Desiderius Erasmus

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The most brilliant and most important leader of Germanhumanism, b. at Rotterdam,Holland, 28 October, probably in 1466; d. at Basle,Switzerland, 12 July, 1536. He was theillegitimate child of Gerard, a citizen of Gouda, and Margaretha Rogers, and at a later date latinized his name as Desiderius Erasmus. Eventually hisfather became apriest. Erasmus and an elder brother were brought up at Gouda by their mother. When nine years old he was sent to theschool of the celebratedhumanist Hegius at Deventer, where his taste forhumanism was awakened and his powers of mind received their bent for life. The most brilliant qualities of hisintellect, a wonderful memory and an extraordinarily quick power of comprehension, showed themselves even in this his earliest training. His mother died when he was thirteen years old, and a little later hisfather also; he was now sent by his guardians for two years, which he afterwards called two lost years, to themonasteryschool of Hertogenbosch. Then, after wandering aimlessly about for a time, he was forced, through necessity and the insistence of his guardians, to enter in 1486 themonastery ofEmmaus, near Gouda, a house ofCanons Regular. He felt notruereligious vocation for such a step, and in later years characterized this act as the greatest misfortune of his life. As a matter of fact the beginnings of his religious indifferentism and of his weakness of character are to be sought in his joyless youth and in the years spent under compulsion in themonastery. He was left free, however, to pursue his studies, and devoted himself mainly to the ancient classics, whose content and formal beauty he passionately admired. His religious training was obtained from the study ofSt. Jerome and Lorenzo Valla. In 1491 a lucky accident freed him from monastic life. TheBishop ofCambrai was minded to visitItaly and chose Erasmus as secretary and traveling companion, attracted by the young man's linguistic attainments; he alsoordained himpriest in 1492. The journey was never made, but Erasmus remained in the service of thebishop, who, in 1496, sent him toParis to complete his studies. The scholastic method of instruction then prevalent atParis was so repugnant to him that he spent much of his time travelling throughFrance and theNetherlands, receiving occasionally friendly help; he was also for a while at Orléans, where he worked at his collection of proverbs, the later "Adagia". The money for a trip toEngland he earned by acting as tutor to three Englishmen, from whom he also obtained valuable letters of introduction. During his stay inEngland (1498-99), he made the acquaintance at Oxford of Colet,Thomas More, Latimer, and others, with all of whom acquaintance ripened into lifelong friendship. Colet showed him how to reconcile the ancientfaith withhumanism by abandoning the scholastic method and devoting himself to a thorough study of the Scriptures. Consequently, on his return to the Continent he took up with ardour the study of Greek atParis andLouvain. The first publications of Erasmus occurred in this early period. In 1500 was issued the "Adagia", a collection of Greek and Latin proverbs, and in 1508 another greatly enlarged edition of the same; in 1502 appeared the "Enchiridion militis christiani", in which he described the nature oftrue religion andtruepiety, but with comments that were biting and antagonistic to theChurch; in 1505 Lorenzo Valla's "Annotationes" to theNew Testament, themanuscript of which he had found in amonastery atBrussels. His introduction to this work is important, for in it occurred his first utterance concerning the Scriptures, laying especial stress on the necessity of a new translation, a return to the original text, and respect for the literal sense.

In 1506 he was finally able, by the aid of his English friends, to attain his greatest desire, a journey toItaly. On his way thither he received atTurin the degree of Doctor of Divinity; at Bologna,Padua, andVenice, the academic centres of UpperItaly, he was greeted with enthusiastichonour by the most distinguishedhumanists, and he spent some time in each of these cities. AtVenice he formed an intimate friendship with the famous printer Aldus Manutius. His reception atRome was equally flattering; thecardinals, especially Giovanni de' Medici (laterLeo X), and Domenico Grimani, were particularly gracious to him. He could not, however, be persuaded to fix his residence atRome, and refused all offers ofecclesiastical promotion.Henry VIII had just reached the throne ofEngland, and thus awakened in Erasmus the hope of an advantageous appointment in that country, for which he accordingly set out. On his way out ofItaly (1509) he wrote the satire known as "The Praise of Folly" ("Moriæ Encomium", or "Laus Stultitiæ"), which in a few months went through seven editions. Originally meant for private circulation, it scourges the abuses and follies of the various classes ofsociety, expecially of theChurch. It is a cold-blooded, deliberate attempt to discredit theChurch, and its satire and stinging comment onecclesiastical conditions are not intended as a healing medicine but a deadly poison.

