Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1467?–1536) was not asystematic philosopher although we discern in the large body of hiswritings a certain Erasmian habit of mind. He often reflected onsubjects that invite philosophical inquiry: the influence of natureversus nurture, the relationship between word and thing, the idealform of government, the nature of faith, and the theory of knowledge.Erasmus’ views on these subjects are of interest to historianstoday, even if they are unstructured, because his works circulatedwidely and his influence in Northern Europe was pervasive. In modernparlance, he was an opinion maker. If a general label is needed,Erasmus’ thought is best described as “ChristianHumanism”, that is, a philosophy of life combining Christianthought with classical traditions. He embraced the humanistic beliefin an individual’s capacity for self-improvement and thefundamental role of education in raising human beings above the levelof brute animals. The thrust of Erasmus’ educational programmewas the promotion of docta pietas, learned piety, or what hetermed the “philosophy of Christ”. As a biblical scholarhe supported the humanistic call Ad fontes, a return to thetexts in the original language and therefore promoted the study of thebiblical languages Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. He was in the vanguard ofmodern philology. His pioneering edition of the Greek New Testamentshows that he had an understanding of the process of textualtransmission and had developed text-critical principles. In politics,Erasmus embraced consensus, compromise, and peaceful cooperation,ideals he recommended to the participants in the Reformation debate,albeit with little success. Considered a forerunner of the Reformationby his contemporaries, he broke with Martin Luther over thelatter’s sectarianism. More fundamentally, the two men disagreedover heuristics and engaged in a polemic over the question of freewill. Erasmus took a skeptical position vis-à-visLuther’s assertions. Unlike the reformer, he did not believe inthe clarity of Scripture and used consensus and tradition as criteriato settle questions that did not allow a rational conclusion. Erasmusrarely ventured into doctrinal questions, however, favoring simplefaith and devotion over dialectics and scholastic speculation. Thecirculation of Erasmus’ works was temporarily curtailed when theCatholic Church put them on the Index of Forbidden Books, but hisideas saw a revival during the Enlightenment when he was regarded as aforerunner of rationalism. His most famous work, The Praise ofFolly, has remained in print to the present day, a distinctionshared by few books from the 16^th century.

• Erasmus De Copia Pdf Para
• Erasmus De Copia Pdf En
• Erasmus De Copia Pdf Download

• Bibliography

Collected Works Of Erasmus Vol 24 Collected Works Of Erasmus Vol 24 by Desiderius Erasmus. Download it Collected Works Of Erasmus Vol 24 books also available in PDF, EPUB, and Mobi Format for read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Click Get Books for free books. Collected Works Of Erasmus. Desiderius Erasmus concerning the aim and method of education by Woodward, William Harrison, 1856-1941. Publication date 1904 Topics Erasmus, Desiderius, d. 1536, Education - History. Download 1 file. SCRIBE SCANDATA ZIP download. Download 1 file. Erasmus Roterodamus Ioanni Coleto, Decano Sancti Pauli Apud Londinium S.D. 2 Erasmus Roterodamus Matthiae Schurerio Stlezestano S.D. 3 DE VERBORVM COPIA COMMENTARIVS PRIMVS. 3.1 PERICVLOSAM ESSE COPIAE AFFECTATIONEM. On copia of words and ideas (De utraque verborem sic ac rerum copia) by Erasmus, Desiderius, d. 14 day loan required to access EPUB and PDF files. ERASMUS CHARTER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2014 The European Commission hereby awards this Charter to: INS SANTA COLOMA DE FARNERS -2020 The Institution undertakes to respect the following principles: Respect in full the pnnctples of non discrtmtnatton set out tn the Programme and ensure equal access.

1. Life and Works

Erasmus was born in Rotterdam on 27 October 1467 (?) as theillegitimate son of a priest. He attended a school at Deventer whichwas regarded as progressive and had capable teachers who introducedErasmus to “something of a higher standard of literature”(CWE 4: 405). Orphaned in 1483,he came into the care of guardians who sent him to a school run by theBrethren of the Common Life in the spirit of the Devotio Moderna.Since Erasmus’ inheritance was small, his guardians persuadedhim to enter the monastery of the Augustinian Canons Regular at Steyn.He was ordained priest in 1492.

