1. Erasmus and Cambridge: The Cambridge Letters of Erasmus, trans. D. F. S. Thompson, introd. H. C. Porter (Toronto, 1963). Andrew Brown, “The Date of Erasmus’s Translation of the New Testament,” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 8 (1984): 351–380.

2. J. K. McConica, “Erasmus and the Julius: A Humanist Reflects on the Church,” in Charles Trinkaus and Heiko A. Oberman, eds., The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion (Leiden, 1974), 444–471. Compare Erasmus to Guillaume Budé on the latter’s critique of Pope Julius II in his 1515 De Asse: (in Greek) “It is safer and less dangerous to attack him who is dead,” letter 480 : 202, in Allen, 2 : 368 (CWE 4 : 109).

3. Froben had reprinted the 1508 Adagia without authorization in 1513. S. Diane Shaw, “A Study of the Collaboration between Erasmus of Rotterdam and His Printer Johann Froben at Basel during the Years 1514 to 1527,” Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook 6 (1986): 31–124.

4. Margaret Mann Philips, The “Adages” of Erasmus (Cambridge, 1964), to be superseded by the forthcoming vol. 30 of CWE, which will trace the development of this monumental work through its many editions. The earliest version of Dulce Bellum, letter 288, was translated into German by Georg Spalatin, humanist secretary of Luther’s prince, Elector Frederick of Saxony.

5. Letter 301 : 35, in Allen,…(CWE 3 : 11).

6. James D. Tracy, “Erasmus Becomes a German,” Renaissance Quarterly 21 (1968): 281–288; letters 333, 334, 335, 338, 339, and 384, in Allen 2.

7. For the Latin text, see Wallace K. Ferguson, Opuscula Erasmi (The Hague, 1933), 134–190 (CWE 61 : 16–62). Lisa Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Character in Print (Princeton, 1993), chapter 2, “The Scholar-Saint in his Study.” On vows, cf. letter 447 : 553–555, in Allen, 2 : 306 (CWE 3 : 25): “I will not raise the question here of monastic vows, to which some people attach excessive importance, though this kind of obligation—of slavery, I almost said—is not found in either New Testament or Old Testament.”

8. For critical editions of all three works, see Annemarie Holborn and Hajo Holborn, Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus Ausgewählte Werke (Munich, 1933).

9. I follow here the views of Andrew Brown, cited above, this chapter, note 1.

10. For example, he discounted readings (sent by friends in Rome) from the famous Codex Vaticanus B, thinking it resembled too closely the Vulgate of which he was so critical.

11. E.g., 1519 Novum Testamentum, at Matt. 1 : 16; 1516 Novum Instrumentum, at Matt. 3 : 12 and at Matt. 21 : 37 (Anne Reeve, Erasmus’s Annotations on the New Testament: The Gospels [London, 1986], 3, 21, 86–87).

12. Jerry H. Bentley, “Erasmus, Jean Le Clerc, and the Principle of the Harder Reading,” Renaissance Quarterly 31 (1978): 309–321.

13. By way of comparison, at about the same time, the highest paid official in Amsterdam, Holland’s largest city, had an annual salary of 70 gulden: Gemeente Archief Amsterdam, “Stadsrekeningen,” extant from 1531.

14. Letter 370 : 17–20, in Allen, 2 : 161 (with Allen’s note); letter 597 : 26–29, in Allen,…(with Allen’s note); letter 621 : 5–12, in Allen, 3 : 43 (CWE 3 : 191, 5 : 9, and 5 : 63–64, with an explanation of the currencies involved).

15. Letter 443 : 19–21, in Allen, 3 : 341; letter 475 : 1–11, in Allen, 2 : 354–355; letter 476 : 22–24, in Allen, 2 : 357; letter 694 : 7–17, in Allen, 3 : 116–117 (CWE 3 : 341, 4 : 93–96, 5 : 165–167). I endorse P. S. Allen’s conjecture that despite his protestations of indifference, Erasmus would indeed have accepted a bishopric, provided that (like Pierre Barbier, his friend and Le Sauvage’s chaplain) he did not have to reside in his see and take up the duties of a bishop.

16. See the introductions to letters 446 and 447 in CWE 4 : 2–7.

17. Letter 2613 : 7–13, in Allen, 9 : 441. His closest companion in these months was the English ambassador, Cuthbert Tunstall, whose efforts (on behalf of his master) to dislodge Le Sauvage and Chièvres from power were probably unknown to Erasmus: James D. Tracy, The Politics of Erasmus, 53–54.