Erasmus may now be said to have reached the acme of his fame; he was in high repute throughout allEurope, and was regarded as anoracle both by princes and scholars. Every one felt it anhonour to enter into correspondence with him. His inborn vanity and self-complacency were thereby increased almost to the point of becoming a disease; at the same time he sought, often by the grossest flattery, to obtain the favour and material support of patrons or to secure the continuance of such benefits. This was also the period of his greatest literary productivity. He wrote at this time works destined to influence profoundly theecclesiastical revolution that was soon to break out. The next five years he spent inEngland, but never accepted a permanent office; it was only for a short time that he held a professorship of Greek atCambridge. When the hopes he had based on the friendship ofHenry VIIIproved vain and he realized that Henry's money was all needed in warlike schemes, Erasmus returned to Brabant, where he became one of the royal councillors of Archduke Charles, laterEmperor Charles V. This office gave him a fixed salary, and for his princely patron he now wrote the "Institutio principis christiani", ahumanistic portrait of the ideal ruler. The archduke thought of making Erasmus abishop, wherefore, with the aid of thepapal legate Ammonius, the famous scholar obtained apapal Brief releasing him from allobligations to hismonastery and also from the censures he had incurred by discarding the dress of his order without permission. No longerobliged to have permanent residence, Erasmus kept up his wandering life, occupied alternately with the composition and the publication of his works. In order to secure absolute freedom Erasmus refused many brilliant offers, among them an invitation from the King ofFrance to reside atParis, from Archduke Ferdinand to come toVienna, and fromHenry VIII to return toEngland. He frequently went to Basle to visit the famous printer Froben, who published henceforth nearly all the writings of Erasmus and procured for them a very wide circulation. In this way Erasmus came into closer relations with Germanhumanism, and his influence did much to increase its prestige in south-westernGermany, inasmuch as the followers of the "new learning" in Basle,Constance, Schlettstadt, and Strasburg, looked up to him as their leader. One of his chief works at this period is the "Colloquia Familiaria", first published in 1518, issued in an enlarged form in 1526, and often reprinted. It is a kind of textbook for the study of the Latin language, and introduction to the purely natural formal training of the mind, and a typical example of the frivolousRenaissance spirit. The defects ofecclesiastical and monastic life are in this work held up to pitiless scorn; moreover, he descends only too often to indecent and cynical descriptions. His edition of the Greek original of theNew Testament, "Novum Instrumentum omne" (Basle, 1516), no model of text-critical scholarship, was accompanied by a classical Latin translation destined to replace theVulgate. Among the notes, partly textual criticism, partlyexegetical comments, were inserted sarcastic slurs on theecclesiastical conditions of the period. In a general introduction he discussed the importance of the Scriptures and the best method of studying them. Although the Complutensian edition offered a better text and was also printed, but not published, at an earlier date, yet the edition of Erasmus remained for a long time authoritative on account of his high reputation, and became the basis of thetextus receptus or received text. No less instrumental in preparing the way for the futureReformation, by setting aside the scholastic method and undermining the traditional authority of the Scriptures, were the "Paraphrases of the New Testament" (1517 and later). This work was dedicated to various princes andprelates, e.g. the paraphrases of theEvangelists toCharles V,Francis I,Henry VIII, and Ferdinand I. In these publications the attitude of Erasmus towards the text of theNew Testament is an extremely radical one, even if he did not follow out all itslogical consequences. In his opinion the Epistle of St. James shows few signs of the Apostolic spirit; the Epistle to the Ephesians has not the diction ofSt. Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews he assigns with some hesitation toClement of Rome. Inexegesis he favoured a coldrationalism and treated the Biblical narratives just as he did ancient classical myths, and interpreted them in a subjective and figurative, or, as he called it, allegorical, sense.

