.' He speaks of Thomas in a similar vein: 'Ignorance is fertile' (1 Cor 5 note 16). 120 Matt 9 note 19, 2 Cor 3 note 11; cf Matt 27 note 48, Luke 6 note 1. 121 Luke 12 note 15, suppressed after 1522 122 Cf also 1 Tim 1 note 18, 1 Peter 2 note 12. 123 Rome 1471; on Lyra's biblical scholarship see most recently Bentley Humanists and Holy Writ 21-30; also Henri de Lubac Exegese medievale (Paris 1959-64) IV 344-67; Ch.-V. Langlois 'Nicolas de Lyre, frere mineur' Histoire litteraire de France 36 (1927) 355-400. 124 Duraud de Saint-Pourcain (1270-1334) was an early exponent of nominalism. He is mentioned at 1 Cor 7 note 42 (LB VI 699F). Compare Ep 396:101, where he is listed among the inferior writers who unfortunately replaced patristic writings in schools. Jean Gerson (1363-1429), a leader of the ecclesiastical reform movement, is mentioned at Luke 1 note 70, John 18 note 3. Compare Ep 224:16 where Wimpfeling gives him an honourable mention, ranking him with Augustine and Gregory the Great. Payne Theology of the Sacraments 21, following Dolfen 88-91, points out that Erasmus had a somewhat higher opinion of Gerson than of most scholastic writers. Cf Allen Ep 1581:87: 'I have read some of Gerson's works in my youth; they did not displease me.' Erasmus uses Gerson in defence of his own position at LB IX 918F, 919A-B; cf above 75. 125 See above 12-15, 48-9. 126 See above 14. 127 Chomarat 'Les Annotations' 227, 208

Notes to pages 93-9 / 205 CHAPTER THREE

1 Similarly Acts 8 note 7: They think it matters little how we speak as long as we ourselves can understand what we are saying.' Cf Luke 22 note 21 ('Who will understand ...'), Heb 13 note 2 (This expression means nothing to Latin ears'), Col 3 note 8 (What does mentiri invicem mean?'). 2 These justifications are offered at eg Matt 8 note 13, 14 note 12, 26 note 46, Acts 17 note 19, Heb 3 note 19. 3 In the text Erasmus added ita. 4 Matt 5 note 26, similarly 16 note 25, Rom 9 note 40, 1 Cor 9 note 16 5 Cf Matt 6 note 4 on hypocrita: This is also one of the [loan]-words the translator delights in.' 6 Matt 6 note 39, similarly Rom 2 note 10; cf 1 Cor 16 note 3 on the Vulgate's recondens: 'which he at last translated into Latin whereas before he used to leave the Greek [loan]-word [ie, thesaurizare].' 7 Heb 9 note 12; cf Mark 7 note 16 and Matt 24 note 35: 'Here at any rate it would have been more appropriate to say it in Latin.' 8 Cf 1 Cor 13 note 3, 2 Thess 2 note 13. 9 Cf John 1 note 38 where Erasmus explains that Greek baptismos is the same as Latin baptizatio or tinctio (dipping). 10 Erasmus' distinction is not entirely supported by classical usage; for another comment on the semantics of invenire cf Luke 1 note 39: 'for in Greek heurein is polysemous. Thus people who philosophize that one can find (invenire) what is lost debate with more subtlety than relevance.' On this debate, which may have its origin in Valla's Elegantiae, see de Jonge The Character of Erasmus' Translation' 84. 11 Cf Matt 9 note 27, 16 note 22; Mark 1 note 38, 3 note 10, 4 note 30, 8 notes 21, 25; Luke 4 note 31, 9 note 12. 12 Referred to at Matt 6 note 34, 19 note 18 13 Mark 15 note 1; cf Matt 5 note 19. 14 Matt 6 note 36 and cf Mark 5 note 23; Luke 13 note 2 and cf Mark 14 note 48; Luke 23 note 17. 15 Matt 2 note 20; Mark 8 note 25 16 Mark 12 note 26; Luke 6 note 17 17 Matt 2 note 6 and Mark 15 note 5; Matt 24 note 26 and Luke 12 note 16; Mark 4 note 22 and Luke 13 note 8 18 The term was coined by Trinkaus; my references to Manetti and Brandolini are taken from his book In Our Image and Likeness 599 and 604. 19 LB IX 658A to Beda; compare Capita contra morosos 6: 1 know that a great many people keep away from sacred volumes because of the strange, not to say impure, diction.'

206 Notes to pages 99-116 20 Cf Beda's accusations and Erasmus' defence in LB IX 467A-E, also 783A against Sutor. On the apostles' style see below 140-2. 21 But cf Rom 15 note 1, where he accepts Valla's suggestion and changes the Vulgate's firmiores to potentes to preserve the parallel with impotentium. 22 Cf also Matt 12 note 6, Rom 1 note 76, 1 Cor 11 note 37. 23 Cf Rom 1 note 68 where he points out the 'pleasant affinity of sound' in phthonou/phonou, though he was unable to reproduce it in Latin. 24 Cf Rom 10 note 3: 'Here the Greek manuscripts repeat "justice," for the speech is livelier if the word is repeated.' 25 Elegantior, mollior, Latinior; in Latin elegans can mean 'elegant' or 'pure'; cf Erasmus' reply to Beda, LB IX 531B: 'By elegantia, I think, he means eloquence.' He goes on to speak of the legitimacy of using rhetorical devices in Holy Writ. 26 Eg Acts 5 note 25: 'He translated this elegantly,' similarly Acts 23 note 5 27 Cf Luke 11 note 5: This is indeed elegantly rendered by the translator - if only it be understood'; Luke 13 note 11: The translator translated it aptly - if only we understand it!'; similarly Luke 14 note 9. 28 Matt 21 note 10; cf Rom 1 note 57 where Erasmus changed it: 'I have translated it by laudandus for the sake of the less experienced reader; for eulogein in Greek means to speak reverently of someone ... this word is so widely accepted in Holy Writ that changing it is hardly permissible.' 29 2 Cor 3 note 10; cf Eph 1 note 48, Heb 4 note 5 30 Cf Allen Ep 1304:319, where Erasmus refers to the similarity of the handwritten letters r and x to account for a mix-up between aures in and auxesin. 31 LB IX 318B; similarly 325D: 'Scribes often make mistakes with numerals.' 32 De suo: Matt 5 note 7, 8 note 7, 12 note 3, 20 note 17 etc 33 Matt 18 note 32; similarly Rom 4 note 21: 'It appears to have been added by someone wishing to render the sense more clearly,' 34 For example, at Matt 15 note 7, 15 note 30, 20 note 24 35 Matt 3 note 17; cf ibidem 24 note 42. 36 Matt 21 note 31; for similar scruples see also Matt 22 note 16, Rom 13 note 3. 37 Matt 5 note 17, Acts 1 note 29 (audaculus); Matt 22 note 14, Acts 3 note 15 (sciolus); Acts 2 note 34 (eruditulus); Acts 9 note 7 (doctulus) 38 Cf Ep 337:760-2, countering Dorp's argument that the Vulgate must not be corrected: 'What will you do when ... the sense itself runs much better?' Compare Acts 1 note 4: 'otherwise the connection

Notes to pages 116-23 / 207

39

40 41

42 43

between what follows and what precedes is more awkward.' Cf Chomarat Grammaire et rhetorique 491 for examples of textual criticism based on context, taken from the Adagia. Semper mihi suspectior esse solet ea quae prima specie uidetur absurdior. The words mihi suspectior are awkward. The sentence itself invites the application of the principle of the harder reading. Erasmus probably meant that what was prima facie absurd was always open to suspicion; mihi (in my opinion) would then refer not to 'suspect' but to the whole clause; ie 'the meaning is always suspect - in Erasmus' opinion'; not 'the meaning is always suspect in Erasmus' eyes.' J. Bentley 'Erasmus, Jean Le Clerc, and the Principle of the Harder Reading' 313 suggests translating suspectus by 'respected,' an alternative to the more common meaning of 'suspect.' That Erasmus was referring to the principle of the harder reading is clear from the context of the statement. Diego Lopez Zuniga; cf Erasmus' reply at LB IX 323F-324D and de Jonge's commentary ad locum (ASD IX-2 167). Cf Hadot 760: 'pour son epoque et avec les moyens dont il disposait, Erasme faisait une oeuvre de pionnier'; Jarrot 'Biblical Humanism' 149: 'No one ... can fail to be impressed by the scope of his efforts, even with all the limitations of his time'; for sterner assessments see Nestle Einfiihrung in das griechische Neue Testament 62: 'He simply took the manuscripts he had borrowed from the Dominicans, made a few improvements, and gave them to the printer in this form'; cf also Hall in Cambridge History of the Bible III 56, 60: 'interest in achieving an accurate text of the Septuagint ... was lacking in the sixteenth century.' See, for example, Opuscula 244:139-40 where he reports that he was unable to find a memo on Lee's query: 'It had been lying hidden among my papers (schedae).' Cf LB IX 126A, where he says that he did not collate the Greek and Latin text of Luke 'because at the time I was in poor health and could not stand up to the manifold tasks'; cf 166C, where he remarks that he 'delegated that area to others so as to take care of my health;' similarly 308c. Compare LB IX 305A on Mark: 'Sometimes I did not collate whole pages, not because I was careless and lazy, but because I was overwhelmed by a tide of work.' CHAPTER FOUR

