 |
 |
| Back |
Home |
| The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge, Philip Schaff Vol. IV |
|
DESIDERIUS
ERASMUS (C. 1466–1536)
Dutch
scholar; first editor of the Greek New Testament
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus,
Dutch humanist and theologian, was born at Rotterdam, Holland Oct. 27, probably
1466; d. at Basel, Switzerland, July 12, 1536 Information as to his family and
early life comes from a few meager accounts written or suggested by himself at
a somewhat advanced age and from many but vague references in his writings at
all periods of his life. There seems good reason to believe that the tone of
self--pity that pervades all these accounts was assumed for purposes at which
one may guess, but as to which one can not be certain. He was doubtless born
out of wedlock, well cared for by his parents till their early death, and then
given the best education open to a young man of his day in a series of monastic
or semimonastic schools. All this early education is made by him in the light
of later experience to appear like one long conspiracy to force him into the
monastic life, but there is no other evidence for this, and recent criticism,
has suggested ample motives for his desire to give his life-history this
peculiar turn. He was admitted to the priest-hood and took the monastic vows at
about the age of twenty-five, but there is no record that he ever exercised the
priestly functions, and monasticism was one of the chief objects of his attack
in his lifelong assault upon the evils of the Church.
Almost immediately
after his consecration the way was opened to him for study at the University of
Paris, then the chief seat of the later scholastic learning, but already
beginning to feel the influence of the revived classic culture of Italy. From
this time on Erasumus led the life of an independent scholar, independent of
country, of academic ties, of religious allegiance, of everything that could
interfere with the free development of his intellect and the freedom of his
literary expression. The chief centers of his activity were Paris, Louvain,
England, and Basel; yet it could never be said that he was identified with any
one of these. His residences in England were fruitful in the making of lifelong
friendships with the leaders of English thought in the stirring days of Henry
VIII. - John Colet, Thomas More, Thomas Linacre, and William Grocyn. He held at
Cambridge an honorable position as Lady Margaret professor of divinity, and
there seems to have been no reason except his unconquerable aversion to a
routine life, why he should not have spent his days as an Englioh professor. He
was offered many positions of honor and profit is the academic world, but
declined them all on one or another pretext, preferring the uncertain, but as
it proved, sufficient rewards of independent literary activity. In Italy he
spent three years (1506 - 09), part of the time in connection with the
publishing house of Aldus Manutius at Venice, but otherwise with far less
active association with Italian scholars than might have been expected. The
residence at Louvain exposed Erasmus to the petty criticism of men nearer to
him in blood and political connections, but hostile to all the principles of
literary and religious progress to which he was devoting his life. From this
lack of sympathy, which he always represented as persecution, he sought refuge
in the more congenial atmosphere of Basel, where under the shelter of Swiss
hospitality he could express himself with freedom and where he was always
surroundecl by devoted friends. Here he ware associated for many years with the
great publisher Froben, and hither came the multitude of his admirers from all
quarters of Europe,
Erasums's
literary productivity began comparatively late in his life. It was not until he
had made himself master of a telling Latin style that he undertook to express
himself on all current subjects of literature and religion. His revolt against
the forms of Church life did not proceed from any questionings as to the truth
of the traditional doctrine, nor from any hostility to the organization of the
Church itself. Rather, he felt called upon to use his learning in a
purification of the doctrine and in a liberalizing of the institutions of
Christianity. He began as a scholar, trying to free the methods of scholarship
from the rigidity and formalism of medieval traditions; but he was not
satisfied with this. He conceived of himself as, above all else, a preacher of
righteousness. It was his lifelong conviction that what was needed to
regenerate Europe was sound learning applied frankly and fearlessly to the
administration of public affairs in Church and State. It is this conviction
that gives unity and consistency to a life which at first sight seems to have
been full of fatal contradictions. Erasmus was a marked individual, holding
himself aloof from all entangling obligations; yet he was in a singularly true
sense the center of the literary movement of his time. In his correspondence he
put himself in touch with more than five hundred men of the highest importance
in the world of politics and of thought, and his advice on all kinds of
subjects was eagerly sought, If none too readily followed.
Naturally, Erasmus has been
most widely known for his critical and satirical writings, such as the
"Praise of Folly" (Paris, 1509) and many of the Colloquia, which
appeared at intervals from 1500 on. These appeal to a wider audience and deal
with matters of wider human interest. Yet their author seems to have regarded
them as the trifles of his intellectual product, the play of his leisure hours.
His more serious writings begin early with the Enchiridion Militis
Christiani, the " Manual (or Dagger) of the Christian Gentleman" (1503).
