erasmus' prasie of folly version 1509-1511...2013 – 2014 - 2015 ... teachers training...
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
3
4
ERASMUS OF ROTTERDAM
and
his “Praise of Folly”
2013 – 2014 - 2015
Three articles by Klaas Potjewijd
5
By the same author:
“Zò ontstond de “Lof der Zotheid” van Erasmus van Rotterdam”
Een Wordingsgeschiedenis. Hypothesen van Klaas Potjewijd
2009 Parthenon Almere
ISBN/EAN: 978-90-795-078 NUR:621
© Copyright 2015 Klaas Potjewijd.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
permission in writing of the proprietor.
6
CONTENTS
Preface Page 5
I Erasmus did not write his “Praise of
Folly” in “seven days” in London
in 1509 Page 9
Contents Article I Page 29
II A matter of Interaction:
Erasmus of Rotterdam versus:
Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola Page 31
Contents Article II Page 80
III Erasmus of Rotterdam and Rome Page 83
in 1509
Contents Article III Page 109
Conclusion Page 111
7
About the author:
Klaas Potjewijd - Leiden 1933 - finished his studies in History, Dutch Language
and Musicology at Utrecht University in 1974. His three theses, related to the
respective disciplines, focused each on a subject from the second half of the 18th
century. The author is neither a Medievalist nor a Neo-Latinist. During his
professional life the author was teaching history at Secondary School and at a
Teachers Training College. As a pensionable he started studying Erasmus’
“Praise of Folly”, shortly after 2000. It resulted in the publication of a book in
2009 about the genesis of Erasmus’ most famous book which also contained
three hypotheses. These did not generate ample feedback; his attempts to start a
discussion with a number of Erasmus-specialists in the Low Countries were not
fruitful. That’s why the working out of the three hypotheses in this book is
published in English.
The author feels grateful to the management and the staff of Hotel “Bellevue del
Golfo” – Sferracavallo - Palermo – because of their services during the many
winters while his studies concerning Erasmus’ “Praise of Folly” were taking
shape.
ILLUSTRATIONS
Jacob Cornelisz. Van Oostsanen 1470 - 1533
Hans Holbein junior 1477 . 1543
Albrecht Dūrer 1471 - 1528
Sandro Botticelli 1445 – 1510
8
Preface
These articles are the follow-up of a book which was published in
2009 in Dutch: “Zò ontstond de “Lof der Zotheid” van Erasmus van
Rotterdam”. I characterized my book as the story of the genesis of
Erasmus’ most famous book, his “Praise of Folly”. Three hypotheses
presented themselves in the course of my study of J.B. Kan’s
translation in Dutch of the “Praise of Folly” . Within the words of 2009:
I. “The thesis seems defensible that fragments are added to the
cabaret-like start of the “Praise of Folly” later. Page 33.
II. “Polemics seem to rise with regard to the idea about the
happiness of human beings and their position among other
creatures as displayed by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola in his
“Oratio de dignitate hominis”. Page 103
III. “Did Erasmus keep silent about the tension between his
personal feelings and the religious-intellectual climate in Italy
of his days?” Page 66.
In one respect the First Article makes a difference with my book of
2009. It was not a good idea to combine the chapters 40-41of Phase II
with the chapters of the Theological Part 62-67. I now like to house
the chapters 62-67 in the Extension or Phase III. This is illustrative for
Erasmus’ switch of intention from an amusing text into an edifying
one which he materialized between September 1509 and 1511. The
Chapters 40-41 belong to the satiric-ironical atmosphere where
Christian belief is lumped together with superstition while in chapter
66 a differentiated view on four types of Christian believers is
presented and a view on their celestial felicity in chapter 67.
9
These articles are written by an historian who tried to connect the
hypotheses, launched in 2009, with factual material so that these no
longer should be hypotheses. It has not always been possibly to
substantiate the theses only from reading and rereading Erasmus’
text, as in the case of the First Article.
Prof. Jan Papy’s introduction to the translation of Giovanni Pico’s
“Oratio de dignitate hominis” by Michiel op de Coul has been a great
help in working out Article II.
Without Prof. Charles L Stringer’s The Renaissance in Rome it wouldn’t
have been possible to build up the atmosphere Erasmus met in Rome
in 1509. Most probably this made him keep silent for many years
about his personal feelings at the time, as indicated in Article III.