1 Ep 304:98-9; the debate continued with Erasmus' reply, Ep 337, and Dorp's rebuttal, Ep 347. At this point the discussion was carried on by Thomas More on Erasmus' behalf (Ep 15 Rogers). Dorp (1485-1525) taught Aristotelian philosophy and Latin at the College of the Lily in Louvain. He sympathized with the new learning, but

208 Notes to pages 123-4 came under pressure from the theological faculty, of which he had become a member in 1510. Intimidated, he defended the official position in the controversy with Erasmus but soon returned to his earlier promotion of humanistic ideals and was promptly humiliated by having his annual certification as lecturer refused. He was reinstated the following year and, although his career was threatened at times by his humanistic leanings, eventually became rector of the university in 1523. On his dispute with Erasmus see P. Mesnard 'Humanisme et theologie dans la controverse entre Erasmus et Dorpius' Filosofia 14 (1963) 885-900; S.I. Camporeale 'Da Lorenzo Valla a Tommaso Moro' in Umanesimo e teologia (Pistoia 1973) 26-64; on Erasmus' critics in Louvain in general see H. de Vocht Texts and Studies about Louvain Humanists in the First Half of the Sixteenth Century (Louvain 1934), esp 139ff; R. Crahay 'Les censeurs louvanistes d'Erasme' Scrinium Erasmianum (Leiden 1969) 221-49; and J. Bentley 'New Testament Scholarship at Louvain in the Early Sixteenth Century' Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History ns 2 (1979) 51-79. 2 The Council of Trent established the Vulgate as the authoritative text in 1546. 3 Lefevre (c 1460-1536) taught philosophy and liberal arts at Paris and, after retiring from teaching in 1508, devoted himself to biblical studies. He published commentaries on the Pauline Epistles in 1512 and on the Gospels in 1521 and a French translation of the New Testament in 1530. For the text of his criticism of Erasmus' note on Hebrews see LB IX 68-80; for Erasmus' reply, Apologia ad Fabrum (Louvain 1517) LB IX 17-66. On the controversy see J. Payne 'Erasmus and Lefevre' Theologische Zeitschrift 22 (1966) 254-64; H. Feld 'Der Humanistenstreit um Hebr. 2, 7 (Psalm 8, 6)' Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 61 (1970) 5-35. 4 Latomus (1475-1544) studied in Paris, returned to Louvain (DD 1519), and from 1510 on was a member of the university council. He soon became one of the leaders of the orthodox party. On his controversy with Erasmus see G. Chantraine 'L' "Apologia ad Latomum" ...' Scrinium Erasmianum (Leiden 1969) 51-75. The language issue was raised again a few years later by the Paris theologian Johannes Sutor (Jacques Cousturier), who rejected all revisions of the Vulgate in his De tralatione Bibliae (Paris 1525) and depicted Erasmus as a meddling rhetorician who lacked proper theological qualifications. Sutor (1475-1537) received his doctorate in theology from the Sorbonne in 1510. He entered the Carthusian order and played an important administrative role as prior and visitor. Erasmus answered his attacks with an Apologia adversus Petrum Sutorem (Basel 1525), LB IX 739-804. The debate was

Notes to pages 124-5 / 209 continued in a series of apologiae and antapologiae between 1525 and 1531. Cf P.-Y. Feret La Faculte de theologie de Paris est ses docteurs ... II 392-5; H. Holeczek Humanistische Bibelphilologie 186-235. To the same period belongs Clichtove's Propugnaculum fidei (Cologne 1526) which is answered by Erasmus in LB IX 811-14. References to Clichtove follow the Cologne edition. 5 Lee (1482-1522), who became archbishop of York in 1531, had studied at Oxford (BA 1501) and Cambridge (MA 1504) and in 1516 matriculated at Louvain. There he met Erasmus, who encouraged his Greek studies and invited his criticism. Lee mistook this polite gesture for an earnest request for collaboration and submitted his notes to Erasmus. When the latter showed no intentions of incorporating them in his second edition of the New Testament, the spurned critic sought recognition by publishing his notes, but was unable at first to find a publisher. In the mean time Erasmus tried in vain to get hold of Lee's manuscript. He managed only to see some notes passed on to him by Maarten Lips, a mutual acquaintance. Lee finally succeeded in publishing his notes in 1520. For the controversy see W.K. Ferguson's introduction to Erasmi Opuscula 225-35. References to Lee's notes follow the Mainz 1520 edition. 6 Apologia reiciens quorundam suspiciones ac rumores notos ex dialogo figurato qui Jacobo Latomo ... inscribitur (Antwerp 1519); text in LB IX 79-106 7 Apologia ... qua respondet duabus invectivis Ed. Lei (Antwerp 1520); text in Opuscula 236-303 8 Antwerp 1520; text in LB IX 123-284 9 Little is known of Zuniga's early life. In 1502 he was among the scholars assembled by Cardinal Jimenez to collaborate on the Complutensian Bible. He was a competent scholar in the three biblical tongues and had access to, and collated, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. On Zuniga's controversy with Erasmus see HJ. de Jonge's introduction to the Apologia respondens ad ea quae lac. Lopis Stunica taxaverat ... in ASD IX-2 3-57. References to Stunica's Annotationes follow the Alcala 1520 edition. 10 Basel 1528; text in LB IX 1015-94. On the controversy see M. Bataillon Erasmo y Espana (Mexico 1950) 236-67. 11 Beda (1470-1537) was a pupil of Standonck and probably knew Erasmus from his days at the College de Montaigu. He eventually succeeded Standonck as principal of the college (1504-14). From 1520 on he was active as syndic of the theological faculty of the Sorbonne and sedulously prosecuted humanists and reformers. He investigated Erasmus' writings and finally published his findings in 1526, drawing for his censures on the paraphrases, the preface to Cyprian, the Epistola de esu carnium, and the Enchiridion, of which

210 Notes to pages 125-6

12

13 14

15 16

L. Berquin had made a tendentious translation in 1523. On Beda see J. Farge Biographical Register of Paris Doctors of Theology 1500-1536 (Toronto 1980); M.-M. De la Garanderie Christianisme et lettres profanes (1515-1535) (Paris 1976) 238-50. The most extensive apologies are the Divinationes ad notata Bedae and the Supputatio, both published in Basel in 1527; text in LB IX 453-96, and 515-702. Erasmus eventually succeeded in having Beda's censures withdrawn, but a large part of Bade's edition had already been sold. Declarationes ad censuras Lutetiae vulgatas (Basel 1532); text in LB IX 813-954. Cf J.P. Massaut 'Erasme, la Sorbonne et la nature de l'e"glise' Colloquia Erasmiana (Mons 1968) 89-116. Titelmans (1502-37) obtained an MA from Louvain in 1521, entered the Franciscan order in 1523, and then transferred to the Capuchins in 1535. He taught theology, first at Louvain, and later in Milan and Rome. Among his teachers in Louvain was Latomus, under whose influence he maintained and defended a medieval style of exegesis. On the controversy see Bentley 'New Testament Scholarship' 76-8. Ad collationes cuiusdam iuvenis gerontodidascali (Antwerp 1529); text in LB IX 967-1016 Pio (1475-1531), an Italian nobleman and diplomat, became imperial ambassador to the pope in 1513 and, after Maximilian's death in 1519, French ambassador. After the sack of Rome he fled to Paris, where he published his criticism of Erasmus' writings, Responsio ... (Paris 1529). Erasmus, who had tried in vain to settle the dispute in private (cf Allen Ep 2080: 20-30), now wrote a Responsio ad epistolam Pii (Basel 1529, text in LB IX 1095-1122) in turn. A second attack by Pio on Erasmus' work, Tres et viginti libri ... (Paris 1531), published posthumously, was answered by Erasmus in the Apologia adversus rhapsodias Alberti Pii (Basel 1531, text in LB IX 1123-96). Juan Gines de Sepulveda (c 1490-1573), who had studied in Alcala (BA 1511) and Bologna (DD 1523), enjoyed the patronage of Alberto Pio and most likely assisted him in the composition of Tres et viginti libri (cf Allen Ep 2375:76-7: They say that he keeps in his house a certain Sepulveda, a Spaniard, whose services he uses to polish his style'). Sepulveda came to the defence of his late patron, publishing a respectful Antapologia (Rome 1532), which he sent to Erasmus with Ep 2637 and which was accepted by Erasmus in a conciliatory mood (cf his reply, Ep 2701). Sepulveda later corresponded with Erasmus, reporting to him readings from the Vatican Uncial B, which he defended against Erasmus' suspicions. See above 40. On the controversy see J. Beumer 'Erasmus. Seine humanistischen Gegner in Italien'