In this little volume Erasmus outlines the views of the normal Christian life
which he was to spend the rest of his days in elaborating, The key-note of it
all is sincerity. The chief evil of the day, he says, is formalism, a respect
for traditions, a regard for what other people think essential, but never a
thought of what the true teaching of Christ may be. The remedy is for every man
to ask himself at each point: what is the essential thing? and to do this
without fear. Forms are not in themselves evil. It is only when they hide or
quench the spirit that they are to be dreaded. In his examination of the
special dangers of formalism, Erasmus pays his respects to monasticism
saint-worship, war, the spirit of class, the foibles of "society," in the
fashion which was to make his later reputation as a satirist, but the main
impression or the Enchiridion is distinctly that of a sermon. A
companion piece to the Enchiridion is the Institutis Principia
Christiani (Basel, 1516), written as advice to the young king Charles of
Spain, later the emperor Charles V. Here Erasmus applies the same general
principles of honor and sincerity to the special functions of the Prince, whom
he represents throughout as the servant of the people. While in England Erasmus
began the systematic examination of manuscripts of the New Testament to prepare
for a new edition and Latin translation. This edition was published by Froben
of Basel is 1516 and was the basis of most of the scientific study of the Bible
during the Reformation period. It was the first attempt on the part of a
competent and liberal-minded scholar to ascertain what the writers of the New
Testament had actually said. Erasmus dedicated his work to Pope Leo X. as a
patron of learning, to whom such an application of scholarship to religion must
be welcome, and he justly regarded this work as his chief service to the cause
of a sound Christianity. Immediately after he began the publication of his
Paraphrases of the New Testament, a popular presentation of the contents of the
several books. These, like all the writings of Erasmus, were in Latin, but they
were at once translated into the common languages of the European peoples, a
process which received the hearty approval of Erasmus himself.
The
outbreak of the Lutheran movement in the year following the publication of the
New Testament brought the severest test of Erasmus's personal and scholarly
character. It made the issue between European society and the Roman Church
system so clear that no man could quite escape the summons to range himself an
one side or the other of the great debate. Erasmus, at the height of his
literary fame, was inevitably called upon to take sides, but partisanship in
any issue which he was not at liberty himself to define was foreign equally to
his nature and his habits. In all his criticism of clerical follies and abuses
he had always carefully hedged himself about with protests that he was not
attacking church institutions themselves and had no enmity toward the persons
of churchmen. The world had laughed at his satire, but only a few obstinate
reactionaries had seriously interfered with his activities, He had a right to
believe that his work so far had commended itself to the best minds and also to
the dominant powers in the religious world. There can be no doubt that Erasmus
was in sympathy with the main points in the Lutheran criticism of the Church.
For Luther personally he had and expressed the greatest respect, and Luther
always spoke with admiration of his superior learning,. Luther would have gone
to great lengths in securing his cooperation in a work which seemed only the
natural outcome of his own. When Erasmus hesitated or refused this seemed to
the upright and downright Luther a mean avoidance of responsibility explicable
only as cowardice or unsteadiness of purpose, and this has generally been the
Protestant judgment of later days. On the other hand the Roman Catholic party
was equally desirous of holding on to the services of a man who had so often
declared his loyalty to the principles it was trying to maintain, and his
half-heartedness in declaring himself now brought upon him paturally the
suspicion of disloyalty from this side. Recent judgments of Erammus, however,
have shown how consistent with all his previous practice his attitude toward
the Reformation really was. The evils he had combated were either those of
form, such as had long been a subject of derision by all sensible men, or they
were evils of a kind that could be cured only by a long and slow regeneration
in the moral and spiritual life of Europe, Get rid of the absurdities, restore
learning to its rights, insist upon a sound practical piety, and all these
evils would disappear: this was the programme of the "Erasmian Reformation." No
one could question its soundness or its desirability. Its fatal lack was that
it failed to offer any tangible method of applying these principles to the
existing church system. This kind of reform had been tried long enough, and men
were impatient of further delay. When Erasmus wag charged--and very justly-with
having "laid the egg that Luther hatched" he half admitted the truth of the
charge, but said he had expected quite another kind of a bird.
In their early
correspondence Luther expressed in unmeasured terms his admiration for all
Erasmus had done in the cause of a sound and reasonable Christianity, and
exhorted him now to put the seal upon his work by definitely casting in his lot
with the Lutheran party. Erasmus replied with many expressions of regard, but
declined to commit himself to any party attitude. His argument was that, to do
so would endanger his position as a leader in the movement for pure scholarship
which he regarded as his real work in life. Only through that position as an
independent scholar could he hope to influence the reform of religion. The
constructive value of Luther's work was mainly in fumishing a new doctrinal
basis for the hitherto scattered attempts at reform, In reviving the half
forgotten principle of the Augustinian theology Luther had furnished the needed
impulse to that personal interest in religion which is the essence of
Protestantism. This was precisely what Erasmus could not approve. He dreaded
any change is the doctrine of the Church and believed that. there was room
enough within existing formulas for the kind of reform he valued most. Twice in
the course of the great discussion he allowed himself to enter the field of
doctrinal controversy, a field foreign alike to his nature and his previous
practice One of the topics formally treated by him was the freedom of the will,
the crucial point in the whole Augustinian system. In his De libero
arbitrio sive collatio (1524), he analyzes with great cleverness and in
perfect good temper the Lutheran exaggeration, as it seemed to him, of the
obvious limitations upon human freedom. As his habit was, he lays down both
sides of the argument and shows that each had its element of truth. His
position was practically that which the Church had always taken in its dealing
with the problem of sin: that Man was bound to sin, but that after all he had a
right to the forgiving mercy of God, if only he would seek this through the
means offered him by the Church itself. It was an easy-going Semi-Pelagianism,
humane in its practise, but opening the way to those very laxities and
perversions which Erasmus and the Reformers alike were combating. The "
Diatribe," clever as it was, could not lead men to any definite action, and
this was precisely its merit to the Erasmians and its offense to the Lutherans.