18. Letter 393 (the preface) in Allen, 2 : 205; letter 657 : 46–60, in Allen, 3 : 79 (CWE 5 : 112); Catalogus Lucubrationum, in Allen, 1, p. 19, lines 24–33 (CWE 9 : 321). Otto Herding, ed., Institutio principis christiani, ASD IV : 1; Lester K. Born, trans., The Education of a Christian Prince (New York, 1936).

19. Letter 603 (the preface) in Allen, 1 : 13–15; Catalogus Lucubrationum, in Allen, 1, p. 18, lines 29–36 (CWE 9 : 319–320). For the text, ASD IV : 2. Charles’s father, Archduke Philip the Handsome, died in Spain in 1506. His mother, Princess Juana, was the only surviving child of the marriage between Queen Isabella of Castile (d. 1504) and King Ferdinand of Aragon (d. 1516).

20. Tracy, The Politics of Erasmus, 52–59.

21. See the introduction to CWE 42, Paraphrases on Romans and Galatians; Allen’s introduction to letter 710; and letter 684 : 13, in Allen, 3 : 105 (CWE 5 : 150). For an interesting discussion of the Metsys diptych, see Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters, 27–39.

22. Compare Dorp to Erasmus, letter 304 : 68–72, in Allen, 2 : 13, and Erasmus to Dorp, letter 337 : 26–27, in Allen, 2 : 92 (CWE 3 : 20, 112). Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters, 111–118, presents the Dorp-Erasmus exchange as a sham controversy that was really intended to promote a humanist alternative to scholastic logic, the newly published De Inventione Dialectica of Rudolph Agricola. But the necessary redating of Dorp’s letter is not well founded, nor is there any acknowledgment that Erasmus’s Moria was indeed subject to the kind of criticism that Dorp conveys and that Dorp himself indeed vacillated (as Erasmus privately complained) in his intellectual allegiance.

23. Dorp to Erasmus, letter 347, in Allen, 2; More to Dorp, in Elizabeth Rogers, ed., The Correspondence of Sir Thomas More (Princeton, 1947), letter 15; “Jean Briart,” by Peter G. Bietenholz, and “Maarten van Dorp,” by Jozef IJsewijn, in CE 1 : 195–196, 398–404; Olaf Hendriks, Erasmus en Leuven (Bussum, 1946); Erasmus to Ammonio, letter 539 : 2–9, in Allen, 2 : 484 (CWE 4 : 256–257).

24. Letter 605 : 7–8, in Allen, 2 : 17 (CWE 5 : 27); “Jan de Neve,” by Peter G. Bietenholz, CE 3 : 15; letter 597 : 41, in Allen,…(CWE 5 : 12). On Desmarez and Le Sauvage, see the entry “Jean de Sauvage” in Bibliographie Nationale de Belgique 21 : 441–445.

25. Henri de Vocht, History of the Collegium Trilingue Lovaniense, 2 vols. (Leuven, 1951–1955) (or Humanistica Lovaniensa, vols. 10, 11); “Jérome de Busleiden,” by Ilse Guenther, CE 1 : 225–226. Letter 637 : 9–11, in Allen, 3 : 59, and letter 694 : 3–4, in Allen, 3 : 116 (CWE 5 : 86, 165). For Erasmus’s involvement in recruiting faculty for the three chairs, see letters 686, 691, 737, 805, 836, 884, in Allen, 2, and letter 1051, in Allen, 3.

26. Letter 481 : 31–54, II in Allen, 2 : 371–372 (CWE 4 : 115–116; accepting CWE’s identification of the Franciscan in question); letter 948 : 110–156, in Allen, 4 : 544–545 (CWE 6 : 314–315); “Nicolaas Baechem,” by Marjorie O’Rourke Boyle, and “Henry Standish,” by R. J. Schoeck, CE 1 : 81–82, 3 : 279–280.

27. Letter 597 : 3–17, 55–59, in Allen, 3 : 3–6 (CWE 5 : 8–13).

28. Letter 337 : 320–328, in Allen, 2 : 99 (CWE 3 : 122); my italics; for bonas literas, CWE has “the humanities”; for other references to conspiracy (coniuratio, conspiratio) among his enemies at Leuven, see letter 539 : 2–9, in Allen, 2 : 484, and letter 856 : 24–28, in Allen, 3 : 358 (CWE 4 : 257, 5 : 66).

29. Letter 931 : 5–8, in Allen, 3 : 514 (CWE 6 : 277); cf. letter 948 : 27–30, in Allen, 3 : 542; letter 1016 : 6–9, in Allen, 4 : 73; letter 1053 : 388–406, in Allen, 4 : 149; and letter 1126 : 242–243, in Allen, 4 : 315 (CWE 6 : 277, 311; 7 : 81, 159; 8 : 14).