In later years Erasmus alleged that he had been pressured into takingthe vows. His misgivings found expression in one of his first works,De Contemptu Mundi (On disdaining the World, written in the1490s, published 1521). Ostensibly a praise of monastic life, it beganby recommending seclusion and withdrawal from the world but ended in alament about the decline of monasticism and a warning to postulantsnot to take the vows rashly. Erasmus himself discovered that he wasconstitutionally and psychologically unsuited to the monastic life. Hewould have preferred to go to university. In 1495 he saw a chance torealize this goal when Bishop Hendrik of Bergen sent him to theCollège de Montaigu in Paris and promised him financialsupport. It is uncertain how much, if any, theological trainingErasmus received during his brief stay at the college. In any case, hedid not find the Parisian brand of theology to his liking, declaringthat scholasticism “repelled him” (CWE 4: 408).Whenthe promised financial supportdid not materialize, Erasmus left the college, then renowned for itsstrict discipline and harsh living conditions, and supported himselfby tutoring well-to-do young men. This experience produced a number ofeducational handbooks and aids, among them De EpistolisConscribendis, a letter-writing manual (1522); De Copia,a handbook of style (1502); Colloquia, a collection ofdialogues meant to teach correct Latin (1518), and the Adagia, an anthology of proverbs to be used as rhetorical tools to embellishstyle (1500). All of these books saw multiple editions, some of themexpanded and given a larger purpose. Thus some of the proverbsprovided starting points for essays, and many of the colloquieslikewise became opinion pieces on issues of the day.

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

Over the next two decades Erasmus traveled extensively. He returned toFrance for a time, made two more journeys to England, and traveled toItaly where he obtained a doctorate in theology at the University ofTurin. In 1517 he finally settled in Leuven. By that time he had madea name for himself. He had published a number of bestsellers: thewitty satire Encomium Moriae (The Praise of Folly, 1511);the Adagia, which he enriched and expanded to more than 5000proverbs; and the devotional Enchiridion Militis Christiani(Handbook of the Christian Soldier, 1503). In 1516, he published hismagnum opus, an edition of the Greek New Testament, the firstto reach the market. It anticipated the ComplutensianPolyglot, which was already in print but still awaiting the papalimprimatur. Thus Erasmus found success in four different genres:literature, education, religion, and theology. In a catalogue hepublished in 1523, Erasmus arranged his writings under nine headings:works furthering language arts, that is, literary and educationalwritings; his collection of adages; his correspondence; worksfurthering moral education (he noted that their content overlappedwith works in the first category); works promoting piety; theannotated edition of the New Testament; paraphrases on the NewTestament; polemics; and editions and translations of patristic works.

While Erasmus was revered among humanists, his biblical scholarshipsoon came under attack from theologians. They refused to acknowledgehim as a colleague and derided his doctorate, which had been grantedper saltum, that is, without fulfilling the residencerequirements or passing the usual examinations. In their eyes, Erasmuswas merely a “theologizing humanist”, as the prominentParis theologian Noël Beda put it (Prefaceto Annotations 1526). Erasmus was not the firsthumanist to treat the New Testament in a text-critical fashion and tocompare the Latin Vulgate with the Greek original, although none ofhis predecessors had dared to use their findings to publish an amendededition of the text. Erasmushad discovered a manuscript of Lorenzo Valla’s annotations onthe New Testament and originally planned to publish notes of a similarnature, that is, observations of errors, discrepancies, andmistranslations. He expanded the scope of his project on the urging ofhis publisher, Johann Froben, and rather hastily assembled a textbased on the biblical manuscripts he had been able to consult. In theresulting edition, the Greek text was faced by a lightly amendedVulgate, with Erasmus’ editorial changes explained inannotations following the text. The reception of the edition varied.Humanists generally praised it as an exceptional achievement; aconsiderable number of theologians disapproved of it and not onlyimpugned Erasmus’ scholarship but also questioned his orthodoxy.Their attacks must be seen in the context of Luther’scoincidental rise to prominence and the resulting religious debatewhich cast a long shadow over state and church and over society atlarge. Erasmus’ move from Leuven to Basel in 1521 was partlymotivated by a desire to escape the hostile climate at the Universityof Leuven, but his opponents were not limited to the Low Countries. Hehad critics in Italy and was formally investigated by ecclesiasticalauthorities in Spain and in France. In 1531the prestigious faculty oftheology at the University of Paris publicly censured and condemnednumerous passages in his works as unorthodox. Erasmus responded to hiscritics with lengthy polemics, which fill two folio volumes in theLeiden Opera Omnia. He also published four revised editionsof his New Testament (1519, 1522, 1527, 1531) with corrections andexpanded notes.

