Jump to content

Talk:Erasmus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Edits by Joceyln1600 (and POV)

Opinions on the edits of Jocelyn1600, anyone? (You can see the diff here: [4])

I enquire, as a number of the edits result in significant changing of some of the facts without references. For example, prior to their edits, part of the article read:

"The Catholic Counter-Reformation movement often condemned Erasmus as being worse than Luther himself, and as having "laid the egg that hatched the Reformation.""

After their edits, it read:

"The Catholic Counter-Reformation movement was often condemned by Erasmus as having "laid the egg that hatched the Reformation.""

In addition, I feel their edits to the article adds a distinct fundamentalist (and anti-Catholic) POV. (See, for example, their commentary to the last paragraph on his writings.) I don't wish to just revert the article (as was done to their edits to Textus Receptus and Comma Johanneum), as I am not an Erasmus scholar, however their edits (given both their changing of the meaning of lines, as well as the reverting of their other edits in articles related to the subject) seem questionable to me. Opinions? 156.34.221.174 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Counter-Reformation is generally considered a response to criticisms of the Catholic Church made during the Protestant Reformation. Which came first: the Reformation or the egg? Kineticman 03:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that they got the causality backwards. The Counter-Reformation started after Erasmus had died in 1536. Ergo, it was the Counter-Reformation that condemned Erasmus (which it definitely did), not the other way around.66.82.9.76 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

On the general question of Erasmus' position vis-a-vis Protestant versus Catholic, the answer is tricky, because Erasmus refused to take sides. His comment here is useful (and I'll probably botch the quote, but the sense is correct): "There is nothing I congratulate myself more heartily for than never having joined a sect." Nevertheless, when push came to shove, Erasmus declared his loyalty to the Catholic Church. I think he's best characterized as a ferocious but loyal critic of the Church.66.82.9.76 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Julius Exclusus e Coelo

Deleted this part.

  • "In 1516, Erasmus anonymously published a satiric dialogue, Julius Exclusus, in which Pope Julius II is turned away from the gates of Heaven by St. Peter."
    • This is heavily disputed by scholars: see James D. Tracy, "Erasmus Becomes a German", Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3, (Autumn, 1968). This highlights that while he does claim to have a copy of the text in 1516 he later writes to Thomas More that it was not he who wrote it. (ie. that he knew of it and may even have helped to have it published but it is not necessarily his work) Jezze 23:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Footnote

The quote about Erasmus's young man, "I have wooed you ..." has a source note leading us to Duke University Press. First, I would like to read the work referenced, and second, someone else might want to, too. Whether the Duke online archive doesn't go deep enough (1994?), or ... for some other reason, I could not find the work directly. Before I resort to a snail mail inquiry, and another hour or day of online searching, could the contributor of this reference confirm the source, or show readers a better or longer trail? This is too delicious to be unavaiilable!

Lodgepole 16:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote is originally by way of the Collected Works of Erasmus, (University of Toronto translation) and I've changed the reference. Any Amazon or ABE book search will provide secondhand copies of the Duke book, while online Google Books allows limited viewing of a couple of pages, and eNotes the complete text for a fee. If you can't find it in a library near you, the correspondence of Erasmus will certainly be available, and will contain the referenced letter. Here's a fuller quote of that particular letter for you:

"So impossible is it, dear Servatius, that anything should suffice to wash away the cares of my spirit and cheer my heart when I am deprived of you, and you alone...But you, crueller than any tigress, can easily dissemble all this as if you had no care for your friend's well-being at all. Ah, heartless spirit! Alas, unnatural man!...But you yourself are surely aware what it is I beg of you, inasmuch as it was not for the sake of reward or out of a desire for any favour that I have wooed you both unhappily and relentlessly. What is it then? Why, that you love him who loves you."

Other letter passages are even more pleading and stick-a-sock-in-it pathetic: "...if I cannot acquire from you that friendship which hereafter I would most heartily desire, I request that at least the common intercourse of every day should exist between us. But if you think I should be denied this also, there is no reason for me to wish to live further."

In other words, NOT a happy bunny. And no, I wouldn't incorporate any more of the letter into main article. The existing phrase is sufficient to make its point, and for people to make their own assumptions based on their own point of view. As the letters are still considered an embarrassment by some scholars, or are dismissed as merely more examples of Erasmus's epistolary exercises, any further quotations are only likely to incite an edit war. (The letters are clearly written to be manipulative, but to consider them as as exercises is a huge stretch IMHO given the genuine emotion that seems to break through). An extreme example of how distressing some people find the issue of even a simple youthful infatuation can be seen here: <a href="http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Erasmus_the_Hero/Not_Gay/Erasmus_was_not_gay.html">LINK</a>

Engleham 24 August 2006

Subheadings

It seems that some of the sections of the article have grown quite large without any subheadings; I am going to try adding some. Someone invested in the page is more than welcome to work over the scheme I devise-- the 'history' section is just huge without any subheads. --Matthew K 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Birth name

Someone recently removed (and perhaps added) a reference to Erasmus' birth name being Gerrit Gerritszoon. I am just curious if this is relevant or if it does not matter at all whether it is reported here or not. --Matthew K 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the unexplained deletion. Google reveals it to be accurate. --Flex 19:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read Paul Johnson's History of Christianity, which actually bothers to include excerpts from Erasmus' published views: on Luther's alliances with state power; on Erasmus' opposition to Catholic doctrine on important points such as "just war" theory; and more broadly on Erasmus' opposition to the obsession of both the established church and Luther with refinements of theological doctrine. Erasmus very clearly stated on numerous occasions that there are mysteries better left unresolved by theology, but rather approached by individual believers through prayer and contemplation.

The article is grossly misleading in its portrayal of Erasmus as accepting of Church doctrine and practice. It should be either drastically edited by someone with better writing skills than I, or simply removed, as Erasmus is too important a figure (particularly in these times of fundamentalist revival) to be misrepresented or trivialized.

Colloquia redirects to a definition of "colloquium," not an article about Erasmus' Colloquia. --Voskoboinikov 23:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I think it needs expandedBjfcool 13:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does "early leaves" mean "early life"?

Does "early leaves" mean "early life"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.46.151.12 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

That seems to have been changed by someone -- either it was an accident or vandalism. I changed it back to "Early life" the way it was about a month ago. Matthew K 04:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why removed?

I added these works to the article (05:54, 25 March 2007).

The Epistles of Erasmus: from his earliest letters to his fifty-first year arranged in order of time, 2 vols., by Francis Morgan Nichols, Longmans, Green and Co., London, vol.1- 1901 vol.2 - 1904 - The Internet Archive

They were subsequently removed by Stbalbach (00:07, 26 March 2007) who only offered as a reason for doing so this cryptic remark: "suggest author link here with specific books in book articles - internet archive has tons of books by and about erasmus." Could someone please decipher this? These are important primary source works and should be reinstated. Delta x 04:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Need help

I admit that this may be more a query than a correction, but I turned to this page because I knew nothing about Erasmus, and however many times I read the following sentence I cannot for the life of me make it make sense: "Using humanist techniques he prepared pigs for love making to women new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament [...]" Can somebody please explain this to me? The first part of the sentence seems to be suggesting that he was involved in some kind of early bestiality pornography, then the sentence abruptly switches to talking about scripture. I am genuinely baffled. Branfish 17:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you may have come back and seen that someone edited out the piece of bestiality that some gnome placed into the article. This does happen in an open environment. PatPM 06:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC) PatPM

Inaccuracies

According to the introduction, his work "exposed inaccuracies [...] that would be influential in the Reformation". The idea that (percieved) inaccuracies in the Bible contributed to the reformation is wrong, and the idea that inaccuracies in Catholicism were involved in the Reformation is POV. 143.238.23.105 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Leon 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yo I may just be ignorant but whats with the part wher eit says Nipples Mipples Nipples ?

Dutch "Translation" of Praise of Folly

In the main text, when the Praise of Folly is mentioned, a Dutch translation is given in parentheses, i.e. as if the original were in Dutch. The original is in Latin, but has a Greek title, "Moriae Encomium", a pun on his friend More's name. In Latin, the title would be "Stultitiae Laus". --24.128.151.54 02:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually Moriae Encomium is a Greek title with Latin inflexion :). Encomium was frequently used as an equivalent of Laus.Kameal (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

I once heard that Erasmus chosen name was Latinisation variation on his Dutch neem (Gerrit Gerritsen - Gerrit sounds close to the verb (be)geren = desire = desiderius. And something similar for Erasmus. Anyone knows this story, can substantiate it. Would be nice in the trivia section. Arnoutf 10:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Huizinga in Erasmus of Rotterdam says he was baptized as Erasmus (which was a name of popular saint, the one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers ) and later added Latin translation of Erasmus- Desiderius- a desired one Kameal (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Autodidact?

I've been told that Erasmus taught himself Greek because no one in the West could undestand it (or at least, because they were so rare that he couldn't get one to teach him) . Is this true? If so, shouldn't it be in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.118.102.38 (talk) 18:03, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

According to Huizinga, he probably had a teacher, although this is not completely clear. He made a laborious study of it, that much is certain. Iblardi 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Huizinga quotes Erasmus complaining that the only man in Paris who claimed himself to know Greek was actually a total ignorant of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kameal (talk • contribs) 11:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

references

Can someone assist me in listing the reference for the quote I added at the very end of the article. Tried different ways, but none get the job done. Reference is The Low Countries by Eugene Rachlis, Life World Library, pg 145. Thank You--Buster7 (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A reference to that booklet alone is not enough; you should specify from which of Erasmus' writings the text came. Note that his last words were not "Believe God" but "Lieve God", something which is widely known. This constituted a piece of vandalism which you reinstated with your last revert. Iblardi (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Re-instatement of "Lieve God" was inadvertant. Didn't notice it till now. BTW...Its not a booklet, as you call it. The quote by Erasmus is a valid, forwarding idea for all ages. Rather than fight about its inclusion, you (the scholar) should help verifying it. You are needlessly asking for a reference for my reference...rather than working for the quality of the article.--Buster7 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, what reference does Rachlis give? I am not saying that the idea sounds un-Erasmian, I just have grown suspicious of your edits. But if you give that reference we can restore the quotation. Iblardi (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Found it myself and restored the citation. Iblardi (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Erasmus forger of Cyprian?

This article in The Nation claims that "we know (...Erasmus...) forged a complete work by the early Christian writer Cyprian in order to support his views about Christian martyrdom." Reading the article, I was curious and wanted to read more about the forgery in Wikipedia, but found no mention of the forgery in this entry. Either The Nation sullied Erasmus's reputation, or our entry on Erasmus is missing important information. I don't have sources for this myself, so I'm recording the question here, hoping someone could add authoritative information. Ijon (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I had never heard this but quite a few people believe it to be true. They claim that he composed it to defend his own view on martyrdom. Just do a google search using erasmus, cyprian, and forgery as keywords and you get quite a bit of stuff. I don't have time now to run it down, but perhaps someone else does. My quick look suggests that the biggest evidence for it being a forgery is that no copies earlier than Erasmus are known to exist. If someone can research this, it should be added to the entry.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph beginning "Erasmus's literary productivity began comparatively late in his life."

I'm new to wikipedia editing so I didn't want to take the liberty to delete this paragraph but it seems quite lacking in scholarly rigor. A lot of mind-reading about his intentions and interpretations of his thought, written with a little too much gushy eloquence to be instructive about Erasmus opus or its influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjohnson3253 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same, independently. I have cut it back somewhat. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Holbein's stained glass design

I couldn't see how to work this in, as the present layout has a strip of fotos down the edge like a deli menu. There are good notes on the image's file.--Wetman (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Erasmus "in love"?

I'm not sure what to make of the statement in the article that

Erasmus fell in love with a fellow monk.

