This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erasmus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: |
The more I read, the less comfortable I am that he was born in 1466. 1469 is very plausible.
As I understand it, the year was calculated by taking the year of his ordination (1493 according to Beatus Rheanus) and subtracting the 25(or 24?) year minimum age for ordination: 1469 is barely possible.
However research of the Gouda archives (New Evidence on Erasmus’ Youth In: Erasmus Studies 2017) makes the 1493 year implausible, and suggests 1496: which means Erasmus could be born before 1471.
The attraction, to me, of a 1469-ish date is it makes much more sense of his biography: if his parents left Rotterdam after his first year (when his father started in Wouden,) he started school at 6 not 9, started Deventer at 9 not 12, was orphaned at 13 not 16, went to 's Hertogenbosch at 14 not 17, went into the novitiate at 17 not 20, fell for Rogerius and professed at age 18 not 21 (Thomas Cromwell professed at age 14 b.t.w), went to Cambrai at 24, became a priest under Bishop Henry at age 25 and started studying in Paris at age 26 not 29: otherwise why would such a brilliant man have such a delayed education?
I am not sure how to handle it: a little table with the two sets of dates for his life events? Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 14:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I heard on the news that Erasmus was born in Gouda,Is this true?
Make this shorter.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.71.55 ( talk • contribs) 9:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
What should be shorter? Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 02:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Could someone (more knowledgeable then I) add some of his quotes? He's the one who said, "In The Land of The Blind, The One-Eyed Man Is King", isn't he?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrGero49 ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added a section on Erasmus' pacifism. There is much else that could/should be added, and perhaps ultimately deserves its own topic.
It includes a citation to a WordPress site. This is a site of a university-sponsored project, and not a personal blog etc. so I believe it fits the criteria for being a Reliable Source (or reliable-enough!) Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 16:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Your are fine from me. I also tend to argue that Wordpress from RS institutions should be recognized as RS. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 04:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The last sentence "James D.Tracy notes that mistrust of the Habsburg government (partially due to the fact Maximilian and his grandson Charles V were absentee rulers, the secret nature of diplomacy and other circumstances), but it is notable that intellectuals like Erasmus and Barlandus talked in a matter-of-fact manner about such a subject and used their imagination to give the people's fear of the world of power politics an appearance of rationality" needs to be re-written, I think.
What is "that", what is "such a subject", who are these "people", and what does it mean to use your "imagination" to "give an appearance of rationality"? Rick Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Deamonpen ( talk) 15:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Erasmus is so great that it would not diminish his greatness to mention that he expressed antisemitic sentiments. Please consider adding a sentence or two in the section “Religious toleration”. Gery.shachar ( talk) 16:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
All that being said, "Jew" was, when not used neutrally to mean Jews, not a positive term for Erasmus. But it was a term of reprobation not hatred, as far as I can see; so I am certain that Erasmus would not use it in that way were he alive today, as it would fail to convey his intent.
This entire section, Jews and Turks, should be deleted, in fact, as I write the comments below to justify the deletion of the section, it is clear that the section is neither scholarly nor encyclopaedic in nature or quality and I am going to delete it.
To state Erasmus views about Jews or Islam based on the opinions of two individuals, Shimon Markish and Nathan Ron, does not meet the standards defined by Wikipedia that require quoting the original material rather than quoting quotes or discussions about the original material. Assumptions of a historical figure's opinions surely would require support by quoting their actual words or deeds and including a direct reference to their words or deeds rather than to opinions of others.
Additionally, the section tries to paint Erasmus as a racist with the phrase, "harsh and racial in its implications." If the author of this section wants to make the claim of racism, then find actual racism in his words and deeds and quote his actual writings, words, or deeds. If the author wants to talk about Erasmus dislike or distrust of Turks, then remove the racial comment and back up the claim with actual quotes from Erasmus, himself - there are some.
Any claim of hatred or dislike that Erasmus had for the Turks, and clearly, his own words can be quoted to show that he disliked them, must include the context of the Turks as invaders and occupiers of significant parts of Europe from the 14th century until long after Erasmus wrote about them, and even long after his death. To write that he is a racist or even to quote his own words showing his dislike for Turks without that context seems disingenuous.
There is a statement that Erasmus likely never met a practicing Jew. For a man who travelled as much has he did, that seems very likely to be false. It is far more likely that he met many Jews in his lifetime. Either way, though, either the author should be able to back it up with documented evidence or it does not belong.
This is a great example of why it is inappropriate, in an encyclopedia, to write about what a historical figure thought but, instead, it should be written about what they did, what they said that can be supported with trusted and reliable documentation, and what they wrote - quoting what they wrote instead of some unknown person's opinion of what they wrote. Diprestonus ( talk) 23:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
There was a flag in the text saying that the phrase "and reactionary" needed a quotation from the citation to justify it. I have looked through the citation text, and I do not think "and reactionary" can be justified. So I have removed that phrase and the flag. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 01:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the section on England. His legacy is marked for someone who complained bitterly about the lack of comforts and luxuries to which he was accustomed.
First, it is uncited. Second, its odd English makes it look like it is a lift or quotation. Third, it is not NPOV: it looks like some old partisan slur re-cycled. Fourth, it is at odds with Erasmus' actual biography which features dire poverty, an emphasis on the moderation of the scholar's table, and severe digestive and breathing problems that made him fear for his life (and, for the digestive problems, actually did kill him in the end.) Erasmus certainly was sickly and intolerant of fish, beer and some kinds of wine, which did not fit well with religious and institutional diets and fasts. His letter to Rogerius, where refused to return to Steyn abbey, says he believes it would kill him.
So there may be some better way to handle this: perhap it would better to go in some section on the slurs that were made against Erasmus (right or wrong). Or (better) a section on how his physical weakness affected his thought on useless ceremonialism and forced fasts. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 14:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The fundamental difference between Erasmus' version and the Spanish Bible was that the New Testament was not newly translated into Latin . Here the text of the Vulgata was binding and could not be changed. Through the translation of Erasmus, there were over 1000 differences to the Vulgata, which then led to considerable controversy. The Spanish Bible was primarily about a faithful compilation of the texts of the New and Old Testaments in different languages. Adapting the Vulgate (and complete new translation) was the novelty of Erasmus - which the Spanish were not allowed to do.
I would add following sentences:
"Except for a fundamental revision by a new translation from the original languages was the Latin text of the Vulgate. This text, which the Church Father Jerome had translated from Greek in the 4th century, was considered the only binding translation in the Catholic Church."
