The Correspondence of Erasmus.

Erasmus, living in Basel during 1525 (the year covered by this volume), stayed close to home, in part because he was suffering from kidney stones (remedies for which appear in these letters), even more because of the German Peasant War, the greatest social upheaval of the century (also alluded to in these letters, but more background than foreground). The Reformation party in Basel was growing stronger, something that caused much pain and annoyance to Erasmus, because among those who led it were Johannes Oecolampadius and Conrad Pellicanus, two who claimed to have been taught by Erasmus and to hold his views. Erasmus distances himself from both (#1538 and 1637); Pellicanus, at least, refused to lose Erasmus as a friend and defended his reform views while maintaining his connection to Erasmus.

Even more ominous for Erasmus personally was the correspondence with Noel Beda. Those who have ever felt treated with condescension by a colleague should read letter #1579, in which Beda chastises Erasmus for not following the scholastic theologians, for publishing new books endlessly - none of which the church needs - and for not retracting his questionable views as St. Augustine did. He urges Erasmus to read John Gerson: "I venture to say that what you need before all else is to read the work of this humble doctor so that you may humble yourself in your own eyes; for there is no other way whereby you will find favour with God" (127). Beda's letter is filled with similar insufferably arrogant assertions. Erasmus' long response (#1581) at first elevates the level of discussion; he uses Beda's critique as a means of looking inward. But he soon descends into self-justification, exhausting his energy by taking on every critic mentioned in Beda's letter. Beda maintains his hostile attitude in subsequent letters, while Erasmus always tries to defuse it and maintain some kind of cordial relations, but always justifying himself.

Erasmus had published his essay on free will against Luther the preceding year but, as he complains several times in these letters, he seems to have satisfied few of those on the Catholic side. It goes without saying that he did not satisfy those younger humanists drawn to both Erasmus and to the Reformation. One letter to Erasmus from Celio Calcagnini (#1587), but published by Erasmus in his Opus epistolarum in 1529, expresses as well Erasmus' revised view of Luther as the years since 1519 revealed the extent of Luther's differences with the Catholic Church. But Erasmus complains more in these letters of attacks from the Catholic side while he was doing what he could to stem the tide of the reform. A striking example is his letter to Alberto Pio (#1634), whom he had heard was slandering him at Rome; he tries to disarm Pio's criticisms through apparent candor; Pio was not appeased.

The scholar of classical antiquity also finds some space in this year of revolution. Froben, the famous publisher with whom Erasmus worked in Basel, published his edition of Pliny's Natural History with Erasmus' preface (#1544). There are many allusions to the Natural History throughout the letters of this year.

This edition is graced with reproductions of many of Erasmus' correspondents, all placed precisely with letters to or from them. There is a short-title index of all the letters, of works cited frequently, of all of Erasmus' works, and, finally, a comprehensive general index. The volume is impeccably edited, translated, and produced, as has become common with this project.

Albert Rabil, Jr. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, COLLEGE AT OLD WESTBURY