Notes to pages 126-9 / 211 Theologie und Philosophie 44 (1969) 1-24; M. Gilmore 'Erasmus and Alberto Pio, Prince of Carpi' in Action and Conviction in Early Modern Europe (Princeton 1958) 299-318; for Sepulveda see Bataillon 421-5. References to Pio's Tres et viginti libri follow the Paris 1531 edition. 17 An exception is Zuniga, but he is mentioned, not in the context of the controversy surrounding the note, but as the owner of a manuscript (cf below 133). Among his contemporaries, Erasmus gives an honourable mention, for example, to the Hebrew scholar Reuchlin (Acts 9 note 32, Heb 2 note 5); the English humanist Grocyn, 'a very great theologian and eminently learned and skilled in every kind of discipline' (Acts 17 note 50); the French scholar Bude, 'immortal ornament of his family, in fact a man not only most erudite among those France bore, but also diligent' (Matt 5 note 24, cf also Matt 20 note 3, Luke 13 note 5, 16 note 25); and Pirckheimer (mentioned together with Bude at Luke 1 note 10; passage deleted in 1522), who did credit to literature 'not only by his domestic fortune and the images of his forefathers but also by the integrity of his life and character.' Erasmus also praised Lefevre, the French exegete with whose interpretation of Heb 2 he disagreed (see above, n3) but whom he refused to consider a personal enemy: That excellent man and incomparable friend of mine, Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples, whom I name for the sake of honouring him whenever I name him, whose most ardent zeal for fine literature I approve heartily, whose manifold and not at all common erudition I admire, and whose civility and affability I adore, whose singular sanctity of life I venerate and embrace' (Rom 1 note 12). 18 Compare Luke 1 note 37 with LB IX 152A-C, 807B; see also below 167-9 where the note is discussed. 19 The comments in 1 Peter 4 note 9 correspond to accounts in Epp 948:114-19 and Allen 2045:42-51, where the critic is identified. 20 Compare Matt 21 note 31 with LB IX 138F-140C, 301A-B. 21 Compare Luke 1 note 53 with LB IX 498D, 599C. 22 A reference to Johann Loeblein of Ochsenfurt, regent of St Paul's. He had thought it disrespectful to use the verb confabulari (to speak familiarly) of the apostles' conversations because it conjured up the image of old wives' tales (fabulae); compare Matt 17 note 6 with Ep 948:76n. 23 Cf above 59-60, 78-9. It is notable, however, that at one point he quotes Augustine's words (De doctrina Christiana 3.3, quoted at Allen Ep 1304:166-7) on the importance of consulting the original to establish the correct meaning. 24 Cf above 112. 25 Some aspects of this note are discussed above 48, 84.

212 Notes to pages 132-4 26 Cf above 40. 27 See above 40. 28 Compare IJohn 5 note 3: '... quonam argumento docet utrum sit rectius, utrumve scriptum sit ab apostolo: praesertim cum quod reprehendit turn haberet publicus usus ecclesiae? Quod ni fuisset non video quid possint habere locum quae sequuntur: "Sed tu virgo ... Scripturarum." Quis eum clamasset falsarium nisi publicam mutasset lectionem?' (LB VI 1079F-1080B); LB IX 275E-F against Lee: '... quonam argumento comperit ipse germanum esse guod restituit? Conicere licet illius temporibus ecclesiam fere totam secus legisse quam legendum esse contendit Hieronymus; alioqui locum non habent ilia quae sequuntur: "Sed tu virgo ... Scripturarum." Qua fronte clamassent eum falsarium, nisi publicam lectionem mutasset?' As for the parallels between the note and the apology against Stunica, it is difficult to say which text was composed first. Erasmus was working on the revisions for the third edition during the winter and spring of 1520/1. He sent the text to Basel before the end of May. It was printed by February 1522. The apology against Stunica was published in September 1521, ie Erasmus was working on the notes and the apology concurrently. 29 1 John 5 note 3: 'Sed hac de re copiosius respondimus calumniatori per apologiam. Illud addam: cum Stunica meus toties jactet Rhodiensem codicem, cui tantum tribuit autoritatis, mirum non hie adduxisse illius oraculum' (LB VI 1080C-D); LB IX 353C-D: Sed hac d re copiosius respondimus Leo per apologiam. Illud addam: Cum Stunica meus ... [the remainder is found verbatim in the note]. For a detailed discussion of the arguments presented in this context see H.J. de Jonge's commentary ad locum, ASD LX-2 253-9. 30 Compare LB IX 277C: ^Sur hie dissimularem qui toto opere non dissimulo si quid dissideant Graeci'; 1 John 5 note 3 (LB VI 1080D): 'Verumetiam ne quid dissimulem, repertum est apud Anglos Graecus codex unus ... ex hoc igitur codice Britannico reposimus quod in nostris dicebatur deesse: ne cui sit ansa calumniandi. Tandem suspicor codicem ilium ad nostros esse correctum'; cf also LB IX 353D-E against Zuniga: 'Verum tamen ... [verbatim in note] ... ne cui sit causa calumniandi. Quamquam et hunc suspicor ad Latinorum codices fuisse castigatum.' Compare also 1 John 5 note 3: 'ad retundendam haeretici pertinaciam non video quantum valeat' with LB IX 353C: 'non potest admodum valere ad revincendos haereticos.' 31 Compare Matt 21 note 31: 'huius quaestionis nodum ita solvit ut dicat id quod in genere dictum est ... constare propterea quod aliqui qui Christum amplexi sunt, non ilium occiderunt, sed reveriti sunt';

Notes to pages 134-5 / 213 LB IX 139C: 'ita solvit hunc nodum Origenes ut dicat id quod dictum est in genere ... constare propterea quod aliqui Judaeorum qui Christum amplexi sunt non ilium occiderunt sed reveriti sunt.' Compare also Matt 21 note 31: 'Ex his nimirum liquet hoc offendi Hieronymum quod secus evenit quam paterfamilias eventurum praedixerat'; LB IX 139E: 'vides hoc offendi Hieronymum quod secu evenit quam Deus eventurum praedixerit.' 32 Folio 20v; Erasmus claims that he found the error himself. Cf LB I 189D-E: 'When I first published the New Testament ... I consulted Augustine's commentary to see if he had interpreted this story and by some chance - either because I was not attentive enough or because it was out of order in the book - I was convinced that this passage had been passed over by Augustine. When I returned to Brabant and revised the work at leisure I realized that the matter was different than I had thought ... Thereafter it happened that during a friendly conversation with Lee he himself said that the passage had not been explained by Augustine. I asked him if that was so. He assured me it was. Then I laughed and said: "I made the same mistake as you when I was in Basel, but read Augustine's commentary more attentively and you will find that you are wrong." And at the same time I showed him that I had deleted the comment from my Annotations. Dissembling this fact, Lee says "this is not true," as if he were correcting me - obviously trying to transfer this little bit of glory to himself.' 33 Cf LB IX 189F-190A: Then, citing Eusebius, he shows that Papias added this story to the Gospel of John out of the apocryphal Nazarene Gospel.' Lee incorporated this information in his note ad locum (f 41r); Stunica also pointed it out (D3r). 34 Erasmus claims that he discovered the passage on his own. It is likely, however, that Lee pointed it out to him privately before the publication of his notes or that the information was leaked to Erasmus by Lips. At LB IX 132E Erasmus seems to acknowledge that the reference came originally from Lee: 'But Lee casts Chrysostom into my teeth.' Here he does not deny that Lee pointed out the passage to him; he claims that he had been aware of it all along and had omitted it on purpose because he thought it spurious: 'Whatever Greek commentaries there are on Holy Writ are being attributed to Chrysostom ... but his commentaries on Matthew circulate in such diverse readings that they are sometimes diametrically opposed to each other' (LB IX 132E). In the apology against Zuniga, however, Erasmus says that he had 'not come across the passage in Chrysostom, which sometimes happens because of inverted pages.' He notes that Lee reminded him of the