The new Spanish Bible was, of course, also a fundamental work, also because it contained the whole Old Testament. But the Vulgate could not be corrected. Here we have to look for the sources. Empiricus ( talk) 08:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
This section is quite chaotic, flitting to and from Freedom of the Will without good chronology. And it ignores the wider reformation just for utheran Protestantism: the wider reformation includes the Catholic reformation ad Counter Reformation, and e.g. the Anabaptists etc. It might be better to beef up the page on Freedom of the will De_libero_arbitrio_diatribe_sive_collatio and trim this. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 16:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph, because it does not belong under "Legacy", it is confusing in the flow of paragraphs, the meaning is unclear (what is meant by "gramatical" here?), it does not seem of much importance, and it is a fact about an 18th Century German academic, not a fact about Erasmus:
"According to Franz Anton Knittel, Erasmus in his Novum Instrumentum omne did not incorporate the Comma from the Codex Montfortianus (concerning the Trinity), because of grammar differences, but used the Complutensian Polyglot. According to him the Comma was known to Tertullian. [1]"
If someone disagrees, please feel free to revert, or to put the text somewhere it makes sense, such as as part of a separate page on the Johannine Comma. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 15:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
References
I have repaired several faults:
There is a remaining fault: about him feeling the stain of his illegitimacy. Apart from being pyschologizing (the bane of biographies on Erasmus), which I don't think is appropriate without specific evidence, his illegitimacy had practical and legal implications, not merely social. For example, the child of a priest was not allowed to become a parish priest (a rule made because parishes had become family businesses, generally to a bad effect on the parish.) Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 12:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
"It is said that he never seemed to have actively worked as a priest for a long time" The citation here does not specify a page number, but I am very doubtful that this is what the reference says. He certainly never worked as a parish priest or, perhaps, cathedral canon, but the are more kinds of priests than that: for example, Jesuits are priests who are usually not parish priests. We know that Erasmus preferred to assist at mass rather than preside, he heard confession, sometimes preached (in Latin), and said the hours. Erasmus never sought, nor was granted, any papal dispensation from his priestly vows, and he never seems to have mentioned that being a priest was a burden, or that he was tricked into into (unlike his religious vows as an Augustinian Canon.) So I think this needs to be corrected, for example, "Erasmus does not seem to have actively worked as a parish priest." Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 15:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
While at Stein, Erasmus formed a "passionate attachment" with a fellow canon, Servatius Rogerus, [1] and wrote a series of love letters [2] in which he called Rogerus "half my soul," writing that "I have wooed you both unhappily and relentlessly." [3] This correspondence contrasts sharply with the generally detached and much more restrained attitude he showed in his later life. [4] (Later, while tutoring in Paris, he was suddenly dismissed by the guardian of Thomas Grey. [5] Some have speculated about this as evidence of an illicit affair. No such mentions or accusations were ever made of Erasmus during his lifetime. [6] His works in later life perhaps distances these earlier episodes [7] by condemning sodomy in his works, and praising sexual desire in marriage between men and women. [8])
References
Editors should note that Erasmus is the subject of a lot of mythologizing by antagonistic writers, both Protestant and Catholic. I think many parts of the Wikipedia entry suffer from the after-effects of this. For example, the sentence He had remained loyal to the papal authorities in Rome, but he did not have the opportunity to receive the last rites of the Catholic Church; the reports of his death do not mention whether he asked for a priest or not. Treating his beliefs as a Roman Catholic as loyalty to some "authorities" in Rome is bizarre and dismissive. Similarly, there were probably no other Catholic priests in Basel and it would have been illegal for him to get last rites. His book on dying well emphasized getting yourself right with God long before, to avoid the need for a deathbed confession. Interestingly enough, the civil authorities allowed his state funeral to include some kind of Catholic requiem mass or liturgy, in a rare ecumenical moment.
It would be good to re-cast that sentence in more neutral/historical terms. (Right after his death, the interest in how he died was to see if there was propaganda fodder useful for spin: if he was actually a crypto-protestant, which he denied, then each side could reject parts of his even-handed criticism. Luther claimed that he died alone and friendless, whereas he died surrounded by some dear friends.) Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 16:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC) I made the changes (in May?) Rick Jelliffe ( talk)
There is currently a paragraph However, Erasmus designated his own legacy, and his life works were turned over at his death to his friend the Protestant humanist turned remonstrator Sebastian Castellio for the repair of the breach and divide of Christianity in its Catholic, Anabaptist, and Protestant branches.[105]
This sets of alarm bells to me, because Castellio was 21 at the time of Erasmus' death and lived in Lyon. And he only turned Protestant at age 24. And the reference is to a book without a page number.
And Erasmus' executor (of his will) was Bonifacius Amerbach. (Erasmus had already sold his library and bequeathed his wealth to widows and for helping poor boys and girls, etc.) Looking at the reference book [105] what I see is that Amerbach helped out the young Castellio, sometimes with money from Erasmus' estate.
In the Wiki page for Castelio we have He was also the designated successor to Desiderius Erasmus in continuing his work of the reconciliation of Christianity in the Protestant, Anabaptist, and Catholic branches, {citation needed} which lacks a citation. Who designated him? (It does not seem remotely like the kind of thing Erasmus would do.)
So it seems 1) Castellio was not Erasmus friend, 2) Castellio was not a designated successor, 3) Castellio did not have Erasmus' life works turned over to him. Instead, some of Erasmus bequeathed money for the poor was given to him. Still, it is a nice story.
To resolve it, I will move the sentence to the section on Erasmus' death, and re-write it as As his heir he instated Bonifacius Amerbach to give money to the poor and needy.[5] One of the eventual recipients the impoverished Protestant humanist Sebastian Castellio, who had fled from Geneva to Basel, who subsequently translated the Bible into Latin and French, and worked for the repair of the breach and divide of Christianity in its Catholic, Anabaptist, and Protestant branches[6] Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 16:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The phrase that Erasmus' criticism was also directed towards many of the Church's basic doctrines is, I believe, historically wrong but also is not supported by what the citation actually says.
The citation says he "questioned" many of the Church's basic "teachings": "questioning" (a theologian's job, surely) is not "criticizing", and "teachings" is way broader than "doctrines". Erasmus certainly did not question the articles of the Creed, and he repeatedly said that once the church defined something (even though it were better if fewer things were defined not more) then we were duty-bound not to oppose it, for the sake of concord at least.
When Erasmus was attacked for using different words in his NT that undermined what had been proof texts for some doctrines (i.e. the Johannine Comma, repentance for penance, presbyter for priest, favour for grace) his response was that the doctrines still stood (because of Tradition and the magisterium), just that those particular passages were simply not as direct evidence for it as had been thought (but also evidence for other things that should be taken on-board.) The same charge was made against him multiple times, and he denied that he was disavowing those doctrines.
(Even in the famous case of transubstantiation, he made it clear that he certainly believed the Real Presence, but that the (theo)logical meaning of transubstantiation made no sense to him, according to his understanding of what "substance" could mean. He also said that if he had had any idea of how his words would be twisted, he would have expressed himself very differently.)
On the issue of payment for indulgences (Luther had taken many of his 95 Thesis direct from Erasmus' writings), Erasmus was actually mainstream Catholic: multiple church councils had anathemized simony, as had the recent Lateran Council IIRC. But Erasmus' own Liturgy for the Lady of Loreto (which he made as a model of how to turn a superstitious veneration of Mary into a devout veneration of Mary) was actually published with an indulgence from the local bishop: again, it was abuses not proper uses that he was against. Certainly his view of where the line between use and abuse stood was to err on the side of primitivism and gradualism.
