Erasmus of Rotterdam and His Approach to Tolerance

158

abstract The main focus of the article is to Erasmus study two of Erasmus’ approaches to tolerance that are connected with of Rotterdam the vision of unity and peace and the humanistic emphasis on dialogue. The justification of tolerance, which is and his Approach most typical for Christian humanism as a whole, is to be found in many of to Tolerance Erasmus’ works. Attention is initially paid to Erasmus’ understanding of tolerance on the background of Jozef Matula his central concept of philosophia Christi Department of Philosophy, and around his antidogmatic and tolerant Palacky University Olomouc, concept of Christianity. Tolerance is Křížkovského 12, Olomouc, fundamentally connected to ideas about Czech Republic religious peace, piety and concord [email protected] (pax, pietas, concordia). Tolerance also represents for Erasmus the beginning of https://doi.org/10.5507/aither.2020.009 self-mastery in the sense of enduring the differences and respecting the opinions and practices of others. Self-mastery is a prerequisite for a true dialogue. This does not mean unlimited tolerance for all opinions but a peaceful and moderate dialogue between opponents. This kind of dialogue is a necessity for the search for truth.*

* This is an extended and revised version of the paper presented in the conference of the annual meeting of American Philosophical Association in Baltimore, 4–7 January 2017. I would like to thank Prof. Mario Turchetti for providing me his study on tolerance. The abbreviations of the pri- mary sources are as follows: ASD (Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami. Amsterdam, 1969-), LB (Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami opera omnia. Leiden, 1703–6).

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 jozef matula 159 Erasmus of Rotterdam and his Approach to Tolerance

Let us resist, not by taunts and threats, not by force of arms and injustice, but by simple discretion, by benefits, by gentleness and tolerance (...sed simplici prudentia, sed benefactis, sed mansuetudine et tolerantia).1

Introduction1 main figures of European intellectual life The question of tolerance is an inherent during the Renaissance, Erasmus of Rot- part of European history as there have terdam (1466–1536). Erasmus occupies been attempts to define tolerance from a highly important place in the history ancient times to the early modern peri- of tolerance, so important that Wilhelm od.2 This article does not claim to be an Dilthey calls him the „Voltaire of the six- exhaustive overview of the discussion teenth century“.3 Some scholars include on medieval and premodern theories on him among early modern theoreticians tolerance in general, its purpose is to fo- on tolerance and celebrate him for pro- cus on one kind of tolerance represented moting religious tolerance.4 The justifica- by the eminent humanist and one of the tion of tolerance, which is most typical for Christian humanism as a whole, is to 1 Epistola de philosophia evangelica (1527) in Erasmus 1961, p. 9. English citation from Huizinga 1957, p. 152. 3 Dilthey 1991, p. 42. 2 Forst 2012. 4 Zijlstra 2002, p. 209.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 160

be found in many Erasmus’ works and and religious conflicts and misunder- represents a kind of humanistic approach standings, as well as quarrels within to tolerance. 5 Although Erasmus did not Christianity itself.8 write a thematic treatise on tolerance, The pre-modern approach to religious the very term is to be found throughout tolerance can be defined from different his works, in Enchiridion militis christiani theoretical backgrounds. Although the (1503), De libero arbitrio (1524), Institutio Middle Ages have a reputation of being principis christiani (1516), Quarela Pacis an intolerant period, the simplified as- (1517) among others, in many Letters and sumptions on unlimited intolerance du- commentaries of the New Testament.6 ring this epoch have been changed by I will focus on two of Erasmus’ modern scholarship.9 However, Perez main approaches to tolerance that are Zagorin argues that „the critical test of connected with the vision of unity and such a theory [of toleration] in Christian peace and the humanistic emphasis on and Catholic Europe is its attitude to her- dialogue. esy and heretics and hence its willingness to argue against the long-standing Tolerance as a path Christian theory of religious persecu- to peace tion.“ Zagorin stands by the view that After the breakdown of European reli- most medieval thinkers fail this test and gious unity in the 16th century, there „it was not until the religious conflicts arose a problem of religious tolerance, generated in the sixteenth century by the which would centre on peaceful coex- Protestant Reformation... that genuine istence in a divided Christian world.7 theories of religious toleration first made In this situation, the first theories of their appearance in Europe“.10 What was religious tolerance were based specif- advocated by sixteenth-century defend- ically on an emphasis on unity among ers of religious liberty was not toleration different people and the common ac- in the modern sense, meaning the right ceptance of ethical aspects in order to of dissent, but toleration in the ancient weaken dogmatic aspects and legitimize sense, meaning a willingness to put up diversity based on mutual brotherly love. with dissenters until the truth is made Erasmus never stopped expressing his clear.11 The origins of the modern doc- own anxiety in the face of barbaric man- 8 Buzzi 2013, p. 29. ifestations of intolerance and violence 9 To mention some works and studies on in Christian society. Erasmus was seri- pre-modern discussion on tolerance, ously concerned about global political Laursen 1999, especially the annotated bibliography in pp. 229–245; Kaplan 2007; 5 On the humanist theory of religious tol- Nederman, & Laursen 1996; Guggisberg eration see Remer 1996, particularly on 1983, pp. 35–50; Zagorin 2006; Bejczy 1997; Erasmus see pp. 43–101; Kamen 1967, Laursen, Nederman 1998; Solari, 2013, pp. 24–30; Hoffmann 1982, pp. 80–106; pp. 73–97. Remer 1994, pp. 305–336. 10 Zagorin 2006, pp. 313–314. 6 Bejczy 1997, pp. 365–384. 11 Erasmus 1993a, p. 209n; Turchetti 1991a, 7 Zagorin 2006. pp. 15–25.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 jozef matula 161 Erasmus of Rotterdam and his Approach to Tolerance trine of tolerance can be found in the prevails, even those who have good 15th century within a group of humanists things cannot enjoy them. Let us all, devoted to themes of platonic and Neo- from the greatest to the least, labour platonic philosophy. In particular, the to patch together peace and concord idea of concordance between religion and among Christians.15 philosophy and the idea of pia philosophia, in which they found the deepest The preservation of unity comes at meaning of the tradition of classical phi- the cost of renouncing some traditional losophy and Christian patristics, bibli- Christian practices and declaring them cal revelation and ancient Jewish wis- “things indifferent” adiaphora( ). The dom, became the theoretical ground for “tolerant” acceptance of nonconformist such intellectuals as Nicholas Cusanus, religious views, beliefs and practices is Marsilio Ficino or Giovanni Pico della based on the distinction between what is Mirandola.12 The irenic tendency, which religiously essential and what is merely also marked, for instance, Cusanus’ writ- doctrinal. Tolerance is not primarily ing on peace (though to a lesser extent) understood as a formal “declaration,” or can be found most of all in Erasmus who “edict” that protects practitioners of mi- spent his life in pleading for unity in bal- nority religions or dissenters. For Eras- ance and avoiding conflicts.13 Erasmus, mus, heretics must be helped to return like other eminent sixteenth-century to true faith without coercion because scholars of every confession, proposed the illness of heresy cannot be treated a definition of the fundamentals that he with violence. It is important to note hoped would reunite Christians. Eras- that Erasmus claimed to have never said mus’ search for the unity of Christians that capital punishment should not be (unam sanctam) is expressed in the prin- inflicted on heretics. Rather, he only ad- ciple that there is no other God than God vocated preventive measures for heresy but there are different perspectives on in order to cure it before heretics had to him.14 For Erasmus the highest goal is be put to death, which was only done if pax or concordia, the preservation of the no other remedies were effective.16 How- harmonious unity of the Church. Thecon - ever, killing heretics, violence and war is cord is enjoyment of the goodness of all in principle a greater evil than the evil of and the aim of Christian life: tolerating heretics. They should be tolerated or accepted until reconciliation and Where mutual concord prevails, no concord is achieved.17 In a letter to Jean one lacks for anything; where discord de Carondelet, Erasmus points out that:

12 Pintacuda 1985, pp. 131–151; Euler 1998; 15 Erasmus 1993c, LB X 1671A / ASD IX-1 208, Cantimori 2009; Lecler 1960; Forst 2012, p. 142. p. 77. 16 Compare with Erasmus’s Apologia ad 13 Forst 2012, p. 98; Lecler 1960, p. 103; Olin monachos Hispanos (1527). Coroleu 2008, 1975. p. 89. 14 Halkin 1987, p. 105. 17 Laursen 1999, pp. 7–24, especially pp. 12–13.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 162

The sum and substance of our religion religions.22 He recommends moderation is peace and concord. This can hardly in serious issues: whenever there was need remain the case unless we define as few for serious advice, I have, as I said, always matters as possible and leave each in- advocated moderation.23, In another text, dividual's judgment free on many ques- he even praises himself for his ability to tions. This is because the obscurity of approach various controversial issues most questions is great and the malady in a moderate way: I am thankful for one is for the most part intrinsic to our hu- thing at least, that so far I have been able to man nature: we do not know how to preserve my old moderation in replying.24 yield once a question has been made In The Sponge of Erasmus against the As- a subject of contention. And after the persions of Hutten, he also emphasises debate has warmed up each one thinks his moderate spirit: that the side he has undertaken rashly to defend is absolute truth.18 I have constantly declared, in count- less letters, booklets, and personal The aim of a tolerant attitude to- statements, that I do not want to be wards heretics is “concord” and “peace”, involved with either party. I give many the practice of tolerance includes “char- reasons for my position, and there are ity”, “lenity”, “gentleness”, “moderation” others I have not disclosed. But in this and “divine condescension, accommoda- respect my conscience does not accuse tion” (synkatabasis).19 “Condescension” me before Christ, my judge. Amid all means, for Erasmus, that sometimes the the upheavals of our day, amid so many pious and simple minded ought to be tol- dangers to my reputation and even my erated, even if (they are joined) with some life, I have kept my counsels moderate, error (pius ac simplex affectus interdum so as not to be the author of any distur- tolerandus est etiamsi sit cum aliquo con- bance, nor to support a cause of which junctus errore).20 In his letters, Erasmus I did not approve, nor in any way to calls for moderation, discussion and betray the truth of the gospel. 25 patience with others.21 Tolerance is understood as moderation, as a creation of Although the term tolerantia is found a model atmosphere of peaceful coexist- in Erasmus’ work mostly in its classical ence among the followers of different and biblical sense as endurance or bear- ing of suffering, the term is fundamentally connected to ideas about religious 18 Erasmus 1979, pp. 100–101. 19 Turchetti 1991b, pp. 379-395; Lugioyo 2010, pp. 31–32. On the Old Testament and Pat- 22 Bejczy 1997, pp. 365–384; Turchetti 1991a, ristic meaning of synkatabasis see Drey- pp. 15–25. fus 1984, pp. 74–86; Boersma 2017, pp. 72–73. 23 Erasmus 1993c, LB x 1668b / ASD IX-1 202, 20 Erasmus 1533, 85; ASD V-3, 305, ll. 668–670. p. 135; LB X 1639E / ASD IX-1 138, p. 60; LB X 1650B / ASD IX-1 162, pp. 88–89. 21 Erasmus 1993b, LB X 1609e / ASD IX-1 374, p. 317: I have always urged people to mo- 24 Erasmus 1992, p. 92. deration and tranquility, and still do. 25 See note 23.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 jozef matula 163 Erasmus of Rotterdam and his Approach to Tolerance peace, piety and concord (pax, pietas, tionalisms and confessions in a supra-na- concordia).26 In The Epistle against the tional and supra-confessional human- False Evangelicals he says: ism.28 Tolerance helps guarantee religious unity and demonstrates Christian As for the things that are pious, let us solidarity which opposes nationalism, agree about them in a Christian spirit. chauvinism and narrow-minded religious In things not very conducive to piety, and political thought.29 Erasmus’ state- and yet not obstacles to it, let us al- ments on excessive nationalism should be low each person to content himself as seen within the context of his persistent he sees fit; let each, testing all things, efforts to enhanceconcord among schol- hold to what he supposes good. Diffi- ars all over Europe, to establish peace cult matters, and those that seem not and unity among divided Christians and yet fully discussed, let us put off until to unite Christian rulers.30 another time, so that, in the meantime, Tolerance springs from philosophy a benevolent harmony may prevail and from the Christian religion, from among people disharmonious in their the irenic concept of the Church.31 As opinions; until God may deign to reveal Hilmar Pabel rightly points out, for these things to some one. 27 Erasmus the ecclesiastical concord ranks above all other virtues, and no vice is Tolerance is the result of Erasmus’ more intolerable than that of discord in humanistic spirit and strong belief that the church.32 Peace, love and piety were philosopia Christi transcends all na- central to Erasmus’ philosopia Christi, the teaching that there is a simple Chris- 26 For “tolerantia” as a Christian virtue see Bejczy 1997, p. 358n. Bejczy states that in tian way of life, which is to be guided Epistola de philosophia evangelica “Eras- by studying the sacred Scriptures and mus retained the term at 2 Cor. 1:6 (Now classical thought.33 if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effective Around the central concept of phi- for enduring the same sufferings which losophia Christi, Erasmus, created an we also suffer. Or if we are comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. New King James Version) in his New 28 In Querela pacis (1516) he openly criticiz- Testament translation and added it at 2 es the armed conflicts between human Thess. 1:4 (…so that we ourselves boast of beings of the same or of different faiths. you among the churches of God for your Cf. Huizinga 1957, p. 152; Papy 2008, p. 41. patience and faith in all your persecu- 29 Kamen 1967, pp. 24–29. tions and [a]tribulations that you endure) 30 These ideas are later echoed in visions and James 5:11 (Indeed we count them of John Amos Comenius and his long- blessed who endure. You have heard ing efforts to establish unity and peace of the perseverance of Job and seen the through education and general emen- end intended by the Lord - that the Lord dation of all society. Cf. Matula 2011, is very compassionate and merciful).” pp. 209–229. 27 Erasmus 1993a, LB X 1583D / ASD I -1 301, 31 Pabel 1995, pp. 57–93. p. 245; Cf. Erasmus 1986, p. 302: Christ is consistent when he bids men learn one 32 Pabel 1995, p. 83. thing from him: to be gentle in spirit, not 33 Schoeck 1993, p. 37. For more on Christi at all aggressive. philosophia see Eden 2001, p. 8.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 164