I The historical reality, as I see it with regard to the genesis of the
“Praise of Folly”, is presented within a scheme at the beginning of
Article I. If two Interpolations themselves are not already conclusive
of a genesis in more than one phase, this becomes evident as the
Second Interpolation of Phase III damages the tricola which closes
Phase I.
II. The First Interpolation, which Erasmus added to his core text in
London in September 1509, opens with eight chapters - 30-37 - which
make Giovanni Pico’s Oratio de dignitate hominis the butt of his
criticism. The name of Giovanni Pico as well of his “Oratio” is left out.
These chapters form “an island” or “an intermezzo” within the “Praise
of Folly” as a whole. They concentrate on opinions and not on persons
as Stultitia usually does. Chapter 37contains a description of the
contrary of Giovanni Pico’s “happiest of all living creatures”: it is “a
learned man who never really lived at all”.
III. It makes no sense to try to catalogue from the data, which Prof.
Stringer so abundantly delivers in The Renaissance in Rome, the items
which might have provoked Erasmus’ aversion and protest during his
stay in Rome in 1509. In his Ciceronianus of 1528 he gives three
10
examples of his aversion and his dislike which climaxed in his
uninhibited outburst against Nosoponus: “It is due to paganism. We
are Christians only by name”. We may defend the thesis that Erasmus
behaved in Rome in 1509 the way he described at the end of Chapter
29 of his “Praise of Folly”: “and surely it is perverse not to adapt
yourself to the prevailing circumstances”. After the Sacco di Roma in
1527 these “prevailing circumstances” were completely changed: “Not
only the City, a whole world is lost” writes Erasmus in 1528. So the “
Sacco” might have paved the way for Erasmus’ freedom to speak his
mind.
Hilversum 2015
Email: [email protected]
11
12
I
Erasmus did not write his “Praise of Folly”
. within “seven days” in London in 1509
Introduction
It is an historian’s job to give historical facts a proper place in space
and time, that is to define as accurately as possible the “where” and
”when” of human activity. In many cases this will deal with all the
doings of politicians, diplomats and others who play a role in history.
This time it will deal with a text or, more precisely, with fragments of a
text originating in the most famous work by Erasmus of Rotterdam,
his “Praise of Folly”. The story that Erasmus wrote his little book “in
seven days at Thomas More’s house in Bucklersbury in 1509” has
been accepted for a long time but has also been questioned for
instance by Michael Screech in his Erasmus: Ecstasy and the Praise of
Folly of 1980. 1) A.T.H. Levi writes In 1993 referring to the 1511-
version of Erasmus’ book:
“It was certainly revised before publication in 1511 and the internal
evidence leads one to suppose that it was considerably augmented and
rewritten.” 2.)
In 2009 I published a hypothesis that the 1511-version of Erasmus’
“Praise of Folly” was conceived in at least three phases. 3.) Professor
Hans Trapman classified my ideas as presumptions in Wijze
Dwaasheid, which he published in 2011. 4.)
Since I have been confronted with factual material originating from
Erasmus’ text itself, I will now try to make clear that the “Praise of
Folly” came into being at different times and at different places
between the summer of 1509 and the spring of 1511. There is more
than one reason for it not only with regard to the form. There is also
13
an important argument with regard to the contents of the text as we
will see. These new insights made inevitable the modification of the
scheme of the genesis of the “Praise of Folly” which I published in2009
on page 39-40 of my book. A revised scheme is presented on the
opposite page.
Thanks to Clarence H. Miller it is possible to identify the additions
Erasmus made to several editions of his text since 1511. This study is
based on the 1511-edition. 5.)
14
Genesis of Erasmus’ “Praise of Folly” of 1511 schematized
Stultitia presents herself in Chapters 1 - 6
Phase I: Core-Praise of Folly - “Italian Part”
The Power of Plutus 7
The Dominion of Stultitia 8 - 9
The Blessings ofStultitia 10
Chapters 11 – 29
Phase II Interpolation 1. - “London Part”
. Contra Giov. Pico 30 – 37
. Erasmus “goes on” 38 – 44
45
The Blessings of Stultitia 46
The Dominion of Stultitia 47
Phase III Interpolation 2. “Follies in Society” 48 – 60
The Power of Plutus 61
Extension “Theological Part”
.. 62 – 63 and 65 - 67
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I: Erasmus on his way from Italy to England in Summer1509
Phase II: Erasmus presents in September 1509 his core-Praise of Folly
, to a circle of friends which suggests him “to go on with it”.