So what "basic doctrines" (as far as had been defined before the Council of Trent) does that leave?
What that phrase also misses is that much of Erasmus' opposition was to scholastic theology itself, which he had studied at the Sorbonne. A theological tradition is not quite the same a doctrine. (He was a proponent of mystical theology appealing to the affections, such as he saw in the patristic and pre-scholastic monastic eras, but non-fanatical and non-partisan.)
So it would be better to have something like was also directed towards some of the Church's recent theology with a suitable citation. I have not done this. (Rick Jelliffe)
A difference issue in the same section: I have changed a sentence from
"The issues between the Catholic Church and the growing religious movement which would later become known as Protestantism, had become so clear that few could escape the summons to join the debate."
to the more NPOV
"The issues between the reforming and reactionary tendencies of the Catholic Church, from which Protestantism later emerged, had become so clear that few could escape the summons to join the debate. "
This is because the old sentence frames what went on from the sharp black-hat/white-hat POV of much later Protestant commentary: Erasmus is surely a poster-boy that many pre-reformation reformers did not became Protestants, and that the issue was not between the Catholic Church (by which is meant the hierarchy? the Sorbonne/Salamanca/Louven university theologians?) and the "outsider" reformers (noting that the English Bishops funded Erasmus, that the Pope put in a glowing letter of recommendation for Erasmus' New Testament which included lots of reforming annotation, that they wanted to make Erasmus a Cardinal: not good evidence of Erasmus as a maverick outsider...)
After the Reformation some things did indeed become more describable in terms of "Protestant" (or "Lutheran") versus "Roman Catholic", of course, even for Erasmus...
There is a relevant passage, in an article on Erasmus' works' secret trial at Valladolid before all the important bishops and religious theologians, and chaired by the head of the Spanish Inquisition IIRC) that while most of the Bishops found some passages in his work unacceptable, they all disagreed on which passages were unacceptable, sometimes strongly: in other words most (even, or especially, conservatives) agreed on most of his reformist statements: so there was almost universal agreement on the need for reform, but pockets of resistance to most specific reforms. (That 'trial' fizzled out without being able to reach a consensus on almost anything; when Erasmus' Enchiradon was placed on the Spanish Index, it was only one provocative sentence "Monkishness is not piety" that was required to be censored in order to de-contaminate it.)
(Another, perhaps partisan, article I have read said IIRC of the difficulties Pope Adrian had when attempting reform was that the powerful would agree to reform of other's abuses but not their own. This diversity of reform agenda was reflected in Protestants and pre-Protestant movements too: consider that the Hussites were willing to give up their struggle if Rome allowed them married priests, communion under both species, etc.: demands that were nothing to do with sola fide.)
Cardinal Cajetan is another good example of how it is an over-simplification to speak of reformers versus the monolithic Catholic Church (hierarchy): an establishment figure who negotiated the aborted compromise with the Lutherans.
So I think it is more NPOV to couch the sentence in terms of reformist and reactionary "tendencies", and not a simple trajectory that you had reformers and they all became Protestants.
Apologies for the long justification here, which probably seems excessive for the small change. But it is symptom of much partisan/revisionist writing on Erasmus to sloppily substitute blanket "Catholic church" for the more varied and complex targets of reform that modern historians describe. The article is improved by a little more precision on these things. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 01:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I have added the following routemap
Cities and Routes of Erasmus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The justification for this is that Erasmus rarely stayed longer than three years in any location (and he lived to 70) and that these locations were key parts of his story, and this is can very easily be confusing, especially for those of us outside Western Europe who may not have a good grasp of its geography. (Plus he regularly popped over to whichever city his books were being published in, to oversee production.)
Also, so many of his colloquies and event are tied to places (the pilgrimage to Wokingham, the pilgrimage to Canturbury, his participation in the Field of the Cloth of Gold near Calais, his year spent with Aldus Manutius in Venice, and so on.)
I didn't see any way to show his individual trips (e.g. he went to England 5 times, to Paris numerous ties, to Italy twice, and so on) so I think this is a good compromise.
I used the places in the Wikipedia article, plus several biographies as source, such as CCEL and Huizinga, so I don't think there is any original research it. It uses the Wikipedia Routemap tags, so it can be maintained by anyone. It is pretty much North-South like a map: the red are trips he would have made on horseback or carriage, the blue is trips he would have made by boat (English Channel, Rhein River). (The Green is his first 25 years in the Netherlands.) Places he stayed only passingly are shown in a lighter colour. The thin line at the bottom is when he crossed the Alps.
On a larger level, a picture is worth a thousand words, especially if you are a "visual thinker" I guess. So also I hope it might stimulate contributors on other pages to take up this great facility of Wikipedia's!
Anyway, talk and help is very welcome.
I have been bold and removed the section "other" which says that Erasmus wrote about Pier Gerlofs Donia. The following reasons:
1) I have looked at the reference The Age of Erasmus and I could not find anything about it. (If there is a reference there, it is using very different words and names.)
2) It suggests that Erasmus wrote a book or something major, which seems unlikely. ( I could not find anything, nor could Google.)
3) When I look at other references on Google, they all are derived from this Wikipedia article's reference to The Age of Erasmus. Even the Dutch Wikipedia page only refers to the same thing: a Dutch page mentioning only an English-language source for a Dutchman writing about a Dutch subject gives no confidence. So there is no corroborating or alternative source for this, that I could find.
4) The academic paper Dutch Proverbs and Expressions in Erasmus' Adages, Colloquies, and Letters [7] has a lot of material related to Dutch, and mentions Frisia several times, but I could see no mention of it.
5) Even if it turns out to be true, it lacks Notability for the English Wikipedia page. For the Dutch page, certainly...just not for the English.
So, all things considered, I will remove it here, and mark the Donia page's reference with a dubious. Please feel free to restore if you can find a good source and why it is notable. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 12:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
This page has had a lot of statements prefaced by "it is clear" that are conjucture or not supported by the citations (or history). For example, Erasmus is quoted as saying he was emending (or improving) Jerome's Latin text, but -contrary to this- the "It is clear" claims he was then working on a fresh (brand new) version. It would be good to get rid of, or at least label and attribute, these speculations. I think all "it is clear" sentences need to be fact-checked. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 04:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The initial sentence of the lede calls Erasmus a philosopher, but I question that this is so; or at least that it is remotely the most important way to categorize him.
What do other language Wikipedia articles say? This is not to use the other articles as sources, it is just to see if they have some phrases that would better summarize the English-language article. The Dutch article (through Google translate) starts:
"Desiderius Erasmus (Rotterdam, October 28, 1466,[1] 1467 or 1469[2] – Basel, July 12, 1536) was a Dutch-born philosopher, Catholic theologian and humanist. He is considered one of the most influential thinkers of the Northern Renaissance. With his famous satirical work Praise of Folly, which he wrote in Latin around 1509, he laid the foundations for the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation.