214 Notes to pages 135-44

35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43

44

45

46

47

passage before Zuniga did, but insists that he had 'already thought of Chrysostom in the second edition, so that I don't owe anything to either man' (LB IX 296E). Cf LB IX 760D-E, where Erasmus uses the passage to show that Jerome was not the author of the Vulgate version. Cf LB IX 142B: 'I changed these words, warned by the excellent theologian Maarten Dorp.' LB IX 142D against Lee: 'Indeed, I have answered this on another occasion, in the second edition of the Annotations, and in a letter to Johann Eck.' Jerome had said the the quotation (Malachi 3:1) appeared 'at the end of Malachi.' Zuniga argued that this was correct, for 'the fourth and last chapter was so brief that, joined with the third chapter, it barely made up a third of the whole' (Civ). In 1522 Erasmus added this comment to Mark 1 note 2: 'I admit that much, but can what is a little past the middle be called "at the end"?' In 1535 he removed the words 'because the evangelists hardly ever [1522-7: 'rarely'] applied the word "God" to Jesus on account of the profane and impious ears of that generation.' Cf LB IX 318E to Zuniga; Ep 769:74-5 from Eck: To write like this was less than prudent in you as a Christian.' Cf LB IX 748E against Sutor. The marginal summaries (shoulder heads) in the 1535 edition identify this as a calumnia Sutoria. For Erasmus' views on scholasticism see above 74-84; cf also Schlingensiepen 'Erasmus als Exeget auf Grund seiner Schriften zu Matthaeus' esp 16-27. 1 Tim 1 note 13 is discussed and partially translated in Thompson 'Better Teachers than Scotus and Aquinas' 142-5 and in Dolfen 51-82. See above 83. The pun is also used in Allen Epp 1342:567 of 1523 and 2170:7, 8 of 1529 and is implied in Ep 821:16; in Ep 778:23 theologos in the Deventer manuscripts was replaced by mataiologos in the published version. These questions are discussed by Ockham in his commentary on the Sentences 1.47.1, 1.44.1, 1.7.3, 1.43.2, 1.35.5 and 6, 1.23.1, 1.25.1. Some of them are also mentioned by Erasmus in the Hyperaspistes LB X 1259F-1260A, with the comment: 'It is not impious to discuss them in the schools, if only it is done in a sober manner.' Quaestiones quodlibeticae 5.2.3, 2.7.13; cf Jerome to Eustochium: 'Although God can do all things, he cannot raise up a virgin after she has fallen' (Ep 22.5.2). The question how fire can affect the soul is also mentioned in the Hyperaspistes LB IX 1264B. Summa 2-2.1.10; cf G. Biel's commentary on the Sentences 25.1.3:

Notes to pages 144-5 / 215

48 49

50

51

52

53

'Utrum summus pontifex novum articulum aut novum symbolum condere possit.' Cf the reflection of these issues in Julius exclusus, a satire ascribed to Erasmus: qui caput sum ecclesiae (Opuscula line 982); longe iam superior est unus pontifex universo concilia (line 470). Cf Augustinus Triumphus (1243-1328) Summa 19.2: tenet enim supremum gradum non solum super homines sed etiam super angelos; Alvarus Pelagius (d 1353) De planctu Ecclesiae 37: non homo simpliciter sed quasi deus in terris; Conrad of Megenberg (d 1374) De translatione Romani imperil 25: dico quod tamquam Christus unus ex utroque; Alvarus Pelagius 68: utramque naturam perfectissime participiens. On these issues see H.J. McSorley 'Erasmus and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff 37-54 and Wilks The Problems of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge 1963), the source of the examples cited. On the relevance of these issues in Erasmus' time see most recently Scott H. Hendrix Luther and the Papacy (Philadelphia 1981). Two questions, 'whether the pope has greater than, or as much authority as, Peter' and 'whether he can decree anything contrary to gospel doctrine,' are answered, for example, in Gabriel Biel's Defensorium obedientiae apostolicae Veritas 5 Obermann 10-11 (pan immo eadem fungitur auctoritate); Veritas 8 Obermann 1-3 (summi pontificis definitiones et praecepta, si contra scriptum canonicum ... neminem ad sui observationem obligarent). 'Whether God could become a woman, a devil, an ass, a pumpkin, a stone' is also asked in the Moria ASD IV-3 148:402-3; for references to Major see Miller's commentary ad locum. Another question is raised here and in the Moria: 'Is the proposition "God hates the Son" possible?' (cf Moria 146:401-2). Miller in his note ad locum quotes Jean Buridan and two anonymous treatises containing this question. Erasmus said, for example, that the scholastics' Vain, not to say impious, petty questions prompted shouting matches, real divisions, abuse, and sometimes even fistfights!' and that they argued in a narrow-minded way about the proper terms to denote the union between Christ's divine and human nature: is it 'composite, combined, conflated, mixed, cemented, joined, soldered, or copulated? No, none of these receive their approval; only one, novel verb will do ... If one asks whether it is pious to say "human nature is united with divine nature" they say, yes, "united" is a pious term.' Commentary on the Sentences 3.1.1.4: Unio personalis sive hypostatica est relatio disquiparantiae realis quidem in uno extremo

216 Notes to pages 145-55 cui in altero nulla realis ratio respondet. For the English translation I am indebted to Prof J. Bateman. 54 Cf Cavallera Thesaurus doctrinae catholicae n371; J. Gill The Council of Florence (Cambridge 1959) 415. It seems that Erasmus only became aware of these decrees during this dispute: 'I see that they cite the Council of Florence' (LB IX 369c); 'I was in agreement with its opinion even before I knew that the Florentine Council had decreed it' (390B). In the Hyperaspistes (published 1526) he wrote about these two questions: 'It was doubted by the Ancients whether the Roman pontiff was the pastor of the universal church and the discussion was legitimate until a church decree was added; and to this day it is a matter of controversy among the scholastics whether the authority of the pontiff has more weight than the authority of a general synod' (LB X 1305B; similarly Allen Ep 1596:35-6). 55 Cf eg G. Biel Lectura supra canonem 57: nihil inconveniens est per indulgentiam evacuari purgatorium. 56 ASD IV-3 146:400-147:407 57 Allen Ep 1334:162-76 where such inquiries are labelled periculosa curiositas, a dangerous meddling. 58 Hyperaspistes LB X 1259F-1260A, 1264A-B, 1302A-B; cf notes 45, 46, 54 above. 59 Text in ASD IX-1 (Amsterdam 1982) 19-50, ed and comm C. Augustijn 60 He obtained a papal dispensation in 1525 (the document is Ep 1525). 61 A pseudonym; several Dominicans, among them Vincentius Theodorici, were responsible for the attack. See CEBR III Walter Ruys. 62 Text in ASD IX-1, 65-89. Cf J. Coppens 'Les scolies d'Erasme sur I'Epistola de interdicto esu carnium' Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia II 829-36. 63 ASD IX-1 76:299-303, directed against Clichtove's Propugnaculum, in which he intended to prove that 'Christian religion lies primarily in three things: duly celebrating mass, the celibacy of priests, fasting and abstinence from food' (p 8) 64 B3v-B4r; cf de Jonge's commentary ad locum (ASD IX-2, 99). 65 For Erasmus' views on penance see Payne Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments 181-216: Jarrot 'Erasmus' Biblical Humanism' 125-8. 66 Allen Ep 1162:32-3; cf Ep 1033:78-82 where Erasmus defends Luther against Egmondanus' misrepresentation. For another clarification of his own views directed at Egmondanus see Allen 1299:60-6. 67 On 15 June 1520; among the Lutheran heresies are listed: 'that the three parts of penance, contrition, confession, and satisfaction are

Notes to pages 155-63 / 217 not founded on Holy Scripture' (art 4) and that 'in the early church only manifest mortal sins were confessed' (art 8). 68 Such a decree was forthcoming only in 1551, when the Council of Trent defined these points and made them church doctrine. 69 For Erasmus' views on the Eucharist see Payne Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments 126-54; E.J. Devereux Tudor Uses of Erasmus on the Eucharist' Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 62 (1971) especially 38-46. 70 In his early work Erasmus seems to have favoured the theory of a symbolic representation, but he withdrew from this position when it became associated with the reformers (cf Devereux 39-40). While Luther did not deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Zwingli and Karlstadt did; Calvin took the middle road, postulating a 'dynamic presence' (in virtute); Bucer spoke of Christ's 'sacramental' presence. The Colloquy of Marburg (1529) failed to settle the differences among the reformers. The Council of Trent clarified the Catholic doctrine in 1551. 71 le, Thomas implied that they were merely a liturgical form: Summa 3.78.1. 72 On this argument, cf Krodel Tigura Prothysteron and the Exegetical Basis of the Lord's Supper during the Reformation' 152-8. 73 Cf Allen Ep 1162:156: quod male sentirem de Eucharisto. 74 For some time Erasmus attributed the anonymous booklet to Conradus Pellicanus, but eventually he was informed of the author's identity, cf Allen Ep 1737:5-6. On the controversy see H. Holeczek Erasmus Deutsch 191-208. 75 Basel 1526; text in LB X 1557-72. Erasmus sent the booklet to the Faculty of Theology in Paris along with Ep 1723, in which he complained bitterly about Beda's censures, which had now appeared in print, and also ascribed unorthodox views to him. 76 Verum: Lee's criticism focuses on this word. See below 161. 77 For Lips' role see above 209 n5. 78 LB IX 575E; for the same complaint see also 158 above. 79 Cf LB IX 834E-840D. 80 On the topic see eg J. Olin 'Erasmus' Pacifism' in Six Essays on Erasmus (New York 1979) 17-32; J.A. Fernandez 'Erasmus on Just War' Journal of the History of Ideas 34 (1973) 209-26; P. Brachin 'Vox clamantis in deserto' Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia (Toronto 1972) 247-71: R. Padberg 'Pax Erasimiana ...' Scrinium Erasmianum (Leiden 1969) II 301-12; for the historical perspective see M.H. Keen The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages (LondonToronto 1965) 63-81; R.H. Bainton Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace (New York 1960) 44-172.