antidogmatic and tolerant concept of but not to criticize their opinions or per- Christianity, by returning to biblical plex them with discussion.36 and patristic sources. The concept of tolerance is essentially related to the Nevertheless, if there is someone among ethical content of the gospel message you, perhaps a Jew by race, who, be- and the commandment to love one an- cause he has grown accustomed for so other. Love as the supreme command- long to his former practice and life, is ment calls for leniency/benevolence to- still rather superstitious, and whose wards those of other faiths. Only love faith has not grown in him enough to tolerates their differences while at the enable him to exclude all observance of same time trying to lead them to truth the former law, he must not be imme- with patience and modesty.34 In Querela diately excluded with contempt, but in- pacis Erasmus says: stead he must be attracted and encour- aged by gentleness and courtesy until he Please note that Christ asks for his peo- too begins to advance and receive the ple a special sort of concord: he said strength of faith. This will come about not that they should be of one mind more readily through good-will than but that they might be one, and not through contentious arguing... In order just in any way, but, as he said, we are that peace and concord exist everywhere one who are united in the most perfect among you some things must be ig- and inexpressible way; and incidentally nored, some endured, some interpreted he indicated that there is only one way with more kindness. This forbearance for men to be preserved - if they unite and sincerity has great force to produce among themselves to foster peace.35 a mutual fellowship of life. Peace will never remain firm among many unless Erasmus’ tendency towards paci- in some things one gives way in turn to fism compels him to search for grains another, inasmuch as there are various of truth in both of the opposing parties opinions among people. in order to avoid conflict and extreme statements. The irenic spirit combined Erasmus, following St. Paul´s toler- with the moderate spirit with regard to ance and support for anyone whose faith ultimate truth arose from the command is imperfect until he advances to better of St. Paul to welcome weak believers, things (Romans 14:1), emphasizes vigilance against the dangers of one's own pride as well as vigilance against infec- 34 Forst 2012, p. 106; Svatoš, & Svatoš 1985, tion with diseases of the soul, such as p. 57; Bainton 1951, pp. 32–48. 35 Erasmus 1986, p. 330: In concord, small things grow; in discord, even great things decline. Compare with Sallust, Jugurtha, 10.6: Concordia parvae res crescunt, dis- 36 Romans 14: 1. Compare with Erasmus’ cordia maxumae dilabuntur. See also paraphrase on the Epistle to the Romans Wiedemann 1993, pp. 48–57. in Erasmus 1984, p. 373.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 jozef matula 165 Erasmus of Rotterdam and his Approach to Tolerance anger, envy and self-love.37 In the Enchi- a thing it is, if an injury has been re- ridion Erasmus explains that anyone can ceived, that it is in no wise removed by succumb to depraved and violent behav- revenge, but is rather spread thereby. iour, and that tolerance and leniency is For what will be the end of mutual inju- a kind of remedy for personal injuries ries if anyone continues to retaliate his and for the destruction of personal and own pain by revenge? Enemies increase civil life. on both sides; the pain becomes very raw. The more inveterate it is, surely the When fierce sorrow of mind goads more incurable it becomes. Yet by leni- you to revenge, remember that there ency and tolerance sometimes even he is nothing less like anger than what who has done the injury is cured, and, it falsely imitates, namely, fortitude. having returned to himself, from an en- Nothing is quite so womanish, noth- emy becomes the surest of friends. …38 ing has so much the quality of a feeble and degraded mind, as to take delight In the Liber de sarcienda ecclesiae con- in revenge. You are zealous to appear cordia (1533) Erasmus recommended brave by not suffering an injury to go “a moderate condescension” to both unavenged, yet in this same way you sides in religious disputes, “moderate display your childishness, for you are condescension” being a measured form not able to temper your mind (an act of mutual accommodation that did not proper to a man). How much stronger impinge on the essentials of Christian and more generous it is to reject anoth- faith. An open dialogue with a respect er's folly than to imitate it! Yet someone for freedom and without threat or pre- has done harm, he is violent, he insults tence is a path to avoiding the violent you. The more wicked he is, the more repression of dissidence. Erasmus un- you should beware lest you become like derstood that a Socratic emphasis on him. What evil is this madness, that dialogue, on moderation instead of fight- you avenge the depravity of another ing (polemos), is a way to avoid pride and only to become more depraved yourself? arrogance. It means that both sides of If you hold abuse in contempt, all men different parties (Catholics and Luther- will know you have been undeservedly ans) must accept the essential religious abused. But if you are aroused, you will teachings: the primacy of Gospel, the furnish a better reason for being in- mission of the Church, purification of flicted with it. Then reflect upon what religious institutions and piety. In the name of peace and mutual tolerance, 37 Pabel 2018, pp. 25–26. Cf. Erasmus 1984, both parties must care about these reli- ROM 14.23-15.4 / LB VII 826, p. 83: But gious essentials with charity and love, so whenever error arises out of weakness,