Critics of Erasmus’ New Testament edition accused him ofintroducing changes to a sacred text and thus challenging theprinciple of inspiration. Erasmus denied these charges. On thecontrary, he said, his edition restored the original text andcorrected the errors introduced by translators and scribes.Theologians questioned Erasmus’ qualifications to tackle HolyWrit, but he insisted that editing and textual criticism did notrequire a degree in theology. They were the tasks proper ofphilologists. The prefaces he added to successive editions of the NewTestament attempted to clarify his aims and methods. He somewhatingenuously claimed that he was only doing philological workand ignored the fact that a change in words frequently also shiftedthe meaning. Indeed, some of his critics acknowledged the usefulnessof his work, but took issue with specific editorial choices. Thus theyprotested against Erasmus replacing the traditional poenitentiamagite (do penance) at Matt. 3:2 with poeniteat vos(repent), in which they saw a Lutheran slant. There was an uproar alsoabout his omission of the so-called Comma Johanneum at I John 5:7, oneof the proofs for the divine trinity, for which Erasmus had found noevidence in the Greek manuscripts or support in the Fathers. Thebiblical commentaries of the Church Fathers and their quotations fromthe bible were important sources for Erasmus in establishing the textof the New Testament. He read widely and published numerous editionsand translations of patristic writings, among them Jerome, Augustine,Chrysostom, and Origen, and in many cases established the firstreliable critical text of their works.

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

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

2. Methodology

During his lifetime Erasmus’ name became synonymous withhumanism, a label also adopted in modern reference works. Today theterm “humanist” has a broad range of meanings. In the16^th century the word denoted a student or teacher of thestudia humanitatis, a curriculum focusing on the study ofclassical languages, rhetoric, and literature. At northernuniversities, where scholasticism and the dialectical method reignedsupreme, the trend-setting humanists were regarded as challengers ofthe status quo. The defenders of tradition belittled their competitorsas “grammarians” and dismissed the humanities aspoetria, the stuff of poetry. To a certain extent, thetensions between the two schools of thought may be explained in termsof professional jealousy, but at its core was the dispute overmethodology and qualifications. Humanists favored rhetoricalarguments; scholastics insisted on logical proof. Scholastictheologians in particular regarded the humanists as dangerousinterlopers. They questioned their orthodoxy because of theirinclination to use the skeptical ars dubitandi and deniedtheir right to apply philological principles to the biblical text.Scripture, they insisted, was the exclusive domain of graduatetheologians. Humanists in turn saw the dialectical method used by thescholastics as a perversion of Aristotelian logic and derided theirtechnical terminology as a corruption of the Latin language. In thePraise of Folly Erasmus lampooned scholastic theologians in apassage that became notorious:

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

On a more serious note, he voiced two objections against thedialectical disputations of the theologians: “The portentiousfilth of their barbarous and artificial style” obscured themeaning (CWE 3: 124), and theirargumentation lacked a moral dimension. Scholastic disputations honedintellectual skills but failed to make better Christians of theprotagonists. “We are not training pugilists; we are trainingtheologians”, Erasmus says in his Methodus, “andtheologians who will demonstrate what they profess in the way theylive rather than in syllogisms” (Holborn: 161).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, he substitutes for the Academic criterion ofprobability, the criteria of Christian tradition and consensus.