Desiderius Erasmus lived in a time of great change, in which new ideals came to the fore. He traveled through Europe as a scholar and gained prestige in intellectual circles through his humanist critiques and advocacy. Throughout his life he kept in close contact with kindred spirits through many correspondences, including the English statesman Thomas More. Erasmus developed a biblical humanistic theology in which he advocated tolerance, truthfulness and free thinking. In his own moderate way, he tried to reform the Catholic Church from within."
The German article has
"Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam or just called Erasmus[1][2] (born October 28, 1466/1467/1469 in Rotterdam; † July 11/12, 1536 in Basel) was a Dutch polymath and is the most famous and influential Renaissance Humanist. Erasmus was a theologian, philosopher, philologist, priest, author and editor of over 150 books. As a critical thinker of his time, Erasmus, also known as the “Prince of the Humanists”, is one of the pioneers of the European Enlightenment. Its impact extends to the present day."
The French has
"Erasmus (Didier Erasmus), also called Erasmus of Rotterdam (Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus), born on the night of October 27 to 28, 14661, or in 1467n 1, or 1469, in Rotterdam, died July 12, 1536 in Basel, is a canon Regular of Saint Augustine, Dutch philosopher, humanist and theologian, considered one of the major figures of Dutch and Western culture.
He remains mainly known today for his satirical declamatio Éloge de la Folie (1511) and, to a lesser extent, for his Adages (1500), an anthology of more than four thousand Greek and Latin quotations, and for his Colloquies (1522) , a collection of didactic essays on various themes, although his otherwise vast and complex work includes essays and treatises on a very large number of subjects, on the problems of his time as well as on art, education, religion, war or philosophy, eclecticism specific to the concerns of a humanist author."
The Italian page adds "essayist" which is good.
The Spanish page has
"Erasmus of Rotterdam1 (Dutch: Desiderius Erasmus van Rotterdam; Latin: Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus; Rotterdam or Gouda,2 October 28, 14663-Basel, July 12, 1536), also known in Spanish as Erasmus of Rotterdam , was a Dutch Christian humanist, philologist and theologian philosopher, considered one of the greatest scholars of the Nordic Renaissance.
As a Catholic priest, Erasmus was a major figure in classical scholarship who wrote new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament that raised issues that would be influential in the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. He lived in the context of the growing European religious reform. While he criticized abuses within the Catholic Church and called for reform, he stayed away from Luther, Henry VIII, and John Calvin and continued to acknowledge the authority of the Pope.
His much broader and more complex work includes essays and treatises on a very wide range of topics. He remains known mainly today for his Praise of Folly (1511) and to a lesser extent, for his Adagios (1500), an anthology of more than four thousand glossed Greek and Latin citations, Colloquies (1522), a collection of didactic essays of varied subject matter, and De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio (1524), a response to Luther's teachings on free will.
The Latin article is kinda funny in translation:
Desiderius Erasmus Rotterdam (Batavice Gerrit Gerritszoon, born in Rotterdam on October 27 or 28, 1469; died in Basel on July 12, 1536), a famous teacher of both languages, as well as a theologian and a great believer in the restoration of the church, but not in dividing it, who, because of his talent and merits, "the leader of the humanists ” is called
As a young man enrolled in the sacred family of St. Augustine, he became a priest there and followed the bishop of Cameracense; then he studied at Paris, and traveled all over Europe towards the west of the sun and the south. He certainly wrote many works which aim at the transmission and cultivation of the Latin language, and at the improvement of the manners of the church and of the people who were then; in addition, he also provided many works of the ancients with commentaries, and in particular, following in the footsteps of Laurentius Valla, he took care to publish the New Testament in Greek and Latin.
In short, he is considered to have been a reformer of the Christian church who, criticizing the vices of the church, yet refusing to divide it itself, was at that time not acceptable to many Protestants or Catholics. Therefore, a little before his death, he left Basel, where he was living with his friend and printer John Frobenius, after the city joined the Protestants, and moved to Freiburg in Breisgau. He died there in 1536, and was buried in the cathedral of Basel. Although he was always suffering from kidney stones, he did not die from them.
Interesting that the Portuguese is quite wrong, if Google has translated correctly (Portugal, Spain, Croatia, Bulgaria, Denmark?? He corresponded with them and influenced, not travelled):
Erasmus of Rotterdam (European Portuguese) or Rotterdam (Brazilian Portuguese) (October 28, 1466 – July 12, 1536 in Basel),[1] born Gerrit Gerritszoon or Herasmus Gerritszoon (Latin: Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus), was a Dutch humanist theologian and philosopher who traveled throughout Europe, including Portugal, England, Italy, Spain, Croatia, Bulgaria, Denmark and others.
So I think it would be better to revise the English lede with some cherry-picked parts of the other articles. Such as "Dutch-born" rather than "Dutch". And "theologian-philosopher" rather than "philosopher". Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 07:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
He only spent, what, 4 years of the last 40 in his life in that area (and mostly in Louvein, which is modern Belgium, because Charles V ordered him.) And he took his stuff with him when he moved. And he bought a house (in Freiburg), which is not very peripatetic of him
Raulois ( talk) 14:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Academics have variously situated his thought as Christianized stoic, epicurean, platonic/nominalist; and some of his Collequies e.g. Epicureans have a philosophical MacGuffin. But were any of his books -as author- about Philosophy in the academic sense used in modern English? Probably need to add sentence to include reference to some of these p, e.g. The Stoic Origins of Erasmus' Philosophy of Christ) Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 03:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The section on Erasmus' flat head is strange. I have marked it dubious.
For a start, it is not certain that it was Erasmus' body exhumed. (The examining doctor also claimed the body had signs of syphilis, though Erasmus never complained of any of the symptoms of it, unusually for him.) There is a more recent scholarly paper that points out that the body examined was relatively tall and muscular with small cranial capacity, while Erasmus was rather short and had a "frail and delicate little body" [8]
Also, there are two scholars who specialize in Erasmus' bonnet, of all things: Jane Malcolm-Davies and Geeske Kruseman. Well, on renaissance knitware at least. In their discussions, I do not see any reference to flat heads or upholstering. [9] [10] Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 09:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I have more sympathy for allowing "Roman Catholic" there because
In reviewing the article for this, I note that the Legacy>Catholic section, "Catholic Easter Vigil mass" is incorrect (too general) and "Roman Catholic Easter Vigil mass" is correct (AFAIK the renewal of baptismal promises is not part of the rites of the non-Roman Catholic-Churches, so I will change that. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 19:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The current article is over 100kb long which Wikipedia:Splitting#Size_split says almist certainky should be split. Plus the material proposed for splitting is non-controversial and a good chunk. So I propose that the sections "Writings" and "Works" including all the book and publication lists should be moved to a new Article "Works of Erasmus". Some of the material from the On Free Will and New Testament sections may belong there too. This would leave the Erasmus article to be mainly biographical.
I believe it meets the criteria where I can make a bold action, however I wanted to check if there are any better ideas or reasons not to, etc. before going ahead.