he who is held in the grip of error de- as to avoid divisions and disturbances. serves to be taught and admonished; he does not deserve to be despised or ridi- culed. Schoeck 1993, p. 374; Martin 1998, pp. 249–290. 38 Erasmus 1953, p. 376.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 166

39 This kind of tolerance is based on the for his own time.41 Erasmus revived the belief that saving Christian unity should old veneration of Socrates as a bearer of be based on the recognition of the out- the Logos and made him an important ward indifference to other religions. model for Christians.42 Erasmus often Undoubtedly, Erasmus is a good mentioned Socrates as an example of example of mild-mannered views and „tolerantia“.43 In Disputatiuncula, com- arguments against the “forcing of con- bining the humanistic spirit with the sciences” in religious matters.40 Christi- peace of Christian revelation, he draws anity provided a cogent set of arguments a comparison between Christ in the Gar- in favour of forbearance, such as the con- den of Gethsemane and Socrates in his viction that the Christian’s conscience cell.44 Jesus is compared to Socrates and should not be forced in matters of faith. Erasmus suggests that one ought to be Erasmus argues that the conversation as patient as Socrates.45 In Adage “Nosce about religion might go better if the teipsum” (Know thyself, I vi 95) modera- participants adopt certain practices of tion is celebrated and recommended as speech, a sense of irony, an irenic ap- the middle state between two extremes proach to opposition and the habit of (overestimation and underestimation critical thinking. of one's own abilities). The sources of all human troubles are blind self-love Tolerance through the and despair: practice of dialogue Erasmus focuses on the impossibility The first of these [Delphi maxims] is of using power to force people to think γνῶθι σεαυτόν, Know thyself, which rec- in an orthodox fashion. This idea is in- ommends moderation and the middle directly linked back to the ancient and state, and bids us not to pursue objects medieval idea that a reasonable dialogue either too great for us or beneath us. For guided by tolerance is the best way to here we have a source of all life's trou- make our “brothers of reason” more vir- bles: every man flatters himself, and tuous. Erasmus’ pedagogy, which is the blinded by self-love takes to himself very basis of a new, humanistic search for the sources of Christendom itself 41 Bartholin, & Christian 1972, pp. 1–10; and at the same time a new spiritual Weintraub 2000, pp. 259–270. 42 Bakker, pp. 391–407; Edwards 2017, p. 141: command to choose the rhetoric of di- It is no surprise that Erasmus, as a con- alogue, tolerance, understanding and noisseur of both Jerome and Augustine, self-criticism, is an invitation to inner should have grasped the latent analogy between the Christ of the Gospels and change for the human being. Similarly the Socrates of the aporetic dialogues. to Peter Abelard, he revives and re- 43 Bartholin, & Christian 1972, pp. 1–10. See phrases „saintly Socrates“ and Christ also Bejczy 1997, p. 358n. 44 See also Taylor 2019, p. 86; Lochman 1989, pp. 77-88. On Socrates and tolerance see 39 Pabel 2018, p. 52. Fiala 2005, pp. 4–17. 40 Head 1997, p. 97. 45 Eden 2001, p. 26 and 56.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 jozef matula 167 Erasmus of Rotterdam and his Approach to Tolerance