Since no quotation marks are used, I presume this should be taken literally. The footnote then gives a reference to Huizinga, but it is unclear whether this should be considered as supportive or detrimental to the argument of Erasmus' homosexuality. If the English version is similar to the Dutch one, Huizinga in his "sensible comment" does not even mention the possibility that Erasmus may have been in love with Servatius in a literal sense. He says that from this piece of early correspondence, Erasmus appears to be "sentimental" and "a young man of a more than feminine hypersensitivity" who "strikes all the chords of a glowing lover" (Erasmus, p. 12, Dutch print of 1947); but Huizinga does not hint at homosexuality. He goes on to say that, contrary to what has often been thought, the feelings Erasmus expressed should probably be considered genuine. He then mentions the 'fashionability' of sentimental friendship in the cultured classes of that day and refers to earlier examples in correspondence between monks dating from as early of the 12th century, and to the fact that intimate friendships, often accompanied by very close observation of the other's inner emotions, were a trait typical of the Devotio Moderna (p. 13). I do admit that Erasmus' words seem to indicate something very much like a real love affair, but Huizinga's passage can not be taken as an argument in support of this. Iblardi 21:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree - would not be sensible to use Huizinga's passage in this way. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Info box

Added details to info box but doesnt display ref http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=125938 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemeb1967 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The last man who knew everthing: a 15th c. man, from the Netherlands

I just read in the followup slashdot for Larry Sanger's memoirs, that Erasmus may be the last man to have been considered capable of knowing all of the worlds knowledge (translated New Testament on his own), etc. I tried following up this hint from slashdot with some searches, but ... Is my guess anywhere correct? Clues, 15th c. man, from the Netherlands, is the hint. If so, the slashdotter says this is missing from the WP article, and broadly hints this could be Erasmus. Ancheta Wis 01:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have also heard Aristotle and John Stuart Mill put forward as candidates for being the last man familiar with every aspect of their culture's knowledge. I think it's a bit too trivial a debate to bother resolving, even for Wikipedia.--KJJ 01:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

-- Translating the New Testament is does not make one a polymath. This is entirely in keeping with his activities as one of the founders of humanism, and not very difficult for a Greek scholar. --24.128.151.54 02:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not in the slighest justified!!! I really object to these sorts of labels - no-one in the 1st century knew "all that was to be known", let alone anyone in the 16th c. It's just a-historical. Hackloon 02:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you know what they (we) mean by knowing all the world's knowledge? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Exposition of the Creed

Hardly vandalism. It references the works section which cites two places where the work may be down loaded and adds information about the two printings. But as you will. I will not argue. Perhaps somebody can indicate what is a more "acceptable manner". If you care to omit the reference all together I do not have a problem. I have done a page describing it that is listed in the Works section BibleBill (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Erasmus was born when?

At the begining it is stated on Oct 28 and in text on July 12 , as previous the date of death is July 12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.13.58 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Note

someone has typed "hola - love abbey" on the page, I don't know how to change this and did not know where else to type.

please add mention of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Quest_for_Glory_characters#Erasmus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.a.a.golding (talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

kindle 3 picture

Hullo, is it worth mentioning in the article that the painting of Erasmus by Hans Holbein is one of the sleep mode pictures displayed on the kindle 3? It may make it easier for people like me who came to the article because they thought the picture was the holbein painting.

Doktordoris (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking not, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. If it meets the general notability guideline, I guess it could be added, but I'm not going to put any effort into it. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


In the x of the blind

Can we reach consensus about this? It formerly read "in the land of the blind" (which is a form I've never encountered). Somebody changed it to "in the kingdom of the blind" (which makes sense to me, and has better rhythm), and then somebody else changed it back. I would like to change it to "in the country of the blind", which is the form most familiar to me. All three seem to have been used, but to me "land" does not have the right rhythm. --ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

in the dutch version it's 'land', which has the same meaning as the english word 'land'. but i don't think it's all that important anyway, if people prefer 'kingdom' then i don't see a problem with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.245.110 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note on Erasmus' Burial.

The article says, " He died in Basel in 1536 and was buried in the formerly Catholic cathedral there, recently converted to a Reformed church."

Was the cathedral "formerly Catholic" when Erasmus was buried? I don't think so. I suggest the following alternative wording. " He died in Basel in 1536 and was buried in the Catholic cathedral there, which has since been converted to a Reformed church."

I didn't make the change because I don't know the facts.

Joe Thursday (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

i don't know about that church in particular, but when protestantism became really popular a lot of catholic churches were taken over by protestants. i assume that's what happened here. (this is also why protestants often have the oldest church in european cities with both protestants and catholics: the protestants took over the catholic church, often destroying murals and statues in the process. and the catholics had to build a new church) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.245.110 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth

Desiderius Erasmus ... was born in Rotterdam on 27 October ... according to historian Johan Huizinga, Erasmus was born in the night of the 27th or 28th and celebrated his birthday on 28 October.

So, if it happened at some unknown point during the night of 27/28 October, and he celebrated it on the 28th, why are we so sure it happened before midnight, on the 27th? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed now. NFA. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

His actual name needs clarification earlier in the article

Could it not be clarified earlier in the article that his actual name was Gerritt Gerritzoon - Erasmus was the Latinised version of his name? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Categorization of a biography as "history"

Categorization of biographies should not be called "history." Separate categories are available to label people. Student7 (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Analyzing a figure distant in history for feelings of homosexuality may be difficult. Quoting from the Newman article,

"...Nor is it possible, on the basis of passionate words uttered by mid-Victorians, to make a clear distinction between male affection and homosexual feeling. Theirs was a generation prepared to accept romantic friendships between men simply as friendships without sexual significance. Only with the emergence in the late nineteenth century of the doctrine of the stiff-upper-lip, and the concept of homosexuality as an identifiable condition, did open expressions of love between men become suspect and regarded in a new light as morally undesirable."<ref>Hilliard, pp. 4–5.</ref>"

And this refers to the 19th century. Nothing so distant as the 15th or 16th. Retroactive analysis by editors of someone else's feelings, judged from his writing, is WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Presumably you think homosexuals didn't exist before the 19th century? Everyone was just "good friends". How quaint. Either way I'm not going to be drawn on this. I have provided an excellent academic source in the text for Erasmus' infatuation with another man. I have been careful not to describe it or him as homosexual, but clearly being in love with a member of the same sex is a fundamental aspect of homosexuality. But I have simply flagged the article of interest to those studying LGBT history so they can see how the issue played out in previous centuries. I'm not interested in being drawn into a culture war thanks very much. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you know what - just do what you want. I can't be bothered. 2012, and we're still squeamish about homosexuality. What's the point. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that what stands in the article does not indicate Erasmus as a person of significance to LGBT history, whatever his sexual orientation was. That's one point. Further I think that what we have here under "LGBT history" (articles and categories) should be "good history" in the contemporary academic sense. That would be somewhat negotiable, naturally; but "exemplar history" and the uncritical accumulation of role models is definitely not a valid contemporary approach to historiography. I'm not going to pursue this point further, but our content and related policies are (rightly) formulated in universal terms. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Here from WP:Catholicism. I'm not sure there's enough material to support the category, but I do think the arguments that a) the term is anachronistic and b) that he is a person and so the "history" category is inappropriate are poor arguments. We use "Catholic" in a huge number of articles where it is anachronistic! And the use of a "history" category is quite regular and accepted for biographies where it is not always easy to identify the person with a sexual orientation due to different cultural norms - in fact most of the articles in the category are biographies. Contaldo80, if it's decided that there are not enough sources to keep the category, you might consider tagging it for WikiProject LGBT studies, to further your aforementioned purposes of letting people interested in LGBT history know about it. Not the easiest way of going about learning, but better than nothing? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Roscelese for being so understanding. I've decided to let the issue drop as I felt I was being subjected by some editors to subtle homophobic abuse (see the John Henry Newman talk page for an insight. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't argue that the term itself is anachronistic. I've looked up what happened next after Erasmus tutored Thomas Grey, and that was that he tutored William Blount, 4th Baron Mountjoy, another English young man. So there's hardly any evidence there that supports Forrest Tyler Stevens's interpretation, if that's all there is to go on. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Except there isn't - there's all the love letters to Severus. But the point is that homosexuality in the 16th century would not have been expressed freely as it is today in many countries. People faced shame and the death penalty. The point of tagging the article was simply to allow people to see how peope responded to homosexuality in previous centuries. It was intended to illuminate and enlighten. That was all. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

LGBT

I guess there's no leeway for this sort of behavior? He courts a man. No indication that he ever practiced homosexuality, but he's LGBT "forever?" Student7 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If you practice enough you eventually become an expert. What exactly is your point? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that is the point. There is no indication he ever practiced.
The lump category for modern PC groups is LGBT. I have no problem with groups naming themselves that. Groups can name themselves anything they like. But this is an encyclopedia. There is no indication that he was transgendered. No indication he was lesbian. Since there is no indication he ever had sex at all, terming him bi-sexual seems specious.
Are love-letters to a same sex person, positive "proof" of homosexuality? At a time, when homosexuality was quite frowned upon, there seems to be no indication that an investigation took place resulting in a permanent label.
But most of all, this is a biography. I'm sorry Wikipedia don't have an exact category for "medieval/renaissance possible homosexual people." But biographies aren't histories, just to suit some deficiency in categorization! Whether proven or unproved! Student7 (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but when I last looked a man falling in love with another man was a pretty clear indication of homosexuality. You don't have to have sex with anyone to have a homosexual sexual orientation. That aside, the article is of relevance to those studying the history of homosexuality (often captured under the "Queer Studies" or "LGBT" label. Your reference to "PC" suggest you have a personal axe to grind. Best we leave it out. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
1) On the "history" category, Wikipedia will need another category to describe people. Erasmus is not a "history."
2) The entry, will need a WP:RS for the text (not in text, actually) where a researcher has concluded he was homosexual, using that word. Otherwise it is WP:OR.Student7 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not very helpful I'm afraid. The article is a historical biographical article. The reference you are looking for is to be found in MacCulloch. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Erasmus' homosexuality doesn't actually need to have been established for the theory to be relevant. If the topic is notable enough to be addressed in modern scholarly works, then it qualifies for inclusion in the LGBT history category. I don't see why the fact that this article addresses a person should pose a problem here, since the contents of the LGBT category ("rights, culture, people, organisations, and related topics") are pretty broadly defined. From a different perpective, the inclusion of this article provides the reader access (via the listed references) to counter-arguments that might also be applicable to other pre-modern persons within this category. Iblardi (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Much better expressed than I could have put it. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's divide this into three topics, below, LBGT, Categorization of Biography as History, and the question of homosexuality. Student7 (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
What for? You're making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Can I point out that the article is also categorised as "Martin Luther", "Portrait by Hans Holbein the younger", and "University of Leuven faculty". But you havn't raised any objectives to him not actually being Martin Luther, not actually being a portrait but a person, nor actually physically being a faculty of the university of leuven. You have only objected to the issue of homosexuality. I am willing to assume good faith but I am concerned about your earlier reference to this being "PC". I want to see even-handedness on all issues and not simply the issue of homosexuality. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
talk) - I suggest that you're being partisan. You've removed the category "Martin Luther" but left in "Paintings by Hans Holbein" and "Faculty of Leuven". The only reason I can see for this is that you don't want the Catholic name of Erasmus linked directly with the Protestant reformer Martin Luther. You are not acting in a fair and balanced way. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, based on your comments, I pointed out in higher level policy and category venues that people were being categorized as other people. Another editor, with no axe to grind, went through and deleted all people who were being categorized as another person. Categorizing a person as another person, makes no sense. Categorization has gotten quite out of hand. There are still people interested, mercifully.
I get the impression that Erasmus was on the Faculty of Leuven. This category may be misnamed, but I don't see how else it could be used. It could easily be renamed "properly" if you have a better name. "Faculty member of Leuven"? Some current categorizations might have to be changed.
And "Paintings by..." is used on painting generally. "Subject of a painting by..." might be more accurate. It could be renamed if you have a better one.
Renaming is impossible with "Category:Martin Luther," who really does have some topics which only pertain to Martin Luther himself. But other people are not him. Maybe a category named (I don't care for this idea) "People who corresponded with Martin Luther." Notice that this is not being done in Wikipedia. We already have links and text that document his association with Luther. That is far more important than a category. Think about the reaction had the category been left and the text deleted!
Categorization is not the only way nor even the main way to document someone's association with an article place or bio. I realize that some bios of famous people wind up as "category dumps." Editors should take care that this doesn't happen. Student7 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Transubstantiation vs. Real Presence

In Section 1.5 "Sacraments" I noticed that the article says "the reality of the Body of Christ after consecration in the Eucharist, commonly referred to as transsubstantiation."