The literary works issued by Erasmus up to this time made him theintellectual father of theReformation. What theReformation destroyed in the organic life of theChurch Erasmus had already openly or covertly subverted in a moral sense in his "Praise of Folly", his "Adagia", and "Colloquia", by his pitiless sarcasm or by his cold scepticism. Like his teacher Lorenzo Valla, he regardedScholasticism as the greatest perversion of the religious spirit; according to him this degeneration dated from the primitiveChristological controversies, which caused theChurch to lose its evangelical simplicity and become the victim of hair-splitting philosophy, which culminated inScholasticism. With the latter there appeared in theChurch that Pharisaism which based righteousness ongoodworks and monasticsanctity, and on a ceremonialism beneath whose weight theChristian spirit was stifled. Instead of devoting itself to theeternalsalvation ofsouls,Scholasticism repelled the religiously inclined by its hair-splitting metaphysical speculations and its over-curious discussion of unsolvable mysteries. Thereligious life, he held, was not furthered by discussions concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost, or thecausa formalis efficiens, and thecharacter indelebilis ofbaptism, orgratia gratis data oracquisita; of just as little consequence was thedoctrine oforiginal sin. Even his concept of the Blessed Eucharist was quiterationalistic and resembled the later teaching ofZwingli. Similarly he rejected the Divine origin of the primacy, of confession, the indissolubility of marriage, and other fundamental principles ofChristian life and the ecclesiastical constitution. He would replace thesetraditiunculæ andconstitutiunculæ hominum by the simple words of the Scriptures, the interpretation of which should be left to the individual judgment. The disciplinary ordinances of theChurch met with even less consideration;fasts,pilgrimages, veneration ofsaints and theirrelics, theprayers of theBreviary,celibacy, andreligious orders in general he classed among the perversities of a formalisticScholasticism. Over against this "holiness ofgoodworks" he set the "philosophy of Christ", a purely naturalethical ideal, guided by human sagacity. Of course this natural standard ofmorals obliterated almost entirely all differences betweenheathen andChristian morality, so that Erasmus could speak with perfect seriousness of a "Saint" Virgil or a "Saint" Horace. In his edition of the GreekNew Testament and in his "Paraphrases" of the same he forestalled theProtestant view of the Scriptures.

Concerning the Scriptures,Luther did not express himself in a morerationalistic manner than Erasmus; nor did he interpret them more rationalistically. The only difference is thatLuther said clearly and positively what Erasmus often merely suggested by adoubt, and that the former sought in theBible, above all other things, thecertainty of justification by Christ, while the latter, with an almostPelagian definiteness, sought therein the model of a moral life. Substantially the same fundamental principles and arguments were put forth by the representatives of eighteenth-century "Enlightenment" to attain exactly the same results. It must be added, however, that the attitude of Erasmus towards the religious questions of his time was conditioned rather by literary interests than by profound interior conviction. His demeanour was apt to be influenced by anxiety for peace and by personal considerations; moreover, in contrast toLuther, it was the refined and scholarly public, not the common people, that he sought to influence by his writings. He, therefore, laboured for a reform of theChurch that would not be antagonistic to thepope and thebishops, nor productive of a violent rupture, but which, through the dissemination of a larger enlightenment, would eventually but gradually result in the wished-for reorganization. This was to be the work, however, not of the common people, but of scholars and princes. Hence he tried subsequently to check theLutheran movement by some kind of peaceful compromise. With a scholar'slove of peace, he was from the beginning disinclined to enter deeply into the current religious dispute. For a time his reformideas seemed to have some prospect of success. As soon, however, as theLutheran movement was seen to mean definitive separation from theChurch, it was clear that a rigorous adherence to the latter was the onlylogical attitude and the one most capable of defence. In the first years of theReformation many thought thatLuther was only carrying out the programme of Erasmus, and this was the opinion of those strictCatholics who from the outset of the great conflict included Erasmus in their attacks onLuther. Given the wavering character of Erasmus, such attacks were to provoke on his part a very equivocal attitude, if not plain double-dealing. He gaveLuther clearly to understand that he agreed with him, and urged only a less violent manner and more consideration for thepope and ecclesiastical dignitaries. At the same time he affected in public an attitude of strict neutrality, and as time went on withdrew more and more fromLuther. In 1519 he wrote toLuther: "I observe as strict a neutrality as possible, in order to advance scholarship, which is again beginning to flourish, by my modesty rather than by passion orviolence." That close relations between these two fundamentally different characters were maintained as late as the Diet of Worms, though both soon clearly saw the difference in their points of view and their attitudes, was largely due toMelanchthon. Though Erasmus had prepared the way for him,Luther was greatly dissatisfied with him because of his stronglyrationalistic concept oforiginal sin and thedoctrine of grace. As early as 1517Luther thus expressed himself concerning Erasmus: "My liking for Erasmus declines from day to day.…The human is of more value to him than the Divine.…The times are now dangerous, and I see that a man is not a more sincere or a wiserChristian for all that he is a good Greek or Hebrew scholar."Luther felt hurt, moreover, by the cool and reserved manner in which Erasmus passed judgment on his writings and actions. Nevertheless, Erasmus always opposed anypersecution ofLuther, and frequently and in no measured terms condemned theBull ofexcommunication. At the same time, he declined any association withLuther, and protested hisignorance of the latter's writings and his own complete submission to the highestecclesiastical authority. But with all this he took the part ofLuther in his correspondence with the Elector Frederick of Saxony. He expressed his views concerningLuther'sdoctrine in twenty-two "Axiomata" addressed to the Elector's courtchaplain, Spalatinus, which, to his disgust, were soon afterwards printed. In this memoir and in other writings addressed to the emperor and to friends atRome, Erasmus proposed arbitration by a court of scholars; he complained, moreover, of the violent attacks made on himself by themonks, and asserted his absolute neutrality and his fidelity toRome. The latter assurance was all the morenecessary as thepapal legate Alexander in his reports toRome put the authorities on their guard against Erasmus, and accused him of being an accomplice in the religious revolt. "The poison of Erasmus has a much more dangerous effect than that ofLuther, who by hisnotorious satirical and insulting letters has injured his own teaching."