Rick Jelliffe (
talk) 03:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erasmus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: |
The more I read, the less comfortable I am that he was born in 1466. 1469 is very plausible.
As I understand it, the year was calculated by taking the year of his ordination (1493 according to Beatus Rheanus) and subtracting the 25(or 24?) year minimum age for ordination: 1469 is barely possible.
However research of the Gouda archives (New Evidence on Erasmus’ Youth In: Erasmus Studies 2017) makes the 1493 year implausible, and suggests 1496: which means Erasmus could be born before 1471.
The attraction, to me, of a 1469-ish date is it makes much more sense of his biography: if his parents left Rotterdam after his first year (when his father started in Wouden,) he started school at 6 not 9, started Deventer at 9 not 12, was orphaned at 13 not 16, went to 's Hertogenbosch at 14 not 17, went into the novitiate at 17 not 20, fell for Rogerius and professed at age 18 not 21 (Thomas Cromwell professed at age 14 b.t.w), went to Cambrai at 24, became a priest under Bishop Henry at age 25 and started studying in Paris at age 26 not 29: otherwise why would such a brilliant man have such a delayed education?
I am not sure how to handle it: a little table with the two sets of dates for his life events? Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 14:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I heard on the news that Erasmus was born in Gouda,Is this true?
Make this shorter.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.71.55 ( talk • contribs) 9:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
What should be shorter? Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 02:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Could someone (more knowledgeable then I) add some of his quotes? He's the one who said, "In The Land of The Blind, The One-Eyed Man Is King", isn't he?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrGero49 ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added a section on Erasmus' pacifism. There is much else that could/should be added, and perhaps ultimately deserves its own topic.
It includes a citation to a WordPress site. This is a site of a university-sponsored project, and not a personal blog etc. so I believe it fits the criteria for being a Reliable Source (or reliable-enough!) Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 16:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Your are fine from me. I also tend to argue that Wordpress from RS institutions should be recognized as RS. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 04:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The last sentence "James D.Tracy notes that mistrust of the Habsburg government (partially due to the fact Maximilian and his grandson Charles V were absentee rulers, the secret nature of diplomacy and other circumstances), but it is notable that intellectuals like Erasmus and Barlandus talked in a matter-of-fact manner about such a subject and used their imagination to give the people's fear of the world of power politics an appearance of rationality" needs to be re-written, I think.
What is "that", what is "such a subject", who are these "people", and what does it mean to use your "imagination" to "give an appearance of rationality"? Rick Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Deamonpen ( talk) 15:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Erasmus is so great that it would not diminish his greatness to mention that he expressed antisemitic sentiments. Please consider adding a sentence or two in the section “Religious toleration”. Gery.shachar ( talk) 16:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
All that being said, "Jew" was, when not used neutrally to mean Jews, not a positive term for Erasmus. But it was a term of reprobation not hatred, as far as I can see; so I am certain that Erasmus would not use it in that way were he alive today, as it would fail to convey his intent.
This entire section, Jews and Turks, should be deleted, in fact, as I write the comments below to justify the deletion of the section, it is clear that the section is neither scholarly nor encyclopaedic in nature or quality and I am going to delete it.
To state Erasmus views about Jews or Islam based on the opinions of two individuals, Shimon Markish and Nathan Ron, does not meet the standards defined by Wikipedia that require quoting the original material rather than quoting quotes or discussions about the original material. Assumptions of a historical figure's opinions surely would require support by quoting their actual words or deeds and including a direct reference to their words or deeds rather than to opinions of others.
Additionally, the section tries to paint Erasmus as a racist with the phrase, "harsh and racial in its implications." If the author of this section wants to make the claim of racism, then find actual racism in his words and deeds and quote his actual writings, words, or deeds. If the author wants to talk about Erasmus dislike or distrust of Turks, then remove the racial comment and back up the claim with actual quotes from Erasmus, himself - there are some.
Any claim of hatred or dislike that Erasmus had for the Turks, and clearly, his own words can be quoted to show that he disliked them, must include the context of the Turks as invaders and occupiers of significant parts of Europe from the 14th century until long after Erasmus wrote about them, and even long after his death. To write that he is a racist or even to quote his own words showing his dislike for Turks without that context seems disingenuous.
There is a statement that Erasmus likely never met a practicing Jew. For a man who travelled as much has he did, that seems very likely to be false. It is far more likely that he met many Jews in his lifetime. Either way, though, either the author should be able to back it up with documented evidence or it does not belong.
This is a great example of why it is inappropriate, in an encyclopedia, to write about what a historical figure thought but, instead, it should be written about what they did, what they said that can be supported with trusted and reliable documentation, and what they wrote - quoting what they wrote instead of some unknown person's opinion of what they wrote. Diprestonus ( talk) 23:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
There was a flag in the text saying that the phrase "and reactionary" needed a quotation from the citation to justify it. I have looked through the citation text, and I do not think "and reactionary" can be justified. So I have removed that phrase and the flag. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 01:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I removed the following text from the section on England. His legacy is marked for someone who complained bitterly about the lack of comforts and luxuries to which he was accustomed.
First, it is uncited. Second, its odd English makes it look like it is a lift or quotation. Third, it is not NPOV: it looks like some old partisan slur re-cycled. Fourth, it is at odds with Erasmus' actual biography which features dire poverty, an emphasis on the moderation of the scholar's table, and severe digestive and breathing problems that made him fear for his life (and, for the digestive problems, actually did kill him in the end.) Erasmus certainly was sickly and intolerant of fish, beer and some kinds of wine, which did not fit well with religious and institutional diets and fasts. His letter to Rogerius, where refused to return to Steyn abbey, says he believes it would kill him.
So there may be some better way to handle this: perhap it would better to go in some section on the slurs that were made against Erasmus (right or wrong). Or (better) a section on how his physical weakness affected his thought on useless ceremonialism and forced fasts. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 14:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The fundamental difference between Erasmus' version and the Spanish Bible was that the New Testament was not newly translated into Latin . Here the text of the Vulgata was binding and could not be changed. Through the translation of Erasmus, there were over 1000 differences to the Vulgata, which then led to considerable controversy. The Spanish Bible was primarily about a faithful compilation of the texts of the New and Old Testaments in different languages. Adapting the Vulgate (and complete new translation) was the novelty of Erasmus - which the Spanish were not allowed to do.
I would add following sentences:
"Except for a fundamental revision by a new translation from the original languages was the Latin text of the Vulgate. This text, which the Church Father Jerome had translated from Greek in the 4th century, was considered the only binding translation in the Catholic Church."