. Erasmus also writes eight chapters with regard to Giovanni
. Pico della Mirandola without mentioning his name
Phase III: Erasmus vanishes completely, without leaving any trace and
. adds another Interpolation and an Extension.
15
The whole of it will appear in print for the first time in Paris in 1511
The scheme of Erasmus’ “Praise of Folly” of 1511 explained
Phase I
As a result of my latest studies we may now recognize in Erasmus’
“Praise of Folly” a basic-text or “core-text” which comprises grosso
modo about half of the book. I call it Phase I (see scheme). It is made
up of the chapters 1-29, 45-47 and 61. These chapters took shape in
Erasmus’ mind during his journey from Rome to England in the
summer of 1509 while crossing the Alps on horseback. In this way he
prepared his home-coming in England, “recalling the most learned and
charming friends whom I had left in this country” in June 1506. 6.)
The result was a “declamation”, a humorous speech to be presented by
the author to the inner circle of his friends in England.
Phase II
Erasmus presented his core-“Praise of Folly” in September 1509,
possibly dressed as Stultitia. His friends reacted very enthusiastically:
“thoroughly delighted they urged him to go on with it”, writes
Clarence H. Miller, 7.) It resulted in a First Interpolation which I will
call Phase II: Erasmus added 15 chapters which he inserted between
the chapters 29 and 45 of the core-text. The chapters 30-37 contain
Erasmus’ critical approach of the “Oratio de dignitate hominis” and its
author Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494). In the chapters 39-
43 the enumeration of examples of visible foolish human behavior is
extended with regard to group behavior. Chapter 38 points also to the
fact that there are two types folly: a folly “which is sent up from the
underworld by the avenging Furies” and a kindhearted one “which
takes his origin from me – Stultitia – and is most desirable”.
Phase II was most probably written in Thomas More’s house in
Bucklersbury in London in September 1509. Within his Letter to
Martin Dorp of May 1515 Erasmus refers to it extensively.
16
Phase III
From this moment on Erasmus vanishes completely, without leaving
any trace of his whereabouts, neither by letters nor by texts. We
embark upon the 18 months of his total disappearance, the blank
pages in his biography, only to meet him again in April 1511 near the
port of Dover on his way to Paris where the “Praise of Folly” will
appear in print within the next few months for the first time. During
these 18 months of his disappearance Erasmus interpolates another
series of 12 chapters - 48-60 - between chapter 47 and chapter 61 of
his core-text now sketching a number of professionals, low and high
clerics and the leaders of the state. Apart from this Second
Interpolation Erasmus adds an Extension - 62-63 and 65-67 - posted
after chapter 61 which had been the last chapter of the “Praise of
Folly” until then. (Chapter 64 was interpolated in the 1514-edition.)
Erasmus leaves us completely in the dark about the “why, when and
where” of the genesis of these additions. Later the extension –
chapters 62-63 and 65-67 - usually will be referred to as the
“Theological Part” of the “Praise of Folly”. I call this Second
Interpolation + Extension: Phase III. As the chapters which Erasmus
inserted are in no way painstakingly interpolated, the seams or joints
are visible as we will see later.
Strategy and structure
The question may now quite rightly arise how Erasmus managed in the
end to produce a book that according to Johan Huizinga still
“expresses the perfect harmony, which is essential for the
Renaissance” 8.). The answer is to be found in the strategy and the
structure of Stultitia’s speech. The structure is a simple one: having
introduced herself in chapter1-7, Stultitia - Erasmus’ alter ego -
presents her staff in chapter 8-9. She makes clear in chapter 9 what
she is aiming at: “to subject the whole world to my dominion, lording
it over the greatest lords”.
17
In chapter 11 she starts an enumeration of examples of visible foolish
human behavior to prove her case. This enumeration only comes to an
end in chapter 67 just before the closing chapter. This presentation by
way of enumeration enables Erasmus to insert new examples of
visible foolish human behavior ad libitum as any catalogue may
arbitrarily be shortened or extended, all the more so because the
examples are usually only mentioned, not elaborated upon or
extensively commented on.