without deserving it all the merit that are not essential to salvation, the speak- he wrongly denies to others.46 ers may adopt a sceptical attitude towards their own beliefs. Scepticism led Karl Popper, in his essay „Toleration Erasmus to the conviction that many and Intellectual Responsibility”, charac- theological debates cannot be decided terized Erasmus as a follower of Socrates and only the doctrinal adiaphora can be in his insights into human ignorance discussed in a tolerant and peaceful di- and moderation.47 Erasmus’ defence of alogue, not the fundamentals of faith.50 tolerance derives from Socrates’ insights The superstructure of the essential be- and has ethical consequences such as lief is too complex for a human being self-awareness of the fallibility of human to judge. Erasmus’ dislike of scholastic knowledge and openness to rational dis- rational theological discussions led him cussions which avoid personal attacks. to suggest a kind of sceptical or moder- Although scepticism is a persistent at- ate position which should be used within tribute of any philosophical dialogue, it the Church. In his most famous treatise does not mean that it necessarily leads Praise of Folly, where Erasmus pleads for to toleration. However, a philosophical tolerance and for light to shine on the dialogue is tolerant because toleration dark areas of man’s world, he states that: facilitates the discovery of what is most probably the truth.48 Dialogue is an im- …for such is the obscurity and variety portant rhetorical tool for Erasmus – he of human affairs that nothing can be made use of it to deal with religious is- clearly known, as has been correctly sues. It does not mean that Erasmus dis- said by my Academics, the least impu- cussed all religious issues in a dialogue dent of the philosophers.51 form because the fundamentals of faith cannot be discussed, only „the nones- Dialogue is the best way in which to sential doctrines“ (adiaphora) can be compare different opinions and decide questioned.49 When the issues debated which one is the most probable consid- ering the strengths and weaknesses 46 Erasmus 2001, p. 95. Erasmus also wrote the famous ‘Sancte Socrates, ora pro no- tinguished between akineta, “immove- bis’ in his Convivium religiosum (Collo- able” articles of faith based on clear quia 16), ASD I. 3, p. 455. Cf. Huizinga, 1957, scriptural precepts; adiaphora, which al- p. 105. lowed room for disputation; and human 47 Popper 2000, pp. 190–191. laws and customs that were subject to 48 Erasmus’ De libero arbitrio, composed in change and could be adapted to the cir- the form of a diatribe is a kind of phil- cumstances. The last category contained osophical dialogue. The debate between many practices, he said, that could ei- Luther and Erasmus about the reality of ther be “tolerated or corrected.” Some free will shows Erasmus’ moderate posi- matters did not require an official pro- tion. Cf. Erasmus, & Luther 2013; Murray nouncement at all, but could simply be 1920; Remer 1996, p. 92. “left to the judgment of the individual.” 49 Remer 1994, pp. 305–336. On the diffe- 50 Remer 1994, pp. 305–336. rence between akineta and adiaphora 51 Turchetti 1991b, pp. 379-395; Popkin 2003, see Rummel 2000, p. 129: Erasmus dis- p. 8; Erasmus 2015, p. 85.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 168

of each position. The adoption of the The aim of a philosophical dialogue ancient argument for the impossibil- is the search for truth; the gentleness of ity of epistemological certainty led the language and respect for each other elim- opponents to a peaceful solution of the inate any combat and personal humili- religious issues that they discuss. Prefer- ation. Erasmus´ type of dialogue aims ence is given to making mistakes, since at a common discovery of truth or the mistakes offer all participants of the di- closest approximation of it. The partic- alogue the opportunity to learn about ipants of the dialogue searching for the the truth. The so-called „sceptical view truth adopt the sceptical stance towards “should be understood as the consider- the issue under discussion (Erasmus pre- ation of several opinions before giving supposed a monistic conception of truth, preference to the one that is most valid. which excludes ideas that contradict ac- Erasmus was not a sceptic in the sense cepted truth from the discussion). The of ancient pyrrhonism because pyrrhon- dialogues open the sphere of doctrinal ism often took on the appearance of diversity. Another important point for neo-socratism, Socrates being the most philosophy is the active engagement famous teacher of ignorance.52 Erasmus´ of the participants of the dialogue to familiarity with Academic scepticism led re-evaluate their opinions on various him to express his scepticism towards topics. To discover the truth, the speak- scholastic or intellectual theology. An- ers must be free to question the other ti-intellectualism and dislike of rational speakers’ views, as well as their own. theological discussions led Erasmus to They must respect each other because suggest a kind of sceptical basis for re- social interactions promote the discov- maining within the Church.53 It is im- ery of truth. It should be emphasized portant to point out that Erasmus clearly that the philosophical dialogue is dif- expresses his position on the limits of ferent from public oratory and speech. scepticism in connection with Scripture The philosopher is freed from political, when he claims that: juridical and personal issues and in this way shows his tolerance to other opin- Wherever the meaning of the Scrip- ions. Philosophical dialogue should be ture is clear I will allow no scepticism. restrained, free from all passions that The same goes for the decisions of the conflict with human reason. The ideal church.54 of philosophical dialogue consists in the creation of a tolerant and peaceful 52 According to Emmanuel Naya, it explains environment for a debate where the in- how Socrates was linked to the sceptical terlocutor´s mind is not affected by any attitude and pyrrhonism. Cf. Naya 2008, p. 24. himself as one who loved dogmatic as- 53 On Erasmus´s scepticism and dispute sertion so little that he would seek refuge with Martin Luther see Popkin 2003, p. 7 in scepticism wherever this is allowed by and 219. the inviolable authority of Scripture and 54 Erasmus, Hyperaspistes I. Citation from the church’s decrees. Cf. Erasmus 1993, Backus 2009, p. 67n. Erasmus described p. 410; Penelhum, 1983, pp. 18–22.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 jozef matula 169 Erasmus of Rotterdam and his Approach to Tolerance psychological disturbances. Intolerance seen as a representative of humanistic is manifested in the emotional manipu- ideals whose main aim was peace and lation of an audience in public speech- reconciliation.57 es.55 Tolerance or moderation is closely The Erasmian vision of the restora- connected to human wisdom and ex- tion of religious consensus comes from tended to self-understanding. The prac- various angles. The idea of the re-unifi- tice of an attitude tolerant to opponents cation of divided Christians dominates comes from the knowledge of human in Erasmus’ approaches on tolerance. nature and non-distance from ourselves. The most important philosophical ele- Distance from ourselves, indifference to ment of his vision of concordia is based our fellow beings and self-destruction on his view on human incapability to demonstrate how little one understands reach the definite truth.58 Erasmus jus- himself. Tolerance represents the begin- tifies toleration because he believes it re- ning of self-mastery in the sense of en- veals more truth and establishes peace.59 during differences and respecting opin- Tolerance is then naturally connected ions and practices of others. Self-mastery with social contact which promotes the is a prerequisite for a true dialogue. For discovery of truth. Erasmus it does not mean unlimited tol- Consequently, tolerance does not erance to all opinions, but a peaceful and mean indifference or passivity; on the moderate dialogue between opponents contrary, it is a dynamic force, virtue, which is a prerequisite for the search self-master, which creates individual for truth. respect for others, it helps to build a dialogue, peace and concord. Erasmus, Conclusion as a follower of ancient philosophy (So- In the sixteenth century the word ‘tol- crates and the Stoics) is a promoter of erance’ (tolerare) should be understood tolerance as a kind of self-mastery. Tol- as a grudging and temporary acceptance erance is a virtue of the mind, which of an unpleasant necessity, rather than helps to attain self-mastery, to prop- approval of pluralism or open-minded erly judge others and search for truth. acceptance of multiple value systems.56 Therefore, tolerance is not a weakness In times of religious conflicts, intellec- but a spiritual power of Christians. At tuals sought ways to reconcile hostile the same time, tolerance as a form of parties and subsequently to carry out patience with nonconformist religious a peaceful and stable organization of views seems to be justified by reasons Christian society. Erasmus, like other concerning the integrity and peace of great intellectuals between the 15th the religious community.60 and the 17th century, such as Nicholas 57 Cf. Blum 2010, pp. 271–284; Matula 2005, Cusanus or John Amos Comenius, was pp. 381–399. 58 See note 54. 55 Remer 1994, pp. 305–336. 59 Remer 1994, pp. 305–336. 56 Head 1997, p. 97. Cf. Grell, & Scribner 1996. 60 Heyd 2008, p. 173.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 170

