1geoffreymeadows
I’m glad I went back and picked up Huizinga’s, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation. This popular biography was originally written in 1924, so it’s very old. I read a reissued edition of 2002 which also includes some letters of Erasmus. Huizinga died in 1945.
Huizinga is more critical of Erasmus than Augustijn (the other biography I read, Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence), and he offers some cutting criticism. For one, he calls Erasmus “weak” and accuses him of “weakness”. While Luther obviously confronted the powers-that-be of his time, and did that quite vigorously, Erasmus kept aloof. Huizinga thinks Erasmus’ weakness was “… the study of a recluse bending over his books,” which, “did more than anything else to prevent Erasmus from understanding the true nature and purport of the Reformation.” (p. 138). It may be that Erasmus did not even read Luther’s most important writings until well after they were published. According to Huizinga, Erasmus thought the conservative reaction to the Reformation was about resistance to learning. There was much more to it than that, and Erasmus never faced up to the singular issues of his day.
Having said that though, I have some reservations about getting rid of Erasmus so easily. Not everyone has the ability, as Luther certainly did, of calling forth inner powers and confronting all the evil of one’s own age. Erasmus did confront evil, but when he did so it was as if behind a veil of language and learning. In fact, this is another of Huizinga’s criticisms of Erasmus. (p. 43) But must Erasmus be judged solely by this standard? Erasmus towards the latter part of his life says, “The essentials of our religion are peace and equanimity. These can hardly exist unless we make definitions about as few points as possible and leave many questions to individual judgement.” (p. 116) Elsewhere he says, “Let us resist not by taunts and threats, not by force of arms and injustice, but by simple discretion, by benefits, by gentleness and tolerance.” (p.152) This almost turns Huizinga’s criticism on its head. In my view, “gentleness” is not always the same thing as “weakness”. Erasmus and Luther were likely after two different things.
In the end, Erasmus remained a Catholic while Luther did not. Erasmus writes to Luther during the freedom of the will controversy in 1526, “I have never been an apostate from the Catholic Church. I know that in this Church, which you call the Papist Church, there are many who displease me, but such I also see in your Church. One bears more easily the evils to which one is accustomed. Therefore I bear with this Church, until I shall see a better, and it cannot help bearing with me, until I shall myself be better. And he does not sail badly who steers a middle course between two several evils.” (p. 165)
I was glad to read this book because it gave me a feeling for the reality of Erasmus, the man - both good and bad. Even the criticism of Erasmus’ weakness has its place, if taken as part of a more holistic view of him.
Huizinga is more critical of Erasmus than Augustijn (the other biography I read, Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence), and he offers some cutting criticism. For one, he calls Erasmus “weak” and accuses him of “weakness”. While Luther obviously confronted the powers-that-be of his time, and did that quite vigorously, Erasmus kept aloof. Huizinga thinks Erasmus’ weakness was “… the study of a recluse bending over his books,” which, “did more than anything else to prevent Erasmus from understanding the true nature and purport of the Reformation.” (p. 138). It may be that Erasmus did not even read Luther’s most important writings until well after they were published. According to Huizinga, Erasmus thought the conservative reaction to the Reformation was about resistance to learning. There was much more to it than that, and Erasmus never faced up to the singular issues of his day.
Having said that though, I have some reservations about getting rid of Erasmus so easily. Not everyone has the ability, as Luther certainly did, of calling forth inner powers and confronting all the evil of one’s own age. Erasmus did confront evil, but when he did so it was as if behind a veil of language and learning. In fact, this is another of Huizinga’s criticisms of Erasmus. (p. 43) But must Erasmus be judged solely by this standard? Erasmus towards the latter part of his life says, “The essentials of our religion are peace and equanimity. These can hardly exist unless we make definitions about as few points as possible and leave many questions to individual judgement.” (p. 116) Elsewhere he says, “Let us resist not by taunts and threats, not by force of arms and injustice, but by simple discretion, by benefits, by gentleness and tolerance.” (p.152) This almost turns Huizinga’s criticism on its head. In my view, “gentleness” is not always the same thing as “weakness”. Erasmus and Luther were likely after two different things.
In the end, Erasmus remained a Catholic while Luther did not. Erasmus writes to Luther during the freedom of the will controversy in 1526, “I have never been an apostate from the Catholic Church. I know that in this Church, which you call the Papist Church, there are many who displease me, but such I also see in your Church. One bears more easily the evils to which one is accustomed. Therefore I bear with this Church, until I shall see a better, and it cannot help bearing with me, until I shall myself be better. And he does not sail badly who steers a middle course between two several evils.” (p. 165)
I was glad to read this book because it gave me a feeling for the reality of Erasmus, the man - both good and bad. Even the criticism of Erasmus’ weakness has its place, if taken as part of a more holistic view of him.