From what I understand, transubstantiation refers to the conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. It is a part of, but distinct from the doctrine of the real presence. Didn't want to strike this unilaterally, and happy to be corrected by someone who knows more.

Tuckerianduke (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

After transubstantiation, the species are now the real presence. (I'm probably not understanding the question correctly). If you are saying that the sentence might be better off broken in two to avoid misunderstanding, perhaps that could help.Student7 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Lost Book ???

The following book of erasmus is missing in the list !!!

De pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis

Milton (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not the real Erasmus

The Erasamus of this article is largely a figment of the imagination of some Lutheran trying to co-opt Erasamus for his own cause.

Please sign your posts, Handmaiden. Erasmus was a major player in the Protestant Reformation, and his writings gave a lot of support to the Protestants, no matter which side he followed. For one thing, the fact that his works were on the Catholic Index is important, as a note of that.--Prosfilaes 04:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Which works of Erasmus are supposed to be on the Index of Prohibited Books, and in what year(s)? Every searchable database of the "Index" I've checked only mentions works by two other men with the name "Erasmus" (Erasmus Darwin who lived 1731-1802, and Erasmus Ungepauerus who lived 1582-1659). Is this a case of mistaken identity? Or is there a reputable modern historian who can confirm this and identify the works that were supposedly "banned"?

See for example here:

[5] [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.215.157 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Link here to the list in latin - you need to look for Desiderius Erasmus, not Erasmus: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/ILP-1559.htm#Erasmus

Contaldo80 (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Small grammar problem

I think there's a small grammar problem with this phrase: "Some have taken this as grounds for an illicit affair." I think the correct grammar would be "Some believe this termination was because of an illicit affair." or "Some believe the grounds for this was an illicit affair." or "The grounds for this termination is taken by some to be an illicit affair." or something else...I'm not a grammarian but I'm pretty sure the statement as it is doesn't have the right structure.

Yes, the correct word probably should be "evidence" or "proof". Daniel the Monk (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Basel Minster

What was Erasmus doing in Basel when he died - was he just on a passing visit or had he moved there? Was it his express wish to be buried in the reformed Basel Minister or was he just put there for expediance. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I raised this because I'm unhappy at what is currently said in the lead where it is stressed that Erasmus was a 'Roman Catholic' but was buried in Basel Minster whch had recently been chaged to a 'Reformed' church. I can only assume this is written in this way to somehow claim Erasmus for the Roman Catholics? This seems an odd approach. The concept of a 'Roman' Catholic wasn't really set until the Council of Trent. Most people in this part of Europe would have described themselves as simply Christians or at a push 'Catholic Christians'. The issue of importance is one of reform - communities of christians breaking away from the authority of the Pope in Rome and taking charge of their own congregations (some influenced by Luther, later Calvin, Anabaptism etc). So firstly neither Basel Minster can be described as having been Roman Catholic (simply catholic in communion with the Pope). And secondly what was he doing being buried in the Minster - was he aware that the community in which he was being laid to rest had broken from papal authority, and if so then did he mind? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
While you are unhappy with the situation, the text does indicate that he remained loyal to papal authority, remaining in the Church which even long before that era was called the "Holy Roman Church" throughout the world. It is doubtful that he had any say in the matter of his gravesite, if he died suddenly and unexpectedly in the course of a visit, as the text states. Dystenery can be a very fast acting illness.
His burial site would be even more understandable if there were no Catholic (as papal loyalists called themselves) churches left in the city. Then it certainly shows the respect with which he was held by the leadership of the Reformed church and civil authorities of the city. This makes his burial as a Roman Catholic in what had become a Reformed church noteworthy. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we need reference to some good sources to find out what was really going on. I find it hard to believe that he could not have been buried in a church that remained in communion with Rome. The cathedral didn't have a bishop at the time that Erasmus died. Did he know where he wanted to be buried; did he care that it was not in a "catholic" church but in a reformed church? I also changed the sentence referring to the last rites. While it is a fact tht he did not receive the last rights; it is an opnion that he was not able to (as that suggests he intended to). The latter interpretation may be the right one but we should not include until we have a source that supports the argument. Finally, while the church may well have been referred to in liturgy etc as the 'Holy, Roman, and Apostolic church'; I don't think we can say with certainty that people in the 1530s were describing themselves as "Roman Catholic" when asked what faith they followed. So we need to be careful with the nuances of language throughout the text. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I certainly agree that nuance is important and more references are needed. I am not sure what you mean by trying to "claim" Erasmus for the Catholic Church. The entry makes clear his ultimate commitment to the Church, despite his many issues with it. As regards terminology, I would point out that in the England of the 1530's the term "Church of Rome" was already widely used to refer to the Catholic Church. The term "Catholic" itself certainly was in common usage in Romance-speaking nations by the Middle Ages, to distinguish the orthodox faithful from heretics. So its use is not impossible for the period.
I would further point out that, if Erasmus was indeed in Basel simply for a visit and his death was sudden and unexpected, that he likely had not made any funeral arrangements for himself for there. After his death, the need for quick burial of the body put that decision in the hands of those about him.
My understanding of what happened when a city was "reformed" is that all churches of the city were converted to the new faith, and clergy adhering to the Catholic faith were banished. Following from that, there would not be any Catholic churches left in Basel. While there is possibly no clear indication textually regarding Erasmus' desire for the last rites of the Church, given his emphatic loyalty to the Catholic faith and its sacraments already related in the entry, it is reasonable to assume that he would have wished them. Whether he was able to receive them remains a more open question. Daniel the Monk (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that last point is right. The reference I've included in the text argues that while he did not discourage the taking of viaticum (last rites); he did not believe it was absolutely necessary. I also find it hard to believe that he didn't have friends who would have better managed his funeral arrangements; but we'll have to give it the benefit of the doubt. My point on not 'claiming him for the catholics' reflects my concern that the article as written is a little opaque in structure. At times it seems to take great pains to suggest that whatever happened, Erasmus was ultimately a 'good catholic'. The reality is different. Even though he spoke again and again about his loyalty to the church in Rome; in practice his criticisms cut to the heart of how the church operated. He challenged church practices and some doctrines and by doing so firmly laid the ground for the protestant reformation that followed. I think that needs to come across better. Erasmus was quite a radical figure.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Erasmus' translation of Plutarch

Possible addition to section on Erasmus' writings, a facsimile of which has been published online by Cambridge Digital Library:

"In 1513, while he was at Cambridge, Erasmus dedicated to Henry VIII his translation from Greek into Latin of Plutarch's De discrimine adulatoris et amici (How to tell a flatterer from a friend)." Cambridge Digital Library Facsimile of De discrimine adulatorio et amici--Acc60 (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of the Will section

The article currently says this: " One of the topics he dealt with was the freedom of the will, a crucial point. In his De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio (1524), he lampoons the Lutheran view on free will. He lays down both sides of the argument impartially."

I am not famiiar with this work, but it seems logically inconsistent that it could both "lampoon" Lutheran views while "impartially" offering both sides. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So how did he die?

I have read this article and I don't see any mention of the manner of Erasmus' death. I was somewhat interested to see that he died a year after Sir Thomas More. It's funny (in an ironic sense) that when someone like More is executed, that takes up half the article. Apparently, Erasmus was not executed, and because he wasn't executed, no one has thought to include how or where he died in this article. 4.155.99.46 04:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that tells you something about their respective characters. More in the end stood up for something, Erasmus didn't. Str1977 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and yet Erasmus' subsequent influence on both the development of protestantism and catholicism was immense. Whereas More's stubborn intransigence makes for good tv or cinema, but in reality achieved little. Incidentally, Erasmus died suddenly from a bout of dysentry while in Basel and was buried there. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wording error?

The section on Erasmus's disagreement with Luther says, "He [i.e. Erasmus] called 'blasphemers' [...] those who defended the need to occasionally restrict the laity from access to the Bible." I know next to nothing about Erasmus, but I would've expected it to be the other way around. As a Catholic disagreeing with a Protestant reformer, shouldn't Erasmus have objected to those who denied the need to occasionally restrict the laity's access to the Bible? --Phatius McBluff (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hard to figure out Erasmus sometimes. I often can't! But he was clearly a "liberal" Catholic, sometimes sharing Protestant beliefs, and carefully treading the line as a pre-Counter-Reformation figure. A Catholic Reformation was going on at the time and he preferred to remain part of that movement. (I am guessing here. It could be mistranslated!). Student7 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I broke up compound sentence which I don't like. Worse here where overstatement is suspected. I don't doubt that he said anyone "blasphemed" if they questioned the perpetual virginity of BVM. Hard to believe he would call anyone a "blasphemer" merely because they wanted to restrict Bible. (Luther himself balked at Revelation). A bit of an overstatement, I think. Looks like the English version contains the most material. Couldn't find anything better. But the new sentence represents his view more clearly. If it misquotes the source, so be it!  :) Student7 (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Erasmus lived against the backdrop of the growing European religious, Reformation; this reformation was known as martin luther kingism and it was the dominating culture in the renaissance period but while he was critical of the abuses within the Church and called for reform, he kept his distance from Luther and Melanchthon and continued to recognise the authority of the pope. "

^THIS PASSAGE IS INCORRECT AND HAS MANY FACTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL ERRORS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.252.74 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Basic input

A lot of this seems to be copied from http://www.biography.com/people/erasmus-21291705?page=1

This is not to be confused with http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/CHRISTIPEDIA-tm--DESIDERIUS-ERASMUS--REFORMER-SCHOLAR-BRIEF-BIO.html
Possible rewording seems helpful.

Also, Erasmus being a humanist, could this article expand on his Christianity humanism? I ask this because humanism focused its lens on classical secular learning, ideals, works. --Edward Versaii (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

LGBT

While it may be politically convenient for several small groups, each with a somewhat different sexual agenda to band together in the twentieth century with a neat label, these labels should not be retroactively applied to a) figures distant in history and b) to figures at the lowest level who do not belong in one category or another. For purposes of "collection/categorization", I suppose these can all be rolled up at some higher level, but it seems pov even there.

I don't think anyone is claiming Erasmus was lesbian, Bi-sexual, nor a transgendered. Student7 (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Politically convenient", "small groups", "different sexual agenda"!! If you want to make political points then take them elsewhere please. Focus on the facts, without letting your personal prejudices creep in. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Your comments are deliberately homophobic and frankly unacceptable. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Homophobic" means "fear of the same."173.72.111.113 (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)The Honourable Ronald Adair

Influence on Luther?

Nitpicking, I suppose, but I really don't think it can be fair to say that Erasmus was THE inspiration for Martin Luther. How can this article simply say that this is known as fact? Perhaps rejigging the wording to 'thought to have been an influence on Martin Luther'? As far as I am aware, the influences on Martin Luther varied from personal convictions about indulgences and contrition to outrage at the papacy, and even individuals (it could be argued) such as Huss. However, recent historical debate has pointed out that Luther was not heavily influenced by the humanists such as Erasmus at all. Indeed, Erasmus was apathetic towards Luther, and Erasmus's great friend Thomas More (a notable humanist) described Luther as a 'pig'. In light of all this I strongly wish to see this introduction changed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PJAJ (talk • contribs) 11:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The debate concerning Luther and Erasmus has been raging ever since the Reformation itself. Luther is my specialist subject, and I have dealt extensively with the realtionship between Luther and Erasmus. Whilst the popular saying "Erasmus laid the egg whihc Luther hatched" has a ring of truth to it; it must be remembered that the crux of the matter is that Erasmus wished to reform ecclesiastical abuses within the Catholic Church, whereas Luther fundamentally attacked the doctrine (although his 1517 95 theses dealt with indulgences). Also, although letters from the very early years of the Reformation show cordial and admiring correspomdemce between the two, they differed in many areas, and were antagonists following the 1525 Bondage of the Will debates. I consider that the author of this article has a very rose tinted view of the realtionship between these two great men.