As the popular
response to the Lutheran summons become more marked and more widely spread, the
social disorders which Erasmus dreaded began to appear. The Peasants War, the
Anabaptist disturbances in Germany and in the Low Countries, iconoclasm and
radicalism everywhere, seemed to confirm all his gloomy predictions. If this
were to be the outcome of reform, he could only be thankful he had kept out of
it. On the other hsnd, he was being ever more bitterly accused of having
started the whole " tragedy." In Switzerland he was especially exposed to
criticism through his association with men there who were more than suspected
of extreme rationalistic doctrines. On this side, the test question was
naturally the doctrine of the sacraments, and the crux of this question was the
observance of the Eucharist. Partly to clear himself of suspicion and partly in
response to demands that he should write something in defense of Catholic
doctrine, he published in 1530 a new edition of the orthodox treatise of
Algerus against the heretic Berengar of Tours in the eleventh century. He added
a dedication in which he affirms positively his belief in the reality of the
body of Christ after consecration in the Eucharist, but admits that the precise
form in which this mystery ought to be expressed is a matter on which very
diverse opinions have been held by good men. Enough, however, for the mass of
Christians that the Church prescribes the doctrine and the usages that embody
it, while the refinements of speculation about it may safely be left to the
philosophers. Here and there in many vehement utterances on this subject
Erasmus lays dawn the principle, quite unworthy of his genius and his position
of influence: that a man may properly have two opinions on religious subjects,
one for himself and his intimate friends and another for the public. The
anti-sacamentatians, headed by OEcolampadius of Basel, were, as Erasmus says,
quoting him as holding views about the Eucharist quite similar to their own. He
denies this with great heat, but in his denial betrays the fact that he had in
private conversation gone rust as far toward a rational view of the doctrine of
the Eucharist as he could without a positive formulation in words. Naturally
here, as in the case of free will, he could not command the approval of the
Church he was trying to placate. Thus, as the visible outcome of his
reformatory activities Erasmus found himself at the close of his life at odds
with both the great parties.
His last years were embittered
by controversies with men toward whom be was drawn by many ties of taste and
sympathy. Notable among them was his passage at arms with Ulrich von Hutten, a
brilliant, but erratic genius, who had thrown himself with all his heart into
the Lutheran cause and had declared that Erasmus, if he had a spark of honesty
about him, would do the same. In his reply, Spongia adversus aspergines
Hutteni (1523), he displays, better than almost anywhere else, his skill
in twisting words and phrases to suit the purpose of the moment. He accuses
Hutton of having misinterpreted his utterances about reform and reiterates his
determination never to take sides in the division of parties. When the city of
Basel was definitely and officially " reformed " in 1529, Erasmus gave up his
residence there and settled in the imperial town of Freiburg-im-Breiagau. It
would seem as if he found it easier to maintain his neutrality under Roman
Catholic than under Protestant conditions. His literary activity continued
without much abatement, chiefly on the lines of religious and didactic
composition. The most important work of this last period is the
Ecclesiastes or "Gospel Preacher" (Basel, 1535), in which he brings
out the function of preaching as the most important office of the Christian
priest, an emphasis which shows how essentially Protestant his inner thought of
Christianity was. The same impression comes from his little tract of 1533 on
"Preparation for Death," in which the emphasis throughout is on the importance
of a good life as the essential condition of a happy death. For unknown reasons
Erasmus found himself drawn once more to the happiest of his homes, at Basel,
and returned thither in 1535 after an absence of six years. Here, in the midst
of the group of Protestant scholars who had long been his truest friends, and,
so far as is known, without relations of any sort with the Roman Catholic
Church, he died. So long as he lived he had never been called to account for
his opinions by any official authority of the dominant Church. The attacks upon
him were by private persons, and his protectors had always been men of the
highest standing. After his death, in the zeal of the Roman Catholic reaction,
his writings were honored with a distinguished place on the Index of prohibited
books, and his name has generally had an evil sound in Roman Catholic ears. The
extraordinary popularity of his books, however, has been shown in the immense
number of editions and translations that have appeared from the sixteenth
century until now, and in the undiminished interest excited by his elusive but
fascinating personality. - Ephraim Emerton.
[Ten columns of the catalogue of the library in the British Museum
are taken up with the bare enumeration of the works translated, edited or
annotated by Erasmus, and their subsequent reprints. It is a remarkable
showing. The greatest names of the classical and patristic world are included,
such as Ambrose, Aristotle, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Cicero, and Jerome.]
|
|