While Erasmus, by his relations with theRoman Curia, was able to checkmate the aforesaid and similar hostile complaints, inGermany he continued to be regarded with distrust and even withhatred, sentiments that acquired new strength when, in spite of repeated entreaties, he refused to appear publicly againstLuther. Insinuations and charges of this kind were brought against him, especially by thetheologians ofLouvain. Consequently, in 1521, he moved to Basle, where the presence of numeroushumanists of the Upper Rhine seemed to assure him a peaceful existence. Even here his attitude continued for a considerable time uncertain. To Duke George of Saxony he expressed himself most favourably concerningLuther and blamed both theBull ofexcommunication and the imperial edict against the reformer; yet in his correspondence with the emperor and withAdrian VI he denied all association withLuther, and reverted again to his plan of reconciliation by means of a court of arbitration. He also defended with great earnestness his ownorthodoxy against Stunica, who wrote the treatise "Erasmi Rotterdami blasphemiæ et impietates" (Rome, 1522), to prove thatLutheranerrors were to be found in the aforesaid "Annotationes" to theNew Testament. The same year (1522) the fugitive Von Hutten, on his way toZurich, attempted but in vain, to meet at Basle his former friend. Von Hutten revenged himself in his "Expostulatio cum Erasmo" (1523), in which he laid bare with passionateviolence all the weaknesses, all theparvitas et imbecillitas animi of his former patron. Erasmus replied from Basle with his "Spongia Erasmi adversus adspergines Hutteni", in which, with equalviolence, he attacked the character and life of his opponent, and defended himself against the reproach of duplicity. He had endeavoured, so he wrote, to hold aloof from all parties; he had, indeed, attacked Roman abuses, but he had never attacked theApostolic See or its teaching.