30. See Erasmus to the Dominican inquisitor Jakob van Hoogstraten, letter 1006 : 4, in Allen, 4 : 43 (CWE 7 : 45): Allen’s note cites passages from several other letters to justify Erasmus’s claim that he had always had a “special feeling” for the Dominicans, but in fact only one of these passages says anything positive: to Vincentius Theodorici, another Dominican critic, letter 1196 : 272–273, in Allen, 4 : 469 (CWE 8 : 183): “The Dominican order I even approve of above the rest, for this reasons that it is less burdened with ceremonies.” This could mean nothing more than that the Dominicans, unlike monastic orders such as the Augustinian Canons, but in common with other mendicant congregations, mitigated the obligation of singing the daily office in choir.

31. Letter 1126 : 222–236, in Allen, 4 : 314–315 (CWE 8 : 14); letter 858 : 415–442, in Allen, 3 : 372–373 (CWE 6 : 84–85).

32. Letter 694 : 26–33, in Allen, 3 : 117 (CWE 5 : 167); cf. letter 1033 : 119–137, in Allen, 4 : 103 (CWE 7 : 112–113).

33. Letter 1060 : 15–16, in Allen, 4 : 157 (CWE 7 : 170).

34. Letter 1033 : 249–250, in Allen, 4 : 103; letter 1166 : 113–116, in Allen, 4 : 400; and letter 1173 : 127–148, in Allen, 4 : 423 (CWE 7 : 116; 8 : 108, 133). letter 628 : 12–14, in Allen, 3 : 51 (CWE 5 : 73).

35. Letter 1110 : 2–10, in Allen, 4 : 278 (CWE 7 : 305).

36. James Overfield, Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany (Princeton, 1984); Charles Nauert, “The Clash of Humanists and Scholastics: An Approach to Pre-Reformation Controversies,” Sixteenth Century Journal 4 (1973): 1–18; and Erika Rummel, “ Et cum Theologo Poeta Bella Gerit: The Conflict between Humanists and Scholastics Revisited,” Sixteenth Century Journal 23 (1992): 713–726. Letter 815 : 14–19, in Allen, 3 : 262 (CWE 5 : 359): the Dominican prior of Brussels, not getting the joke, ordered twenty copies of Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum for his friends.

37. Letter 304 : 54–57, in Allen, 2 : 13 (CWE 3 : 19), Dorp says even litterati were offended by Folly’s mockery and asks why Erasmus writes only for litterati; in his response to this part of Dorp’s letter, letter 337 : 159–164, in Allen, 3 : 95 (CWE 3 : 117), Erasmus merely says he cares nothing for the reaction of critics whom he believes to have “no wit, wide reading, or style.”

38. Letter 1117 : 47–51, in Allen, 4 : 293 (CWE 7 : 320), my italics; CWE translates nostra ordo as “men of our way of thinking.” For other uses of ordo suggesting that Erasmus sees Christian society as divided into such “estates,” see letter 337 : 258–273, in Allen, 2 : 97–98, and letter 1167 : 47–55, in Allen, 4 : 401–402 (CWE 2 : 120; 8 : 110).

39. Letter 1082 : 12–15, in Allen, 4 : 208 (CWE 7 : 228).

40. Letter 785 : 37, in Allen, 3 : 239, and letter 858 : 201–205, in Allen, 3 : 367 (CWE 5 : 327; 6 : 79). Compare Luther to Erasmus, letter 933 : 18–22, in Allen, 3 : 518 (CWE 6 : 282): Wolfgang Capito has let him know that Erasmus in the letter to Volz has expressed approval of Luther’s works. Letter 916 : 109–127, in Allen, 3 : 483–484 (CWE 6 : 240–241).

41. Letter 938 : 1–9, in Allen, 3 : 527 (CWE 6 : 294), my italics. For the Latin “Martini, obsecro, negotium in publicum nihil eleues,” CWE has “Do not, I beg you, exaggerate this business of Martin into a public issue.” Elevare means to lift up and by extension to disparage or to alleviate. By this time “this business of Martin,” that is, Luther’s Reformation, was surely public already; the letter makes clear that what Capito did not want to become public was Erasmus’s disagreement with Luther.

42. Erasmus to Maarten Lips, letter 899 : 46–48, in Allen, 3 : 440 (CWE 6 : 185); Petrus Mosellanus to Erasmus, letter 911 : 59–60, in Allen, 3 : 470 (CWE 6 : 225), Guillaume Budé to Erasmus, letter 744 : 22–34, in Allen, 3 : 173 (CWE 5 : 245), and Erasmus to Johann Lang (cited below, this chapter, note 44); Erasmus to Willibald Pirckheimer (published), letter 856 : 27–36, in Allen, 3 : 359 (CWE 6 : 57), an indirect overture to Jacob van Hoogstraten, Dominican inquisitor of Cologne, and Erasmus to Spalatin (published), letter 1119 : 24–41, in Allen, 4 : 298 (CWE 7 : 324), referring to Erasmus to Melanchthon, letter 1113 : 33–38, in Allen, 4 : 287 (CWE 7 : 313) (an unpublished letter to Melanchthon, which Erasmus expected the latter to show Luther).