A twofold introduction
In the days of the Greeks and the Romans an orator normally started
his eulogy with a “proemium”, an introduction which informs his
audience about his origin, his views and the intention of his speech. So
does Stultitia within the chapters 7-9. However, In the foregoing
chapters 1-6 of the “Praise of Folly” Stultitia gives a description of her
character, her manners and her attitude with regard to professional
orators. She makes clear that she will ignore their rules and prefers to
speak “à l’improviste” this time. Why this twofold introduction? I dare
suggest that Erasmus - from the beginning - had in mind to present
his “Praise of Folly” to his friends in London orally, even dressed as his
alter ego, Stultitia. So it was necessary to give his public an
opportunity to adapt to the unusual setting and to prepare it for what
they could expect. The chapters 1-6 are meant as a means to help his
audience to accommodate. The supposed “eye-to-eye-contact”
between speaker and hearer is clearly expressed in the text:
“… still it is quite clear that I myself, the very person now standing
. here before you”. Chapter 1,
. “…. But now you shall hear the reason why I have come forth today in
. this unusual costume.” Chapter 2.
. “ … Besides what good would it do to present a shadowy image of
. myself …… when you can see me with your own eyes, standing here
. before you , face to face ?” Chapter 4.
18
We may conclude that Erasmus “Praise of Folly” was born to be
presented orally in the first place. The chapters 1-6 later became a
help to the readers to acquire an idea of the person of the speaker,
Stulltitia in this case.
Phase I: The core-Praise of Folly
The reader who strips the 1511-version of the additions in Phase II
and Phase III - outlined above - will now find in his “Praise of Folly” a
funny, charming and balanced presentation of visible foolish behavior
of individuals - in private and public life - all be it framed in a
particular way. The idea that Erasmus used parallelism of identical
statements to mark the beginning and the end of a segment of his text,
already came to me mind reading his book shortly after 2000. Why is
the power of Plutus, the god of money and corruption, so prominently
present in chapter 7 and 61?
The Power of Plutus:
7. Plutus alone, as he is now and ever has been, has everything and everyone,
sacred and secular alike, at his beck and call: he keeps the pot boiling. His
decisions govern war, peace, counsels, judgments ……in short, all the affairs,
public or private, in which mortals engage. ASD IV-3, lines 93-98, p.76
61, In brief, wherever you turn, whether you are dealing with popes, priests,
judges, office-holders………or anyone at all from the top of the social scale to the
bottom, you can buy everything with money. ASD IV-3, lines 882-85, p. 178
Later I found that these identical statements belong to two groups of
identical statements which are positioned symmetrically and
mirrored at the beginning and at the end of the core–text.
at the beginning: chapters: at the end: chapters:
Power of Plutus 7 Stultitia’s blessings 46
Dominion of Stultitia 8-9 Dominion of Stultitia 47
Stultitia’s blessings 10 Power of Plutus 61
19
The author uses this type of accolade to give proof of his ability to
present the subject matter in different ways:
The Dominion of Stultitia
8-9. This, then, is the loyal retinue which helps me to subject the whole world to
my dominion, lording it over the greatest lords. ASD IV-3, lines 133-35, p.78-79
47. Furthermore, why should I want a temple, since the whole world, unless I
am badly mistaken, is a splendid temple dedicated to me ? Nor will there ever be
a lack of worshippers, as long as there is no lack of men. ASD IV-3, lines 164-66,
p. 134
The Blessings of Stultitia
10. Consider, if that author (whoever he was) was not far from the mark when
he wrote that the essence of divinity is to give aid to mortals. …. why should I not
rightly be considered and called the very alpha of all the gods, since I alone
bestow all things to all men? ASD IV-3, 138-42, p. 80
46. But how much more ample and lasting is the benefit I provide, a sort of
continuous inebriation which fills the mind with joy, delight and exquisite
pleasure – and all without effort from you. Nor do I ever refuse any mortal a
share of my gifts, whereas other endowments of the gods are distributed
someone to one, someone to another. ASD IV-3, lines 143-46, p. 132
In this case a three-fold accolade or tricola “embraces” the core-text.
A cosmos of Plutus and Stultitia.
This setting makes it clear that in the summer of 1509 Erasmus
positioned Stultitia’s eulogy in a cosmos dominated by two pre-
Christian gods, Plutus and Stultitia. They are holding sway over a
cosmos dominated by money and folly. This framework will definitely
break down in Phase III of the genesis of Erasmus’ most famous book.