El

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.150.154 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I tried to add some balance to this blatantly Lutheran biased article. I changed the sentence "Erasmus was influential on Martin Luther who admired him and desired his friendship." to read "Erasmus's earlier writings were influential on Martin Luther who admired him and desired his friendship. Erasmus ultimately condemned Martin Luther's works." This change is based on the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05510b.htm

Yes, it looks like based on the Catholic Encyclopedia (from 1909 or so!). This sounds like crazily Catholic to me. Erasmus has not right to “condemn” anybody. Could we say they “disagreed”, or something similarly truly NPOV?
Ceplm (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Both Alexmarion and myself (below - sorry about not signing) the problems with the "Preparation for Death" quotation. I see it has been restored without comment. Can the restorer explain to us why the commentary around this quotation is not purely polemical? What is remotely scholarly or factual about saying that "no true Catholic could possibly have penned the following words" What is this based on? There is certainly no citation here. And the line "He was not a Roman Catholic in his heart?" How can that possibly be anything other than pure conjecture? I have removed it again. Rymac 19:59, 17 May 2006 165.127.196.68

The section on "Preparation for Death" is so obviously just an attempt to make Erasmus into a disloyal Catholic and a Lutheran. The quotation from Erasmus on how it is possible to be saved without the sacraments and that those with the sacraments can be damned merely reflects ancient Catholic wisdom, and was expanded further by St. Thomas Aquinas. The assertion that the passage proves that Erasmus "was not a Roman Catholic in his heart" is dishonest and absurd. I have deleted the section since it doesn't really make sense where it is in the article, anyway.


Should there be more mention of his role in traditionally considered to have established, if not popularized (at least in the Western world, as there are earlier, more thorough examples of such in Korea over 200 years ago in the creation of the Tripitaka Koreana) the practice and ideas of Textual criticism, aside from a very brief line saying that he prepared a new text of the New Testament? See also Textus receptus. Orangefoodie 12:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This writer is flaunting his anti-catholic bias at the expense of historical accuracy by repeatedly suggesting that Erasmus was some sort of independant Reformer (because he can hardly deny that Erasmus condemned Luther and all other Reformer he mentions in his works), in the face of even of all of the quotes and works of Erasmus he cites that he admits show him to be a faithful son of the Catholic Church (although looked upon initially with suspicion by many ecclesiastics, whom he was openly critical of, anyway, so no surprise there). Then, to cap things off, he blows all decency intellectual honesty to the wind in misrepresenting Catholic doctrine and Erasmus' true faith, explicitly:

[In his own words, written in the little tract of 1533, "Preparation for Death", he verifies that, although he remained a Roman Catholic until his death, he was definitely not a Roman Catholic in his heart, for no true Catholic could possibly have penned the following words:

"I believe there are many not absolved by the priest, not having taken the Eucharist, not having been anointed, not having received Christian burial, who rest in peace. While many who have had all the rites of the Church and have been buried next to the altar, have gone to hell . . . Flee to His wounds and you will be safe." (Erasmus in "Treatise On Preparation For Death."]

Erasmus, here, is simply eloquently and piously (and very catholically) restating an axiom of every religion that has ever existed, namely, that actions speak louder than words... --Alexmarison 06:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


This article reads like the first paragraph is missing. How about starting with a brief summary of who Erasmus was and what he did, (and when he lived), before getting into the details of his birthname and place.



Does anyone really call him 'of Rotterdam'? It took me a minute to be sure that it was the same person. After all, he had a perfectly good first name - 'Desiderius'.

see:

Erasmus of Rotterdam, the Man and the Scholar : Proceedings of the Symposium Held at the Erasmus University, Rotterdam, 9-11 November 1986 by J. Sperna Weiland (Editor), W. Th. M. Frijhoff (Editor), J. spern Weiland


hmmm. looks suspiciously dutch-speaking to *me*. But then I'm an Amurican, and, admittedly, not a specialist in early modern Europe. On Amazon the only hit 'Erasmus of Rotterdam' turns up as first version is the Penguin "Praise of Folly", while Desiderius Erasmus turns up many more, including the collected works coming out of Toronto University Press. Google turns up 4,910 hits on 'desiderius erasmus' vs. 2,510 on 'erasmus of rotterdam'. Those things said, I am generally agnostic about nomenclature - I believe strongly in redirects. Leave him here or move him. --MichaelTinkler
I was going to say that the Rotterdam is superfluous, since just Erasmus is normally enough, but my "Essential Erasmus" calls him E of R...JHK
My 2000 print of "Praise of Folly" has both 'Desiderius Erasmus'and 'Erasmus' on the front page. Another book about him calls him E of R just sideways; other than that it's all Erasmus. Even though I was born in Rotterdam, and know where to find his statue :), I would not use E of R. here, it's just not the first name people call him by.--TK
Regardless of how we address him, though, Erasmus of Rotterdam is what he went by. A look at the salutations from Allen's Latin edition of his letters will prove that. A brief selection from 1519, with the original Latin and my own (loose) English translation:

ERASMVS ROTERDAMVS D. MARTINO BRVXELLENSI S. D. - Erasmus of Rotterdam wishes health for D. Martin of Bruxellensis (Brussels?).
ILLVSTRISS. SAXONIAE DVCI FRIDERICO ERASMVS ROTEROD. S. P. - Erasmus of Rotterdam wishes great health for the most famous Duke of Saxony, Frederick.
ERASMVS ROTE. D. MARTINO LVTERIO. - Erasmus of Rotterdam to Dr. Martin Luther.
--Dd42 02:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Talk from List of famous Dutch people, discussing on the move of the pages:

Jheijmans, why do you think that Erasmus of Rotterdam will be clearer than the previous description Desiderius Erasmus? Just curious... link is identical.

Good question. I thought that because his name was listed as such in Wikipedia, it would be the best name, but after checking, I discovered that there's some (unresolved?) discussion on this at Talk:Erasmus of Rotterdam. Anyway, I thought the "of Rotterdam" in Latin was unnecessary. I'll try to find what his best known name in English is, that's where the article (and this link) should be. Jeronimo
Looked into the topic some more, and it appears that he is best known (in English) as simply "Erasmus". If anything else is said, it's "Desiderius Erasmus". However, as Erasmus is still free (and in fact a redirect to Erasmus of Rotterdam), I'll move him there. Jeronimo
Although it was common in the middle ages to pick the name of one's hometown as a last name, appointing Erasmus to 'Erasmus of Rotterdam'seems an obsolete reference to me. Shouldn't Erasmus name speak for itself like the names Paracelsus and Nostradamus do ? - --84.87.5.13 12:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is copied from [7], a URL which says "© 2001" at the bottom of it. Does anyone know if we have permission to use this? Kingturtle 05:25 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Looks like a copyvio. Needs a heavy rewrite anyway.
Could revert to an earlier version before the IEP content was introduced. Jeff

"Institutio Principis 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. "

Should probably be contrasted to The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli which is his advice to the Medicis, written at almost exactly the same time, but with quite opposite advice.  ;-)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.109.111 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 27 August 2003 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have clear consensus that the subject is best known as simply "Erasmus", which already redirects here. Cúchullain t/c 15:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


Desiderius Erasmus → Erasmus – He is pretty much invariably known mononymously as Erasmus and this name already redirects here. I can't see any reason to also have his first name (which actually wasn't his first name, as explained in the article!), almost never used, in the title. This is not some obscure individual; this is one of the most famous scholars in history, universally recognised under a single name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems appropriate, provided that the longer name he used remains in the lead sentence (it would be fine to rephrase it; perhaps along the lines of, "Erasmus, sometimes known as Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus [note 1]"). The hatnote might also need to be changed; "other persons" would seem to be more important than "other uses" since it's a personal name first and other uses are based on it. I believe it could be refactored accordingly. P Aculeius (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The lead sentence can stay the way it is. A move won't affect that, as it is normal for the lead to reflect full names whatever the title of the article. I don't think there's any need to change the hatnote, since many of the uses on the disambiguation page are not people, many in fact being things named after this Erasmus (one of the best-known is the Erasmus Programme, for instance). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronunciation of Roterodamus

What is the English pronunciation for "Roterodamus"? Maybe this can be added to the IPA transcription so it covers his full name. – Editør (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erasmus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

First spanish translation of the new testament ?

The fundamental difference between Erasmus' version and the Spanish Bible was that the New Testament was not newly translated into Latin . Here the text of the Vulgata was binding and could not be changed. Through the translation of Erasmus, there were over 1000 differences to the Vulgata, which then led to considerable controversy. The Spanish Bible was primarily about a faithful compilation of the texts of the New and Old Testaments in different languages. Adapting the Vulgate (and complete new translation) was the novelty of Erasmus - which the Spanish were not allowed to do.

I would add following sentences:

"Except for a fundamental revision by a new translation from the original languages was the Latin text of the Vulgate. This text, which the Church Father Jerome had translated from Greek in the 4th century, was considered the only binding translation in the Catholic Church."

The new Spanish Bible was, of course, also a fundamental work, also because it contained the whole Old Testament. But the Vulgate could not be corrected. Here we have to look for the sources. Empiricus (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the issue is a little more complicated.
One of Erasmus (and Cisneros') issues was that the Vulgate as found in 1500AD was clearly not the same text as it had been in 500AD. Quotes from church fathers had differences. So even the task of establishing a clear Latin text of the Vulgate was necessary.
For the Complutensian, Cisneros forbad correction of the Latin from the Greek or Hebrew. But they did make a repaired Latin text using the oldest Vulgates they could find (two of which were recently discovered [8]); it wasn't just that they just uncritically adopted whatever Vulgate was in Cisnero's office at the time as *the* Vulgate. So I think The Vulgate could not be corrected is not quite correct.
We should remember that, at the time, the oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate were far older than the oldest available Greek manuscripts (as far as they knew). So it was scientifically reasonable to reconstruct the Vulgate without recourse to the Greek; Erasmus' experiment took the opposite approach, of cross-checking with the Greek despite the available manuscripts being relatively new.
Also, we perhaps should not further the simplification that Jerome translated all the Vulgate: he certainly did the Gospels and Old Testament, but it seems the rest of the New Testament adopted existing Old Latin translations. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Quotes?