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

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

3. Educational Philosophy

Erasmus earned his living as a teacher for only a few years, buteducation remained a lifelong interest and a central theme in hiswritings. Erasmus expressed confidence in the potential of humanbeings for self-improvement, a corollary of his acceptance of freewill. He believed in the preponderance of nurture over nature, giventhe power of the will. It was therefore the duty of parents andteachers to ensure that children fulfilled their potential and ofadults to live up to it. “What is man’s realnature?” Erasmus asks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Philosophy of Language

The formation and correct use of language was a primary concern forErasmus. He wrote several works that would seem to provide a startingpoint for a philosophy of language. Indeed, he devoted a treatise tothe subject of language (De Lingua, The Tongue, 1525), but nosystematic thought on the nature, origin, or function of languageemerges from this tractate. We find only isolated comments about therelationship between words and things, for example, the statement thatthings were intelligible only through words, “by the sounds weattach to them”. A person who did not understand the force ofwords was “short-sighted, deluded, and unbalanced in hisjudgment of things as well” (CWE 24: 666). The treatise DeRecta Pronuntiatione (The Right Way of Speaking, 1528) containsanother stand-alone pronouncement. Citing the ancient physician Galen,Erasmus declares that language (oratio), rather than reason(ratio), was the distinguishing mark of human beings (CWE 26:369). A promising statement in De Ratione Studii likewiseremains without follow-up. “In principle, knowledge as a wholeseems to be of two kinds, of things and of words”, Erasmusstates. “Knowledge of words comes earlier, but that of things isthe more important” (CWE 24: 666). These words appear tointroduce a theory resembling the duality of word/thing developed inPlato’s Cratylus or Aristotle’sMetaphysics, but turn out to be only an organizationalprinciple indicating to readers that Erasmus will talk first oflanguage, then of content.

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

Similarly, Erasmus’ comments on the function of language as ameans of communication appear significant at first sight. In theLingua, for example, he says: “The tongue was given tomen so that by its agency as messenger one man might know the mind andintention of another” (CWE 29: 314). He also acknowledges thecommunicative function in the Paraclesis, one of the prefacesto his New Testament edition: “For in general our dailyconversations reveal what we are. Let each one comprehend what he can,let him express what he can” (LB V: 140C). Here as elsewhereErasmus does not elaborate on his thoughts. His statements on thenature of words and their relationship to things remain undevelopedand fall short of a philosophy of language.

5. Political Thought

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Pietas and Philosophia Christi

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

The main sources for Erasmus’ concepts of piety and thephilosophy centered on Christ are his Enchiridion MilitisChristiani (Handbook of the Christian Soldier, 1503) with itsprefatory letter to the 1518 edition (Ep. 858; CWE 6),the Paraclesis(Summons, 1516) and, perhaps surprisingly, his lampoon ofhuman foibles, Moriae Encomium (The Praise of Folly, 1511).As he said in reply to indignant critics of his famous jeud’ésprit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some scholars have associated Erasmus’ dualism with Platonicphilosophy, although it is more readily explained as a Christianprinciple and more specifically as Pauline teaching, which Erasmusdiscusses at length in the Enchiridion. He does quote Platoas well, but then it is his habit to cite classical sources in orderto give a historical and pan-cultural dimension to Christian values.Indeed he drew on a number of models, both pagan and Christian, todescribe human nature. Thus he also introduced the concept of athree-fold division—body, soul, and spirit—an idea forwhich he cited Origen. Scholars have also pointed to the Stoicunderpinnings found in Erasmus’ thoughts on pietas andeven argued that he consciously embraced the Stoic concept of thesimultaneous working of two opposite but equally essential types ofvalue: spirit and instinct. In addition, one may point to a chapter inDisdaining the World in which Erasmus speaks of the spiritualpleasures of the solitary life, calling its rationale“Epicurean” (CWE 66: 165). In the Enchiridion,however, Erasmus makes it clear that he does not privilege onephilosophy over another. Rather he deliberately presents variousconcepts of human nature by way of offering a survey of philosophicalpositions. He “provided a mass of material” (CWE 66: 54),illustrating in a general way the superiority of spiritual overmaterial concerns. His message to the reader was: You should be ableto master as a Christian and for the love of God “what paganphilosophers did not find hard…for the sake of learning orreputation” (CWE 66: 142).

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

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

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

The Erasmian concept of piety was “principled rather thanprescriptive” (as O’Malley puts it, CWE 66: xix). It isironic (and perhaps meant ironically) that Erasmus chose to presenthis counsel in the form of twenty-two rules since his overall messageis that there are no fixed rules and no need for definitions andpronouncements. These are the hallmark of institutional theology,whereas the philosophy of Christ does not require formal training orattendance at university. It is open to anyone. “All can bedevout, and—I shall boldly add—all can betheologians” (Olin: 104). Every Christian must study the bible,however, Erasmus says.

I wish that even the lowliest women read the gospels and the PaulineEpistles. And I would that they were translated into all languages sothat they could be read and understood not only by Scots and Irish,but also by Turks and Saracens…Would that, as a result, thefarmer sing some portion of them at the plow, the weaver hum someparts of them to the movement of his shuttle, the traveler lighten theweariness of the journey with stories from this source. (Olin:101)

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

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

Embrace what you are allowed to perceive; venerate from afar what youare not allowed to perceive, and look in awe and with simple faith onwhatever it is that is concealed from you. Keep far away fromimpia curiositas,

he counsels students of theology in the Ratio (Holborn: 180).For Erasmus, St. Jerome is the embodiment of docta pietas. Inhis Life of Jerome (which prefaces his edition of the worksof the Church Father, 1516), he depicted him as the Christian scholarpar excellence, combining Ciceronian eloquence with athorough understanding of theology and a devout spirit with a holylife.

In the Paraclesis Erasmus distinguished the simple philosophyof Christ from that of Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophicalwriters of antiquity, pointing out that the gospel provided the onlycertain doctrine and Christ was the only true teacher (Olin: 99, 102).For Erasmus learning and knowledge were qualities that had no valueunless they centered on Christ and contributed to an understanding ofthe philosophia Christi. Even language studies, which formedthe core of his curriculum proposal, had to be subordinated to thatgoal. He wished for an eloquence

which not only captivates the ear with its fleeting delight but whichleaves a lasting sting in the minds of its hearers, which grips, whichtransforms, which sends away a far different listener than it hadreceived. (Olin: 98)

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

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

Erasmus was a prolific writer. His works were translated into thevernacular and circulated widely. His ideas had a strong impact thatcan be traced into the modern age. Even in his own time, the term“Erasmian” denoted a certain set of values. In 1530, theLeuven theologian Frans Titelmans noted that enthusiasts of humanisticstudies were called “Erasmians” because Erasmus was theirchief inspiration (1530, Ei verso–Eii recto). His contemporary,the Swiss chronicler Johann Kessler, declared that “whatever isskilled, polished, learned, and wise is calledErasmian” (1523–1539, 87). It wasclassical learning and eloquence that defined Erasmus in his own time.In the Age of Enlightenment he was celebrated as a rationalist, animage that held into the 20^th century. Wilhelm Dilthey, forexample, called Erasmus the Voltaire of the 16^thcentury (GS II, 74). The emphasis shiftedin the 20^th century, when Erasmus’ irenicism caughtreaders’ attention. Thus José Chapiro (1950) dedicatedhis translation of The Complaint of Peace to the UnitedNations, and Erasmus’ biographer Johan Huizinga identified“Erasmian” with “gentleness, kindliness, andmoderation” (1912 [1957], 194). In 1999, Ralf Dahrendorfdefined Erasmus-Menschen as people guided by reason andavoiding the pitfalls of political extremism. Their hallmark wascompassion and tolerance. In contemporary usage, then,“Erasmian” has come to denote a liberal thinker, anattitude or modus vivendi rather than a school ofphilosophy.

Bibliography

Erasmus’ Works

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

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

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

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

• Ferguson, Wallace K. (ed.), Erasmi Opuscula. A Supplement tothe Opera Omnia, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1933.
• [Holborn] Holborn, Hajo and Annemarie Holborn (eds.),Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: Ausgewählte Werke,Munich: Beck, 1933.
• [Olin] Olin, John C. (ed.), Christian Humanism and theReformation: Selected Writings of Erasmus, third edition, NewYork: Fordham University Press, 1987.
• Reeve, Anne and M. A. Screech (eds.), Erasmus’Annotations on the New Testament, 3 vols, Vol. 1, London: Duckworth,1986; Vol. 2–3, Leiden: Brill, 1990–1993.

Other Primary Works

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

Biographies

• Augustijn, Cornelis, 1991, Erasmus: His Life, Works, andInfluence (Erasmus von Rotterdam: Leben, Werk, Wirkung),J.C. Grayson (trans.), Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Originalpublished in 1986.
• Christ von Wedel, Christine, 2003, Erasmus von Rotterdam:Anwalt eines neuzeitlichen Christentums, Münster: LIT.
• Halkin, Léon-Ernest, 1993, Erasmus: A CriticalBiography (Erasme parmi nous), John Tonkin (trans.),Oxford: Blackwell. Original published 1987.
• Huizinga, Johan, 1912 [1957], Erasmus and the Age ofReformation, F. Hopman (trans.), New York: Harper.
• Margolin, Jean-Claude, 1995, Erasme, precepteur del’Europe, Paris: Editions Juillard.
• McConica, James K., 1991, Erasmus, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
• Rummel, Erika, 2004, Erasmus, London: ContinuumPress.
• Schoeck, Richard J., 1990–1993, Erasmus of Europe,Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • 1990, Vol. 1: The Making of a Humanist, 1467–1500
  • 1993, Vol. 2: The Prince of Humanists,1501–1536
• Tracy, James D., 1972, Erasmus: The Growth of a Mind,(Travaux d'humanisme et Renaissance, 126), Geneva: Droz.