Erasmus’ approach to tolerance we agree with Henry Kamen’s statement should be seen against the background that the notion of toleration is one of the of its historical and ideological circum- fundamental achievements of western stances. He represents the form of tol- civilisation, then we must see Erasmus as erance founded on irenism and the prin- an essential part of this achievement.63 ciple of dialogue as a path to truth and Despite the fact that his treatises reconciliation. Even though the achieve- are stigmatized by the conditions of his ments of Erasmus in the field of religious time, the historical situation and specific conciliation were minimal,61 Manfred philosophical and theological resources, Hoffman emphasizes that „Erasmus’ at- his endeavour to build the foundations titude towards toleration in general and for a peaceful and tolerant society should toward religious toleration in particular be appreciated even today when modern has repeatedly been emphasized as one societies are threatened by a sophisti- of the most significant elements, if not cated suppression of human dignity, in- the singularly determinative factor, of transigent fundamentalism or religious his legacy for Western civilization.“62 If sectarianism.

61 Kamen 1967, p. 28. 63 Kamen 1997, p. 36; Olsen 2007, pp. 1–20; 62 Hoffmann 1982, p. 80. Soifer 2009, pp. 19–35.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 jozef matula 171 Erasmus of Rotterdam and his Approach to Tolerance

bibliography

Backus, I. (2009). “The Issue of Reformation Buzzi, F. (2013). Tolleranza e libertà religiosa in Scepticism Revisited: What Erasmus and età moderna. Milano: Centro Ambrosiano. Sebastian Castellio Did or Did Not Know”. Cantimori, D. (2009). Eretici italiani del Cin- IN: G. Paganini, & J. R. M. Neto (eds.), quecento e Prospettive di storia ereticale del Renaissance Scepticisms, Dordrecht: Sprin- Cinquecento. 3rd ed. Torino: G. Einaudi. ger, pp. 63–89. Coroleu, A. (2008). “Anti-erasmianism in Bainton, R. H. (1951). “The Querela Pacis of Spain”. IN: E. Rummel (ed.), Biblical Huma- Erasmus, Classical and Christian Sources”. nism and Scholasticism in the Age of Eras- Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte - Archive mus, Leiden / Boston: Brill, pp. 73–92. for Reformation History 42, pp. 32–48. Dilthey, W. (1991). Weltanschauung und Ana- Bakker, H. A. (2015). “Beyond the Measure of Man. About the Mystery of Socratic lyse des Menschen seit Renaissance und Re- th Martyrdom”. Church History and Religious formation. (G. Misch, ed.). 11 ed. Göt- Culture 95(4), pp. 391–407. tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bartholin, E., & Christian, L. G. (1972). “The Dreyfus, F. (1984). “Divine Condescendence Figure of Socrates in Erasmus’ Works”. The (Synkatabasis) as a Hermeneutic Principle Sixteenth Century Journal 3(2), pp. 1–10. of the Old Testament in Jewish and Chris- tian Tradition”. Immanuel 19, pp. 74–86. Bejczy, I. (1997). “Tolerantia: A Medieval Concept”. Journal of the History of Ideas Eden, K. (2001). Friends Hold All Things in 58(3), pp. 365–384. Common: Tradition, Intellectual Property, and the Adages of Erasmus. New Haven: Blum, P. R. (2010). “Nicholas of Cusa and the Yale University Press. Anthropology of Peace”. IN: H.-C. Günther, & A. A. Robiglio (eds.), The European Image Edwards, M. (2017). “Socrates and the Early of God and Man, Leiden: Brill, pp. 271–284 Church”. IN: M. B. Trapp (ed.), Socrates from Antiquity to the Enlightenment, Alder- Boersma, H. (2017). Scripture as Real Presence. shot: Ashgate, pp. 127–141. Sacramental Exegesis in the Early Church. Ada, MI: Baker Academic. Erasmus, D. (1527). Apologia ad monachos His- panos. Basel: Froben. Brown, W. (2008). Regulating Aversion: Tole- rance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Erasmus, D. (1533). De amabili ecclesiae con- Princeton: Princeton University Press. cordia liber. Basel: Froben.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 172