Could someone (more knowledgeable then I) add some of his quotes? He's the one who said, "In The Land of The Blind, The One-Eyed Man Is King", isn't he?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrGero49 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

@DrGero49: Looks like some are added now, but maybe without a proper citation/verifiable source, under the section "Writings":
'...He is credited with coining the adage, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." With the collaboration of Publio Fausto Andrelini, he formed a Paremiography (collection) of Latin proverbs and adages, commonly titled Adagia. Erasmus is also generally credited with originating the phrase "Pandora's box", arising through an error in his translation of Hesiod's Pandora in which he confused pithos (storage jar) with pyxis (box).'
Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this is not the correct usage of "paremiography" but I am not nitpicking enough to change the entry :-) I guess the usage is formed like "biography".
The Adages are an example of paremiography. So I guess we could call if a paremiograph, but who would?
Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it is not correct to say he coined that expression. His Adages books were not original compositions, but collections of pre-existing Expressions (Latin, Greek, even some German.) Knowing these adages allows you to use a more "abundant" style in your writing, and to figure out some author's obscure reference.
It makes no sense for Erasmus to make up his own sayings.
It would be better to say Erasmus popularized the adage .... (Indeed, his Adages were the #1 best seller of their time, with dozens of editions in his lifetime.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Beginnings of Protestantism

This section is quite chaotic, flitting to and from Freedom of the Will without good chronology. And it ignores the wider reformation just for utheran Protestantism: the wider reformation includes the Catholic reformation ad Counter Reformation, and e.g. the Anabaptists etc. It might be better to beef up the page on Freedom of the will De_libero_arbitrio_diatribe_sive_collatio and trim this. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh so glad I stumbled upon this! I will be back. 2600:1700:4440:4A90:2C85:990B:DDA4:16A9 (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Legacy

I have removed the following paragraph, because it does not belong under "Legacy", it is confusing in the flow of paragraphs, the meaning is unclear (what is meant by "gramatical" here?), it does not seem of much importance, and it is a fact about an 18th Century German academic, not a fact about Erasmus:

"According to Franz Anton Knittel, Erasmus in his Novum Instrumentum omne did not incorporate the Comma from the Codex Montfortianus (concerning the Trinity), because of grammar differences, but used the Complutensian Polyglot. According to him the Comma was known to Tertullian.[1]"

If someone disagrees, please feel free to revert, or to put the text somewhere it makes sense, such as as part of a separate page on the Johannine Comma. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Knittel, Neue Kritiken über den berühmten Sprych: Drey sind, die da zeugen im Himmel, der Vater, das Wort, und der heilige Geist, und diese drei sind eins Braunschweig 1785

Death

Editors should note that Erasmus is the subject of a lot of mythologizing by antagonistic writers, both Protestant and Catholic. I think many parts of the Wikipedia entry suffer from the after-effects of this. For example, the sentence He had remained loyal to the papal authorities in Rome, but he did not have the opportunity to receive the last rites of the Catholic Church; the reports of his death do not mention whether he asked for a priest or not. Treating his beliefs as a Roman Catholic as loyalty to some "authorities" in Rome is bizarre and dismissive. Similarly, there were probably no other Catholic priests in Basel and it would have been illegal for him to get last rites. His book on dying well emphasized getting yourself right with God long before, to avoid the need for a deathbed confession. Interestingly enough, the civil authorities allowed his state funeral to include some kind of Catholic requiem mass or liturgy, in a rare ecumenical moment.

It would be good to re-cast that sentence in more neutral/historical terms. (Right after his death, the interest in how he died was to see if there was propaganda fodder useful for spin: if he was actually a crypto-protestant, which he denied, then each side could reject parts of his even-handed criticism. Luther claimed that he died alone and friendless, whereas he died surrounded by some dear friends.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC) checkY I made the changes (in May?)Rick Jelliffe (talk)

Early Life

I have repaired several faults:

  • Removed multiple superfluous sentences about his birthdate and place, which repeated each other or material in a citation note, were just academic surmise, and where trivia for an entry at this level.
  • Fixed several tagged problems: about the Greek and Hegius, several unnecessary references, and fixed a dead reference.
  • Fixed a Chinese Whisper problem: some earlier text said Erasmus was exposed to the The Imitation of Christ, and soeone changed the text on that link to make it that he was exposed to a personal relationship with Jesus. For a start, the reason for mentioning The Imitation of Christ is the link between Deventer/Brethren/Thomas a Kempis. In any case, we have no evidence that this book influenced his personal devotion to Jesus, a devotion I do not doubt. In fact, his mature spirituality was in sharp distinction to the anti-intellectual, lay-monk approach of the Brethren where Jesus was an example to follow: instead Erasmus was intellectual, anti-monkish (though pro the evangelical counsels), and believed in being stamped into the divine likeness by loving and reading, rather than by "imitating".

There is a remaining fault: about him feeling the stain of his illegitimacy. Apart from being pyschologizing (the bane of biographies on Erasmus), which I don't think is appropriate without specific evidence, his illegitimacy had practical and legal implications, not merely social. For example, the child of a priest was not allowed to become a parish priest (a rule made because parishes had become family businesses, generally to a bad effect on the parish.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Luxury

I removed the following text from the section on England. His legacy is marked for someone who complained bitterly about the lack of comforts and luxuries to which he was accustomed.

First, it is uncited. Second, its odd English makes it look like it is a lift or quotation. Third, it is not NPOV: it looks like some old partisan slur re-cycled. Fourth, it is at odds with Erasmus' actual biography which features dire poverty, an emphasis on the moderation of the scholar's table, and severe digestive and breathing problems that made him fear for his life (and, for the digestive problems, actually did kill him in the end.) Erasmus certainly was sickly and intolerant of fish, beer and some kinds of wine, which did not fit well with religious and institutional diets and fasts. His letter to Rogerius, where refused to return to Steyn abbey, says he believes it would kill him.

So there may be some better way to handle this: perhap it would better to go in some section on the slurs that were made against Erasmus (right or wrong). Or (better) a section on how his physical weakness affected his thought on useless ceremonialism and forced fasts.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Legacy

There is currently a paragraph However, Erasmus designated his own legacy, and his life works were turned over at his death to his friend the Protestant humanist turned remonstrator Sebastian Castellio for the repair of the breach and divide of Christianity in its Catholic, Anabaptist, and Protestant branches.[105]

This sets of alarm bells to me, because Castellio was 21 at the time of Erasmus' death and lived in Lyon. And he only turned Protestant at age 24. And the reference is to a book without a page number.

And Erasmus' executor (of his will) was Bonifacius Amerbach. (Erasmus had already sold his library and bequeathed his wealth to widows and for helping poor boys and girls, etc.) Looking at the reference book [105] what I see is that Amerbach helped out the young Castellio, sometimes with money from Erasmus' estate.

In the Wiki page for Castelio we have He was also the designated successor to Desiderius Erasmus in continuing his work of the reconciliation of Christianity in the Protestant, Anabaptist, and Catholic branches, {citation needed} which lacks a citation. Who designated him? (It does not seem remotely like the kind of thing Erasmus would do.)

So it seems 1) Castellio was not Erasmus friend, 2) Castellio was not a designated successor, 3) Castellio did not have Erasmus' life works turned over to him. Instead, some of Erasmus bequeathed money for the poor was given to him. Still, it is a nice story.

To resolve it, I will move the sentence to the section on Erasmus' death, and re-write it as As his heir he instated Bonifacius Amerbach to give money to the poor and needy.[5] One of the eventual recipients the impoverished Protestant humanist Sebastian Castellio, who had fled from Geneva to Basel, who subsequently translated the Bible into Latin and French, and worked for the repair of the breach and divide of Christianity in its Catholic, Anabaptist, and Protestant branches[6] Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It is clear

This page has had a lot of statements prefaced by "it is clear" that are conjucture or not supported by the citations (or history). For example, Erasmus is quoted as saying he was emending (or improving) Jerome's Latin text, but -contrary to this- the "It is clear" claims he was then working on a fresh (brand new) version. It would be good to get rid of, or at least label and attribute, these speculations. I think all "it is clear" sentences need to be fact-checked. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you are correct. Thank you for all the work you've been doing here. warshy (¥¥) 16:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

I have been bold and removed the section "other" which says that Erasmus wrote about Pier Gerlofs Donia. The following reasons:

1) I have looked at the reference The Age of Erasmus and I could not find anything about it. (If there is a reference there, it is using very different words and names.)

2) It suggests that Erasmus wrote a book or something major, which seems unlikely. ( I could not find anything, nor could Google.)

3) When I look at other references on Google, they all are derived from this Wikipedia article's reference to The Age of Erasmus. Even the Dutch Wikipedia page only refers to the same thing: a Dutch page mentioning only an English-language source for a Dutchman writing about a Dutch subject gives no confidence. So there is no corroborating or alternative source for this, that I could find.

4) The academic paper Dutch Proverbs and Expressions in Erasmus' Adages, Colloquies, and Letters[9] has a lot of material related to Dutch, and mentions Frisia several times, but I could see no mention of it.

5) Even if it turns out to be true, it lacks Notability for the English Wikipedia page. For the Dutch page, certainly...just not for the English.

So, all things considered, I will remove it here, and mark the Donia page's reference with a dubious. Please feel free to restore if you can find a good source and why it is notable.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Radical and Reactionary

There was a flag in the text saying that the phrase "and reactionary" needed a quotation from the citation to justify it. I have looked through the citation text, and I do not think "and reactionary" can be justified. So I have removed that phrase and the flag. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Flat Head

The section on Erasmus' flat head is strange. I have marked it dubious.

For a start, it is not certain that it was Erasmus' body exhumed. (The examining doctor also claimed the body had signs of syphilis, though Erasmus never complained of any of the symptoms of it, unusually for him.) There is a more recent scholarly paper that points out that the body examined was relatively tall and muscular with small cranial capacity, while Erasmus was rather short and had a "frail and delicate little body" [10]

Also, there are two scholars who specialize in Erasmus' bonnet, of all things: Jane Malcolm-Davies and Geeske Kruseman. Well, on renaissance knitware at least. In their discussions, I do not see any reference to flat heads or upholstering.[11][12]Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

checkY Rewritten. Added section on Exhumation.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Attempts at impartiality

The phrase that Erasmus' criticism was also directed towards many of the Church's basic doctrines is, I believe, historically wrong but also is not supported by what the citation actually says.

The citation says he "questioned" many of the Church's basic "teachings": "questioning" (a theologian's job, surely) is not "criticizing", and "teachings" is way broader than "doctrines". Erasmus certainly did not question the articles of the Creed, and he repeatedly said that once the church defined something (even though it were better if fewer things were defined not more) then we were duty-bound not to oppose it, for the sake of concord at least.

When Erasmus was attacked for using different words in his NT that undermined what had been proof texts for some doctrines (i.e. the Johannine Comma, repentance for penance, presbyter for priest, favour for grace) his response was that the doctrines still stood (because of Tradition and the magisterium), just that those particular passages were simply not as direct evidence for it as had been thought (but also evidence for other things that should be taken on-board.) The same charge was made against him multiple times, and he denied that he was disavowing those doctrines.

(Even in the famous case of transubstantiation, he made it clear that he certainly believed the Real Presence, but that the (theo)logical meaning of transubstantiation made no sense to him, according to his understanding of what "substance" could mean. He also said that if he had had any idea of how his words would be twisted, he would have expressed himself very differently.)

On the issue of payment for indulgences (Luther had taken many of his 95 Thesis direct from Erasmus' writings), Erasmus was actually mainstream Catholic: multiple church councils had anathemized simony, as had the recent Lateran Council IIRC. But Erasmus' own Liturgy for the Lady of Loreto (which he made as a model of how to turn a superstitious veneration of Mary into a devout veneration of Mary) was actually published with an indulgence from the local bishop: again, it was abuses not proper uses that he was against. Certainly his view of where the line between use and abuse stood was to err on the side of primitivism and gradualism.

So what "basic doctrines" (as far as had been defined before the Council of Trent) does that leave?

What that phrase also misses is that much of Erasmus' opposition was to scholastic theology itself, which he had studied at the Sorbonne. A theological tradition is not quite the same a doctrine. (He was a proponent of mystical theology appealing to the affections, such as he saw in the patristic and pre-scholastic monastic eras, but non-fanatical and non-partisan.)

So it would be better to have something like was also directed towards some of the Church's recent theology with a suitable citation. I have not done this. (Rick Jelliffe)

checkY I changed it to "in the view of some was also directed towards many of his Church's basic teachings"Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Catholic Church versus reformers is over-simplification (before the Reformation) not NPOV?

A difference issue in the same section: I have changed a sentence from 

"The issues between the Catholic Church and the growing religious movement which would later become known as Protestantism, had become so clear that few could escape the summons to join the debate."

to the more NPOV 

"The issues between the reforming and reactionary tendencies of the Catholic Church, from which Protestantism later emerged, had become so clear that few could escape the summons to join the debate. "

This is because the old sentence frames what went on from the sharp black-hat/white-hat POV of much later Protestant commentary: Erasmus is surely a poster-boy that many pre-reformation reformers did not became Protestants, and that the issue was not between the Catholic Church (by which is meant the hierarchy? the Sorbonne/Salamanca/Louven university theologians?) and the "outsider" reformers (noting that the English Bishops funded Erasmus, that the Pope put in a glowing letter of recommendation for Erasmus' New Testament which included lots of reforming annotation, that they wanted to make Erasmus a Cardinal: not good evidence of Erasmus as a maverick outsider...)