43. On Erasmus as editor of his letters, Léon-E. Halkin, Erasmus ex Erasmo: Érasme, éditeur de sa correspondance (Aubel, 1983), and Peter G. Bietenholz, “Erasmus and the German Public, 1518–1520: The Authorized and Unauthorized Circulation of His Correspondence,” Sixteenth Century Journal 8 (1977): 61–78; on the often distinctive character of the letters he chose not to publish, see James D. Tracy, “Erasmus among the Critics: Bonae Litterae, Docta Pietas, and Dissimulatio Revisited,” in Hilman Pabel, ed., Erasmus’s Vision of the Church, Sixteenth Century Studies and Texts, vol. 33 (Kirksville, Mo., 1995), 1–40.

44. Letter 872 : 16–19, in Allen, 3 : 409–410 (CWE 6 : 137–138), my italics; here the crucial words are in Greek. For the phrases in italics, CWE has “a certain high priest you know of” and “curse of Christianity.”

45. The full title was Consilium Cujusdam ex Animo Cupientis Esse Consultum et Romani Pontificis Dignitati et Christianae Religionis Tranquillitati (Advice of a Certain Man Desiring to Serve both the Dignity of the Roman Pontiff and the Tranquillity of the Christian Religion): Ferguson, Opuscula Erasmi, 338–361 (CWE 71 : 108–112).

46. See letter 934, and Erasmus’s reply to Latomus, Apologia contra Latomi dialogum, in LB 9 : 79–106; Gilbert Tournoy, “Jacobus Latomus”, CE 2 : 304–306. See also the Dialogus Bilinguium ac Trilinguium, attributed to Wilhelm Nesen, in Ferguson, Opuscula Erasmi, 191–224 (CWE 7 : 330–347).

47. Jerry H. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance (Princeton, 1983), 195–213; Marjorie O’Rourke Boyle, “Edward Lee,” CE 2 : 311–314; the most important documents of the controversy are letters 750, 843, 1061, and Erasmus’s Apologia Qua Respondet Duabus Invectivis Edvardi Lei, in Ferguson, Opuscula Erasmi, 225–303.

48. Letter 948 : 94.161, in Allen, 3 : 544–546, and letter 1007 : 26–36, in Allen, 4 : 52–53 (CWE 6 : 314–316; 7 : 57); letter 1113 : 3–10, in Allen, 4 : 286–287 (CWE 7 : 313).

49. Letters 1153 and 1162, in Allen, 4, and Marjorie O’Rourke Boyle, “Nicholas Baechem,” CE 1 : 81–82; letter 1165 : 6–15, in Allen, 4 : 294 (CWE 8 : 101–104), letter 1196, in Allen, 4, and Peter G. Bietenholz, “Vincentius Theodorici,” CE 317–318; letter 1149 (introduction to this letter in Allen, 4, and CWE 8), and letter 1199 : 31–38, in Allen, 4 : 482 (CWE 8 : 199).

50. Letter 1186 : 8–9, in Allen, 4 : 444, and letter 1203 : 24–26, in Allen, 4 : 494 (CWE 8 : 157, 212). On 10 December 1520 Luther burned a copy of canon law. His Babylonian Captivity of the Church rejected several of the church’s seven sacraments, and his Assertio Omnium Articulorum was a combative elaboration on the Ninety-five Theses.

51. Letter 1223 : 3–13, in Allen, 4 : 552 (CWE 8 : 269).

52. Letter 1033 : 119–124, in Allen, 4 : 103 (CWE 7 : 112), my italics; CWE has “servants” for my “minions,” but satellites has for Erasmus a pejorative connotation. Cf. letter 1166 : 113–116, in Allen, 4 : 400 (CWE 8 : 108).

53. E. Harris Harbison, The Christian Scholar in the Age of Reformation (New York, 1956), with chapters on Jerome, Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin (I might mention that this was the book that drew me to Princeton as a graduate student, where I attended the last seminar Prof. Harbison offered before he was incapacitated by an untimely illness); letter 858 : 1–15, in Allen, 3 : 362 (CWE 6 :72–73); Richard L. De Molen, The Spirituality of Erasmus (Nieuwkoop, 1987), chapter 3, “The Interior Erasmus”; Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters, 29–30.