Erasmus, D. (1953). “The Enchiridion”. IN: M. Controversies, Toronto / Buffalo: University Spinka (ed.), F. L. Battles (trans.), Advo- of Toronto Press, pp. 256–368. cates of Reform. From Wyclif to Erasmus, Erasmus, D. (1993c). “The Sponge of Erasmus Louisville, Kentucky: The Westminster against the Aspersions of Hutten”. IN: J. Press, pp. 295–379. D. Tracy, & M. Hoffmann (trans.),Contro- Erasmus, D. (1961). “Epistola de philosophia versies, Toronto / Buffalo: University of evangelica”. IN: J. Le Clerc (ed.), Desiderii Toronto Press, pp. 1–145. Erasmi Roterodami Opera omnia, Vol. VI Erasmus, D. (2001). The Adages of Erasmus. (Novum Testamentum), Hildesheim: G. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Olms. (reprint of the 1703 ed.), pp. 8–9. Erasmus, D. (2015). The Praise of Folly (First Erasmus, D. (1979). Six essays on Erasmus and Princeton Classics edition). Princeton: a translation of Erasmus’ letter to Carondelet, Princeton University Press. 1523. New York: Fordham University Press. Erasmus, D., & Luther, M. (2013). Discourse on Erasmus, D. (1984). Paraphrases on Romans Free Will. London: Bloomsbury. and Galatians. Toronto / Buffalo:University of Toronto Press. Euler, W. A. (1998). ‘Pia philosophia’ et ‘docta religio’: Theologie und Religion bei Marsilio Erasmus, D. (1986). “A Complaint of Peace / Ficino und Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. Querela pacis”. IN: A. H. T. Levi (ed.), B. München: Fink. Radice (tans.), Collected works of Erasmus. Literary and Educational Writings Cicero- Fiala, A. (2005). Tolerance and the Ethical Life. nianus, Notes, Indexes, Toronto: University London / New York: Continuum. of Toronto Press, pp. 289–322. Forst, R. (2012). Tolerance in Conflict: Past and Erasmus, D. (1992). The Correspondence of Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Erasmus: Letters 1356 to 1534, 1523 to 1524. Press. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Fromm, E. (2010). The Heart of Man: Its Genius Erasmus, D. (1993a). “Epistle against the False for Good and Evil. Riverdale, NY: American Evangelicals”. IN: G. Tissol (trans.), Contro- Mental Health Foundation Books. versies, Toronto / Buffalo: University of To- Grell, O. P., & Scribner, R. W. (eds.). (1996). ronto Press, pp. 207–253. Tolerance and Intolerance in the European Erasmus, D. (1993b). “Letter to the Brethren Reformation. New York: Cambridge Uni- of Lower Germany”. IN: G. Tissol (trans.), versity Press.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 jozef matula 173 Erasmus of Rotterdam and his Approach to Tolerance

Guggisberg, H. R. (1983). “The Defence of Kamen, H. (1967). The Rise of Toleration. Religious Toleration and Religious Liberty London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. in Early Modern Europe: Arguments, Pres- Kamen, H. (1997). “Toleration and the Law sures, and Some Consequences”. History of in the West 1500–1700”. Ratio Juris 10(1), European Ideas 4(1), pp. 35–50. pp. 36–44. Guggisberg, H. R. (1996). “The Secular State of Kaplan, B. J. (2007). Divided by Faith: Religious the Reformation Period and the Beginnings Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early of the Debate on Religious Toleration”. IN: Modern Europe. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap J. Coleman (ed.), The Individual in Political Press of Harvard University Press. Theory and Practice, Oxford / New York: Clarendon Press / Oxford University Press, Laursen, J. C. (ed.). (1999). Religious Toleration: pp. 79–98. “The Variety of Rites” from Cyrus to Defoe. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Halkin, L.-E. (1987). “The Ecumenical Voca- tion of Erasmus”. Erasmus of Rotterdam Laursen, J. C., & Nederman, C. J. (eds.). (1998). Society Yearbook 7(1), pp. 96–109. Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religi- ous Toleration Before the Enlightenment. Head, R. C. (1997). “Introduction: The Transfor- Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania mations of the Long Sixteenth Century”. Press. IN: J. C. Laursen, & C. J. Nederman (eds.), Beyond the Persecuting Society, Philadelphia: Lecler, J. (1960). Toleration and the Refor- University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 95–106. mation. New York: Association Press.

Heyd, D. (2008). “Is Toleration a Political Lochman, D. T. (1989). “Colet and Erasmus: Virtue?”. IN: M. S. Williams, & J. Waldron The Disputatiuncula and the Controversy (eds.), Toleration and Its Limits, New York: of Letter and Spirit”. Sixteenth Century New York University Press, pp. 171–194. Journal 20(1), pp. 77–88.