The new Spanish Bible was, of course, also a fundamental work, also because it contained the whole Old Testament. But the Vulgate could not be corrected. Here we have to look for the sources. Empiricus ( talk) 08:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
This section is quite chaotic, flitting to and from Freedom of the Will without good chronology. And it ignores the wider reformation just for utheran Protestantism: the wider reformation includes the Catholic reformation ad Counter Reformation, and e.g. the Anabaptists etc. It might be better to beef up the page on Freedom of the will De_libero_arbitrio_diatribe_sive_collatio and trim this. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 16:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph, because it does not belong under "Legacy", it is confusing in the flow of paragraphs, the meaning is unclear (what is meant by "gramatical" here?), it does not seem of much importance, and it is a fact about an 18th Century German academic, not a fact about Erasmus:
"According to Franz Anton Knittel, Erasmus in his Novum Instrumentum omne did not incorporate the Comma from the Codex Montfortianus (concerning the Trinity), because of grammar differences, but used the Complutensian Polyglot. According to him the Comma was known to Tertullian. [1]"
If someone disagrees, please feel free to revert, or to put the text somewhere it makes sense, such as as part of a separate page on the Johannine Comma. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 15:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
References
I have repaired several faults:
There is a remaining fault: about him feeling the stain of his illegitimacy. Apart from being pyschologizing (the bane of biographies on Erasmus), which I don't think is appropriate without specific evidence, his illegitimacy had practical and legal implications, not merely social. For example, the child of a priest was not allowed to become a parish priest (a rule made because parishes had become family businesses, generally to a bad effect on the parish.) Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 12:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
"It is said that he never seemed to have actively worked as a priest for a long time" The citation here does not specify a page number, but I am very doubtful that this is what the reference says. He certainly never worked as a parish priest or, perhaps, cathedral canon, but the are more kinds of priests than that: for example, Jesuits are priests who are usually not parish priests. We know that Erasmus preferred to assist at mass rather than preside, he heard confession, sometimes preached (in Latin), and said the hours. Erasmus never sought, nor was granted, any papal dispensation from his priestly vows, and he never seems to have mentioned that being a priest was a burden, or that he was tricked into into (unlike his religious vows as an Augustinian Canon.) So I think this needs to be corrected, for example, "Erasmus does not seem to have actively worked as a parish priest." Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 15:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
While at Stein, Erasmus formed a "passionate attachment" with a fellow canon, Servatius Rogerus, [1] and wrote a series of love letters [2] in which he called Rogerus "half my soul," writing that "I have wooed you both unhappily and relentlessly." [3] This correspondence contrasts sharply with the generally detached and much more restrained attitude he showed in his later life. [4] (Later, while tutoring in Paris, he was suddenly dismissed by the guardian of Thomas Grey. [5] Some have speculated about this as evidence of an illicit affair. No such mentions or accusations were ever made of Erasmus during his lifetime. [6] His works in later life perhaps distances these earlier episodes [7] by condemning sodomy in his works, and praising sexual desire in marriage between men and women. [8])
References
Editors should note that Erasmus is the subject of a lot of mythologizing by antagonistic writers, both Protestant and Catholic. I think many parts of the Wikipedia entry suffer from the after-effects of this. For example, the sentence He had remained loyal to the papal authorities in Rome, but he did not have the opportunity to receive the last rites of the Catholic Church; the reports of his death do not mention whether he asked for a priest or not. Treating his beliefs as a Roman Catholic as loyalty to some "authorities" in Rome is bizarre and dismissive. Similarly, there were probably no other Catholic priests in Basel and it would have been illegal for him to get last rites. His book on dying well emphasized getting yourself right with God long before, to avoid the need for a deathbed confession. Interestingly enough, the civil authorities allowed his state funeral to include some kind of Catholic requiem mass or liturgy, in a rare ecumenical moment.
It would be good to re-cast that sentence in more neutral/historical terms. (Right after his death, the interest in how he died was to see if there was propaganda fodder useful for spin: if he was actually a crypto-protestant, which he denied, then each side could reject parts of his even-handed criticism. Luther claimed that he died alone and friendless, whereas he died surrounded by some dear friends.) Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 16:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC) I made the changes (in May?) Rick Jelliffe ( talk)
There is currently a paragraph However, Erasmus designated his own legacy, and his life works were turned over at his death to his friend the Protestant humanist turned remonstrator Sebastian Castellio for the repair of the breach and divide of Christianity in its Catholic, Anabaptist, and Protestant branches.[105]
This sets of alarm bells to me, because Castellio was 21 at the time of Erasmus' death and lived in Lyon. And he only turned Protestant at age 24. And the reference is to a book without a page number.
And Erasmus' executor (of his will) was Bonifacius Amerbach. (Erasmus had already sold his library and bequeathed his wealth to widows and for helping poor boys and girls, etc.) Looking at the reference book [105] what I see is that Amerbach helped out the young Castellio, sometimes with money from Erasmus' estate.
In the Wiki page for Castelio we have He was also the designated successor to Desiderius Erasmus in continuing his work of the reconciliation of Christianity in the Protestant, Anabaptist, and Catholic branches, {citation needed} which lacks a citation. Who designated him? (It does not seem remotely like the kind of thing Erasmus would do.)
So it seems 1) Castellio was not Erasmus friend, 2) Castellio was not a designated successor, 3) Castellio did not have Erasmus' life works turned over to him. Instead, some of Erasmus bequeathed money for the poor was given to him. Still, it is a nice story.
To resolve it, I will move the sentence to the section on Erasmus' death, and re-write it as As his heir he instated Bonifacius Amerbach to give money to the poor and needy.[5] One of the eventual recipients the impoverished Protestant humanist Sebastian Castellio, who had fled from Geneva to Basel, who subsequently translated the Bible into Latin and French, and worked for the repair of the breach and divide of Christianity in its Catholic, Anabaptist, and Protestant branches[6] Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 16:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The phrase that Erasmus' criticism was also directed towards many of the Church's basic doctrines is, I believe, historically wrong but also is not supported by what the citation actually says.
The citation says he "questioned" many of the Church's basic "teachings": "questioning" (a theologian's job, surely) is not "criticizing", and "teachings" is way broader than "doctrines". Erasmus certainly did not question the articles of the Creed, and he repeatedly said that once the church defined something (even though it were better if fewer things were defined not more) then we were duty-bound not to oppose it, for the sake of concord at least.
When Erasmus was attacked for using different words in his NT that undermined what had been proof texts for some doctrines (i.e. the Johannine Comma, repentance for penance, presbyter for priest, favour for grace) his response was that the doctrines still stood (because of Tradition and the magisterium), just that those particular passages were simply not as direct evidence for it as had been thought (but also evidence for other things that should be taken on-board.) The same charge was made against him multiple times, and he denied that he was disavowing those doctrines.
(Even in the famous case of transubstantiation, he made it clear that he certainly believed the Real Presence, but that the (theo)logical meaning of transubstantiation made no sense to him, according to his understanding of what "substance" could mean. He also said that if he had had any idea of how his words would be twisted, he would have expressed himself very differently.)
On the issue of payment for indulgences (Luther had taken many of his 95 Thesis direct from Erasmus' writings), Erasmus was actually mainstream Catholic: multiple church councils had anathemized simony, as had the recent Lateran Council IIRC. But Erasmus' own Liturgy for the Lady of Loreto (which he made as a model of how to turn a superstitious veneration of Mary into a devout veneration of Mary) was actually published with an indulgence from the local bishop: again, it was abuses not proper uses that he was against. Certainly his view of where the line between use and abuse stood was to err on the side of primitivism and gradualism.
So what "basic doctrines" (as far as had been defined before the Council of Trent) does that leave?
What that phrase also misses is that much of Erasmus' opposition was to scholastic theology itself, which he had studied at the Sorbonne. A theological tradition is not quite the same a doctrine. (He was a proponent of mystical theology appealing to the affections, such as he saw in the patristic and pre-scholastic monastic eras, but non-fanatical and non-partisan.)
So it would be better to have something like was also directed towards some of the Church's recent theology with a suitable citation. I have not done this. (Rick Jelliffe)
A difference issue in the same section: I have changed a sentence from
"The issues between the Catholic Church and the growing religious movement which would later become known as Protestantism, had become so clear that few could escape the summons to join the debate."
to the more NPOV
"The issues between the reforming and reactionary tendencies of the Catholic Church, from which Protestantism later emerged, had become so clear that few could escape the summons to join the debate. "
This is because the old sentence frames what went on from the sharp black-hat/white-hat POV of much later Protestant commentary: Erasmus is surely a poster-boy that many pre-reformation reformers did not became Protestants, and that the issue was not between the Catholic Church (by which is meant the hierarchy? the Sorbonne/Salamanca/Louven university theologians?) and the "outsider" reformers (noting that the English Bishops funded Erasmus, that the Pope put in a glowing letter of recommendation for Erasmus' New Testament which included lots of reforming annotation, that they wanted to make Erasmus a Cardinal: not good evidence of Erasmus as a maverick outsider...)
After the Reformation some things did indeed become more describable in terms of "Protestant" (or "Lutheran") versus "Roman Catholic", of course, even for Erasmus...
There is a relevant passage, in an article on Erasmus' works' secret trial at Valladolid before all the important bishops and religious theologians, and chaired by the head of the Spanish Inquisition IIRC) that while most of the Bishops found some passages in his work unacceptable, they all disagreed on which passages were unacceptable, sometimes strongly: in other words most (even, or especially, conservatives) agreed on most of his reformist statements: so there was almost universal agreement on the need for reform, but pockets of resistance to most specific reforms. (That 'trial' fizzled out without being able to reach a consensus on almost anything; when Erasmus' Enchiradon was placed on the Spanish Index, it was only one provocative sentence "Monkishness is not piety" that was required to be censored in order to de-contaminate it.)
(Another, perhaps partisan, article I have read said IIRC of the difficulties Pope Adrian had when attempting reform was that the powerful would agree to reform of other's abuses but not their own. This diversity of reform agenda was reflected in Protestants and pre-Protestant movements too: consider that the Hussites were willing to give up their struggle if Rome allowed them married priests, communion under both species, etc.: demands that were nothing to do with sola fide.)
Cardinal Cajetan is another good example of how it is an over-simplification to speak of reformers versus the monolithic Catholic Church (hierarchy): an establishment figure who negotiated the aborted compromise with the Lutherans.
So I think it is more NPOV to couch the sentence in terms of reformist and reactionary "tendencies", and not a simple trajectory that you had reformers and they all became Protestants.
Apologies for the long justification here, which probably seems excessive for the small change. But it is symptom of much partisan/revisionist writing on Erasmus to sloppily substitute blanket "Catholic church" for the more varied and complex targets of reform that modern historians describe. The article is improved by a little more precision on these things. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 01:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I have added the following routemap
Cities and Routes of Erasmus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The justification for this is that Erasmus rarely stayed longer than three years in any location (and he lived to 70) and that these locations were key parts of his story, and this is can very easily be confusing, especially for those of us outside Western Europe who may not have a good grasp of its geography. (Plus he regularly popped over to whichever city his books were being published in, to oversee production.)
Also, so many of his colloquies and event are tied to places (the pilgrimage to Wokingham, the pilgrimage to Canturbury, his participation in the Field of the Cloth of Gold near Calais, his year spent with Aldus Manutius in Venice, and so on.)
I didn't see any way to show his individual trips (e.g. he went to England 5 times, to Paris numerous ties, to Italy twice, and so on) so I think this is a good compromise.
I used the places in the Wikipedia article, plus several biographies as source, such as CCEL and Huizinga, so I don't think there is any original research it. It uses the Wikipedia Routemap tags, so it can be maintained by anyone. It is pretty much North-South like a map: the red are trips he would have made on horseback or carriage, the blue is trips he would have made by boat (English Channel, Rhein River). (The Green is his first 25 years in the Netherlands.) Places he stayed only passingly are shown in a lighter colour. The thin line at the bottom is when he crossed the Alps.
On a larger level, a picture is worth a thousand words, especially if you are a "visual thinker" I guess. So also I hope it might stimulate contributors on other pages to take up this great facility of Wikipedia's!
Anyway, talk and help is very welcome.
I have been bold and removed the section "other" which says that Erasmus wrote about Pier Gerlofs Donia. The following reasons:
1) I have looked at the reference The Age of Erasmus and I could not find anything about it. (If there is a reference there, it is using very different words and names.)
2) It suggests that Erasmus wrote a book or something major, which seems unlikely. ( I could not find anything, nor could Google.)
3) When I look at other references on Google, they all are derived from this Wikipedia article's reference to The Age of Erasmus. Even the Dutch Wikipedia page only refers to the same thing: a Dutch page mentioning only an English-language source for a Dutchman writing about a Dutch subject gives no confidence. So there is no corroborating or alternative source for this, that I could find.
4) The academic paper Dutch Proverbs and Expressions in Erasmus' Adages, Colloquies, and Letters [7] has a lot of material related to Dutch, and mentions Frisia several times, but I could see no mention of it.
5) Even if it turns out to be true, it lacks Notability for the English Wikipedia page. For the Dutch page, certainly...just not for the English.
So, all things considered, I will remove it here, and mark the Donia page's reference with a dubious. Please feel free to restore if you can find a good source and why it is notable. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 12:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
This page has had a lot of statements prefaced by "it is clear" that are conjucture or not supported by the citations (or history). For example, Erasmus is quoted as saying he was emending (or improving) Jerome's Latin text, but -contrary to this- the "It is clear" claims he was then working on a fresh (brand new) version. It would be good to get rid of, or at least label and attribute, these speculations. I think all "it is clear" sentences need to be fact-checked. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 04:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The initial sentence of the lede calls Erasmus a philosopher, but I question that this is so; or at least that it is remotely the most important way to categorize him.
What do other language Wikipedia articles say? This is not to use the other articles as sources, it is just to see if they have some phrases that would better summarize the English-language article. The Dutch article (through Google translate) starts:
"Desiderius Erasmus (Rotterdam, October 28, 1466,[1] 1467 or 1469[2] – Basel, July 12, 1536) was a Dutch-born philosopher, Catholic theologian and humanist. He is considered one of the most influential thinkers of the Northern Renaissance. With his famous satirical work Praise of Folly, which he wrote in Latin around 1509, he laid the foundations for the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation.