After the Reformation some things did indeed become more describable in terms of "Protestant" (or "Lutheran") versus "Roman Catholic", of course, even for Erasmus...

There is a relevant passage, in an article on Erasmus' works' secret trial at Valladolid before all the important bishops and religious theologians, and chaired by the head of the Spanish Inquisition IIRC) that while most of the Bishops found some passages in his work unacceptable, they all disagreed on which passages were unacceptable, sometimes strongly: in other words most (even, or especially, conservatives) agreed on most of his reformist statements: so there was almost universal agreement on the need for reform, but pockets of resistance to most specific reforms. (That 'trial' fizzled out without being able to reach a consensus on almost anything; when Erasmus' Enchiradon was placed on the Spanish Index, it was only one provocative sentence "Monkishness is not piety" that was required to be censored in order to de-contaminate it.)

(Another, perhaps partisan, article I have read said IIRC of the difficulties Pope Adrian had when attempting reform was that the powerful would agree to reform of other's abuses but not their own. This diversity of reform agenda was reflected in Protestants and pre-Protestant movements too: consider that the Hussites were willing to give up their struggle if Rome allowed them married priests, communion under both species, etc.: demands that were nothing to do with sola fide.)

Cardinal Cajetan is another good example of how it is an over-simplification to speak of reformers versus the monolithic Catholic Church (hierarchy): an establishment figure who negotiated the aborted compromise with the Lutherans.

So I think it is more NPOV to couch the sentence in terms of reformist and reactionary "tendencies", and not a simple trajectory that you had reformers and they all became Protestants.

Apologies for the long justification here, which probably seems excessive for the small change. But it is symptom of much partisan/revisionist writing on Erasmus to sloppily substitute blanket "Catholic church" for the more varied and complex targets of reform that modern historians describe. The article is improved by a little more precision on these things. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Erasmus born in Gouda?

I heard on the news that Erasmus was born in Gouda,Is this true?

Make this shorter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.71.55 (talk • contribs) 9:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"A well-known wooden picture indicates: Goudæ conceptus, Roterodami natus (Latin for Conceived in Gouda, born in Rotterdam). According to an article by historian Renier Snooy (1478–1537), Erasmus was born in Gouda."[13] But Erasmus (and most historians) says Rotterdam.

What should be shorter?Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"wooden picture" doesn't create confidence in this source! Presumably a woodcut rather than a panel painting. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
-) I expect it has been through several layers of translation: Snooy's Latin (probably), then perhaps Dutch, then English? Nevertheless, it is quite specific on the source. I don't agree that unusual idiom impeaches a source. (Sometimes translation does require poor idiom, e.g. where the source language has a general term and the target only has several specific ones.)
I don't intend to put it into the article, but only because I think it is not interesting: Erasmus has his finger in so many pies that there is no shortage of far more (to me) important things that could be added instead... But, of course, if someone thinks Gouda is important or interesting then they can go ahead: perhaps in a note rather than in the body? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Pacifism

I have added a section on Erasmus' pacifism. There is much else that could/should be added, and perhaps ultimately deserves its own topic.

It includes a citation to a WordPress site. This is a site of a university-sponsored project, and not a personal blog etc. so I believe it fits the criteria for being a Reliable Source (or reliable-enough!)Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Your are fine from me. I also tend to argue that Wordpress from RS institutions should be recognized as RS. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I have revised section on heresy in Religious Toleration, to explain better his attitude: we modern people do not distinguish enough the historical connection between heresy and sedition, and treat "heresy" as if it were merely abstract and mental. However, the history is one of them being intertwined: seditionists would justify themselves using some theology, which would cause revolts, which would cause state crackdowns, which would be justified as heresy-hunting, which would lead to threatening unorthodox views being regarded as heresy and so munched by the inquisatorial machinery designed against sedition. Erasmus' writing to counter fr:Noël Béda and also against the Salamanca monks are the primary sources: the Erasmus and Heresy article I put as the citation is pretty good, but there are many others. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


War

The last sentence "James D.Tracy notes that mistrust of the Habsburg government (partially due to the fact Maximilian and his grandson Charles V were absentee rulers, the secret nature of diplomacy and other circumstances), but it is notable that intellectuals like Erasmus and Barlandus talked in a matter-of-fact manner about such a subject and used their imagination to give the people's fear of the world of power politics an appearance of rationality" needs to be re-written, I think.

What is "that", what is "such a subject", who are these "people", and what does it mean to use your "imagination" to "give an appearance of rationality"? Rick Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Note that = think that = say that
Such a subject = mistrust of the government = the belief that princes were corrupt and created wars to extract money (mentioned in the previous sentence)
The people = the populace (aka "the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group" - Oxford dictionary)
imagination = Tracy thinks that the way Erasmus and Barlandus accused the government of trying to ruin/destroy their own people etc. was totally ludicrous (not unlike those who believed witchcraft was real). But this unreasonable belief was shared by the populace. Erasmus and Barlandus only provided the fancy details (the Habsburg government's devilish plans) that gave this belief an air of being reasonable. Tracy uses the word "spin", but I don't want to repeat it (according to Tracy, Erasmus and Barlandus and co honestly believed in these ludicrous stories. They did not create those stories for sinister purposes).

-Deamonpen (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have moved the last sentence to a note, and simplified it to say
"James D.Tracy notes that mistrust of the Habsburg government (partially due to the fact Maximilian and his grandson Charles V were absentee rulers, the secret nature of diplomacy and other circumstances) was widespread, but it is notable that intellectuals like Erasmus and Barlandus also accepted the allegations. "
I found the original sentence very hard to parse: I think "used their imagination" is not really what you or Tracy is trying to say: that they were inventing mischief they had not been transmitted. If you think that my tweak is not right, please adjust (e.g. with a direct quote from Tracy or to say "also accepted the outlandish allegations." or whatever.)
In the preceding text, I also used "allegation" instead of "mistaken" and removed "devilish" to be more NPOV. You could certainly have used "spin": if you are worried about it not being understood, you could link the word to Spin_(propaganda)
Note: An interesting thing: if these were letters that Erasmus published after Maximillian's death (rather than unauthorized publications), then he would have edited them to also suit some more contemporary agenda...in the context of Charles V's (or some other King's) reign. The agenda might be just that war-waging Kings should not get glory from history (see his recently-discovered death poem for Henry VII, or see Julius Exclusis) to discourage new wars, or that there was some present conflict at the time of editing that he felt had some similarity. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Lede: Was Erasmus a philosopher?

The initial sentence of the lede calls Erasmus a philosopher, but I question that this is so; or at least that it is remotely the most important way to categorize him.

What do other language Wikipedia articles say? This is not to use the other articles as sources, it is just to see if they have some phrases that would better summarize the English-language article. The Dutch article (through Google translate) starts: 

"Desiderius Erasmus (Rotterdam, October 28, 1466,[1] 1467 or 1469[2] – Basel, July 12, 1536) was a Dutch-born philosopher, Catholic theologian and humanist. He is considered one of the most influential thinkers of the Northern Renaissance. With his famous satirical work Praise of Folly, which he wrote in Latin around 1509, he laid the foundations for the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

Desiderius Erasmus lived in a time of great change, in which new ideals came to the fore. He traveled through Europe as a scholar and gained prestige in intellectual circles through his humanist critiques and advocacy. Throughout his life he kept in close contact with kindred spirits through many correspondences, including the English statesman Thomas More. Erasmus developed a biblical humanistic theology in which he advocated tolerance, truthfulness and free thinking. In his own moderate way, he tried to reform the Catholic Church from within."

The German article has 

"Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam or just called Erasmus[1][2] (born October 28, 1466/1467/1469 in Rotterdam; † July 11/12, 1536 in Basel) was a Dutch polymath and is the most famous and influential Renaissance Humanist. Erasmus was a theologian, philosopher, philologist, priest, author and editor of over 150 books. As a critical thinker of his time, Erasmus, also known as the “Prince of the Humanists”, is one of the pioneers of the European Enlightenment. Its impact extends to the present day."

The French has 

"Erasmus (Didier Erasmus), also called Erasmus of Rotterdam (Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus), born on the night of October 27 to 28, 14661, or in 1467n 1, or 1469, in Rotterdam, died July 12, 1536 in Basel, is a canon Regular of Saint Augustine, Dutch philosopher, humanist and theologian, considered one of the major figures of Dutch and Western culture.

He remains mainly known today for his satirical declamatio Éloge de la Folie (1511) and, to a lesser extent, for his Adages (1500), an anthology of more than four thousand Greek and Latin quotations, and for his Colloquies (1522) , a collection of didactic essays on various themes, although his otherwise vast and complex work includes essays and treatises on a very large number of subjects, on the problems of his time as well as on art, education, religion, war or philosophy, eclecticism specific to the concerns of a humanist author."

The Italian page adds "essayist" which is good.

The Spanish page has 

"Erasmus of Rotterdam1 (Dutch: Desiderius Erasmus van Rotterdam; Latin: Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus; Rotterdam or Gouda,2 October 28, 14663-Basel, July 12, 1536), also known in Spanish as Erasmus of Rotterdam , was a Dutch Christian humanist, philologist and theologian philosopher, considered one of the greatest scholars of the Nordic Renaissance.

As a Catholic priest, Erasmus was a major figure in classical scholarship who wrote new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament that raised issues that would be influential in the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. He lived in the context of the growing European religious reform. While he criticized abuses within the Catholic Church and called for reform, he stayed away from Luther, Henry VIII, and John Calvin and continued to acknowledge the authority of the Pope.

His much broader and more complex work includes essays and treatises on a very wide range of topics. He remains known mainly today for his Praise of Folly (1511) and to a lesser extent, for his Adagios (1500), an anthology of more than four thousand glossed Greek and Latin citations, Colloquies (1522), a collection of didactic essays of varied subject matter, and De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio (1524), a response to Luther's teachings on free will.

The Latin article is kinda funny in translation: 

Desiderius Erasmus Rotterdam (Batavice Gerrit Gerritszoon, born in Rotterdam on October 27 or 28, 1469; died in Basel on July 12, 1536), a famous teacher of both languages, as well as a theologian and a great believer in the restoration of the church, but not in dividing it, who, because of his talent and merits, "the leader of the humanists ” is called 

As a young man enrolled in the sacred family of St. Augustine, he became a priest there and followed the bishop of Cameracense; then he studied at Paris, and traveled all over Europe towards the west of the sun and the south. He certainly wrote many works which aim at the transmission and cultivation of the Latin language, and at the improvement of the manners of the church and of the people who were then; in addition, he also provided many works of the ancients with commentaries, and in particular, following in the footsteps of Laurentius Valla, he took care to publish the New Testament in Greek and Latin. 

In short, he is considered to have been a reformer of the Christian church who, criticizing the vices of the church, yet refusing to divide it itself, was at that time not acceptable to many Protestants or Catholics. Therefore, a little before his death, he left Basel, where he was living with his friend and printer John Frobenius, after the city joined the Protestants, and moved to Freiburg in Breisgau. He died there in 1536, and was buried in the cathedral of Basel. Although he was always suffering from kidney stones, he did not die from them.

Interesting that the Portuguese is quite wrong, if Google has translated correctly (Portugal, Spain, Croatia, Bulgaria, Denmark?? He corresponded with them and influenced, not travelled): 

Erasmus of Rotterdam (European Portuguese) or Rotterdam (Brazilian Portuguese) (October 28, 1466 – July 12, 1536 in Basel),[1] born Gerrit Gerritszoon or Herasmus Gerritszoon (Latin: Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus), was a Dutch humanist theologian and philosopher who traveled throughout Europe, including Portugal, England, Italy, Spain, Croatia, Bulgaria, Denmark and others.

