THE HESPERIAN,
MISCELLANY.
Prize Oration of II. P. Barrett; Cfaaso fc Wheeler Contest.
ERASMUS.
The misery of the Dark Ages is unpleasant to contemplate.
Such a maze of doubt, prejudice and passion fills the inter
val between then and now, that they seem to modern remem
brance like an almost forgotten dream; and the characters
which appear in the Reformation dawn, exposed to an un
equal light, seem distorted and misshapen. Yet we turn re
peatedly from today and the future to ask of those bygone
cnturics, why? whence? how? And it is right. Not alone
for individuals, but for mankind, experience is a dear, but
efficient, teacher.
Long before the Reformation there were mutterings; Wy
clifTc and Huss augured the coming morn of civil and relig
gious freedom; but, though wo study these almost uncon
scious movements with curious interest, that which most in
spires our thought is the awakening time itself; with Luther
and his contemporaries we most deeply sympathize. True
to something almost an instinct, succeeding generations have
grouped contemporary history about that character which per
sonified the genius of the Reformation, and have rendered to
Luther something akin to adoration. It is too much; and if
to increase the meed of others' praise subtract from the glory
of Luther, it is just. The Reformation wrs not the creation
of a man, a people, or a generation. Centuries had been
pregnant with it; the throes of three generations hardly suf
ficed to give it birth.
Contemporary with Luther was Erasmus. Similar, yet un
like, they stood side by side, at times, face to face the Re
former of Wittenberg, the Scholar of Rotterdam. In Luther's
character the essential element was force; though narrow, he
was intense. With him, to think was to belive; believing,
he acted. By a process, as inevitable as his being, his faith
became creed. To Erasmus, by nature diffuse, dogma was
impossible. Though cosmopolitan, he had an element of
weak and timid subservience that, until we study the man,
makes us depise him. Luther's Bible, and his hymns, touched
the German heart; have been thought not unworthy of other
tongues. Erasmus, from circumstances of birth and educa
tion, could call no placehomejhe would learn noTernacular,
and his Greek and Latin reached only the learned few.
If a reformer be one who creates, rather than leads, ' a re
form, no one is worthy the name; hut if it be he who so gath
ers in his thought the elements of the movement that he be
comes its naturally accepted leader, Luther was a reformer.
Some have thought to give Erasmus a like dignity and, by
making him a reformer, to subtract from Luther's fame; and
Erasmus did desire reform, and to a certain extent saw what
needed reforming; but, although his name is the sign of a me
diaeval idea, Erasmus was not a reformer; he dir not strike at
the root of the evil. Monasticism was corrupt, he would re
form it. Wickedness had so polluted the Papal Church that
it -was intolerable; civil and ecclesiastic tyranny had pushed
the lower classes to the wall, till mere brute instinct would
prompt to rebellion; but Erasmus would wait the the slow ef
fects of an uncertain education for that which required in
stant relief and would retain both monasticism and the Papacy,
not perceiving that the former must be destroyed, the latter
dethroned, ere reform could come, or education do its work.
Other requisites of a reformer Erasmus lacked. Juster
with himself than are his admirers, he frankly confesses that
he is not the stufl from -which martyrs or leformeis are made;
that not even for the truth would he suffer. It is natural that
Luther should stand before a Diet at Worms with the words,
"I cannot otherwise;" equally so that Erasmus should flee
with timid fear from the plague, seek the society of a learned
aristocracy and bow subserviently to the commands or threats
of his superiors in power. Yet when safe he assailed corrup
tion in unmeasured terms and showed a freedom of thought
in civil and religious things that made him feared and hated;
and through it all he pursued learning with a zeal that never
flagged.
Erasmus was no reformer. What then was he? If he did
not lead the reform, what did he do? He was first of all a
scholar, the scholar of his thae. From his young years his
passion had been for letters. Suffering, almost starving he
still clung to what seemed a part of his existence, and death
at last o'ertook him yet working with his books. His work,
and that of the learned aristocracy at whose head he stood,
was of no mean importance. By cultivating a spirit of liter
ary criticism they struck at the infallibility of the Latin Vul
gate and priestly interpretation; their repeated editions of the
classic authors spread though the upper strata of society a
generous humanism a humanism whose warming, mellow
ing influence could be only beneficial on the frigid scholasti
cism of the age, and which was potent, though indirectly, with
every class. Yet because the learned ones refused to probe
the most crying evils of their time they forfeited their position
as leaders of the reform, their work was preparatory and of
secondary importance. But the subtle influence of a thought
cannot he estimated as we count the slaughter and devasta
tion of war; nor is it too much, to say that Luther would not
have seen success had not Erasmus and his fellows done their
part. If Erasmus does not take equal rank with Luther, if
they did fail to understand each other,itis our privilege to ap
preciate both and hail them co-workers.
It is said by experienced heads that an oration which does
not contain something about Luther, the Reformation, the
French Revolution or some kindred subject is of no account.
It cannot be said on the other hand 'at every oration which
dwells upon these subjects is good. An example recently
came to our notice and we deem it worthy of remark. The
choice of "The French Revolution" as a subject is to he ex
pected. Students find these subjects, which are trite to older
heads, repeatedly new to them, and we consider nothing more
foolish than the sneer which the higher class-man bestows on
ihis less advanced colleague for choosing such themes. Itis
n the treatment that our friend shows his failing. He gives
himself up to that tendency to flashy, high-sounding phrases
which have little meaning. In glancing through the article
in question such phrases as "seas of blood," "tragedy ofihe
world's history," "refulgent with celestial light" appear at
every turn of thought It sometimes takes a long time for a
young writer to learn that it is best to express his thought in
plain and simple words, rather than to cover it with words
whose meaning only the learned will understand. A 'crown
refulgent with celestial light" sounds well, hut it means
nothing, Turther, this craving for striking diction leads tht
writer into several inaccuracies. It is a favorite idea with
some that the orator should aim to move, and that for this end
any means are justifiable; that he may perpetrate an untruth
provided his hearers are ignorant that it is such; an extrav
agant assertion may he made even though the hearers be
aware oi its character, provided that, outreaching their .prej
udice, it gains their sympathy. We tske it that nothing can
more effectually hinder oratory from subserving its true na
than this laxity of statement The orator should always have
something to prove true; and, having that, an over-statement
of the case will inevitably be detrimental in the long run.