Desiderius Erasmus lived in a time of great change, in which new ideals came to the fore. He traveled through Europe as a scholar and gained prestige in intellectual circles through his humanist critiques and advocacy. Throughout his life he kept in close contact with kindred spirits through many correspondences, including the English statesman Thomas More. Erasmus developed a biblical humanistic theology in which he advocated tolerance, truthfulness and free thinking. In his own moderate way, he tried to reform the Catholic Church from within."
The German article has
"Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam or just called Erasmus[1][2] (born October 28, 1466/1467/1469 in Rotterdam; † July 11/12, 1536 in Basel) was a Dutch polymath and is the most famous and influential Renaissance Humanist. Erasmus was a theologian, philosopher, philologist, priest, author and editor of over 150 books. As a critical thinker of his time, Erasmus, also known as the “Prince of the Humanists”, is one of the pioneers of the European Enlightenment. Its impact extends to the present day."
The French has
"Erasmus (Didier Erasmus), also called Erasmus of Rotterdam (Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus), born on the night of October 27 to 28, 14661, or in 1467n 1, or 1469, in Rotterdam, died July 12, 1536 in Basel, is a canon Regular of Saint Augustine, Dutch philosopher, humanist and theologian, considered one of the major figures of Dutch and Western culture.
He remains mainly known today for his satirical declamatio Éloge de la Folie (1511) and, to a lesser extent, for his Adages (1500), an anthology of more than four thousand Greek and Latin quotations, and for his Colloquies (1522) , a collection of didactic essays on various themes, although his otherwise vast and complex work includes essays and treatises on a very large number of subjects, on the problems of his time as well as on art, education, religion, war or philosophy, eclecticism specific to the concerns of a humanist author."
The Italian page adds "essayist" which is good.
The Spanish page has
"Erasmus of Rotterdam1 (Dutch: Desiderius Erasmus van Rotterdam; Latin: Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus; Rotterdam or Gouda,2 October 28, 14663-Basel, July 12, 1536), also known in Spanish as Erasmus of Rotterdam , was a Dutch Christian humanist, philologist and theologian philosopher, considered one of the greatest scholars of the Nordic Renaissance.
As a Catholic priest, Erasmus was a major figure in classical scholarship who wrote new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament that raised issues that would be influential in the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. He lived in the context of the growing European religious reform. While he criticized abuses within the Catholic Church and called for reform, he stayed away from Luther, Henry VIII, and John Calvin and continued to acknowledge the authority of the Pope.
His much broader and more complex work includes essays and treatises on a very wide range of topics. He remains known mainly today for his Praise of Folly (1511) and to a lesser extent, for his Adagios (1500), an anthology of more than four thousand glossed Greek and Latin citations, Colloquies (1522), a collection of didactic essays of varied subject matter, and De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio (1524), a response to Luther's teachings on free will.
The Latin article is kinda funny in translation:
Desiderius Erasmus Rotterdam (Batavice Gerrit Gerritszoon, born in Rotterdam on October 27 or 28, 1469; died in Basel on July 12, 1536), a famous teacher of both languages, as well as a theologian and a great believer in the restoration of the church, but not in dividing it, who, because of his talent and merits, "the leader of the humanists ” is called
As a young man enrolled in the sacred family of St. Augustine, he became a priest there and followed the bishop of Cameracense; then he studied at Paris, and traveled all over Europe towards the west of the sun and the south. He certainly wrote many works which aim at the transmission and cultivation of the Latin language, and at the improvement of the manners of the church and of the people who were then; in addition, he also provided many works of the ancients with commentaries, and in particular, following in the footsteps of Laurentius Valla, he took care to publish the New Testament in Greek and Latin.
In short, he is considered to have been a reformer of the Christian church who, criticizing the vices of the church, yet refusing to divide it itself, was at that time not acceptable to many Protestants or Catholics. Therefore, a little before his death, he left Basel, where he was living with his friend and printer John Frobenius, after the city joined the Protestants, and moved to Freiburg in Breisgau. He died there in 1536, and was buried in the cathedral of Basel. Although he was always suffering from kidney stones, he did not die from them.
Interesting that the Portuguese is quite wrong, if Google has translated correctly (Portugal, Spain, Croatia, Bulgaria, Denmark?? He corresponded with them and influenced, not travelled):
Erasmus of Rotterdam (European Portuguese) or Rotterdam (Brazilian Portuguese) (October 28, 1466 – July 12, 1536 in Basel),[1] born Gerrit Gerritszoon or Herasmus Gerritszoon (Latin: Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus), was a Dutch humanist theologian and philosopher who traveled throughout Europe, including Portugal, England, Italy, Spain, Croatia, Bulgaria, Denmark and others.
So I think it would be better to revise the English lede with some cherry-picked parts of the other articles. Such as "Dutch-born" rather than "Dutch". And "theologian-philosopher" rather than "philosopher". Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 07:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
He only spent, what, 4 years of the last 40 in his life in that area (and mostly in Louvein, which is modern Belgium, because Charles V ordered him.) And he took his stuff with him when he moved. And he bought a house (in Freiburg), which is not very peripatetic of him
Raulois ( talk) 14:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Academics have variously situated his thought as Christianized stoic, epicurean, platonic/nominalist; and some of his Collequies e.g. Epicureans have a philosophical MacGuffin. But were any of his books -as author- about Philosophy in the academic sense used in modern English? Probably need to add sentence to include reference to some of these p, e.g. The Stoic Origins of Erasmus' Philosophy of Christ) Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 03:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
References
The section on Erasmus' flat head is strange. I have marked it dubious.
For a start, it is not certain that it was Erasmus' body exhumed. (The examining doctor also claimed the body had signs of syphilis, though Erasmus never complained of any of the symptoms of it, unusually for him.) There is a more recent scholarly paper that points out that the body examined was relatively tall and muscular with small cranial capacity, while Erasmus was rather short and had a "frail and delicate little body" [8]
Also, there are two scholars who specialize in Erasmus' bonnet, of all things: Jane Malcolm-Davies and Geeske Kruseman. Well, on renaissance knitware at least. In their discussions, I do not see any reference to flat heads or upholstering. [9] [10] Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 09:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I have more sympathy for allowing "Roman Catholic" there because
In reviewing the article for this, I note that the Legacy>Catholic section, "Catholic Easter Vigil mass" is incorrect (too general) and "Roman Catholic Easter Vigil mass" is correct (AFAIK the renewal of baptismal promises is not part of the rites of the non-Roman Catholic-Churches, so I will change that. Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 19:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The current article is over 100kb long which Wikipedia:Splitting#Size_split says almist certainky should be split. Plus the material proposed for splitting is non-controversial and a good chunk. So I propose that the sections "Writings" and "Works" including all the book and publication lists should be moved to a new Article "Works of Erasmus". Some of the material from the On Free Will and New Testament sections may belong there too. This would leave the Erasmus article to be mainly biographical.
I believe it meets the criteria where I can make a bold action, however I wanted to check if there are any better ideas or reasons not to, etc. before going ahead.
Rick Jelliffe (
talk) 03:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)