So I think it would be better to revise the English lede with some cherry-picked parts of the other articles. Such as "Dutch-born" rather than "Dutch". And "theologian-philosopher" rather than "philosopher".Rick Jelliffe (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

checkY I have adjusted the lede with materialphrases from the other major languages. This includes
  • (from the Dutch page) Make "Dutch-born". Use "thinker" instead of "Scholar". Steal sentence "He developed a..". Remove "and its cleric's abuses" and just have "reform the Catholic church from within" (because superstitious lay practises and corrupt monasticism was even more on his radar than clergy.)
  • (from Latin and spanish page) remove "philosopher" and add more accurate items
  • (from French) use "vast"
  • Moved the sentence on "Prince of Humanists" to section Legacy, as it is a much later appellation that is relatively unimportant.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@Rick Jelliffe, sorry to respond after changing it, but I realized only now that there was a discussion. Having said that, I do think the changes are quite absurd. Looking to other 'major languages' as a source? I'm sorry but a. you should try to base yourself upon authoritative sources and b. there's not a single 'major language' that refers to him as 'Dutch-born' (except the Dutch wiki, but Dutch is not a major language). One quick look at the Oxford Reference learns that most (if not all) encyclopedia's refer to him as a Dutch humanist or Dutch scholar.
With regard to theologian, philosopher or humanist. I would say, choose either a single denominator (so 'Dutch humanist of the Northern Renaissance') or choose an enumeration in which you're summing up everything he made a contribution to (e.g. Dutch philosopher, theologian, humanist, etc.). 213.124.169.240 (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod I am fine with your reversion.
But on the issue of WP:RS I do disagree that it applies here in the way suggested, probably my fault in how I described what I was trying to do. According to the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
''In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies''
So issues of the source of the phrases are pretty much irrelevant: what matters is whether the lede fairly summarizes the contents (and whether the contents use WP:RS. If I look through other Wikipedia language's ledes and find phrases that better summarizes the English article, in what way does that go against WP:RS? I am not looking for definite sources, but cherry-picking for phrases that best explain the English article, which is the function of the lede. (By the same token, whether the language is major or minor is irrelevant.)
So from that POV, calling him a "philosopher" is not a summary of the contents while e.g. "humanist" is; calling him Dutch (a nationality or ethnicity) is only implied by the contents, while Dutch-born is explicit. (And, as far as "citizenship", his status as a religious and priest made him an international rather than a national). Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
'Issues of the source of the phrases are pretty much irrelevant', even if this is true, then there's absolutely no reason to call him 'Dutch-born', you copied that with an erroneous translation from the Dutch Wikipedia, who in turn are not basing it upon anything. Where is that derived from in the main article? It's simply based upon your own deductions and falls therefore under own research.
With regard to Erasmus being called a philosopher. I could understand this because he contributed to some philosophical matters, most notably the discussion concerning free will. Also, he is included in overviews of philosophy as an important link between late Medieval philosophy and Early Modern philosophy (cf. Renaissance philosophy). And on top of that, there are sources that refer to him as a philosopher.
Last but not least a personal frustration. Why don't people look at the sources anymore? In the words of Erasmus himself: 'Sed in primis ad fontes ipsos properandum.' This is the entire basis of Wikipedia. There was a discussion recently at the Spinoza article. Apparently Spinoza cannot be called a 'Dutch philosopher' anymore, even though all the major scholars on Spinoza and all the references I checked at the Oxford Reference refer to him as such. Are the people who refuse to consult sources and just write what they think in charge of Wikipedia these days? Apparently...213.124.169.240 (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, "Erasmus of Rotterdam" is a bit of a clue that he was Dutch-born, yes? It is not a deduction, not WP:OR, it is a statement that he was born somewhere stated in the article body, that was then and now regarded as part of the Low Countries.
Btw The nl.wikipedia article says "in Holland geboren" , so in what what way is "Dutch-born" a mis-translation? Do you prefer '"Holland-born"?Rick Jelliffe (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the points made by the IP user today. Also, I find it a bit redundant and trivial when you base it off on how other Wikipedian leads are structured and I believe the way it's structured right now as being fine. Raulois (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
No language version of Wikipedia is a WP:RS, and most of them are translations of another language version. Some, especially thye "home language" are worth looking at, but they are not usually the best guides. In English, "Dutch-born" implies he then emigrated somewhere else, which doesn't really fit with Erasmus, great traveller though he was. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The issue for the lede is whether it reflects the article contents. Whether the phrases come from other national articles or from tea-leaves on Mars is not material, if they are apt. WP:RS and WP:OR are red herrings in that regard.
For WP:CITE, could you put in some text with a citation in the body to explain why he is foremost classed a philosopher in the lede? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Rick Jelliffe, to answer your last question first: I have no idea, but the entire enumeration is completely random and weird (Erasmus the Educationalist?...).
Again, no-one writes 'Dutch-born' and then no nationality, this makes no sense; not on Wikipedia and also not with regard to the sources where Wikipedia ought to be based upon. This is in my view the most fundamental aspect of this project, but some people (again, consider the Spinoza case) apparently either don't care for that or think they know more than academics who are writing about these matters as a profession.
Then the translation. I know there are some people on the Dutch Wikipedia who have a fetish with being historically informed. So then Leonardo Da Vinci is not an 'Italian painter', but 'a painter from Florence'. There is definitely some logic in that, but they're not consistent (Michelangelo is suddenly Italian) and usually you won't find these kind of references in tertiary or secondary sources (who are in my experience far more pragmatic); and apart from that: 'Italian' not only refers to a nationality, but also to an ethnicity. Thus: 'Holland-born' refers directly to the historical County of Holland where Erasmus indeed was born, whereas 'Dutch-born' is a reference to modern day the Netherlands, which is of course anachronistic (if you really want to do this, then 'a humanist from the County of Holland' would be a correct translation). And no, I do not prefer any 'x-born', I prefer the way he is being referred to in sources that are authoritative. This is the way it should always be on this project; not deducing or making up stuff yourself but presenting information based on references. 213.124.169.240 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
You are making mountains out of mole-hills.
1) Of course he was an educationalist: in the article is reference to his association with St Pauls, with Cambridge, with the Trilingual college, that his copia/adages/colloqia/grammar were basic texts, his pronuncation system, etc. He was not an educator (i.e., a direct teacher) of any note, but concerned with providing textbooks, exemplars and theory. Not "random", not "weird." He was more important as an educationalist than as a philosopher proper (and more important as a theologian and philologist than as a philosopher, for that matter.)
2) To get rid of any Dutch nationalism, lets look at "Australian-born" on Google. Eliminating dictionaries and statistics: In no case (in the first few pages I looked at) is nationality next, but issue of countries of residence or lineage. For example: https://australian.museum/about/history/exhibitions/trailblazers/andy-thomas-ao/ says ''It was the first time an Australian had been in space as a NASA astronaut (although Australian-born Paul Scully-Power, an oceanographer, flew in Challenger...)'' (It also calls him ''An Adelaide-born boy who grew up playing with rockets and dreamed of becoming an astronaut'') Your comment that no-one writes X-born without a nationality is objective false on easy-to-find evidence. Now it may be that in your neck of the woods that is the only usage, but certainly not in my neck of the woods.
3a) Dutch certainly can refer to an ethnicity.
3b) On the subject of what Erasmus considered himself, it depended on who he is writing to. You might care to look at ''Erasmus becomes a Netherlander'' https://doi.org/10.2307/2543449 (a good source, though marred by guesswork.) "The first reason that Erasmus never became a German was that he was born one." Erasmus at various times called himself a Netherlander, Batavian, a Hollander, from Brabant, from Burgundy, a German and even French.) The final paragraph has this: "A term that would be better discarded altogether in Erasmus scholarship is "Dutch". .. Calling Erasmus a Dutch humanist is an anachronisism. ... Erasmus was a Hollander and a Netherlander but not something "Dutch" in between." So if you disagree with both "Dutch" (for reasons of anachronism) and "-born" but only when coupled with "Dutch", what about we just put "born in Holland" (with a link to County of Holland) or "from the Netherlands"? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I. It seems thus that you’re beginning to complexify the matter than it was originally; for now you’re beginning to enter into locus of historiographical nationalism. I, on the other hand, cannot comprehend what fruit this will bear on discoursing about his ethnicity when it’s putatively understood that his ethnicity[1] was Dutch and it would subsequently follow that we don’t have to need “Dutch-born”, however, if you want to add a footnote and insert the quote on the nationality part then that’s fine.

II. An exemplar of a good article on Wikipedia that uses ethnicity and nationality[2] in a fitting manner is the James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth article by which it states he was a Dutch-born but his nationality was English by virtue of him staying in England for the rest of his life until he was killed. But, as @Johnbod said: “In English, "Dutch-born" implies he then emigrated somewhere else, which doesn't really fit with Erasmus, great traveller though he was.” Erasmus was a peripatetic and if he had time, it’s likely that he would’ve left Basel for another location. In any case though, I’ve cited definitions of what ethnicity and nationality means according to those two dictionaries. Per those two dictionaries, Dutch would be the best option since he was born in the Burgundian Netherlands (modern-day Netherlands) would make his ethnicity and nationality Dutch. Raulois (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
No, "Dutch-born" does not imply he emigrated in English, if that means giving up citizenship and deciding to move forever to some other location; a straw man. At most it implies that he moved, which he clearly did.As the examples I gave show, "X-born" does not always even imply movement. He only spent, what, 4 years of the last 40 in his life in that area (and mostly in Louvein, which is modern Belgium, because Charles V ordered him.) And he took his stuff with him when he moved. And he bought a house (in Freiburg), which is not very peripatetic of him. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Rick Jelliffe, to be frank, I think this entire discussion actually is making a mountain out of a molehill. First, I'm not disputing Erasmus was an educationalist, but I think it's quite weird to call someone as such, because there's not a single source (that I know) that introduces him like that (like I said, most references say: 'Dutch humanist' or 'Dutch scholar').
Your example of Paul Scully-Power really illustrates my point actually, as Scully-Power worked for a very long time in the United States, for Erasmus, who worked in so many different countries, this would be impossible to determine (and where do you draw the line? is René Descartes also 'French-born'? is Vincent Van Gogh also 'Dutch-born'?).
With regard to your example of Erasmus being a German, yes, this is of course true; but then again it isn't, because the Holy Roman Empire is of course not the same as Germany. And secondly, it is highly counter-intuitive. For example, if we were to call Erasmus a German, then strictly speaking we have to call Leonardo Da Vinci a German as well, because Florence at the time was also part of the Holy Roman Empire; now this, of course, would be absurd.
Last but not least: I already said multiple times that I agree with the common way of referring to him (or any person for that matter), like it is done in the academic community, in that light no-one is referring to him as 'x-born', but simply 'a Dutch humanist or 'a Dutch scholar'. 213.124.169.240 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
He only spent, what, 4 years of the last 40 in his life in that area (and mostly in Louvein, which is modern Belgium, because Charles V ordered him.) And he took his stuff with him when he moved. And he bought a house (in Freiburg), which is not very peripatetic of him

In fact, this is blatantly false. Erasmus was a peripatetic:
↓Birth
↓Orphaned
↓Vows
↓Ordained
↓Dispensations
↓
↓Death
Netherlands
France
Italy
England
Brabant
Basel
Freiburg
England
England
France
Basel
Basel
France
Basel
│
1465
│
1475
│
1485
│
1495
│
1505
│
1515
│
1525
│
1535
Timeline of Erasmus
Raulois (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The function of the lede is to summarize and unlock the article. So what other sources "introduce him as" is useful for finding phrases, but is no restriction. (And particularly when so many sources merely parrot what Wikipedia says.)
But there are citations easily findable: in fact some of them suggest that Erasmus was not just any old educationalist, but was THE greatest educationalist of his age:
Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
To the comment that '''no-one''' refers to Erasmus as Dutch-born, could you at least Google before making those kind of statements?
On the topic of his being German, please read the article I referred to.
Thanks for showing the timeline I made. Which part is "blatantly false"? That he only spent 4 of the last 40 years is obvious from the line. Or are you saying the timeline is wrong? (It would be better if the timeline had six or three month increments, not yearly...) In which case, please point out the problem in the Talk page so it can be fixed.
Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I. You see, now, it begins to be a problem because in order to see which is used more we would have to use a ngram but due to "Dutch-born" having a hyphen, it will not be able to go through since they don't accept hyphens on NGRAM, therefore fighting over which is used more is fatuous.

II. No, you said "He only spent, what, 4 years of the last 40 in his life in that area (and mostly in Louvein, which is modern Belgium, because Charles V ordered him.) And he took his stuff with him when he moved. And he bought a house (in Freiburg), which is not very peripatetic of him." To elucidate, it shows he was a peripatetic[3] because he rarely spent a substantial amount of time in one place with having to go to another place a few years later and then staying that place for x-amount of years. Thus, Dutch-born isn't needed since it's his nationality.[4]

III. "I think it's quite weird to call someone as such, because there's not a single source (that I know) that introduces him like that (like I said, most references say: 'Dutch humanist' or 'Dutch scholar')." The IP user is quite correct, I just searched up on Google "erasmus" and these are the first few that come up:
"Erasmus, in full Desiderius Erasmus, (born October 27, 1469 [1466?], Rotterdam, Holland [now in the Netherlands]—died July 12, 1536, Basel, Switzerland), Dutch humanist" https://www.britannica.com/biography/Erasmus-Dutch-humanist
Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1469-1536) was a Dutch humanist scholar considered one of the greatest thinkers of the Renaissance. https://www.worldhistory.org/Desiderius_Erasmus/
However, as I said before, "due to "Dutch-born" having a hyphen, it will not be able to go through since they don't accept hyphens on NGRAM, therefore fighting over which is used more is fatuous." Therefore, we cannot say whether Dutch humanist or Dutch-born are predominant even though I truly believe that they mostly begin with Dutch instead of Dutch-born. Also, it seems you misunderstood what he said, he never denied the existence of Dutch-born in books or articles, he meant that most usually have Dutch humanist or Dutch-born, I agree with him. Most Wikipedian articles that use (ethnicity)-born usually show that they moved to a different state and stayed there for a long period. Raulois (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be shifting the goal post. First because the IP claim is that no-one introduces him as a educationalist, which my examples disprove. The second is that no-one introduces him as dutch-born, which my examples disprove. That other people call him other things is irrelevant to the claims about "no-one": counting which is more used is a red herring: books about education will talk about him as an educationalist, books on theology will discuss him as a theologian. If it is "weird" that the greatest educationalist of his age gets called an "educationalist", doesn't that mean it is high time he does get called that? Any "weirdness" that is felt is a sign of the shortfall, not evidence against it. This is one of my problems with "philosopher": it sounds like it says something but it is so vague it just obscures the several things he should be known for: scholar would be better. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
If you insist on calling him 'an educationalist', I have no problem with that, but I'm not seeing it anywhere in the references I consulted (I have to say that I only consider references from academic sources, I see that your references, although some of them are academic, but some of them are also (sorry to say) quite absurd (sorry, but what the hell is this: 'https://quizlet.com/195433797/chapters-13-and-14-flash-cards/'?). Also, what is 'an educationalist'? Do you mean 'a teacher'?
I'm seeing the following on the Oxford references:
- The Oxford Guide to Literary Britain & Ireland (3 ed.): Desiderius ( c. 1466–1536 ), Dutch humanist
- A Dictionary of Writers and their Works (3 ed.): Desiderius ( circa 1467–1536 ) Dutch humanist
- The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions: Desiderius ( c. 1466–1536 ). Christian humanist
- World Encyclopedia: Desiderius ( 1466–1536 ) ( Gerhard Gerhards ) Dutch scholar and teacher, the greatest of the Renaissance humanists.
- A Dictionary of World History (3 ed.): Desiderius (born Gerhard Gerhards ) ( c .1469–1536 ) Dutch humanist and scholar .
- The Oxford Companion to German Literature (3 ed.): Desiderius (Rotterdam, 1466–1536 , Basel), Dutch humanist
- The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance: Desiderius ( c. 1466–1536 ), Dutch humanist and theologian,
- The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation: Desiderius ( 1467?–1536 ), humanist, reformer, moralist, and satirist.
With regard to Erasmus being a philosopher, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy: Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1467?–1536) was not a systematic philosopher although we discern in the large body of his writings a certain Erasmian habit of mind. He often reflected on subjects that invite philosophical inquiry: the influence of nature versus nurture, the relationship between word and thing, the ideal form of government, the nature of faith, and the theory of knowledge.
My suggestion: would 'teacher' be adequate for 'educationalist'? If you insist on 'educationalist', I don't particularly mind, but there is not a direct reference (as far as I can see). With regard to philosopher: this is problematic, because it is highly contestable who is to be called a philosopher. I remember I corrected one of my philosophy professors when he said that Bertrand Russell was the only philosopher who ever won a Nobel Prize. I said: but Bergson and Camus were also philosophers. He responded with: 'Camus is not a philosopher!'. (Similarly, coming from the analytic tradition, he also didn't think Heidegger was a philosopher.). So my point: being called a philosopher is a subjective matter. Erasmus clearly didn't have a systematic philosophy like Descartes or Spinoza, but then again, does that define 'a philosopher'?
I would suggest: call him either a humanist or call him many things; so either 'a Dutch humanist' or 'a Dutch humanist, scholar, teacher, philosopher, writer, amateur cook, golfer, etc.' 213.124.169.240 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed; these are all good points and reliable sources. And, I believe I could add a footnote to scholar and say that he wasn’t a “systematic philosopher”. @Rick Jelliffe, I sincerely believe this is the best option unless we have to resort to voting. Raulois (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I can agree with 'educationalist', and if I understand Rick Jelliffe well, then he really wants to add this. I finished my contribution with a joke, but I am serious in that you run the risk of having an endless enumeration. Perhaps something like: 'a Dutch humanist, scholar, educationalist, philosopher and writer.' is good? Otherwise, 'a Dutch humanist' would be better. But I can agree with both. I do have to say that the entire lead of this article could be better, with a more clearly written summary of Erasmus's contributions and importance. What surprises me as well about this article is the relative small role of In Praise of Folly, whilst this is unarguably his most famous and lasting work (who reads anything else by Erasmus, except for maybe his letters?). 213.124.169.240 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Educationalist: Ah, so is part of the problem unfamiliarity with the word "educationalist"? It is used in distinction from "educator" or "teacher", so it is certainly *not* a synonym: an educator teaches students directly, and educationalist is a scholar who teaches indirectly (by making text books) and/or is concerned with the theory and practice of education.https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/educationalist It is the standard, specific academic term. So Erasmus rarely actually taught directly: he did some lectures at Cambridge on Jerome, and may have tutored a little when chaperoning, but it was not his bag or vocation; he had a kind of apprentice system at Froben (as he had been, perhaps, at Aldus) where young academics would do preparatory research/editing/collating/advising for him, or act as his amanuensis, so they were his students by osmosis and on-the-job training, rather than by being taught formally. He was an influencer, not a teacher; in part because of his relentless attitude to his work, he tried to keep away from distractions, even when it meant poverty (which he would the complain about.)
Treatment: Good point: the subsections on In Praise of Folly etc. should use the "Main Article" template. I will add some.
Notability: I agree that Praise of Folly is the most commonly-read writing of his, but even that (like Utopia) is almost never read, really. His notability now is not that he is a much-read author, but his thought and methods are baked-into our mental cakes. For example, how common is it in schools is it to try to teach (especially teaching languages) by playing or by play-acting? That method in part derives from the dialogues etc. of his Colloquia: from shipwrecks to civil arguments. His political and moral ideas still reverberate: anyone who is a serious pacifist will have probably read at least exracts of his writing. About a third of the world are counted as Christian in lists (no flames please https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/) and all those from the Western traditions have been influenced by Erasmus: notably Catholics with both Trent and the Second Vatican Council. Luther is more widely known now, but even within Lutheran churchgoers, most Christians have a similar view to Erasmus' on free will, not Luther. His system of ancient Greek pronunciation has turned out to be more right than wrong. Erasmus' direct influence was to Latin-reading intelligensia, and that world has passed (even the Vatican writes documents in e.g. Italian then translates to Latin.) There are hundreds of academic papers written about him every year, because he was in the thick of so much in the 1500s: but that was 500 years ago, so while his influence is everywhere, he is not much read.
It is surprising that he is as famous still as he is: given that most of his writing has been translated into English only in the last 30 years, and that his books were suppressed in Catholic Europe and looked on with suspicion in Lutheran Europe: in both cases, his works was tweaked for partisan purposes and re-issued without his name (such as the Louvain Augustine), so the suppression was more of his name than his works...) I think part of his notability is that he was incredibly funny (with a dry wit) and shy, and loved funny bold people (like Colet and More): how many people have seen the movies "In the Name of the Rose" and realized it was inspired by Erasmus (and the pushback from the Sorbonne and Salamanca about the appropriateness of satirical theology)?
Perhaps he is most well-know on the Internet for quotes that he never actually said: all sorts of bizarre things. :-) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Systematic: I don't think we need to put in anything about Erasmus not being a systematic philosopher: isn't that already covered in the Writings section: "Erasmus has been called a seminal, rather than a consistent or systematic thinker" ? I would rather have more material on what he was and did rather than what he wasn't (or wasn't much.)
Another angle: editors should perhaps be aware that "philosopher" *may* have slightly narrower connotations for (some) native English speakers than for speakers with other first languages: in that in the Anglosphere "philosophy" has been dominated by Analytic philosophy focused on issues of logic (as distinct from e.g. Continental philosophy) which sets expectations about what philosophy is about. So, for example, in English Wikipedia Lenin is described as "Russian lawyer, revolutionary, politician and political theorist " but in Italian "un rivoluzionario, politico, filosofo e scrittore russo" (though, to be fair, the French and German Wikipedia's don't call him a philosopher either.) I may be going to far in this, but it is certainly a tendency I detect in myself. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Going a bit too far, no? Erasmus was born before any such dichotomies ever existed? I didn’t know one could conceive of such preconceptions as to treat the word philosopher semantically different when it redirects to this, not analytical philosophy nor continental philosophy… Raulois (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
''Major branches of philosophy are epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics.'' Erasmus did not treat epistemology, logic or metaphysics (indeed was scathing about scholastics who concentrated on them); his treatment of ethics was as a theologian not as a philosopher proper. The complication is that in his role as a professional translator and editor, he produced many works by classical philosophers: it is notable that he did not produce any editions of Christian or semi-Christian philosophers such as Boethius, just the theologians. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Added footnote. Raulois (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
checkY I have made a new section "Erasmus and Philosophy" and pulled down Raulois' excellent note to its first sentence. This also unclutters the lede. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
People would've already known about this note due to it being in the lede, also you already stated in that section that Erasmus didn't consider himself a philosopher and included a citation in which if people desired to click on the citation then they would be directed to where it says "Erasmus was not a philosopher...". Thus, I believe there would be more concinnity if it stayed in the lede. Raulois (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


Philosophia Christi

Academics have variously situated his thought as Christianized stoic, epicurean, platonic/nominalist; and some of his Collequies e.g. Epicureans have a philosophical MacGuffin. But were any of his books -as author- about Philosophy in the academic sense used in modern English? Probably need to add sentence to include reference to some of these p, e.g. The Stoic Origins of Erasmus' Philosophy of Christ) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

checkY Added material on philosophia christi.

References

  1. ^ Ethnicity: “A large group of people with a shared culture, language, history, set of traditions, etc., or the fact of belonging to one of these groups”.[1]
  2. ^ Nationality: 1. the status of belonging to a particular nation, whether by birth or naturalization. [2]
  3. ^ "If someone has a peripatetic life or career, they travel around a lot, living or working in places for short periods of time." - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/peripatetic
  4. ^ Nationality: 1. the status of belonging to a particular nation, whether by birth or naturalization. [3]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erasmus/Archive_1&oldid=1239767683"