Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469–1536) was not a systematicphilosopher although we discern in the large body of his writings acertain Erasmian habit of mind. He often reflected on subjects thatinvite philosophical inquiry: the influence of nature versus nurture,the relationship between word and thing, the ideal form of government,the nature of faith, and the theory of knowledge. Erasmus’ viewson these subjects are of interest to historians today, even if theyare unstructured, because his works circulated widely and hisinfluence in Northern Europe was pervasive. In modern parlance, he wasan opinion maker. If a general label is needed, Erasmus’ thoughtis best described as “Christian Humanism”, that is, aphilosophy of life combining Christian thought with classicaltraditions. He embraced the humanistic belief in an individual’scapacity for self-improvement and the fundamental role of education inraising human beings above the level of brute animals. The thrust ofErasmus’ educational programme was the promotion ofdoctapietas, learned piety, or what he termed the “philosophy ofChrist”. As a biblical scholar he supported the humanistic callAd fontes, a return to the texts in the original language andtherefore promoted the study of the biblical languages Hebrew, Greek,and Latin. He was in the vanguard of modern philology. His pioneeringedition of the Greek New Testament shows that he had an understandingof the process of textual transmission and had developed text-criticalprinciples. In politics, Erasmus embraced consensus, compromise, andpeaceful cooperation, ideals he recommended to the participants in theReformation debate, albeit with little success. Considered aforerunner of the Reformation by his contemporaries, he broke withMartin Luther over the latter’s sectarianism. Morefundamentally, the two men disagreed over heuristics and engaged in apolemic over the question of free will. Erasmus took a skepticalposition vis-à-vis Luther’s assertions. Unlike thereformer, he did not believe in the clarity of Scripture and usedconsensus and tradition as criteria to settle questions that did notallow a rational conclusion. Erasmus rarely ventured into doctrinalquestions, however, favoring simple faith and devotion over dialecticsand scholastic speculation. The circulation of Erasmus’ workswas temporarily curtailed when the Catholic Church put them on theIndex of Forbidden Books, but his ideas saw a revival during theEnlightenment when he was regarded as a forerunner of rationalism. Hismost famous work,The Praise of Folly, has remained in printto the present day, a distinction shared by few books from the16^th century.

• 1. Life and Works
• 2. Methodology
• 3. Educational Philosophy
• 4. Language and Literature
• 5. Political Thought
• 6.Pietas andPhilosophia Christi
• Bibliography
  • Erasmus’ Works
  • Other Primary Works
  • Biographies
  • Secondary Works
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries

1. Life and Works

Erasmus was born in Rotterdam on 28 October 1469 (see Goudriaan 2019)as the illegitimate son of a priest. He attended a school at Deventerwhich was regarded as progressive and had capable teachers whointroduced Erasmus to “something of a higher standard ofliterature” (CWE 4: 405). Orphaned in 1483, he came into thecare of guardians who sent him to a school run by the Brethren of theCommon Life in the spirit of the Devotio Moderna. Since Erasmus’inheritance was small, his guardians persuaded him to enter themonastery of the Augustinian Canons Regular at Steyn. He was ordainedpriest in 1492.

In later years Erasmus alleged that he had been pressured into takingthe vows. His misgivings found expression in one of his first works,De Contemptu Mundi (On disdaining the World, written in the1490s, published 1521). Ostensibly a praise of monastic life, it beganby recommending seclusion and withdrawal from the world but ended in alament about the decline of monasticism and a warning to postulantsnot to take the vows rashly. Erasmus himself discovered that he wasconstitutionally and psychologically unsuited to the monastic life. Hewould have preferred to go to university. In 1495 he saw a chance torealize this goal when Bishop Hendrik of Bergen sent him to theCollège de Montaigu in Paris and promised him financialsupport. It is uncertain how much, if any, theological trainingErasmus received during his brief stay at the college. In any case, hedid not find the Parisian brand of theology to his liking, declaringthat scholasticism “repelled him” (CWE 4: 408).When thepromised financial support did not materialize, Erasmus left thecollege, then renowned for its strict discipline and harsh livingconditions, and supported himself by tutoring well-to-do young men.This experience produced a number of educational handbooks and aids,among themDe Epistolis Conscribendis, a letter-writingmanual (1522);De Copia, a handbook of style (1502);Colloquia, a collection of dialogues meant to teach correctLatin (1518), and theAdagia , an anthology of proverbs to beused as rhetorical tools to embellish style (1500). All of these bookssaw multiple editions, some of them expanded and given a largerpurpose. Thus some of the proverbs provided starting points foressays, and many of the colloquies likewise became opinion pieces onissues of the day.

In 1499 Erasmus accompanied one of his pupils, William Blount, LordMountjoy, to England. The visit led to important connections. He madelife-long friends, among them the humanists William Grocyn and ThomasLinacre, who inspired him to take up the study of Greek, and JohnColet who shared his scorn for scholastic theology and drew him towardbiblical studies. He was on close terms also with Thomas More, laterLord Chancellor of England, with whom he collaborated on translationsof Lucian, and he found a patron in William Warham, archbishop ofCanterbury, who granted him an ecclesiastical benefice in Aldington,Kent. His illegitimate birth disqualified Erasmus from taking upbenefices, but he received a papal dispensation through theintervention of the nuncio Andrea Ammonio, another of his Englishconnections. Eventually he drew a steady income from pensions andbenefices. A stipend, which he received as councilor to Charles V, waspaid only irregularly, however.

Over the next two decades Erasmus traveled extensively. He returned toFrance for a time, made two more journeys to England, and traveled toItaly where he obtained a doctorate in theology at the University ofTurin. In 1517 he finally settled in Leuven. By that time he had madea name for himself. He had published a number of bestsellers: thewitty satireEncomium Moriae (The Praise of Folly, 1511); theAdagia, which he enriched and expanded to more than 4000proverbs; and the devotionalEnchiridion Militis Christiani(Handbook of the Christian Soldier, 1503). In 1516, he published hismagnum opus, an edition of the Greek New Testament, the firstto reach the market. It anticipated theComplutensianPolyglot, which was already in print but still awaiting the papalimprimatur. Thus Erasmus found success in four different genres:literature, education, religion, and theology. In a catalogue hepublished in 1523, Erasmus arranged his writings under nine headings:works furthering language arts, that is, literary and educationalwritings; his collection of adages; his correspondence; worksfurthering moral education (he noted that their content overlappedwith works in the first category); works promoting piety; theannotated edition of the New Testament; paraphrases on the NewTestament; polemics; and editions and translations of patristicworks.

While Erasmus was revered among humanists, his biblical scholarshipsoon came under attack from theologians. They refused to acknowledgehim as a colleague and derided his doctorate, which had been grantedper saltum, that is, without fulfilling the residencerequirements or passing the usual examinations. In their eyes, Erasmuswas merely a “theologizing humanist”, as the prominentParis theologian Noël Beda put it (Preface toAnnotations 1526). Erasmus was not the first humanist totreat the New Testament in a text-critical fashion and to compare theLatin Vulgate with the Greek original, although none of hispredecessors had dared to use their findings to publish an amendededition of the text. Erasmus had discovered a manuscript of LorenzoValla’s annotations on the New Testament and originally plannedto publish notes of a similar nature, that is, observations of errors,discrepancies, and mistranslations. He expanded the scope of hisproject on the urging of his publisher, Johann Froben, and ratherhastily assembled a text based on the biblical manuscripts he had beenable to consult. In the resulting edition, the Greek text was faced bya lightly amended Vulgate, with Erasmus’ editorial changesexplained in annotations following the text. The reception of theedition varied. Humanists generally praised it as an exceptionalachievement; a considerable number of theologians disapproved of itand not only impugned Erasmus’ scholarship but also questionedhis orthodoxy. Their attacks must be seen in the context ofLuther’s coincidental rise to prominence and the resultingreligious debate which cast a long shadow over state and church andover society at large. Erasmus’ move from Leuven to Basel in1521 was partly motivated by a desire to escape the hostile climate atthe University of Leuven, but his opponents were not limited to theLow Countries. He had critics in Italy and was formally investigatedby ecclesiastical authorities in Spain and in France. In 1531theprestigious faculty of theology at the University of Paris publiclycensured and condemned numerous passages in his works as unorthodox.Erasmus responded to his critics with lengthy polemics, which fill twofolio volumes in the LeidenOpera Omnia. He also publishedfour revised editions of his New Testament (1519, 1522, 1527, 1531)with corrections and expanded notes.