All sympathetic association of Erasmus with theReformers now ceased, thoughMelanchthon tried to stay the final rupture. One after another, the leaders of the religious anti-Roman movement withdrew from the famoushumanist, especiallyZwingli and Œcolampadius. This same year Erasmus resolved at last to heed the many appeals made to him, especially byAdrian VI andHenry VIII, to write againstLuther. For the first time he took a decided stand, moved, no doubt, by the fear of losing the confidence of both parties. He chose with skill the point on which he would attackLuther. Erasmus had complained much earlier that the new religious movement begat only commotion, moral disorganization, and the interruption, if not the complete ruin, of learned studies. These abuses he traced toLuther's denial offree will. He wrote, therefore, in defence of the freedom on the will, an attack onLuther, entitled: "Diatribe de libero arbitrio" (1524). The work, it may be said, was couched in a calm and dignified style. Though by no means sufficiently profound in itstheological reasoning, theproofs are drawn with skill from theBible and from reason.Luther's reply was the "De servo arbitrio" (1524), henceforth the official programme of the new movement. Starting from the third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, it teaches the absolute incompetency of man in his fallen state to perform moral acts; no franker antithesis to thehumanistic ideal could be imagined. Erasmus replied in a work entitled "Hyperaspistes" (1526), but without effect.Luther ignored this reply, except in private letters in which he showed much irritation. Some years later, however, when the "Explanatio Symboli" of Erasmus appeared (1533),Luther attacked him once more in a public letter, to which Erasmus replied in his "Adversus calumniosissimam epistolam Martini Lutheri". These passages at arms brought on Erasmus the violenthatred of theWittenberg reformer, who now called him nothing but a sceptic and an Epicurean.Catholics, however, considered that Erasmus had somewhat rehabilitated himself, although the more extreme still disbelieved in him. He had not ceased to insist on the need of reforms, though he now spoke more composedly of many matters, such ascelibacy. In his later years, it may be said, he held aloof from all religious conflicts, devoted to hishumanistic studies and to an intimate circle of such friends as Boniface Amerbach, Beatus Rhenanus, andGlareanus. Nor was he indifferent to contemporary efforts at conciliation; he was in favour ofecclesiastical reunion. Meantime, theReformation made rapid progress in Basle, where it took the form, greatly detested by Erasmus, of a violent destruction of images. He removed, therefore (1529), to Freiburg in the Breisgau, not far from Basle, in which city he could still find congenialCatholic surroundings. He did not relax his efforts for religious peace, in favour of which he exerted all his influence, especially at the imperial court. He also wrote, at the request ofMelanchthon andJulius von Pflug, his "De sarciendâ Ecclesiæ concordiâ" (1533), in which he advocates the removal ofecclesiastical abuses in concord withRome and without any changes in the ecclesiastical constitution. Notwithstanding his rupture withLuther, an intense distrust of Erasmus was still widespread; as late as 1527 theParis Sorbonne censured thirty-two of his propositions. It is a remarkable fact that the attitude of thepopes towards Erasmus was never inimical; on the contrary, they exhibited at all times the most complete confidence in him.Paul III even wanted to make him acardinal, but Erasmus declined thehonour, alleging his age and ill-health. Naturally weak and sickly, and suffering all his life from calculi, his strength in the end failed completely. Under these circumstances he decided to accept the invitation of Mary, regent of theNetherlands, to live in Brabant, and was preparing at Basle for the journey when a sudden attack of dysentery caused his death. He died with composure and with all the signs of a devout trust inGod; he did not receive the lastsacraments, but why cannot now be settled. He wasburied with great pomp in thecathedral at Basle. Shortly before his death he heard the sorrowful news of the execution of two of his English friends,Sir Thomas More andBishop Fisher.

Editions of the classics and theFathers of the Church kept Erasmus fully employed during the later period of his life at Basle. In his editions of the Fathers Erasmus formed a means of realizing thetheological ideal ofHumanism, which was to make accessible the original sources ofecclesiastical andtheological development and thus to popularize the historical concept of theChurch as against the purely speculative viewpoint ofScholasticism. As early as 1516-18 Erasmus had published in nine volumes the works ofSt. Jerome, atheologian to whom he felt especially drawn. In 1523 appeared his edition ofSt. Hilary of Poitiers; in 1526 that ofSt. Irenæus of Lyons; in 1527,St. Ambrose; in 1528,St. Augustine; in 1529 the edition of Epiphanius; in 1530,St. Chrysostom; his edition ofOrigen he did not live to finish. In the same period he issued thetheological and pedagogical treatises: "Ecclesiastes sive Concionator evangelicus" (1535), a greatly admired homiletic work; "Modus confitendi" (1525), a guide to right confession; "Modus orandi Deum"; "Vidua christiana"; "De civilitate morum puerilium"; "De præparatione ad mortem", etc.