Hoffmann, M. (1982). “Erasmus and Religious Lugioyo, B. (2010). Martin Bucer’s Doctrine Toleration”. Erasmus of Rotterdam Society of Justification: Reformation Theology and Yearbook 2(1), pp. 80–106. Early Modern Irenicism. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. Huizinga, J. (1957). Erasmus and the Age of Reformation: With a Selection from the Martin, T. J. (1998). Living Words: Studies Letters of Erasmus. New York: Harper in Dialogues about Religion. Atlanta, Ga: Torchbook. Scholars Press.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 174

Matula, J. (2005). “Immanente Ordung und Olsen, G. W. (2007). “The Middle Ages in the universaler Friede bei Johann Amos History of Toleration: A Prolegomena”. Comenius”. IN: H. Beck, & E. Schadel (eds.), Mediterranean Studies 16, pp. 1–20. Johann Amos Comenius: Vordenker eines P a b e l , H . M . (1 9 9 5 ). “ Th e P e a c e f u l P e o p l e o f C h r i s t : kreativen Friedens: deutsch-tschechisches The Irenic Ecclesiology of Erasmus of Rotter- Kolloquium anlässlich des 75. Geburtstages dam”. IN: H. M. Pabel (ed.), Eras-mus’ vision von Heinrich Beck (Universität Bamberg, 13.- of the Church. Kirksville, Mo: Sixteenth 16. April 2004) unter der Schirmherrschaft des Century Journal Publishers, pp. 57–93. Bayerischen Staatsministeriums für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Familie und Frauen, Pabel, H. M. (2018). “The Impetus for Reform Haus des Deuschen Ostens, Frankfurt am in Erasmus of Rotterdam’s New Testament”. Main / New York: Lang, pp. 381–399. Erasmus Studies 38(1), pp. 25–54.

Matula, J. (2011). “John Amos Comenius and Papy, J. (2008). “Erasmus, Europe, and Cos- his Laudation of Tolerance”. East European mopolitanism: the Humanist Image and Studies 26, pp. 209–229. Message in His Letters”. IN: E. Pasini, & P.B. Rossi (eds.), Erasmo da Rotterodam McCutcheon, R. R. (1993). “Heresy and Dia- e la cultura europea. Atti dell’Incontro logue: The Humanist Approaches of Eras- di Studi nel V cententario della laurea di mus and More”. Viator 24, pp. 357–384. Erasmo all’Università di Torino, Florence: Murray, R. H. (1920). Erasmus and Luther: SISMEL-Edizioni del Galluzzo, pp. 27–42. Their Attitude to Toleration. London / New Penelhum, T. (1983). God and Skepticism: York: Society for Promoting Christian A Study in Skepticism and Fideism. Dor- Knowledge / Macmillan. drecht: Springer Netherlands.

Naya, E. (2008). “Renaissance Pyrrhonism: Pintacuda, F. D. M. (1985). “Pour une histoire A Relative Phenomenon”. IN: G. Paganini, & de l’idée de tolérance du XVe au XVIIe J. R. M. Neto (eds.), Renaissance Scepticisms, siècle”. Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 15–32. Religieuses 65(2), pp. 131–151.

Nederman, C. J., & Laursen, J. C. (eds.). (1996). Popkin, R. H. (2003). The History of Scepticism: Difference and Dissent: Theories of Toleration From Savonarola to Bayle. Oxford: Oxford in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. University Press. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Popper, K. R. (2000). “Toleration and Intel- Olin, J. C. (1975). “The Pacifism of Erasmus“. lectual Responsibility”. IN: L. J. Bennett, & Thought 50(4), pp. 418–431. M. Mew (eds.), In Search of a Better World:

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020 jozef matula 175 Erasmus of Rotterdam and his Approach to Tolerance

Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years, Lon- and Political Tolerance in Sixteenth- and don: Routledge, pp. 188–203. Seventeenth-Century France”. Sixteenth Century Journal 22(1), pp. 15–25. Remer, G. (1994). “Dialogues of Toleration: Erasmus and Bodin”. The Review of Politics Turchetti, M. (1991b). “Une question mal 56(2), pp. 305–336. posée : Erasme et la tolérance, l’idée de sygkatabasis”. Bibliothèque d’humanisme et Remer, G. (1996). Humanism and the Rhetoric Renaissance 53(2), pp. 379–395. of Toleration. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. Weintraub, B. (2000). “O Sancte Socrate, Ora pro Nobis: Erasmus on the Problem Rummel, E. (2000). The Confessionalization of Athens and Jerusalem”. IN P. S. Gold, & of Humanism in Reformation Germany. Ox- B. C. Sax (eds.), Cultural Visions: Essays in ford / New York: Oxford University Press. the History of Culture, Amsterdam: Rodopi, Schoeck, R. J. (1993). Erasmus of Europe. The pp. 259–270. Prince of Humanists 1501-1536. Edinburgh: Wiedemann, T. (1993). “Sallust’s Jugurtha: Edinburgh University Press. Concord, Discord, and the Digressions”. Soifer, M. (2009). “Beyond Convivencia: Cri- Greece and Rome 40(1), pp. 48–57. tical Reflections on the Historiography of Wolfe, J. L. (2013). “The Cosmopolitanism of The Interfaith Relations in Christian Spain”. Jour- Adages: The Classical and Christian Lega- nal of Medieval Iberian Studies 1(1), pp. 19–35. cies of Erasmus’ Hermeneutics of Accom- Solari, E. (2013). “Contornos de la tolerancia modation”. IN: J. M. Ganim, & S. A. Legassie medieval”. Ideas y Valores: Rivista: Colom- (eds.), Cosmopolitanism and the Middle biana de Filosofia 62(153), pp. 73–97. Ages, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 207–230 Svatoš, M., & Svatoš, M. (1985). Živá tvář Erasma Rotterdamského. Praha: Vyšehrad. Zagorin, P. (2006). How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West. Princeton: Taylor, C. C. W. (2019). Socrates: A Very Short Princeton University Press. Introduction (Second edition). Oxford: Ox- ford University Press. Zijlstra, S. (2002). “Anabaptism and Tole- rance: Possibilities and Limitations”. IN: R. Trapman, J. (2013). “Erasmus and Heresy”. P.-C. Hsia, & H. Van Nierop (eds.), Calvinism Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden 75(1), pp. 7–24. Age, Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni- Turchetti, M. (1991a). “Religious Concord versity Press, pp. 112–131.

INTERNATIONAL ISSUE NO. 8/2020