Critics of Erasmus’ New Testament edition accused him ofintroducing changes to a sacred text and thus challenging theprinciple of inspiration. Erasmus denied these charges. On thecontrary, he said, his edition restored the original text andcorrected the errors introduced by translators and scribes.Theologians questioned Erasmus’ qualifications to tackle HolyWrit, but he insisted that editing and textual criticism did notrequire a degree in theology. They were tasks proper to philologists.The prefaces he added to successive editions of the New Testamentattempted to clarify his aims and methods. He somewhat ingenuouslyclaimed that he wasonly doing philological work and ignoredthe fact that a change in words frequently also shifted the meaning.Indeed, some of his critics acknowledged the usefulness of his work,but took issue with specific editorial choices. Thus they protestedagainst Erasmus replacing the traditionalpoenitentiam agite(do penance) at Matt. 3:2 withpoeniteat vos (repent), inwhich they saw a Lutheran slant. There was an uproar also about hisomission of the so-called Comma Johanneum at I John 5:7, one of theproofs for the divine trinity, for which Erasmus had found no evidencein the Greek manuscripts or support in the Fathers. The biblicalcommentaries of the Church Fathers and their quotations from the biblewere important sources for Erasmus in establishing the text of the NewTestament. He read widely and published numerous editions andtranslations of patristic writings, among them Jerome, Augustine,Chrysostom, and Origen, and in many cases established the firstreliable critical text of their works (see Béné 1969 andGodin 1982).

In the last two decades of his life, Erasmus wrote numerous apologiae,refuting critics of his New Testament edition and battling theaccusation that he had inspired the Reformation and was a supporter ofLuther. It was difficult, however, to change an opinion that was soentrenched that it had become proverbial and issued in the popularsaying “Erasmus laid the egg, and Luther hatched it”.Erasmus’ critics demanded proof of his orthodoxy in the form ofa direct attack on Luther. For some years Erasmus held out and refusedexplicitly to endorse any religious party. Maintaining scholarlydetachment was, however, impossible in the militant climate of theConfessional Age. In 1524 Erasmus reluctantly publishedDe LiberoArbitrio Diatribe (Discussion of Free Will). A politely wordeddisquisition addressed to Luther, it showed their fundamentaldisagreement on a crucial theological question. The ensuing polemicfailed to convince Erasmus’ critics of the orthodoxy of hisviews. It was undeniable that Erasmus had been in sympathy with thereformers for a time, although he was not prepared to challenge theauthority of the church and never promoted schism. Erasmus’criticism concerned abuses rather than doctrine, and although hisannotations on the New Testament show that he disagreed with certaintraditional interpretations, he always emphasized his willingness todefer to the judgment of the Church.

In 1529 when the city of Basel, where he resided at the time, turnedProtestant, he voted with his feet and moved to Catholic Freiburg.Questions about Erasmus’ orthodoxy persisted, however, evenafter his death in 1536. In the wake of the Council of Trent, whichdefined articles of faith more rigidly, Erasmus’ works wereplaced on the Index of Prohibited Books.

2. Methodology

During his lifetime Erasmus’ name became synonymous withhumanism, a label also adopted in modern reference works (such asNauert 2006). Today the term “humanist” has a broad rangeof meanings. In the 16^th century the word denoted a studentor teacher of thestudia humanitatis, a curriculum focusingon the study of classical languages, rhetoric, and literature. Atnorthern universities, where scholasticism and the dialectical methodreigned supreme, the trend-setting humanists were regarded aschallengers of the status quo (see Rummel 1995). The defenders oftradition belittled their competitors as “grammarians” anddismissed the humanities aspoetria, the stuff of poetry. Toa certain extent, the tensions between the two schools of thought maybe explained in terms of professional jealousy, but at its core wasthe dispute over methodology and qualifications. Humanists favoredrhetorical arguments; scholastics insisted on logical proof.Scholastic theologians in particular regarded the humanists asdangerous interlopers. They questioned their orthodoxy because oftheir inclination to use the skepticalars dubitandi anddenied their right to apply philological principles to the biblicaltext. Scripture, they insisted, was the exclusive domain of graduatetheologians. Humanists in turn saw the dialectical method used by thescholastics as a perversion of Aristotelian logic and derided theirtechnical terminology as a corruption of the Latin language. In thePraise of Folly Erasmus lampooned scholastic theologians in apassage that became notorious:

They are fortified with an army of scholastic definition, conclusions,corollaries, and propositions both explicit and implicit…. Theyquibble about concepts, relations, instants, formalities, quidditiesand ecceities, which a man could not possibly perceive unless likeLynceus he could see through blackest darkness things whichdon’t exist…. You’d extricate yourself faster froma labyrinth than from the tortuous obscurities of realists,nominalists, Thomists, Albertists, Ockhamists, and Scotists….Such is the erudition and complexity they all display that I fancy theapostles themselves would need the help of another Holy Spirit if theywere obliged to join issue on these topics with our new breed oftheologians. (CWE 27: 126–7)

On a more serious note, he voiced two objections against thedialectical disputations of the theologians: “The portentiousfilth of their barbarous and artificial style” obscured themeaning (CWE 3: 124), and their argumentation lacked a moraldimension. Scholastic disputations honed intellectual skills butfailed to make better Christians of the protagonists. “Well, weare training not a pugilist but a theologian”, Erasmus says inhisMethodus, “and a theologian who prefers to expresswith his life rather than in syllogisms what he professes” (CWE41: 452).

He further insisted on the right of humanists, who were trained in theclassical languages, to apply their philological skills to bothsecularand sacred writings. Translation and textualcriticism of the Bible required philological skills, and theologianswho engaged in this task “were acting in the capacity ofphilologists (grammatici)” (Ep. 181: 120–5; CWE2).

While the need for language studies and the use of philologicalmethods found gradual acceptance among theologians, the skepticalars dubitandi, which was also closely associated withhumanism, remained anathema. Since skepticism was identified withatheism in Erasmus’ time, most humanists refrained fromadvocating this method openly. They expressed their skepticism throughthe use of open-ended dialogue or rhetorical compositions that arguedopposing points of view. Erasmus used these means to argue for andagainst marriage, for and against monastic vows, and for and againstdoctrinal positions. Rather surprisingly he admitted to his preferencefor skepticism inA Discussion of Free Will. This tract wasaimed at Luther’s assertion that free will did not exist and thesinner was justifiedsola fide, by faith alone, andsolagratia, by grace alone (more in Boyle 1983).

Erasmus’ tract, which he called adiatribe, that is, adisquisition, is a showpiece of his methodology. He begins hisargumentation in the classic skeptical fashion by collating scripturalevidence for and against the concept of free will and demonstratingthat there is no consensus and no rational way of resolving theresulting dilemma.

The method of arguingin utramque partem, on both sides of aquestion, was first developed by the Greek Sophists as a demonstrationof their rhetorical prowess. Pyrrhonic skeptics adopted this method asa preliminary step in arguing a case. If the evidence was ambivalent,they advocatedepoche, suspension of judgment. Academicskeptics modified this process, admitting probability as a criterionto settle an ambiguous question. A variant of the skeptical methodalso appears in medieval scholastic handbooks where doctrinalquestions are arguedsic et non, that is, on both sides, thensettled by a magisterial decision orresolutio.

Erasmus stressed that he was not prepared to pass judgment on thequestion of free will himself. Indeed his natural inclination was totake the Pyrrhonic route and suspend judgment since the evidence wasnot unequivocal. “I take so little pleasure in assertions that Iwill gladly seek refuge in Scepticism”, he writes (CWE 76: 7),but as a believer he was obliged to take a different route. Hesubstituted for his own judgment the authoritative decision of theCatholic Church, which affirmed the existence of free will. As herobedient son, he accepted this resolution. Unlike the scholastics,then, Erasmus does not provide a dialectically reasoned answer, butsubmits to “commonly accepted creeds or universal synods”(LB IX: 1091C), that is, to long-standing tradition and to decisionsarrived at by the consensus of authorized representatives of theCatholic Church. Modern scholars acknowledge this slant when theylabel Erasmus a “Christian humanist”. Likewise hisskepticism might be called a “Christian skepticism”, thatis, a pagan philosophy modified and adapted to Christian thought.

Erasmus’ skepticism shaped his attitude toward the reformers.For several years he gave them his qualified support, but in the 1520swhen he saw Luther openly defy Catholic authorities, he decried hisradical methods and distanced himself from the Reformation movement.The decision to disengage may have been prompted by considerations forhis own safety and a desire to avoid inquisitorial scrutiny, butepistemological considerations also played a role in his withdrawalfrom the reformers and ultimate reversal of opinion about Luther.Erasmus regarded consensus as an essential criterion of the doctrinaltruth. Schism posed a threat to his decision-making process. If papalauthority was questioned in principle and the decrees of the synodswere not binding, Erasmus the Christian Skeptic was paralyzed in hisdecision-making process and unable to settle questions that did notallow a resolution based on clear scriptural evidence.

Luther, who believed in the clarity of Scripture, did not acceptskepticism as a methodological approach. He saw it as waffling. Hescoffed at Erasmus who wanted “to compare everything and affirmnothing” and called him a follower of Lucian or Epicurus, anatheist who ridiculed the beliefs of others. “Permit us to beasserters”, he wrote, “to be devoted to assertions anddelight in them, while you stick to your sceptics andAcademics… The Holy Spirit is no Sceptic!” Luthercriticized Erasmus for using the skeptical method also in hisCatechismus (1524) and thereby sowing doubt amongcatechumens. He was unwilling to put up with ambivalence and demandeda clear-cut judgment. There was no room in doctrinal discussions forErasmus’ slippery rhetoric (see CWE 76: 116–24; Luther1525, “On the Bondage of the Will” quoted in Rummel 2000,59–60).

Erasmus responded to Luther’s criticism with a second tract,Hyperaspistes (A Defensive Shield, 1526), reaffirming hisskepticism, but clarifying its meaning:

A Sceptic is not someone who doesn’t care to know what is trueor false…but rather someone who does not make a final decisioneasily or fight to the death for his own opinion, but rather acceptsas probable what someone else accepts as certain.

Up to this point he might be describing the position of an Academicskeptic, but he goes on to specify:

I explicitly exclude from Scepticism whatever is set forth in SacredScripture or whatever has been handed down to us by the authority ofthe Church. (CWE 76: 118)

Erasmus’ criteria then are first of all Scripture, but ifscriptural evidence is ambiguous, he relies on

the decrees of the Catholic Church, especially those issued by generalcouncils and fully approved by a consensus of the Christian people.(CWE 76: 127)

In other words, he substitutes for the Academic criterion ofprobability, the criteria of Christian tradition and consensus (seeespecially Payne in Coppens 1969, 2: 77–99).

Luther disapproved of Erasmus’ use of rhetorical terms in whatwas a doctrinal dispute. His admirers, by contrast, praised hisskillful use of language. They contrasted his moderate wording withLuther’s antagonistic tone and commended Erasmus’courteous and accommodating style, but did not comment on theepistemological underpinning of his conclusions. It is possible thatthey appreciated Erasmus’ arguments but did not think it politicor indeed helpful to his cause to acknowledge his skepticism.

In addition to the arguments rooted in skepticism, Erasmus also bringsethical criteria to bear on the question of free will. He argued thatdenying the existence of free will would destroy the moral basis ofhuman action. Affirming the power of free will was socially expedient.Humanists criticized the dialectic method used by the scholasticsprecisely because it resulted only in a technical victory over theiropponents and did not produce moral conviction or change theiropponents’ mind. To convince the other party, consensus wasnecessary. Thus the characters in Erasmus’Colloquies“Inquiry into Faith” and “The Godly Feast”argue on both sides of the questions at issue, but their dialogue endsin a friendly consensus. This rhetorical type of argumentation whichemphasizes collaboration and consensus-building is a typicalhumanistic approach and an important element also of Erasmus’political thought and his educational philosophy.

3. Educational Philosophy

Erasmus earned his living as a teacher for only a few years, buteducation remained a lifelong interest and a central theme in hiswritings (see especially Margolin 1995). Erasmus expressed confidencein the potential of human beings for self-improvement, a corollary ofhis acceptance of free will. He believed in the preponderance ofnurture over nature, given the power of the will. It was therefore theduty of parents and teachers to ensure that children fulfilled theirpotential and of adults to live up to it. “What is man’sreal nature?” Erasmus asks.

Is it not to live according to reason? This is why he is called arational being, and this is what sets him apart from animals. And whatis the most harmful influence upon man? Surely it is ignorance. (CWE26: 312)

Citing Origen, Erasmus speaks of a tripartite human nature, made up ofspirit, soul, and flesh. The soul, which is “the middlepart”, may through free will align itself either with the divinespirit and “itself become spiritual, but if it abandons itselfto the cupidities of the flesh, it will degenerate into thebody” (CWE 66: 51). This is a characteristic humanistic positionand recalls the wording of Pico della Mirandola’s iconicOration on the Dignity of Man (1496 [1996], 8), whichdescribes the choice as one between “descend[ing] to the lower,brutish forms of life…[or] ris[ing] again to the superiororders whose life is divine”.

Erasmus accepted the classical doctrine of the three prerequisites ofexcellence—natural talent, instruction, and practice (CWE 26:311)—but he tended to blame a poor result on neglect and wrongteaching methods rather than a lack of ability or intention on thepart of student. This parallels the Catholic belief in the limitedpower of free will. Without divine guidance human endeavours are invain. Similarly the successful education of children depends on theguidance of parents and teachers, father figures recalling God’spatriarchal model.

Erasmus composed a number of treatises on the subject of education. Hediscussed curriculum in two works,De Ratione Studii (On theMethod of Study, 1511) andRatio Verae Theologiae (Method ofTrue Theology, 1518). In both tracts he emphasized the importance oflearning the classical languages and studying the classics. In thecase of secular education, he counseled early exposure of students toGreek and Latin and extensive reading inprobati autores (theapproved canon of authors), like Homer, Terence, Plautus, Virgil,Horace, and Cicero. He recommended an all-round education butemphasized the study of history, the proverbial teacher of life.Similarly, he counseled theology students to read the“classics”, that is, the sources of Christianity: theBible and the Church Fathers. In contrast to the scholastics, whosecore subject was dialectic, Erasmus privileged ethics over logic andthe formation of character over factual knowledge.

His ideas on the aims and methods of education are contained inDePueris Instituendis (On the Education of Children, 1529) andInstitutio Principis Christiani (On the Education of aChristian Prince, 1516), but are expressed there in a rhetoricalrather than a systematic fashion. Erasmus himself callsOn theEducation of Children a demonstration of rhetorical principles,an example of a theme “presented first in brief summary form andthen developed into a more elaborate and more detailed argument”(CWE 26: 295). The rhetorical nature of theEducation of aChristian Prince is self-evident. It is hardly more than acollection of aphorisms, a showcase for Erasmus’ rhetoricalskills rather than an expression of personal opinions. This creates aproblem of interpretation for the modern reader. To separateclichés from principles it is necessary to consider thefrequency and consistency of certain thought patterns inErasmus’ works. Four ideas are recurring themes in his writingson education: the humanizing effect of education; the effectiveness ofcooperative rather than coercive methods; the ability of both sexes tobenefit from education, and the importance of internalizing thematerial taught.

He proclaimed that human beings without education had no humanity:“Man was not born but made man” (CWE 26: 304). It waseducation that raised human beings above the level of brute beasts andmade them useful members of society. “Man, unless he hasexperienced the influence of learning and philosophy, is at the mercyof impulses that are worse than those of a wild beast” (CWE 26:305). Education is an important socializing process. A child that hasbeen well educated will grow up “a son who will be a faithfulprotector of his family, a good husband to his wife, and a solid anduseful citizen of his country” (CWE 26: 302). There areimmediate practical advantages to schooling as well.

Being occupied with his studies, a child will avoid the commonpitfalls of youth—for learning is something that engages theentire person- and this is a blessing which should not be undervalued.(CWE 26: 297)

Teachers must understand that education will bear fruit only if it isa cooperative effort. It is the teacher’s task to present thematerial in an instructive and entertaining fashion to retain thestudent’s interest rather than use punitive methods. Coercionand corporal punishment are counter-productive, whereas an appeal tothe students’ interests and praise for their effort areeffective means of education.

Like many of his contemporaries, Erasmus grew up in the belief thatwomen were intellectually inferior to men and therefore could notbenefit from education in the same measure. He changed his mind aftermeeting the erudite daughters of Thomas More and hearing of learnedwomen like Marguerite of Navarre and Caritas Pickheimer. Several ofhisColloquies, notably “The Abbot and the LearnedLady” and “The New Mother”, acknowledge theintellectual aspirations of women (and in a winking manner, theiroccasional superiority to men).

In Erasmus’ time memorization and imitation were the predominantmethods of education. Anticipating modern principles, Erasmusemphasized the importance of understanding and internalizing thematerial presented. This approach is examined at length in histreatiseCiceronianus (The Ciceronian, 1528), which dealswith the imitation of Cicero’s style, a subject of burninginterest to Erasmus’ contemporaries (excellent analysis inChomarat 1981, 815–840). He emphasizes the importance ofaptum et decorum in compositions, that is, theappropriateness of arguments to time, place, and audience. This cannotbe achieved by a slavish imitation of classical models. It requires asolid understanding of the rules underpinning style, which in turnwill allow a creative reworking of the original to meet therequirements of the writer’s own circumstances.

Imitation does not immediately incorporate into its own speech anynice little feature it comes across, but transmits it to the mind forinward digestion, so that becoming part of our own system, it givesthe impression not of something begged from someone else, but ofsomething that springs from our own mental processes. (CWE 28:441)

The gist of Erasmus’ arguments about imitation is drawn fromclassical handbooks of rhetoric, such as Quintilian’sInstitutio Oratoria or Cicero’sAd Herennium,but Erasmus goes further, giving a Christian context to the classicalprecepts. To satisfy the requirements ofaptum et decorum, aChristian’s speech must savor of Christ, “or you will turnout not Ciceronian but pagan”. Indeed, this was the purpose ofall education, “of studying philosophy, of studying eloquence,to know Christ, to celebrate the glory of Christ. This is the goal ofall learning and all eloquence” (CWE 28: 447)

4. Language and Literature

The formation and correct use of language was a primary concern forErasmus (as in Boyle 1977). He wrote several works that would seem toprovide a starting point for a philosophy of language. Indeed, hedevoted a treatise to the subject of language (De Lingua, TheTongue, 1525), but no systematic thought on the nature, origin, orfunction of language emerges from this tractate. We find only isolatedcomments about the relationship between words and things, for example,the statement that things were intelligible only through words,“by the sounds we attach to them”. A person who did notunderstand the force of words was “short-sighted, deluded, andunbalanced in his judgment of things as well” (CWE 24: 666). ThetreatiseDe Recta Pronuntiatione (The Right Way of Speaking,1528) contains another stand-alone pronouncement. Citing the ancientphysician Galen, Erasmus declares that language (oratio),rather than reason (ratio), was the distinguishing mark ofhuman beings (CWE 26: 369). A promising statement inDe RationeStudii likewise remains without follow-up. “In principle,knowledge as a whole seems to be of two kinds, of things and ofwords”, Erasmus states. “Knowledge of words comes earlier,but that of things is the more important” (CWE 24: 666). Thesewords appear to introduce a theory resembling the duality ofword/thing developed in Plato’sCratylus orAristotle’sMetaphysics, but turn out to be only anorganizational principle indicating to readers that Erasmus will talkfirst of language, then of content.

Occasionally Erasmus uses metaphors to indicate the relationshipbetween words and things, likening them to clothing /body(“style is to thought as clothes are to the body”, CWE 24:306) or vessel/content (“mystery concealed by the letter”,CWE 66: 32), but these expressions are no more than apt figures ofspeech. Similarly, a statement in his annotations on the New Testamentappears to be an instance of ideational epistemology. Commenting onJohn 1:1 (“In the beginning was the word”) and on theimplications of rendering Greeklogos into Latin usingsermo orverbum, Erasmus explains thatverbum is used “of what sounds rather than of what isconceived in the mind”, although “things the voiceexpresses are signs of the states that are present first in themind” and therefore may also be calledverbum. He adds:“Thinking is, as it were, talking to oneself” (CWE 73:35–6). In this case, too, Erasmus’ remarks remain withoutsolid context.

Similarly, Erasmus’ comments on the function of language as ameans of communication appear significant at first sight. In theLingua, for example, he says: “The tongue was given tomen so that by its agency as messenger one man might know the mind andintention of another” (CWE 29: 314). He also acknowledges thecommunicative function in theParaclesis, one of the prefacesto his New Testament edition: “for our daily conversationreflects in large measure what we are. Let each person understand whathe can; let each express what he can” (CWE 41: 412). Here aselsewhere Erasmus does not elaborate on his thoughts, and hisstatements fall short of a philosophy of language.

And yet, though he may not be a philosopher of language in any formalsense, he has been recognized as one of the founders of the modernconcept of literature (Cummings 2013). Throughout his work, Erasmusconducts a profound inquiry into literary mimesis, even and especiallyin regard to the gospels and their representation of Jesus Christ.From his engagement with sacred letters, there emerges a vital andchallenging theory of literature and a strong commitment to thecentral importance of literature for human life. This theoryencompasses questions of literal and figurative meaning, of thelikeness of speech and thought, of the relationship ofresandverba, and of the primacy of verbal over visualrepresentation. All these issues may indeed be of interest to thephilosophy of language even when this philosophy eschewsScripture.

5. Political Thought

Scholars investigating Erasmus’ political thought generallyconsider theInstitutio Principis Christiani (The Educationof a Christian Prince, 1516) and thePanegyricus (Panegyric,1504 ) the main sources for his ideals (see Tracy 1978). For his viewson the legitimacy of warfare, they draw on theQuerela Pacis(The Complaint of Peace, 1517) and the adageDulce BellumInexpertis (War is sweet to those who have not experienced it).These sources are problematic, however, because of their strongrhetorical flavor and the commonplace nature of the argumentspresented there. In fact it is possible to show a literalcorrespondence between passages in these works and theCopia,Erasmus’ textbook of style, and Erasmus himself acknowledgesthatThe Education of a Christian Prince is a collection ofaphorisms (CWE 27: 204). It will serve as an additional caveat toreaders that Erasmus, who is often depicted as a pacifist, also wrotea piece in praise of war—now lost, but documented in hisCatalogue of Works (Ep. 1341A: 1455–57; CWE 9. I would not go sofar as to say that the (rhetorical) medium invalidates the message,but it is important to support and reinforce any views expressed inErasmus’ epideictic writings with passages in more cogentlyargued works, notably his theological and polemical tracts. There aretwo treatises, contained within psalm commentaries, which are relevantto Erasmus’ pacifism:De Bello Turcico (On War Againstthe Turks, 1530) andDe Sarcienda Ecclesiae Concordia (OnMending the Peace of the Church, 1533). Both recommend compromise andarbitration as alternatives to warfare.

Erasmus first voices the idea of arbitration as a method of conflictresolution inThe Education of a Christian Prince: “Ifsome dispute arises between princes, why do they not take it toarbitration instead [of waging war]?” (CWE 27: 183) He suggestsa committee of churchmen, magistrates, and scholars to settle thedispute. Similar ideas are voiced inDulce Bellum. Why notcall on bishops, nobles, and councils as intermediaries to“settle the childish disputes of princes by arbitration?”(CWE 35: 430). We may take this to be an authentic Erasmian point ofview because it appears not only in these rhetorical compositions butalso in his psalm commentary,De Concordia. There it ispresented not merely as a general proposition but given a morespecific context. Erasmus suggests that the religious strife whichcharacterized his age be settled by a general council of thechurch—a desire also voiced in contemporary religious colloquiesand Imperial Diets and realized after long delay in the Council ofTrent. Erasmus furthermore counseled the parties to find a middleground and make concessions. He called this processsynkatabasis (CWE 65: 201), a military term denoting a movein which two armies give up their vantage point and descend into theopen plain to negotiate.

Erasmus does not entirely reject warfare, although he depicts it as alast resource. In his rhetorical tracts he waxes eloquent about thehorrors of war and the destruction inflicted on the population. Hecalls war fundamentally unchristian and fit for beasts rather thanhumans. In his annotations on the New Testament (Luke 22: 36) he wrotein a more sober tone about war and the circumstances under which itwas legitimate. By that time Erasmus’ pacifism and strongrejection of warfare had been called heretical, that is, at variancewith the accepted definition of just war. Erasmus amended hisannotation accordingly. The expanded and finely nuanced version of1527 serves as clear testimony to his views on the subject. He beginsby quoting St. Martin and St. Jerome condemning war. He thensuccinctly states his own opinion:

We should not propagate the Christian religion only with arms, norshould princes undertake war when it can be avoided by using othermeans. They should, moreover, conduct a war they have undertaken witha minimum of bloodshed and end it as quickly as possible. Finally,[war] is not compatible with the purity of the gospel, and we must notseek to derive the right to go to war from gospelprecepts…There are many necessary evils in human affairs, whichare tolerated because they prevent greater evils; yet they are notapproved as gospel teaching. (ASD VI-5: 594)

Erasmus’ praise of peace and concord is informed by theChristian ideal of a universal fellowship. “Why don’t youwish [your neighbour] well as another man and a fellowChristian?” he asks inThe Complaint of Peace (CWE 27:315). The theme is also taken up inWar Against the Turks.There Erasmus concedes that the war against the Ottoman Empire is“just” by the definition of the Church, but disparages amilitary solution and promotes instead the idea of using spiritualweapons. He depicts the Turks as a scourge of God (an idea promotedalso by Luther) and therefore urges his contemporaries to repent andreform to appease God and overcome the enemy.

TheInstitutio Principis and thePanegyricus areaddressed to Charles (later Emperor Charles V) and his father Philiprespectively. They belong to the genre of Mirror of Princes, in whichthe ideal of a ruler is held up as a model to be imitated. TheErasmian model prince is a father figure who has the wellbeing of hispeople at heart. He is the guardian of justice and provides moralleadership. He is God’s representative and as such owedobedience. Conversely, the ruler must give an account of hisstewardship to God. Although “it is pretty well agreed among thephilosophers that the most healthy form [of government] ismonarchy”, Erasmus believes that monarchy should be“checked and diluted with a mixture of aristocracy and democracyto prevent it ever breaking out into tyranny” (CWE 27: 231). Itis not entirely clear what Erasmus meant by “democracy”.It may be no more than a loose reference to the cooperation of thesubjects with their ruler. The best situation is for people to obeyvoluntarily, Erasmus says (CWE 27: 236). Alternatively he may bethinking of the historical roots of kingship when he says that“it takes general agreement to make a prince” and“government depends to a large extent on the consent of thepeople, which was what created kings in the first place” (CWE27: 284). Some of the qualifications and limitations he imposes onabsolute monarchy are based on the Christian ideals of charity andfellowship. Echoing Plato, Erasmus believes that the best ruler mustbe a philosopher, that is, a wise man,

not someone who is clever at dialectics or science but someone whorejects illusory appearance and undauntedly seeks out and follows whatis true and good.

Being a philosopher is in practice the same as being a Christian, henotes (CWE 27: 214). The ruler must not shirk his moral obligations.“Power without goodness is unmitigated tyranny” (CWE 27:220). In an even more radical tone, Erasmus declares: “If youcannot defend your kingdom without violating justice…thenabdicate” (CWE 27: 217).

The prince’s rights need to be balanced against the welfare ofhis people.

The good prince uses the public interest as a yardstick in everyfield, otherwise he is no prince. He has not the same rights over menas over cattle. (CWE 27: 284)

The duties and obligations are mutual. Neither the ruler nor hissubjects are above the law: “The happiest situation arises whenthe prince is obeyed by all and himself obeys the laws” (CWE 27:264). Many of the ideas voiced inThe Education of the ChristianPrince also appear in thePanegyric, but are expressedthere in more fulsome terms and, to the modern ear, with excessiveflattery. The message is the same, however. The prince is God’srepresentative and his steward and “ought never to take his eyesoff his model, …Christ, the prince of princes” (CWE 27:56–7).

Describing the hierarchy preserved in the ideal state, Erasmus drawson the traditional medieval image of the three estates—clergy,nobility, and common people—arranged in three concentric circlesaround the central figure of Christ. This suggests a political andmoral hierarchy with specific duties assigned to each tier. Whileeveryone “according to the measure that is given him must striveupwards toward Christ”, the hierarchical arrangement alsoinvolves a responsibility to those in the tier below. Explaining theimage, Erasmus notes that this monarchic order is divinely instituted,and those who fight it, “fight against God its author”(CWE 42: 74). Thus kings, the representatives of Christ, must beobeyed even if they are corrupt,

because they administer public justice and because God is justice;they are the ministers of God and in a way rule for him as long asthey apply their efforts to the mandate given them by publicauthority. (CWE 42: 75)

Indeed, “Order is a good in itself” (CWE 42: 74). Thereare multiple roots for the idea of mutual obligations among themembers of a society. It is the foundation of the Medieval feudalsystem and embedded in the paternalistic biblical model. It alsoresembles the virtue of justice as defined in Plato’sRepublic, with each member of society maintaining theirproper place and a higher position entailing higher moral authorityand corresponding responsibilities.

Outlining his ideals, Erasmus thus makes use of concepts found inclassical philosophers and Christianizes or adapts them to specificrhetorical needs. The persistence of key elements in his thought overa lifetime and in diverse literary genres would indicate that theseideas, even if they fall short of a philosophy, developed into a habitof mind that can be labeled “Erasmian”. This applies moreparticularly to his views onpietas.

6.Pietas andPhilosophia Christi

The termphilosophia Christi , the philosophy of Christ,first appears in patristic writings. It is an aspect of the largerconcept ofpietas, the moral conscience governing the properrelationship between individual and God as well as the individual andsociety. A central tenet in Erasmus’ spiritual writings,pietas thus straddles the subjects of theology andphilosophy.

The main sources for Erasmus’ concepts of piety and thephilosophy centered on Christ are hisEnchiridion MilitisChristiani (Handbook of the Christian Soldier, 1503) with itsprefatory letter to the 1518 edition (Ep. 858; CWE 6), theParaclesis (Summons, 1516) and, perhapssurprisingly, his lampoon of human foibles,Moriae Encomium(The Praise of Folly, 1511). As he said in reply to indignant criticsof his famousjeu d’esprit:

TheFolly is concerned in a playful spirit with the samesubject as theHandbook of the Christian Soldier. My purposewas guidance and not satire; to help, not to hurt; to show men how tobecome better, and not stand in their way…not only to cure thembut to amuse them, too. I had often observed that this cheerful andhumorous style of putting people right is with many of them mostsuccessful. (Ep. 337: 98–101, 126–8; CWE 3)

While theParaclesis, theEnchiridion, and theMoriae Encomium constitute the main sources forErasmus’ thoughts on Christian morality, this theme is sopervasive in his works, that any attempt to define his concept ofpietas “would be almost tantamount to summarizing andsynthesizing everything that has been written on Erasmus”(O’Malley in CWE 66: xv). Three characteristics stand out,however. Piety is an internal quality independent of the outwardobservance of rites; it is perfected through divine grace; and it isinclusive, that is, open to all.

Erasmus callspietas a quality of the mind (animiaffectus, LB X: 1675 B) which is expressed in a person’sway of life. Describing human nature, he notes the dichotomy of spiritand flesh which parallels the duality of visible and invisible things.Piety requires the development of a person’s inner, spiritualqualities:

[A person] participates in the visible world through the body, and inthe invisible through the soul. Since we are but pilgrims in thevisible world, we should never make it our fixed abode, but shouldrelate by a fitting comparison everything that occurs to the senseseither to the angelic world or, in more practical terms, to morals andto that part of man that corresponds to the angelic. (CWE 66: 65)

Erasmus’ emphasis on piety as an inner quality is a response tothe undue importance his contemporaries placed on external ceremonies.He offered his definition as an alternative or rather, a corrective tothe ritualistic observances which he calls “a kind ofJudaism” (CWE 66: 74). He used the term “Judaism”because in his eyes the rigid observance of rites exemplified thespirit of the Old Testament, which had been superseded by the newcovenant with Christ. His critique of ritualistic practices puts himin the vanguard of the Reformation, whose representatives alsoprotested against the emptiness of ceremonies in the absence ofsincere faith. Like Luther, Erasmus demanded “Christianliberty”, that is, deliverance from the dead letter of thelaw.

For Erasmus, monasticism typified the superstitious observance ofexternal rites and the reliance on human works instead of divinegrace. In a notorious phrase, he declared:Monachatus non estpietas, being a member of a religious order does not amount topiety. “I advise you to identify piety not with diet, or dress,or any visible thing, but with what I have taught here [in theEnchiridion]”—the priority of soul over body andof the inner over the outer person (CWE 66: 127).

The question of Erasmus’ affiliation with ancient schools ofphilosophy comes up often in Erasmus scholarship. Some scholars haveassociated Erasmus’ dualism with Platonic philosophy, althoughit is more readily explained as a Christian principle and morespecifically as Pauline teaching, which Erasmus discusses at length intheEnchiridion. He does quote Plato as well, but then it ishis habit to cite classical sources in order to give a historical andpan-cultural dimension to Christian values. Indeed he drew on a numberof models, both pagan and Christian, to describe human nature. Thus healso introduced the concept of a three-fold division—body, soul,and spirit—an idea for which he cited Origen. Scholars have alsopointed to the Stoic underpinnings found in Erasmus’ thoughts onpietas and even argued that he consciously embraced the Stoicconcept of the simultaneous working of two opposite but equallyessential types of value: spirit and instinct (Dealy 2017). Many yearsago, R. Bultot studied the Epicurean tendencies of the early work,On disdaining the World, in which Erasmus speaks of thespiritual pleasures of the solitary life, calling its rationale“Epicurean” (Bultot in Coppens 1969, 2: 205–238).More recently, John Monfasani has emphasized the role of ChristianEpicureanism in Erasmus’ work (Monfasani 2012). Most famously,Richard Popkin highlights the role of Erasmus in the revival ofSkepticism in early modern Europe (Popkin 1964). For her part, MariaCytowska classifies Erasmus as an eclectic philosopher, indeed a“Christian eclectic”, who chooses among ancient philosophywhatever is closest to Christian religion (Cytowska 1976). In theEnchiridion, Erasmus does not privilege one philosophy overanother but deliberately presents various concepts of human nature byway of offering a survey of philosophical positions. He“provided a mass of material” (CWE 66: 54), illustratingin a general way the superiority of spiritual over material concerns.His message to the reader was: You should be able to master as aChristian and for the love of God “what pagan philosophers didnot find hard…for the sake of learning or reputation”(CWE 66: 142).

Erasmus described hisEnchiridion as a “summaryguide” to Christian living, which included not only personal,but also public piety. In its social dimension,pietas equalscaritas, love of one’s neighbor.Caritas inturn parallels love of God. Caring for one’s neighbor is“how our heavenly creditor taught us to pay our debt” (CWE66: 124).

The ability to fulfill one’s moral duty depends on divine grace,however, and is an aspect ofpietas related to the Catholicdoctrine of Free Will. Thus human beings have a capacity for piety anda moral duty as well as the power to do good, although their power islimited and dependent on the efficacy of divine grace. Erasmus isemphatic about this aspect in his definition of thephilosophiaChristi, that is, the pursuit ofpietas. In a letter toJan Slechta (1519), he writes:

The whole of Christian philosophy lies in this, our understanding thatall our hope is placed in God, who freely gives us all things throughJesus his son, that we were redeemed by his death and engraftedthrough baptism with his body, that we might be dead to the desires ofthis world and live by his teaching and example…that we mayever advance from one virtue to another, yet in such a way that weclaim nothing for ourselves, but ascribe any good we do to God. (Ep.1039: 245–54; CWE 7)

The Erasmian concept of piety was “principled rather thanprescriptive” (as O’Malley puts it, CWE 66: xix). It isironic (and perhaps meant ironically) that Erasmus chose to presenthis counsel in the form of twenty-two rules since his overall messageis that there are no fixed rules and no need for definitions andpronouncements. These are the hallmark of institutional theology,whereas the philosophy of Christ does not require formal training orattendance at university. It is open to anyone: “no one isprevented from being godly; and, I shall boldly add, no one isprevented from being a theologian” (CWE 41: 415). EveryChristian must study the bible, however, Erasmus says.

I would like every woman to read the Gospel, to read the Epistles ofPaul. And oh, that these books were translated into every tongue ofevery land so that not only the Scots and the Irish, but Turks andSaracens too could read and get to know them…How I wish thatthe farmer at his plow would chant some passage from these books, thatthe weaver at his shuttles would sing something from them; that thetraveler would relieve the tedium of his journey with stories of thiskind. (CWE 41: 411)

Pietas does not depend on learning. Faith is the onlyprerequisite. This is the conclusion Erasmus offers inThe Praiseof Folly. He begins his satire showing off his classical learningand ends it paradoxically by praising the devout fool. Those who scornthe world are considered fools or madmen by the majority of people,Erasmus says, but they will inherit God’s kingdom and in theirecstasy “feel some foretaste and savour of the reward tocome” (CWE 27: 152).

Praising Christian folly in such extravagant terms, Erasmus seems toalign himself with the radical mystics who considered humanintelligence worthless and studies futile. As we have seen, however,education is a central concern for Erasmus, and what seems like acontradiction, is merely a matter of priorities. Erasmus urgeseveryone to pursue learning, as long as it plays a supportive role tofaith. He repeatedly praisesdocta pietas, piety whichcombines learning with a devout and humble spirit and warns againstits opposite,impia curiositas, unholy inquisitiveness.Docta pietas means respecting the limits of humanunderstanding.

What is granted to you to see, fall down before it and kiss it; whatis not granted to see--this, though concealed, worship neverthelessfrom afar in sincere faith, and venerate whatever it is. Let ungodlycuriosity be absent [absit impia curiositas],

he counsels students of theology in theRatio (Vessey 2021,117). For Erasmus, St. Jerome is the embodiment ofdoctapietas. In hisLife of Jerome (which prefaces hisedition of the works of the Church Father, 1516), he depicted him asthe Christian scholarpar excellence, combining Ciceronianeloquence with a thorough understanding of theology and a devoutspirit with a holy life.

In theParaclesis Erasmus distinguished the simple philosophyof Christ from that of Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophicalwriters of antiquity, pointing out that the gospel provided the onlycertain doctrine and Christ was the only true teacher (CWE 41: 408).For Erasmus learning and knowledge were qualities that had no valueunless they centered on Christ and contributed to an understanding ofthephilosophia Christi. Even language studies, which formedthe core of his curriculum proposal, had to be subordinated to thatgoal. He wished for an eloquence

which does not simply charm the ears by a pleasure soon to die, butwhich leaves barbs clinging in the hearts of those who hear; aneloquence that seizes, transforms, and sends the listener away a muchdifferent person from the one it received. (CWE 41: 406)

This is the goal of a preacher’s eloquence, as Erasmus explainsin theEcclesiastes (The Evangelical Preacher, 1535). Therehe adapts the threefold task Cicero envisages for the speaker—toinstruct, to move, to entertain—and develops the idea that theinspired words of a preacher will not only move but transform thelisteners, that the preacher’s sermon will captivate not onlythe mind but also the soul of the hearers. This ability is “agift of the Holy Spirit” however (CWE 67: 283).

Although Erasmus’ curriculum focused on the authors of classicalantiquity, the philosophy of Christ required the adaption of paganideas to Christian thought and their application to Christian ideals,a process Erasmus called (after Augustine) “spoiling theEgyptians”. Accordingly he urges the preacher in theEcclesiastes to select suitable material from classicalwriters but inject a Christian perspective. Erasmus himself edited andtranslated a number of pagan writers whose teachings he consideredgermane to the philosophy of Christ. Among them, he singled outPlutarch: “I have read nothing outside of Scripture with such ahigh moral tone” (Ep. 1341A: 259–60; CWE 9). He had highpraise also for the Platonists, “because in much of theirthinking as well as in their mode of expression they are the closestto the spirit of the prophets and the gospel” ( CWE 66: 33).

Erasmus was a prolific writer. His works were translated into thevernacular and circulated widely. His ideas had a strong impact thatcan be traced into the modern age. Even in his own time, the term“Erasmian” denoted a certain set of values. In 1530, theLeuven theologian Frans Titelmans noted that enthusiasts of humanisticstudies were called “Erasmians” because Erasmus was theirchief inspiration (1530, Ei verso–Eii recto). His contemporary,the Swiss chronicler Johann Kessler, declared that “whatever isskilled, polished, learned, and wise is called Erasmian”(1523–1539, 87). It was classical learning and eloquence thatdefined Erasmus in his own time, and modern scholarship has come torecognize the role that Erasmus played in the cultivation of his ownimage (see Jardine 1993). In the Age of Enlightenment he wascelebrated as a rationalist, an image that held into the20^th century (as chronicled by Mansfield 1992). WilhelmDilthey, for example, called Erasmus the Voltaire of the16^th century (GS II, 74). The emphasis shifted in the20^th century, when Erasmus’ irenicism caughtreaders’ attention. Thus José Chapiro (1950) dedicatedhis translation ofThe Complaint of Peace to the UnitedNations, and Erasmus’ biographer Johan Huizinga identified“Erasmian” with “gentleness, kindliness, andmoderation” (1912 [1957], 194). In 1999, Ralf Dahrendorf definedErasmus-Menschen as people guided by reason and avoiding thepitfalls of political extremism. Their hallmark was compassion andtolerance. In contemporary usage, then, “Erasmian” hascome to denote a liberal thinker, an attitude ormodusvivendi rather than a school of philosophy. The newest trendemerging from contemporary scholarship is to recognize Erasmus as oneof the makers of the modern book, due to his collaboration withprinters and book sellers and his indefatigable efforts as editor ofclassical and patristic texts (see Vanautgaerden 2012). This trend hasonly strengthened in recent years. In 2018 Valentina Sebastianipublished a complete catalogue of the books printed by Erasmus’primary printer, Johann Froben of Basel, and this work remains acrucial resource for our discipline. In 2021 Ann Blair helped toreorient and reinvigorate the history of the book with her studyL’entour du texte where she studies the paratextual materialof Renaissance books. Later that same year Blair and Maryam Pattonpublished an article focusing on the paratexts in the works of Erasmusprinted by Johann and Hieronymus Froben, thus constituting a sort ofsequel to Sebastiani. Finally, Joan Tello has produced a meticulouslydetailed chronological catalogue of the works of Erasmus for the newCompanion to Erasmus from Brill. At the same time, there hasbeen a powerful resurgence of interest in humanist epistolography, ofwhich Erasmus is a paradigmatic figure (see Ryle 2014). Interest inErasmus never wanes.

Bibliography

Erasmus’ Works

For a repertory of individual works and their early editions, seeFerdinand Van der Haeghen,Bibliotheca Erasmiana:Répertoire des oeuvres d’Erasme (first published1897, most recent reprinted Würzburg: Osthoff, 2005).

Erasmus’Opera Omnia were first published in Basel:Froben, 1540. The arrangement of works adopted there has become themodel for later editions. An authoritative critical edition (ASD) andan English translation (CWE) of his works are ongoing.

• [Allen]Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, 12vols., edited by P.S. Allen and others, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1906–1958. doi:10.1093/actrade/9780198203414.book.1
• [ASD]Opera Omnia Des. Erasmi Roterodami, (no primaryeditor), Amsterdam: North Holland Press, 1969–. In 9ordines or categories, each of which has multiplevolumes.
• [CWE]The Collected Works of Erasmus, (no primaryeditor), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974–.
• [LB]Opera Omnia Des. Erasmi Roterodami, 10 vols. Leiden:Peter van der Aa, 1703–1706.

Texts not (or not yet) included in these editions:

• Ferguson, Wallace K. (ed.),Erasmi Opuscula. A Supplement tothe Opera Omnia, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1933.
• [Holborn] Holborn, Hajo and Annemarie Holborn (eds.),Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: Ausgewählte Werke,Munich: Beck, 1933.

Other Primary Works

• Beda, Noël, 1526, “A Scholastic Response to BiblicalHumanism: Noël Beda Against Lefèvre D’Etaples andErasmus (1526)”, Mark Crane (trans.),HumanisticaLovaniensia, 59: 55–81, 2010.
• Dilthey, Wilhelm, [GS II],Gesammelte Schriften II:Weltanschauung und Analyse des Menschen seit Renaissance undReformation, (World-intuition and the Analysis of HumanitySince the Renaissance and Reformation), Stuttgart: B.G. TeubnerVerlagsgesellschaft, 1957.
• Kessler, Johan, 1523–1539,Johannes KesslersSabbata, Emil Egli & Rudolf Schoch (eds.), St. Gallen:Vormals Huber & Co., 1902.
• Pico della Mirandola, 1496,On the Dignity of Man, A.Robert Caponigri (trans.), Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing,1996.
• Titelmans, Frans, 1530,Epistola apologetica … proopere Collationum, Antwerp: Grapheus.

Biographies

• Augustijn, Cornelis, 1991,Erasmus: His Life, Works, andInfluence (Erasmus von Rotterdam: Leben, Werk, Wirkung),J.C. Grayson (trans.), Toronto: University of Toronto Press;originally published in 1986.
• Barker, William, 2021,Erasmus of Rotterdam: The Spirit of aScholar, London: Reaktion Books.
• Christ von Wedel, Christine, 2013,Erasmus of Rotterdam:Advocate of a New Christianity (Erasmus von Rotterdam: Anwalteines neuzeitlichen Christentums), Toronto: University of TorontoPress; originally published in 2003.
• Halkin, Léon-Ernest, 1993,Erasmus: A CriticalBiography (Erasme parmi nous), John Tonkin (trans.),Oxford: Blackwell; originally published 1987.
• Huizinga, Johan, 1912 [1957],Erasmus and the Age ofReformation, F. Hopman (trans.), New York: Harper.
• Margolin, Jean-Claude, 1995,Érasme précepteurde l’Europe, Paris: Julliard.
• McConica, James K., 1991,Erasmus, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
• Rummel, Erika, 2004,Erasmus, London: ContinuumPress.
• Schoeck, Richard J., 1990–1993,Erasmus of Europe,Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • 1990, Vol. 1:The Making of a Humanist,1467–1500
  • 1993, Vol. 2:The Prince of Humanists,1501–1536
• Tracy, James D., 1972,Erasmus: The Growth of a Mind,(Travaux d’humanisme et Renaissance, 126), Geneva: Droz.

Secondary Works

• Bejczy, Istvan, 2001,Erasmus and the Middle Ages: TheHistorical Consciousness of a Christian Humanist, Leiden:Brill.
• Béné, Charles, 1969, Érasme et SaintAugustin, ou Influence de Saint Augustin sur l’humanismed’Érasme, Geneva: Droz,
• Bentley, Jerry H., 1983,Humanists and Holy Writ: NewTestament Scholarship in the Renaissance, Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.
• Bierlaire, Franz, 1978,Les colloques d’Erasme:réforme des études, réforme des moeurs etréforme de l’Eglise au XVIe siècle, Paris:Les Belles Lettres.
• Bietenholz, Peter, 2009,Encounters With a Radical Erasmus:Erasmus’ Work as a Source of Radical Thought in Early ModernEurope, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• Blair, Ann, 2021,L’entour du texte: La publication du livresavant à la Renaissance, Paris: Bibliothèquenationale de France.
• Blair and Maryam Patton, 2021, “A Quantitative Study of theParatexts in Erasmus-Froben Imprints”,Erasmus Studies,41: 99–181.
• Boyle, Marjorie O’Rourke, 1977,Erasmus on Language andMethod in Theology, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• –––, 1981,Christening Pagan Mysteries:Erasmus in Pursuit of Wisdom, Toronto: University of TorontoPress.
• –––, 1983,Rhetoric and Reform:Erasmus’ Civil Dispute with Luther, Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
• Chomarat, Jacques, 1981,Grammaire et rhétorique chezÉrasme, Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
• Christ von Wedel, Christine, 1981,Das Nichtwissen bei Erasmusvon Rotterdam: Zum philosophischen und theologischen Erkennen in dergeistigen Entwicklung eines christlichen Humanisten, Basel:Helbing & Lichtenhan.
• Coppens, Joseph (ed.), 1969,Scrinium Erasmianum, 2volumes, Leiden: Brill.
• Cummings, Brian, 2013, “Erasmus and the Invention ofLiterature”,Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook, 33:22–54.
• Cytowska, Maria, 1976, “Erasme et la philosophieantique”,Ziva Antika / Antiquité vivante, 26:453–462.
• Dahrendorf, Ralf, 1999, “Erasmus-Menschen”,Merkur, Deutsche Zeitschrift für europäischesDenken 53: 1063–1071.
• Dealy, Ross, 2017,The Stoic Origins of Erasmus’Philosophy of Christ, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• De Molen, Richard, 1987,The Spirituality of Erasmus,Nieuwkoop: De Graaf.
• Dodds, Gregory , 2009,Exploiting Erasmus: The Erasmian Legacyand Religious Change in Early Modern England, Toronto: Universityof Toronto Press.
• Dolfen, Christian, 1936,Die Stellung des Erasmus vonRotterdam zur scholastischen Methode, Osnabrück: Meinders& Elstermann.
• Eden, Kathy, 2001,Friends Hold All Things in Common:Tradition, Intellectual Property, and the Adages of Erasmus, NewHaven: Yale University Press.
• Godin, André, 1982,Érasme lecteurd’Origène, Geneva: Droz.
• Gordon, Walter M., 1990,Humanist Play and Belief: TheSeriocomic Art of Desiderius Erasmus, Toronto: University ofToronto Press.
• Goudriaan, Koen, 2019, “New Evidence on Erasmus’Youth”,Erasmus Studies, 39: 184–216.
• Herwaarden, Jan van, 2003,Between Saint James and Erasmus.Studies in late-medieval religious life: Devotion and Pilgrimage inthe Netherlands, (Studies in medieval and Reformation thought,97), Wendie Schaffter and Donald Gardner (trans.), Leiden: Brill.
• Hoffmann, Manfred, 1994,Rhetoric and Theology: TheHermeneutic of Erasmus, Toronto: University of TorontoPress.
• Jardine, Lisa, 1993,Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Constructionof Charisma in Print, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Jonge, Henk Jan de, 1984, “Novum Testamentum a nobis versum:The Essence of Erasmus’ Edition of the New Testament”,Journal of Theological Studies, 35: 394–413.
• Kerlen, Dietrich, 1976,Assertio: Die Entwicklung von Lutherstheologischem Anspruch und der Streit mit Erasmus von Rotterdam,Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
• Koerber, Eberhard von, 1967,Die Staatstheorie des Erasmus vonRotterdam, Berlin: Duncker & Humbolt.
• Kohls, Ernst–Wilhelm, 1966,Die Theologie desErasmus, 2 vols., Basel: F. Reinhardt.
• Mansfield, Bruce, 1992,Man on his Own: Interpretations ofErasmus c. 1750–1920, Toronto: University of TorontoPress.
• Monfasani, John, 2012, “Erasmus and the Philosophers”,Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook (nowErasmusStudies), 32: 47–68. doi:10.1163/18749275-00000005
• Nauert, Charles G., 2006,Humanism and the Culture ofRenaissance Europe, 2^nd edition, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
• Pabel, M. Hilmar (ed.), 1995,Erasmus’ Vision of theChurch, Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers.
• Popkin, Richard, 1964,The History of Scepticism from Erasmusto Descartes, New York: Harper & Row.
• Rabil, Albert, 1972,Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mindof a Christian Humanist, San Antonio: Trinity UniversityPress.
• Remer, Gary, 1996,Humanism and the Rhetoric ofToleration, University Park: Pennsylvania State UniversityPress.
• Rummel, Erika, 1995,The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in theRenaissance and Reformation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
• –––, 2000,The Confessionalization ofHumanism in Reformation Germany, New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
• Ryle, Stephen (ed.), 2014,Erasmus and the RenaissanceRepublic of Letters, Turnhout: Brepols.
• Sebastiani, Valentina, 2018,Johann Froben, Printer of Basel:A Biographical Profile and Catalogue of his Editions, Leiden:Brill.
• Steel, Carlos, 2008, “Erasmus and Aristotle”,Erasmo da Rotterdam e la cultura europea / Erasmus of Rotterdamand European Culture. Atti dell’incontro di Studi nel VCentenario della Laurea di Erasmo all’Università diTorino, Florence: Sismel, 149–174.
• Tello, Joan, 2023, “Catalogue of the Works of Erasmus ofRotterdam”, inA Companion to Erasmus, Eric MacPhail(ed.), Leiden: Brill, 225–344.
• Tracy, James D., 1978,The Politics of Erasmus: A PacifistIntellectual and His Political Milieu, Toronto: University ofToronto Press.
• Trapman, Hans, Jan van Herwaarden and Adrie van der Laan (eds.),2010,Erasmus Politicus: Erasmus and Political Thought,Leiden: Brill.
• Vanautgaerden, Alexandre, 2012,Érasme typographe:Humanisme et imprimerie au début du XVIe siècle,Geneva: Droz.
• Vessey, Mark (ed.), 2021,Erasmus on Literature. His Ratio or‘System’ of 1518/1519, Toronto: University of TorontoPress.
• Walter, Peter, 1991,Theologie aus dem Geist der Rhetorik zurSchriftauslegung des Erasmus von Rotterdam, Mainz:Mathias-Grünewald-Verlag.
• Woodward, William, 1904 [1971],. Desiderius ErasmusConcerning the Aim and Method of Education; reprinted, New York:B. Franklin.

Academic Tools

	How to cite this entry.
	Preview the PDF version of this entry at theFriends of the SEP Society.
	Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
	Enhanced bibliography for this entryatPhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

• Nauert, Charles, “Desiderius Erasmus”,TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), EdwardN. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/erasmus/>. [This was the previous entry on Erasmus in theStanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy — see theversion history.]
• “Erasmus, Desiderius”, entry by Eric MacPhail in theInternet Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy.
• Erasmus Center for Early Modern Studies, a joint initiative of Erasmus University Rotterdam and Rotterdam CityLibrary.
• Erasmus of Rotterdam Society, with links to the Huygens Institute and its digitized edition of theAdages.

Related Entries

Aquinas, Thomas |Aristotle |Aristotle, General Topics: rhetoric |Augustine of Hippo |Cicero |ethics: ancient |Ficino, Marsilio |free will | humanism: in the Renaissance |pacifism |Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni |Plato |Plotinus |Plutarch |Seneca |skepticism |skepticism: ancient |Socrates |Valla, Lorenzo