Opinions concerning Erasmus will vary greatly. No one has defended him without reserve, his defects of character being too striking to make this possible. His vanity and egotism were boundless, and to gratify them he was ready to pursue former friends with defamation and invective; his flattery, where favour and material advantages were to be had, was often repulsive, and he lacked straightforward speech and decision in just those moments when both werenecessary. Hisreligious ideal was entirelyhumanistic; reform of theChurch on the basis of her traditional constitution, the introduction ofhumanistic "enlightenment" intoecclesiasticaldoctrine, without, however, breaking withRome. By nature a cold, scholarly character, he had no real interest in uncongenial questions and subjects, above all no living affectionate sympathy for the doctrines and destinies of theChurch. Devoid of any power of practical initiative he was constitutionally unfitted for a more active part in the violent religious movements of his day, or even to sacrifice himself for the defence of theChurch. His bitter sarcasm had, indeed, done much to prepare the way for theReformation; it spared neither the most sacred elements of religion nor his former friends. His was an absolutely unspeculative brain, and he lacked entirely all power of acutephilosophical definition; we need not wonder, therefore, that on the one hand, he was unable to grasp firmlyecclesiasticaldoctrine or deal justly with its scholastic formulation, while on the other he inveighed with extremeinjustice against the instituitions of theChurch. It must not be forgotten that the grave defects of his character were compensated by brilliant qualities. His splendid gifts explain the universalEuropean fame of the man through several decades, a public esteem and admiration far excelling in degree and extent the lot of any scholar since his day. He had an unequalled talent for form, great journalistic gifts, a surpassing power of expression; for strong and moving discourse, keen irony, and covert sarcasm, he was unsurpassed. In him the world beheld a scholar of comprehensive and many-sided learning, though neither profound nor thorough, a man of universal observation, a writer whose diction was brilliant and elegant in the highest degree. In a word, Erasmus exhibits the quintessence of theRenaissance spirit; in him are faithfully mirrored both its good and bad qualities.

It cannot be denied that Erasmus was a potent factor in theeducational movement of his time. As the foremost of the Germanhumanists, he laboured constantly and effectually for the spread of the new learning, which imparted to theeducation of theRenaissance period its content and spirit. By his intercourse with scholars and students, his published satires on existing institutions and methods, and especially his work in editing and translating the Greek and Latin authors, he gave a powerful impulse to the study of the classics. But his more direct contributions toeducation are marked by the inconsistency which appears in his whole career. Some of his writings, e.g. his "Order of Study" (De ratione Studii, 1516) and his "Liberal Education of Children" (De pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis, 1529), contain excellent advice toparents and teachers on the care of children, development of individuality, training in virtue and in the practice of religion, with emphasis on the moral qualifications of the teacher and the judicious selection of subjects of study. In other writings, as in the "Colloquia", the tone and the language are just the opposite, so offensive in fact that evenLuther in his "Table Talk" declares": "If I die I will forbid my children to read his Colloquies … See now what poison he scatters in his Colloquies among his made-up people, and goes craftily at our youth to poison them." It is not surprising that this work was condemned by the Sorbonne (1526) as dangerous tomorals, and was eventually placed on theIndex. That in most works on the history ofeducation Erasmus occupies so large a place, while others who contributed far more to the development ofeducational method (e.g. Vives) are not mentioned, is perhaps due to sympathy with the anti-ecclesiastical attitude of Erasmus, rather than to the intrinsic value of his constructive work (see Stöckl, Gesch. d. Pädagogik, Mainz, 1876).

A complete edition of the works of Erasmus, to which a life of him was added, was issued by Beatus Rhenanus (Basle, 1540-41) in 9 vols.; an edition was also published by Le Clerc (Leyden, 1703-06), 10 vols.; Ruelens, "Erasmi Rott. Silva carminum" (Brussles, 1864). The editions of the letters of Erasmus have been as follows: "Epistulæ familiares Erasmi" (Basle, 1518); Herzog, "Epistulæ famil. ad Bon. Amerbachium" (Basle, 1779); Horawitz, "Erasmiana" in the Transactions of the philosophical-historical section of the Academy of Vienna, vols. XC and XCV (1878-85); Horawitz, "Erasmus and Martin Lipsius" (1882); F. M. Nichols, "The Epistles of Erasmus" (London, 1901-04), 2 vols.; von Miaskowski, "Correspondenz des Erasmus mit Polen" (Breslau, 1901). Selections from his pedagogical writings were published by Reichling, "Ausgew. pädagogische Schriften des Erasmus" (Freiburg, 1896).

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT