Talk:Erasmus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Who is the greatest scholar of the northern Renaissance?

My Wikipedians,

I would call into question the validity of the following clauses in the first line of the opening paragraph. "[...]who is widely considered to have been the greatest scholar of the northern Renaissance". James D. Tracy, a historian, is cited as authority for this claim, but the cited article itself is unsubstantiated, and as in the Wikipedia article, does not say by what measure. I can find no credible consensus - only the EB article and sites copying Wikipedia verbatim. It may not be wrong to say he was one of the greatest scholars of the northern Renaissance, but in positing it is a material fact that he was the greatest, the clauses are rendering an opinion to be absolute.

I would therefore dismiss this claim. The mistake of the editor has been induced by a material misrepresentation of the historian. Contributer232312 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Enhance section on Erasmus "Religious Toleration"?

Erasmus is so great that it would not diminish his greatness to mention that he expressed antisemitic sentiments. Please consider adding a sentence or two in the section “Religious toleration”.Gery.shachar (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The nature of his alleged anti-semitism is very debatable. He tended to use "Hebrew" when he meant the race or ethnicity, and "Jew" when he meant a religious distinction. Though not always. Frequently, he used Jew in a theological sense of a Judaizer, by which he means a Christian who expresses their religion through ceremonial and ritualistic activities (e.g. by analogy with temple Judaism.)

Erasmus is impossible to decypher by taking his words literally: he habitually expressed himself with paradoxes, provocative expressions, literary allusions and jokes. Luther called him "slippery" because of it.

For example, one of his famous comments, that he did not want to go to Spain because there are too many Jews, has nothing to do with actual Jews: he is using his typical paradoxical jokey expression to say that the trouble with Spain is not all the Jews (which would indeed be the common ant-semitism of the day) but the (Salamanca) theologians and monks (who were raising his case to the Spanish Inquisition)

His theological attitude can be seen in part from his comment that "A good Jew makes a better Christian, but a bad Jew makes a worse Christian." This means that a sincere Jew becoming a Christian benefits from their heritage and morality, unless they bring ritualism or dogmatism with it; it is also a statement against forced conversions, which Erasmus certainly opposed: a person was not improved by a forced or feigned conversion, so the policy was wrong-headed. But it was said in particular reference to Pfefferkorn (see below.)

It is worthwhile noting that many of the leading conversos Jesuits were Erasmians. They found his scholarship and irenicism attractive.

He specifically recommended a Jewish scholar to teach Hebrew at the Tri-lingual college he helped set up at the University of Louvain, which may mean something, too.

But the main reason for not including something on his supposed anti-semitism is that it simply is not a big feature of his work or thought. It would be unbalanced. "Jew" could be replaced by "Judaizer" or "Ritualizer" without changing his meaning, in most cases: to the extent that he is anti-semitic, it is en passant and blind. Contrast with, for example, Martin Luther, whose vitriol against Jews was against Jews; and he was in a position of more political effect than Erasmus was.

The book Erasmus and the Jews by Shimon Markish says, apparently, that charges of anti-semitism cannot be sustained. (I haven't read it).

Contrast with Erasmus of the Low Countries [1] which asserts that (in the notorious Reuchlin affair) because Erasmus nastily questioned Pferfferkorn's motives for converting, he questions all Jews' conversions; and where the author utterly fails to see Erasmus' (condemnatory) thought behind If it is Christian to detest the Jews, on this count we are all good Christians, and to spare. Having read quite a lot of Erasmus, I can see no justification for the statement that "Erasmus hated Jews." (Remember that Pfeffekorn was himself extremely anti-semitic, and was against Reuchlin because of his position as a Hebrew scholar who had trained with non-Catholic Jews and was interested in Kabbalistic studies. Pfefferkorn, who Erasmus was being nasty about, had said that Jews did not convert because of usury, the lack of forced conversions, and their reliance on the Talmud. So it is madness to extrapolate a comment about him by Erasmus as a comment on Jews or Jewish converts in general: Erasmus is anti-semitic because he says something nasty about an ex-Jewish anti-semite who is attacking an academic gentile who had great respect for Jewish language, culture, scholastics and religion?)

All that being said, "Jew" was, when not used neutrally to mean Jews, not a positive term for Erasmus. But it was a term of reprobation not hatred, as far as I can see; so I am certain that Erasmus would not use it in that way were he alive today, as it would fail to convey his intent.

Note that Erasmus used the term "half Christians" for both Jews and Moslems: and his consistent call was that the way to convert half-christians was by peaceful example, not the sword. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Jews and Turks

Y I have added a small section "Jews and Turks" on the topic Gery.shachar requested. It is a complete minefield, of course, and I hope I have been NPOV in my selection of material. Please review and improve. (No flames!)

To make my own angle clearer, if that helps promote a NPOV in the article, I take Shimon Markish's interpretation more gladly than than Nathan Ron's, but Ron makes many worthy points too in multiple solid works, so I have featured a reference to Ron's work (and him by name) in order that it is not buried. (Even Markish finds something sinister underneath Erasmus' en passant comments in his unguarded private writing: for what it reveals about the undercurrent of anti-semitism of the times and where that undercurrent lead) Erasmus was more scrupulous in his public writings not to demonize Jews but instead to ironically reflect casual anti-semitic tropes back against Christians (in an edifying but sharp rebuke for them.) I would hope that someone literate reading Erasmus in good faith at that time, and aware of his ironic mode, would come away less attached to anti-semitic tropes and more concerned with peace, friendliness and concord.

I did not put in much about the Turks, perhaps a sentence that he was against enforced conversion, massacres etc might be appropriate. But there already is a paragraph on On the War with the Turks that makes the important point that the Ottomans were currently attacking Central Europe. (So Anti-Turkish feeling was as much about racism as, perhaps, the anti-Russian feeling a Ukrainian might be tempted to feel at the moment would be. I.e. not primarily.) Erasmus felt that Christians living in the Ottoman Empire should not rebel, certainly where there was no chance of success, but live peacably and by their good lives convert the Turks, who were already half-Christian. Some editor who is better aware of the situation might add something, perhaps?

I put in, then took out, examples of his ironic use of Jew, and I did not put in material on the Reuchlin/Pfefferkorn affair, as it would be unbalanced coverage. I would have liked to put in too about how many of the Spanish conversos scholars, particularly the Jesuits, were Erasmians, but it was tangential. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I have also added a note on his converted Jewish doctors: there may be others too. I don't expect it is a big deal. But when Markish said that Erasmus never met a Jew (and never went out to find one), it is not right, unless we take Markish to mean a Jew in the religious/cultural sense of a presenting Jew, not some ethnic/familial sense. Also, on reading the source more, perhaps Markish's positive comments were mostly about Erasmus' considered public writings, to make it less "Markish says good; Ron says bad". And please comment if there is some landmine I am stepping on out of ignorance! Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This entire section, Jews and Turks, should be deleted, in fact, as I write the comments below to justify the deletion of the section, it is clear that the section is neither scholarly nor encyclopaedic in nature or quality and I am going to delete it.

To state Erasmus views about Jews or Islam based on the opinions of two individuals, Shimon Markish and Nathan Ron, does not meet the standards defined by Wikipedia that require quoting the original material rather than quoting quotes or discussions about the original material. Assumptions of a historical figure's opinions surely would require support by quoting their actual words or deeds and including a direct reference to their words or deeds rather than to opinions of others.

Additionally, the section tries to paint Erasmus as a racist with the phrase, "harsh and racial in its implications." If the author of this section wants to make the claim of racism, then find actual racism in his words and deeds and quote his actual writings, words, or deeds. If the author wants to talk about Erasmus dislike or distrust of Turks, then remove the racial comment and back up the claim with actual quotes from Erasmus, himself - there are some.

Any claim of hatred or dislike that Erasmus had for the Turks, and clearly, his own words can be quoted to show that he disliked them, must include the context of the Turks as invaders and occupiers of significant parts of Europe from the 14th century until long after Erasmus wrote about them, and even long after his death. To write that he is a racist or even to quote his own words showing his dislike for Turks without that context seems disingenuous.

There is a statement that Erasmus likely never met a practicing Jew. For a man who travelled as much has he did, that seems very likely to be false. It is far more likely that he met many Jews in his lifetime. Either way, though, either the author should be able to back it up with documented evidence or it does not belong.

This is a great example of why it is inappropriate, in an encyclopedia, to write about what a historical figure thought but, instead, it should be written about what they did, what they said that can be supported with trusted and reliable documentation, and what they wrote - quoting what they wrote instead of some unknown person's opinion of what they wrote. Diprestonus (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

"the standards defined by Wikipedia that require quoting the original material rather than quoting quotes or discussions about the original material": That would by WP:OR, which is expressly verboten on wikipedia. On the contrary, citations of reliable secondary sources are exactly what such a section should be based on.

It is possible that the text of the section should be revised, but you need to cite reliable sources for that, not his own writings and not what "seems very likely" (there are plenty of widely travelled people who have never met, say, a university professor). Furius (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Furius. Markish and Ron are not just "individuals" but two serious multiply-published scholars with opposing opinions who specialize precisely in this topic; both have written complete books on Erasmus; both provide different voices to the gentile/Western sources that dominate the Erasmian literature. (My own preference would be for the section on Pacifism to become its own article, allowing better treatment of the Turkish nuances etc.)

Yes, there needs to be mix of primary and secondary sources, especually given tat Erasmus was such a stylist: and without WP:OR; however the lack of a primary quotation or a secondary source citation is not justification for deletion: the correct approach is to add a "dubious" or "citation required" tag. Here, I think adding extra primary quotations would tend to unbalance the article; making what is IMHO a material but small aspect of his thought or biography into a big deal, which would then require a much more substantive treatment to include Erasmus' slippery language.

I have weakened the text to clarify it is Markish's claim, and added parenthesis around the added "practising" which is something reasonably (given that Markish knew of Erasmus' contacts with conversos and converts) implicit in Markish's comment.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)