218 Notes to pages 163-71 81 Augustine had used it in Contra Faustum 22.76. Erasmus therefore toned down his remarks in 1522, replacing 'it is ridiculous' with 'I am not much in favour of.' 82 See previous note. 83 Eg Tertullian, whose uncompromising pacifism (cf De idolatria 19) was associated with Montanism; see Bainton 75-6. 84 LB II 964E against Thomas' Summa 2.2.40.1 and Bernard in eg his Sermon on the Knights of the Temple PL 182:921ff. 85 Cf the seminal works of the thirteenth-century canonists Hostiensis and Raymond of Penafort, whose Summa de penitentia remained the vademecum of canonists until the seventeenth century. They established the following prerequisites for just war: it must be fought by laymen; it must redress an injury received; it may be fought only when no peaceful alternative exists; the intention must be just; and the war must be waged on valid authority (ie, of ecclesiastical or secular rulers). 86 Erasmus recounts that Colet preached a pacifist sermon before Henry VIII. His enemies (in this case their spokesman was the Franciscan Bricotus) waited like 'hungry wolves' for the king's reaction, but Colet's sincere conviction overcame the king's misgivings and carried the day. Cf Allen Ep 1211:576-616. 87 Cf F. Vitoria De Indis, sive de iure belli prologue: 'Among Catholics there is a consensus about these things, but Luther, who leaves nothing undefiled, denies that Christians ought to take up arms against the Turks.' 88 Cf LB IX 842E: 'For it is not Erasmus speaking of the princes of our time, but Luke speaking of the evangelists of his time'; similarly LB IX 501E against Beda. 89 On this topic see Aidan A. Licari Some Writings of D. Erasmus of Rotterdam concerning the Mother of God (Rome 1966); L. Halkin 'La mariologie d'Erasme' Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 68 (1977) esp 40-3. 90 The doctrine was reaffirmed by Pius IX in his bull Ineffabilis Deus (1854). 91 In a spot check of thirty-five passages containing personal comment I found that twenty were added in 1519; eight had been in the original text. 92 Cf Ep 208:22-4: 'If I had time among my more important studies to translate other tragedies I should not be reluctant to alter the style and topics of the choruses.' For examples of censorship see Rummel Erasmus as a Translator 55, 79, 120. 93 For an example see above 80. 94 Cf De Copia CWE 24 354-6 where More's name is inserted in variations on the sentence 'Always, as long as I live, I shall

Notes to pages 172-85 / 219

95

96

97

98

remember you'; ibidem 349-59 where Fausto Andrelini's name appears in variations on the sentence 'Your letter mightily pleased me.' Eg: 'In my opinion parents would act with greater kindness if they would castrate sons destined for celibacy ...' (Matt 19 note 12); 'soldiers are attracted by food, allotments of money, or stipends, being the vilest kind of men' (Rom 6 note 21); 'It sometimes happens that we have instead of a wicked Jew a more wicked Christian' (Matt 23 note 12); 'perhaps it would be better to allow those who cannot be celibate to marry publicly ...' (1 Tim 3 note 4); 'perhaps it is not reprehensible if good men live at the court of kings with the intention of gradually ingratiating themselves with the prince ...' (Acts 17 note 35). See above 53, 149; compare also Matt 5 note 9 ('Aristotle's laws affect us more than Christ's'), 1 Cor 2 note 15 ('... certain theologians who, in teaching Scripture, prattle nothing but Aristotelian philosophy'). See above 74-5; compare also Luke 3 note 35 ('Again, I would not approve of being anxious and worried about questions of this kind, or of fighting about them in a contentious manner, when I see little benefit in them'); 6 note 10 (We are not made Christians 'by the fine logic of the Scotists'); 1 Tim 1 note 10 ('Endless are the questions, opinions, and problems of the common run of theologians'). Matt 23 note 4; cf Matt 12 note 36: 'I wish the Christian people were so devoted to the worship of the blessed Mary that they would emulate her virtues with all zeal' (similarly Matt 16 note 14). CONCLUSION

1 '... que pour ma part j'hesite a appeller, d'entree de jeu, theologiques' (Tonction d'Origene' 27)

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

SHORT-TITLE LIST OF TEXTS USED

Allen P.S. Allen, ed Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami Oxford 1906-58 ASD Opera omnia Des. Erasmi Roterodami Amsterdam 1969BRE A. Horawitz and H. Hartfelder, eds Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus Leipzig 1886, repr 1966 CEBR Peter G. Bietenholz and Thomas B. Deutscher, eds Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, 3 vols, Toronto 1985CWE The Collected Works of Erasmus Toronto 1974Holborn A. and H. Holborn Desiderius Erasmus. Ausgewahlte Werke repr Munich 1974 LB J. Leclerc, ed Des. Erasmi Roterodami opera omnia Leiden 1703-6 Opuscula W.K. Ferguson, ed Erasmi opuscula The Hague 1933 Reedijk C. Reedijk, ed The Poems of Des. Erasmus Leiden 1956 LITERATURE CITED

Aldridge, J.W. The Hermeneutic of Erasmus Zurich 1966 Anderson, M.W. The Battle for the Gospel: The Bible and the Reformation, 1444-1589 Grand Rapids 1978 Bailey, J.W. 'Erasmus and the Textus Receptus' Crozer Quarterly 17 (1940) 271-9 Bainton, R.H. Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace New York 1960

Bataillon, M. Erasmo y Espana Mexico 1950 Baur Ch. S. Jean Chrysostome et ses oeuvres dans I'histoire litteraire Louvain 1907

222 Bibliography Bedouelle G. Lefevre d'Etaples et I'Intelligence des Ecritures Geneva 1976 Bene Ch. Erasme et St Augustin Geneva 1969 - 'Erasme et Ciceron' 571-9 in Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia II Toronto 1972 Bentley, J.H. 'Biblical Philology and Christian Humanism: Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus as Scholars of the Gospels' Sixteenth-Century Journal 8-2 (1977) 9-28 - 'Erasmus, Jean Le Clerc, and the Principle of the Harder Reading' Renaissance Quarterly 31 (1978) 309-21 - 'Erasmus' Annotations in Novum Testamentum and the Textual Criticism of the Gospels' Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 67 (1976) 33-53 - Humanists and Holy Writ Princeton 1983 - 'New Testament Scholarship at Louvain in the Early Sixteenth Century' Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History ns 2 (1979) 51-79 Beumer, J. 'Erasmus. Seine humanistischen Gegner in Italien' Theologie und Philosophic 44 (1969) 1-24 Bludau, A. Die beiden ersten Erasmus-Ausgaben des Neuen Testaments und ihre Gegner Freiburg 1902 Boyle, M. O'Rourke Erasmus on Language and Method in Theology Toronto 1977 Bouyer, L. 'Erasmus in Relation to the Medieval Biblical Tradition' 492-505 in Cambridge History of the Bible II Cambridge 1963 Brachin, P. 'Vox clamantis in deserto. Reflexions sur le pacifisme d'Erasme' 247-71 in Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia I Toronto 1972 Brown, Andrew The Date of Erasmus' Translation of the New Testament' Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 8-4 (1984) 351-8 Camporeale, S.I. 'Da Lorenzo Valla a Tommaso Moro: Lo statute umanistico della teologia' 26-64 in Umanesimo e teologia tra '400 e '500 Pistoia 1973 - Lorenzo Valla: Umanesimo e teologia Florence 1972 Caplan, H. The Four Senses of Scriptural Interpretation' Speculum 4 (1929) 282-90 Chantraine, G. 'L'Apologia ad Latomum. Deux conceptions de la theologie' 51-75 in Scrinium Erasmianum II Leiden 1969 Chomarat, J. 'Les Annotations de Valla, celles d'Erasme et la grammaire' 202-28 in Histoire de I'exegese au XVle siecle Geneva 1978 - Grammaire et rhetorique chez Erasme Paris 1981 Clark, K.W. 'Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2' Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte altchristlicher Literatur 73 (1959) 749-56

Bibliography 223 Coppens, J. 'Le portrait de Saint Jerome d'apres Erasme' 821-8 in Colloquia Erasmiana Turonesia II Toronto 1972 Crahay, R. 'Les censeurs louvanistes d'Erasme' 221-49 in Scrinium Erasmianum I Leiden 1969 De Petris, A. 'La teorie umanistiche del tradurre e YApologeticus di G. Manetti' Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 37 (1975) 15-32 Dibbelt, H. 'Erasmus' griechische Studien' Gymnasium 57 (1950) 55-71 Dolfen, Ch. Die Stellung des Erasmus von Rotterdam zur scholastischen Methode Osnabruck 1936 Feld, H. 'Der Humanistenstreit um Heb 2, 7 (Psalm 8, 6)' Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 61 (1970) 5-35 - Die Anfange der modernen Hermeneutik in der spatmittelalterlichen Theologie Wiesbaden 1977 Feret, P.Y. La faculte de theologie de Paris et ses docteurs les plus celebres, 2 vols, Paris 1894-7 II Freund, W. Modernus und andere Zeitbegriffe des Mittelalters Cologne 1957 Gibaut, H. Un inedit d'Erasme: La premiere version du Nouveau Testament Angers 1982 Gilmore, M. 'Erasmus and Alberto Pio, Prince of Carpi' 299-318 in Action and Conviction in Early Modern Europe: Essays in Memory of E.H. Harbison Princeton 1968 - 'De modis disputandi: The Apologetic Works of Erasmus' 62-88 in Florilegium Historiale: Essays Presented to W.K. Ferguson Toronto 1971 Godin, A. 'Fonction d'Origene dans la pratique exegetique d'Erasme: les Annotations sur 1'epitre aux Remains' 17-44 in Histoire de I'exegese au XVIe siecle Geneva 1978 - Erasme lecteur d'Origene Geneva 1982 Grant, R.M. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible London, rev ed 1965 Gregory, C.R. Textkritik des neuen Testaments, 3 vols, Leipzig 1900-9 Haaugaard, W.P. 'Renaissance Patristic Scholarship and Theology in Sixteenth-Century England' Sixteenth-Century Journal 10-3 (1979) 37-60 Hadot, J. 'La critique textuelle dans 1'edition du Nouveau Testament d'Erasme' 749-60 in Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia II Toronto 1972 Halkin, L. 'La mariologie d'Erasme' Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 68 (1977) 32-55 Hall, B. 'Erasmus, Biblical Scholar and Reformer' 81-113 in Erasmus London 1969 - 'Biblical Scholarship: Editions and Commentaries' 38-93 in Cambridge History of the Bible III Cambridge 1963

224 Bibliography Harris, J. Rendel The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament Cambridge 1887 Heath, T. 'Logical Grammar, Grammatical Logic, and Humanism in Three German Universities' Studies in the Renaissance 18 (1971) 9-64 German Universities' Studies in the Renaissance 18 (1971) 9-64 Holeczek, H. Humanistische Bibelphilologie als Reformproblem bei Erasmus von Rotterdam, Thomas More and William Tyndale Leiden 1975 - Erasmus Deutsch Stuttgart-Bad Cannstadt 1983 Hunt, R.W. The Need for a Guide to the Editions of Patristic Texts in the Sixteenth Century' Studia Patristica 17-1 (1982) 365-71 JJsewijn, J. 'Erasmus ex poeta theologus sive de literarum instauratarum apud Hollandos incunabulis' 375-84 in Scrinium Erasmianum I Leiden 1969 Jarrott, C.A.L. 'Erasmus' Annotations and Colet's Commentaries on Paul: A Comparison of Some Theological Themes' 125-44 in Essays on the Works of Erasmus New Haven 1978 - 'Erasmus' Biblical Humanism' Studies in the Renaissance 17 (1970) 119-52 - 'Erasmus' In principio erat sermo: A Controversial Translation' Studies in Philology 61 (1964) 35-40 Jonge, HJ. de 'Erasmus und die Glossa ordinaria zum Neuen Testament' Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis ns 56 (1975) 51-77 - 'Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum' Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 (1980) 381-9 - 'Novum testamentum a nobis versum: The Essence of Erasmus' Edition of the New Testament' Journal of Theological Studies ns 35 (1984) 394-413 - The Character of Erasmus' Translation from the New Testament as Reflected in His Translation of Heb 9' The Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 14-1 (1984) 81-7 Kaufman, P. Augustinian Piety and Catholic Reform: Augustine, Colet, and Erasmus Macon 1982 Keen, M.H. The Laws of War in the Later Middle Ages LondonToronto 1965 Kohls, E.W. Die Theologie des Erasmus, 2 vols, Basel 1966 Krodel, G. Tigura Prothysteron and the Exegetical Basis of the Lord's Supper during the Reformation' Lutheran Quarterly 12 (1960) 152-8 Langlois, Ch.-V. 'Nicolas de Lyre, frere mineur' Histoire litteraire de la France 36 (1927) 355-400 Licari, A.A. Some Writings of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam concerning the Mother of God Rome 1966 Lubac, H. de Exegese medievale, 4 vols, Paris 1959-64 Luoma, J.K. 'Who Owns the Fathers? Hooker and Cartwright on the

Bibliography 225 Authority of the Primitive Church' Sixteenth-Century Journal 8-3 (1977) 45-59 Massaut, J.-P. 'Erasme et St Thomas' 581-611 in Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia II Tours 1969 Lupton, J.H. ed and trans Joannis Coleti ennarratio in primam epistolam 5. Pauli ad Corinthios London 1874 McSorley, 'Erasmus and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff: Between Conciliarism and Papalism' Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 65 (1974) 37-54 Mesnard, P. 'Humanism et theologie dans la controverse entre Erasme et Dorpius' Filosofia 14 (1963) 885-900 Metzger, B.M. The Text of the New Testament Oxford 1964 Moorman, J.R. The Grey Friars in Cambridge 1225-1538 Cambridge 1952 Muehlenberg, E. 'Laurentius Valla als Renaissancetheolog' Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche 66-4 (1969) 466-80 Nauert, Ch. The Clash of Humanists and Scholastics: An Approach to Pre-reformation Controversies' Sixteenth-Century Journal 4 (1973) 1-18 Nestle, E. Einfiihrung in das griechische Neue Testament Gottingen 1923 Obermann, H. The Harvest of Medieval Theology Cambridge 1963 - Masters of the Reformation Cambridge 1981 Olrich, K.H. Der spate Erasmus und die Reformation Munster 1961 Old, H.O. The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship Zurich 1975 Olin, J. 'Erasmus and His Edition of St Hilary' Erasmus in English 9 (1978) 8-11 - 'Erasmus and the Church Fathers' 33-48 in Six Essays on Erasmus New York 1979 - 'Erasmus Pacifism' 17-32 in Six Essays on Erasmus New York 1979 Padberg, R. 'Pax Erasmiana. Das politische Engagement und die politische Theologie des Erasmus 301-12 in 'Scrinium Erasmianum II Leiden 1969 Payne, J.B. Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments Richmond 1970 - 'Erasmus and Lefevre d'Etaples as Interpreters of Paul' Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 65 (1974) 54-82 - The Significance of Lutheranizing Changes in Erasmus' Interpretation of Paul's Letters to the Romans and the Galatians in His Annotations (1527) and Paraphrases (1532)' 312-30 in Histoire de I'exegese au XVIe siecle Geneva 1978 Perosa, A. ed Lorenzo Valla Collatio Novi Testamenti Rome 1970 Pfeiffer, R. History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850 Oxford 1976 Pineau, J.P. Erasme et la papaute Paris 1923

226 Bibliography Polman, P. L'element historique dans la controverse religieuse du XVIe siecle Gembloux 1932 Rabil, A. Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mind of a Christian Humanist San Antonio 1972 Reicke, B. 'Erasmus und die neutestamentliche Textgeschichte' Theologische Zeitschrift (1966) 254-65 Rogers, Elizabeth Francis ed The Correspondence of Sir Thomas More Princeton 1947 Rummel, E. Erasmus as a Translator of the Classics Toronto 1985 - 'Quoting Poetry instead of Scripture: Erasmus and Eucherius on contemptus mundi' Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 45-3 (1983) 503-9 - 'A Reader's Guide to Erasmus' Controversies' Erasmus in English 12 (1983) 13-19 Schaer, M. Das Nachleben des Origenes im Zeitalter des Humanismus Basel 1980 Schlingensiepen, H. 'Erasmus als Exeget auf Grund seiner Schriften zu Matthaeus' Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 48 (1929) 16-57 Schwarz, W. "The Meaning of fidus interpres in Medieval Translation' Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1944) 73-8 - Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation Cambridge 1955 Scrivener, F.H. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament Cambridge 1861 Smalley, B. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages Oxford 1952 Stupperich, R. 'Schriftauslegung und Textkritik bei Laurentius Valla' 220-33 in Text - Wort - Glaube Berlin 1980 Tarelli, C.C. 'Erasmus' Manuscripts of the Gospels' Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1943) 155-62, 48 (1947) 207-8 Thompson, C.R. ed and trans The Colloguies of Erasmus Chicago and London 1965 - 'Better Teachers than Scotus or Aquinas' Proceedings of the Southeastern Institute of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 2 (Durham 1966) 114-45 Trinkaus, Ch. In Our Image and Likeness, 2 vols, Chicago 1970 - 'Erasmus, Augustine, and the Nominalists' Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 67 (1976) 5-32 Vocht, H. de Texts and Studies about Louvain Humanists in the First Half of the XVlth century Louvain 1934 Weiss, R. Medieval and Humanist Creek Padua 1977 Wettstein, J.J. Novum Testamentum Graecum Amsterdam 1751-2 Wilks, M. The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages Cambridge 1963 Winkler, G.B. Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Einleitungsschriften zum Neuen Testament Miinster 1974