Secondary Works

• Bejczy, Istvan, 2001, Erasmus and the Middle Ages: TheHistorical Consciousness of a Christian Humanist, Leiden:Brill.
• Bené, Charles, 1969, Erasme et Saint Augustin, oul’Influence de Saint Augustin sur l’humanismed’Erasme, Geneva: Droz,
• Bentley, Jerry H., 1983, Humanists and Holy Writ: NewTestament Scholarship in the Renaissance, Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.
• Bierlaire, Franz, 1978, Les colloques d’Erasme:réforme des études, réforme des moeurs etréforme de l’Eglise au XVIe siècle, Paris:Les Belles Lettres.
• Bietenholz, Peter, 2009, Encounters With a Radical Erasmus:Erasmus’ Work as a Source of Radical Thought in Early ModernEurope, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• Boyle, Marjorie O’Rourke, 1977, Erasmus on Language andMethod in Theology, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• –––, 1981, Christening Pagan Mysteries:Erasmus in Pursuit of Wisdom, Toronto: University of TorontoPress.
• –––, 1983, Rhetoric and Reform:Erasmus’ Civil Dispute with Luther, Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
• Chantraine, George, 1971, “Mystère” et“Philosophie du Christ” selon Erasme, Gembloux:Editions J. Duculot.
• Chapiro, José, 1950, Erasmus and Our Struggle ForPeace, Boston: Beacon Press.
• Christ von Wedel, Christine, 1981, Das Nichtwissen bei Erasmusvon Rotterdam: Zum philosophischen und theologischen Erkennen in dergeistigen Entwicklung eines christlichen Humanisten, Basel:Helbing & Lichtenhan.
• Dahrendorf, Ralf, “Erasmus-Menschen”, Merkur,Deutsche Zeitschrift für europäisches Denken 53:1063–1071.
• Dealy, Ross, 2017, The Stoic Origins of Erasmus’Philosophy of Christ, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• De Molen, Richard, 1987, The Spirituality of Erasmus,Nieuwkoop: De Graaf.
• Dodds, Gregory , 2009, Exploiting Erasmus: The Erasmian Legacyand Religious Chance in Early Modern England, Toronto: Universityof Toronto Press.
• Gordon, Walter M., 1990, Humanist Play and Belief: TheSeriocomic Art of Desiderius Erasmus, Toronto: University ofToronto Press.
• Herwaarden, Jan van, 2003, Between Saint James and Erasmus.Studies in late-medieval religious life: Devotion and Pilgrimage inthe Netherlands, (Studies in medieval and Reformation thought,97), Wendie Schaffter and Donald Gardner (trans.), Leiden: Brill.
• Hoffmann, Manfred, 1994, Rhetoric and Theology: TheHermeneutic of Erasmus, Toronto: University of TorontoPress.
• Kerlen, Dietrich, 1976, Assertio: Die Entwicklung von Lutherstheologischem Anspruch und der Streit mit Erasmus von Rotterdam,Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
• Koerber, Eberhard von, 1967, Die Staatstheorie des Erasmus vonRotterdam, Berlin: Duncker & Humbolt.
• Kohls, Ernst–Wilhelm, 1966, Die Theologie desErasmus, 2 vols., Basel: F. Reinhardt.
• Mansfield, Bruce, 2003, Erasmus in the Twentieth Century:Interpretations c. 1920–2000, Toronto: University ofToronto Press.
• Massaut, Pierre (ed.), 1987, Colloque Erasmien deLiège, Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
• Monfasani, John, 2012, “Erasmus and the Philosophers”,Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook (now ErasmusStudies), 32: 47–68. doi:10.1163/18749275-00000005
• Nauert, Charles G., 2006, Humanism and the Culture ofRenaissance Europe, 2^nd edition, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
• Pabel, M. Hilmar (ed.), 1995, Erasmus’ Vision of theChurch, Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers.
• Pavlovskis, Zoja, 1983, The Praise of Folly: Structure andIrony, Leiden: Brill.
• Quinones, Ricardo, 2007, Dualisms: The Agons of the ModernWorld, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• Rabil, Albert, 1972, Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mindof a Christian Humanist, San Antonio: Trinity UniversityPress.
• Remer, Gary, 1996, Humanism and the Rhetoric ofToleration, University Park: Pennsylvania State UniversityPress.
• Rummel, Erika, 1995, The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in theRenaissance and Reformation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
• –––, 2000, The Confessionalization ofHumanism in Reformation Germany, New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
• Ryle, Stephen (ed.), 2014, Erasmus and the RenaissanceRepublic of Letters, Turnhout: Brepols.doi:10.1484/M.DISPUT-EB.5.105977
• Thompson, Geraldine, 1973, Under Pretext of Praise: SatiricMode in Erasmus’ Fiction, Toronto: University of TorontoPress.
• Tracy, James D., 1978, The Politics of Erasmus: A PacifistIntellectual and His Political Milieu, Toronto: University ofToronto Press.
• Trapman, Hans, Jan van Herwaarden and Adrie van der Laan (eds.),2010, Erasmus Politicus: Erasmus and Political Thought,Leiden: Brill.
• Vance, Jacob, 2014, Secrets: Humanism, Mysticism, andEvangelism in Erasmus of Rotterdam, Bishop Guillaume Briçonnet,and Marguerite de Navarre, Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004281257
• Walter, Peter, 1991, Theologie aus dem Geist der Rhetorik zurSchriftauslegung des Erasmus von Rotterdam, Mainz:Mathias-Grünewald-Verlag.
• Woodward, William, 1904 [1971], . Desiderius ErasmusConcerning the Aim and Method of Education, First published in1904, most recent reprint: New York: B. Franklin.

Erasmus De Copia Pdf Para

Academic Tools

Other Internet Resources

• Nauert, Charles, “Desiderius Erasmus”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/erasmus/>. [This was the previous entry on Erasmus in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — see the version history.]
• Erasmus Center for Early Modern Studies, a joint initiative of Erasmus University Rotterdam and Rotterdam CityLibrary.

Erasmus De Copia Pdf En

Related Entries

Erasmus De Copia Pdf Download

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

Copyright © 2017 by
Erika Rummel<erika.rummel@utoronto.ca>