Index of Latin and Greek Words

acceptio personae 104 actus 196 n47 anaitios 57 angelus 95 apertius/dilucidius 89, 91-3 apostolatus 102 architriclinus 95 athetein 57 baptismus 60, 95-6, 205 n9 battologia 47 boethein 96 centesimum/centenum 44 chrestos 72, 148, 151 coccina 47 cogere/iubere 73 concilium 96 cophinus 47 cduti 103 decollare 44 diabolus 65, 95 dimittere/remittere 71-2 donatio 103 elegantius 89, 206 nn25-7 epitiman 96, 112 eucharistos 104 eulogetos 104, 206 n28

eunous 56 eupathein 128 ficulnus/ficulneus 49 geno/gigno 45 gratia plena 167-9 Hierosolyma 45 honorare 104 hora 103 hoti 92, 108 humiliare 103 hypocrita 83, 95, 205 n6 impletus 44 incorruptio 102 invenire 96, 205 nlO ita 43 Latinius 44, 91, 93 margarita 47 mataiologus/raatazo/ogz'fl 83, 143-4 moechari 45 mysterium 95 neoterici/recentiores 69, 74, 189 n!8, 202 n!09 nubere 45, 100-1

228 Index of Latin and Greek Words phantasma 45 poenitentia 46, 152-3 pretiosus/carus 103 probi/probati autores 195 n44 ptochos 56 recapitulari 103 repudiare 61 rhapsodia 76 sandalium 95 scandalizare 95, 196 n48

secus 44 sermo/verbum 55 solutio 103 thesaurizare 48, 95, 205 n6 traducere 46, 48, 61, 87, 129-31 trans 45, 48 transmigrare/demigrare 43-4 tristis 96 tunica 61 zona 45

General Index

Adrian VI, Pope 140 Aelius 46 Albertus Magnus 204 nl!6 Aldine press 21, 23, 39, 42, 119, 191 n44 Aleandro, Girolamo 21 allegory, biblical 62, 82 Ambrose 8, 13, 18, 30, 60, 62-3, 69, 114-19 passim, 151, 158, 162, 164, 166, 199 n76 Ambrosiaster 199 n 76 Amerbach, brothers 39 Amerbach, Johann 37, 63 Ammonio, Andrea 21, 191 n47 Andrelini, Fausto 9, 219 n94 Anianus 64, 200 n80 Annunciation, the 167-9 Aretino, Francesco 53, 200 n81 Arianism 132, 133, 150 Aristophanes 43, 49 Aristotle 43, 46, 49, 50, 79, 145, 176, 219 n96; theologians show too much interest in 52, 53, 149 Arnobius 70, 128 article, Greek 56, 107-8 Athanasius 68, 201 n95 Augustine ix, 15, 18, 30, 57, 58-60, 69, 72, 99, 120, 128, 129, 151, 153, 157, 160, 162, 163-5 passim, 174, 184, 198 n70; criticized by Erasmus 59, 60,

86; Erasmus not sufficiently familiar with 59. See also Erasmus, editions and translations Augustinians 38, 174 Aulus Gellius 43, 49 Averroes 145 Baechem, Nicolaas (Egmondanus) 153, 155, 202 n!05 Beda, Noel 75-6, 98, 125, 126, 141-6 passim, 149, 157-66 passim, 209 nil Bede, the Venerable 69-70, 132-3, 158, 194 n31 Bensrott, Nicolaus 18 Bergen, Hendrik van 6,7,8 Bernard, St 165, 168 Biel, Gabriel, 214 n47, 215 n50, 216 n55 bishops, criticized 172, ideal 172-3 Boece, Hector 6, 64 Bombace, Paolo 40, 194 n34 Borsele, Jan Becker of 22 Botzheim, Johann von 41, 153 Brandolini, Raffaele 98 Bricotus (Edmund Birkhead) 218 n86 Brinkeley, Richard 36, 192 n4

230 General Index Bucer, Martin 53, 217 n70 Bude, Guillaume 20, 211 n!7 Calvin, Jean 217 n70 Carafa, Gianpietro 25 Carthusians 193 nlO Carvajal, Luis de 139 Cassiodorus 128 Catena 169 Catullus 45, 47 ceremonies. See institutions, church Chrysostom, John 63-6, 67, 69, 71-4 passim, 114-20 passim, 134-6 passim, 141, 148, 151, 158, 159, 164, 199 nn76-9, 200 n83. See also Erasmus, editions and translations Cicero, Marcus Tullius 16, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49; cult of 50-1. See also Ciceronians Ciceronians 104, 194 n59 classical authors 3, 4, 17, 19, 23, 153, 187 n6; as models of Christian writer 6, 8, 19, 20, 52; cited as authorities in the Annotations 42-52; set literary standards 91, 195 n44 Clichtove, Josse 147, 209 n4, 216 n63 Colet, John viii, 10-12, 18, 20-2, 36, 74, 165, 182, 190 n32, 218 n86 Comestor, Petrus 84 Comma Johanneum 40, 132-3 Complutensian Bible 23, 41, 42, 125, 195 n40 confession 152, 154-6 Council of Florence 145, 216 n54 Council of Trent 192 n55, 217 nn68 and 70 Cousin, Gilbert 200 n82 Cousturier. See Sutor Craeys, Sebastian 126

Crastonus, Johannes (Crastoni) 12, 188 n!6 crusades 165, 173-4 Cyprian 30, 57, 69, 70, 130, 151 Cyril 65, 66, 68, 132-3 Demosthenes 43, 99 Dominicans 36-7, 63-4, 80, 127, 174, 216 n61 Dorp, Maarten van 14, 17, 22, 123-4, 131, 139, 207 n2 Durandus (Durand de SaintPourcain) 84, 204 n!24 Eck, Johann Maier von 60, 137, 139-40, 141 Egmondanus. See Baechem Erasmus: his interest in secular literature 3-6, 8, 20; his poetic calling 4-7; his studies in Paris 4, 7, 8, 9-10, 15; in England 10, 19, 21-2, 24, 36, 63; his willingness to submit to the church 29-31; considers the interests of the reader 31-3 Erasmus, original works - Adagia 20, 23, 24, 163-5 (Duke helium), 183 - Antibarbari 6, 77 - Apologia viii, 15, 27, 29, 30, 35, 38, 77, 99 - Apologia ad monachos Hispaniae 37 - Apologia contra Latomum 124, 127 - Apologia invectivis Lei 124 - Apophthegmata 183 - Capita contra morosos 17, 27, 28, 42, 90, 91, 99, 102, 128, 131-2 - Ciceronianus 50 - Colloquia 155 - Commentary on Pauline Epistles (not extant) 13-14

General Index 231 -

De contemptu mundi 6, 77 Detectio praestigiarum 159 Divinationes 157 Enchiridion 125 Epistola de interdicto esu camium 146, 148-51 passim - Exomologesis 152, 155 - Hyperaspistes 146 - Julius exclusus 145, 215 n48 - Methodus 28 - Mono 125, 146 - Opuscula 37 - Parabolae 23, 80, 183 - Paraclesis 26, 27, 98 - Paraphrases 104 - Querela pads 163 - Kflh'o 53, 62, 125 - Responsio ad annotationes Ed. Lei 124 - Supputatio 157 Erasmus, editions and translations - Augustine 59 - Chrysostom 64, 65 - Euripides 19 - Hilary 60, 61, 146 - Jerome 16, 17, 23, 24 - Libanius 19 - Lucian 19 - Plutarch 23 - Seneca 23 - Valla: Annotationes 12, 13, 14; Elegantiae 5, 12 Erigena, John Scotus 201 n88 Ennius 43 etymologies 49, 78, 81, 82-3, 84, 95 Eucharist 156-60 Euripides 51. See also Erasmus, editions and translations Eusebius 135 fasting 146-52 feast-days 149, 175, 179 Festus Pompeius 43, 45

figures, rhetorical 100-2 Fisher, Bishop John 53 Franciscans (Grey Friars, Minorites) 36, 40, 174, 194 n30 Froben, Jerome 64 Froben press vii, 22-5, 64, 65 Gaguin, Francois 8 Galen 43, 45, 50 Gerard, Cornelis 4, 7, 8 Gerbel, Nicolaus 23, 37, 191 n42 Gerson, Jean 75, 77, 84, 204 n!24 Gillis, Pieter 38 Glareanus, Henricus 193 n!6 Gloss, ordinary 70, 76, 130, 195 n38, 202 nlOO, 203 nnllO and 112 grammar, rules of violated 30, 89-90, 105-9 Greek, essential in biblical studies 11, 13, 19, 60, 78-9, 127-36; Erasmus teaches 21 Grey, Thomas 8, 9, 10 Grillot, Jean (Gryllard) 9, 188 n!3 Grimani, Cardinal Domenico 24 Grocyn, William 211 n!7 Gryllard. See Grillot Henry VIII, King 21, 125, 190 n34, 218 n86 Hermans, Willem 7, 8, 9 Herodotus 43, 49 Hilary 60-2, 130, 162. See also Erasmus, editions and translations Homer 43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 167 Horace 43, 46, 49, 50, 51 Hosius, Stanislaus 53 Hugh of St Cher 80-2, 84, 128, 164, 174 hypocrisy 95, 177, 205 n5 idiom, biblical 31, 95, 103-4; Greek 44, 93, 100, 136

232 General Index infinitive, Greek, translation of 106-7 inspiration, principle of 136-40, 184 institutions, church 146, 147,

150-1, 177 Irenaeus 70 Isidore, of Seville 129 Isocrates 43, 50, 99 Jerome 5, 6, 13, 60, 61, 66, 69, 70-3 passim, 98, 114, 120, 128, 132-3, 134, 138-40 passim, 148, 162; Erasmus influenced by x-xi, 15-17, 18; criticized by Erasmus 57-8; cited as authority by Erasmus 54-8. See also Erasmus-, editions and translations Jimenes, Cardinal 12, 40, 125. See also Complutensian Bible Jud, Leo 159 Judaism 147, 151, 163, 172, 177 Julius Pollux 43, 47 Juvenal 43, 45, 51 Juvencus 8 Karlstadt, Andreas 217 n70 Latomus, Bartholomaeus 53 Latomus, Jacobus (Masson) 124, 127, 131, 208 n4, 210 n!4 Laurinus, Marcus 40, 41 lectio difficilior 117-18, 120, 207 n39 Lee, Edward 20, 30, 35, 39, 64, 67, 83, 84, 88, 124-36 passim, 139-45 passim, 154-5, 160-1, 167-70 passim, 190 n35, 209 n5 Lefevre, Jacques viii, 12, 14, 15, 24, 55, 123, 124, 208 n3, 211 n!7 Leo X, Pope 14, 35, 145, 155

Lips, Martin 26, 126, 130, 160 Listrius, Gerardus 38 Livy 43, 44 loan-words 45, 48, 95 Loeblein, Johann (Oggsenfardius) 127, 211 n22 Lombardus, Petrus 84, 129-31 Lord's Prayer 71-2, 126, 135 Lucian 43, 47, 49, 65-6. See also Erasmus, editions and translations Lucretius 45, 49 Luther, Martin 126, 137, 146, 147, 148, 150, 152, 153, 155, 162, 167, 202 n!08, 216 nn66-7, 217 n70 Lyra, Nicolaus of 18, 82-4, 128, 164, 174 Macchiavelli, Niccolo 165 Major, John 145 Manetti, Gianozzo 12, 98, 188 n!6 manuscripts - Erasmus' use of 35-42 - erasures in 110-11 - scribal errors in 56, 111-13 - corruptions in 69, 112, 114, 131-2 - loaned to Erasmus: by Colet (Pauline manuscripts) 36, 70, 118, 119; by Reuchlin 38, 193 n!5; by Margaret of Austria (Codex aureus) 39, 73 - located in, or originating from: Basel 36-8, 63-4; Constance 41, 110, 118, 119; Corsendonck 38-9, 110; Dublin 40, 133; Ladenburg 66; Leicester 36; Rhodes 40, 132; St Donatian's 40-1; the Vatican (Codex B) 40, 132, 210 n!6 Martial 46, 49 Masson. See Latomus, Jacobus Meghen, Pieter 20, 21

General Index 233 More, Thomas 17, 19, 165, 218 n94 Mount joy, William Blount, Lord 10 music, church 178 Northoff, Christian 10 oath 160-3 Ockham, William of 143, 144, 214 n45 Oecolampadius, Johannes 37, 191 n42, 200 n81 Oggsenfardius. See Loeblein orders, religious 174-5. See also names of individual orders Origen 15, 18, 62, 63, 66-7, 69, 70-4 passim, 115-17 passim, 134, 140, 141, 168 Ovid 47 pacifism 163-7, 173-4, 218 n86 pagan literature. See classical authors Paris, theological faculty of 75, 125, 145, 150, 162, 166, 217 n75 ' participles, translation of Greek 106, 107 patristic writings ix, 11, 13-19 passim, 30, 52-74 passim, 85, 131, 132. See also names of individual church Fathers Paulinus of Nola 8 Pellicanus, Conradus 217 n74 penance 152-6 Persona, Christopher 68, 201 n94 Petrarch 98 Pio, Alberto 126, 146, 147, 150, 151, 156, 161-3 passim, 166, 171, 210 n!6 Pirckheimer, Willibald 24, 64, 211 n!7 Plato 43, 47, 49, 50, 52, 99 Plautus 47, 48, 49, 51

Pliny 43-9 passim, 50, 80, 153 Plutarch 43. See also Erasmus, editions and translations polysemous words 71, 91, 95, 96 prepositions 94 pronouns, reflexive 105-6 Prudentius 8, 70 Quintilian 43, 44, 46, 48, 49 Remigius 13, 69, 202 nlOO Reuchlin, Johann 12, 22, 23, 36, 37, 211 n!7 Rhabanus Maurus 69, 70, 202 nlOO Rhenanus, Beatus 14, 23, 24, 25 200 n81, 202 n!04 Rogerus, Servatius 22 Rosemondt, Godschalk 155 Rufinus 66 Ruys, Walter 147-8, 216 n61 Salutati, Coluccio 98 St Cher. See Hugh of St Cher saints, cult of 178-9 Sallust 46, 153 scholastics: in Paris 7, 9-10; their style 18, 42, 52-3; their sophistical quibbling 7, 9, 32, 53, 74-5, 149, 215 n52, 219 n97; their interest in Aristotle 53, 219 n96; made fun of 9; defended 83-4, 145-6 Scotus, Duns 9, 50, 76-7, 80, 143, 145, 146, 204 nl!6, 129 n97 Seneca 44. See also Erasmus, editions and translations Sepulveda, Juan Gines 40, 126, 165, 195 n35, 210 n!6 Sixtinus, Johannes 7 Stojkovic, Cardinal Ivan 37 style: of apostles 99-100, 140-2; of scholastics 18, 42, 52-3; of Vulgate translator 97-105

234 General Index Suetonius 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 153 Sutor, Petrus (Cousturier) 20, 39, 41, 126, 128, 131, 136, 142, 167-9, 190 n36, 208 n4 Tacitus 45, 49 Terence 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51. See also Erasmus, editions and translations Tertullian 70, 153, 202 n!04, 218 n83 textbooks 5, 185 Theodorici, Vincentius 216 n61 theologia rhetorica 98, 183 theologians: Erasmus' Annotations written for 27; Erasmus as one of the 28; go astray 168; their ambitions 176-7; of Louvain 28, 123, 155. See also Paris, theological faculty of Theophylact 37, 64, 67-8, 69-73 passim, 114-20 passim, 151, 157, 162; called Vulgarius 36, 67; mistaken for Athanasius 201 n95 Thomas Aquinas 13, 129, 144, 146, 157, 165, 169, 174, 184, 217 n71; criticized 19, 76-80, 86 Titelmans, Frans 20, 39, 83, 84, 125-6, 190 n37, 210 n!4 transitions 93-4 translation: literal versus free 16, 92-3; consistency in 33, 49, 96-7; a philologist's task 16, 28; must reflect rhetorical qualities of original 102; date of Erasmus' first translation of the Bible 20-1 Trebizond, George of 53, 68, 200 n81 Tunstall, Cuthbert 39 Utenheim, Christopher von, Bishop 146

Valerius Maximus 43, 46, 49, 153 Valla, Lorenzo: Erasmus' source of inspiration viii, x, 13-14; used for Annotations 87-8; plagiarized by Erasmus 14, 88; criticized by Erasmus 85-6; his use of classics 48-9; mentioned 5, 12, 15, 24, 120, 132, 134, 182, 193 n6. See also Erasmus, editions and translations Valladolid Articles 58, 125, 138, 140, 141, 151, 155, 158, 159, 167, 169 Varro 45, 48, 49 Virgil 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51 Vitoria, Francisco de 165 Vitrier, Jean 18-19 Vives, Luis 165 Vulgate: as textus receptus vii, ix, 29, 30-1, 185; Erasmus' Annotations cued to 23; to be read by all 26; not Jerome's work 17, 30, 135 war, just. See pacifism Warham, William 19, 20 Werner, Nicolaas 7, 8, 10 Wichmans, Pieter 41 Wimpfeling, Jakob 25 Winckel, Pieter 3-4 Xenophon 43, 48, 49 Zasius, Ulrich 24 Zuniga, Diego Lopez 14, 36-40 passim, 44, 58, 68, 83, 88, 125, 126, 132-5 passim, 139-42 passim, 153, 165-6, 170, 209 n9, 211 n!7 Zwingli, Ulrich 156, 159, 216 n70