Nobody would be surprised to find Christians and Christianity
completely absent in this context. However, Christianity is in Erasmus’
blood and Stultitia “lets the cat out of the bag” in chapter 45. She is
dealing with the difference between appearances and reality –
20
a lifelong fascination to Erasmus - and then suddenly produces an
example originating from a sermon in a church of her own days:
45. ….. if the preacher is explaining his subject seriously, they all doze, yawn and
are sick of it. But if ….. he tells some old wife’s tale ….. the whole congregation
sits up and listens with open mouths. Likewise, if any saint is more legendary or
poetic ….. you will see that such a saint is worshipped with far more devotion
than Peter and Paul and Christ himself.” ASD IV 3, line 109, p.130
Stultitia hastens to add in the next sentence:: “But such things are out
of place here”. In Latin: “Verum haec non huius loci sunt”. Stultitia is
aware that this example does not fit in the framework she has so
carefully constructed. She will show proof of her familiarity with
Christian believers later.
A personal touch
Chapter 11 and chapter 45 form in fact another accolade within
Phase I of the “Praise of Folly”. They contain respective the first and
the last of Stultitia’s examples of foolish behavior in Phase I. I have
already suggested in my book of 2009 that Erasmus alluded to his
illegitimate birth in chapter 11 when he denominates his father and
his mother respective as “unwise” and “forgetful”. He was their second
illegitimate son. 9.) His friends in England were fully aware of his
illegitimate birth because it had formed a problem for them when they
tried to find a prebenda for their Dutch friend in 1505. A dispensation
arrived from Rome within the course of January 1506.
In chapter 45 of his core-text Stultitia introduces Thomas More in an
example of foolish behavior within his family:
“I know a certain man named after me (Moria) who gave his bride
some imitation gems…. I ask you, what difference did it make to the girl….. ?”
Whatever may be the truth of this story, Erasmus integrated his
family and his friend in Stultitia’s performance, respective at the
beginning and at the end of her enumeration in his core-text.
21
This may be another proof of the primordial intention of his core-text
as it was to be presented to amuse an intimate circle of Erasmus’
friends in England.
Chapter 45
We should be aware that chapter 45 contains the last examples of
Stultitia’s enumeration of foolish human behavior within Erasmus’
core-text. The chapters 46,47 and 61 have a different function which is
informative as well as ornamental. Unfortunately the ornament - the
second tricola - is damaged by the Chapters 48-60, which formed the
Second Interpolation and a part of Phase III. (see scheme p.11) Now
these chapters appear between chapter between chapters 47 and 61
of Phase I.
One may not exclude that a misunderstanding lay at the basis of this.
The elements of Phase III - the Second Interpolation and the Extension
- are placed just before and just after chapter 61 (see scheme page 11)
The printer may have been instructed to do so. As e did what he was
asked to do he unfortunately neglected the tricola. We should be
aware that the numeration of the chapters of the “Praise of Folly”
starts within the 18th century, Nevertheless, the tricola has been
damaged.
Last but not least we may conclude that Chapter 45 links up perfectly
with Chapter 29 which precedes chapter 45 within the core-text.
Appearance and reality and their metaphor, the theatre, are in the
centre of attention in both the chapters as well as the question: what is
reality?
Phase II: A first Interpolation
An “implantation”
It is most probable that the First Interpolation - chapters 30-44 - has been written in the aftermath of Erasmus’ presentation of his core-text to the circle of his friends at Thomas More’s house in London In September 1509. The personal reunion of the two friends of a lifetime probably has
22
also brought back to their memories the discussion about Giovanni Pico as we will see in the next article The connection of the First Interpolation with the foregoing core-text couldn’t be shorter: In Latin: “Ceterum illud” and in English: ”Another point”. At the beginning of chapter 30 Erasmus gives the impression to brace himself for a new start as he now calls in the help of Apollo’s
9 Muses, forgetting the “attendants and handmaidens” who Stultitia
presented in the chapters 8-9 of his core-text. The chapters 30-37
form a sort of “implantation” within the “Praise of Folly” as Stultitia
now concentrates on opinions and not on visible human behavior as
she normally does. Erasmus presents in these chapters his critics of
Giovanni Pico and his “Oratio de dignitate hominis". Though Stultitia
leaves out the name of the author and his work, the presence of the
“Oratio” within the “Praise of Folly” will be evident to any connoisseur
of Giovanni Pico’s famous text. Erasmus’ objections are bundled in
eight chapters - 30-37 - of the First Interpolation. Details of Erasmus’
critics within the chapters 30-37 are worked out in the next article.
10.) Erasmus’ critical notes are properly concluded in chapter 37
which causes a doublure within the “Praise of Folly”. Learned or wise
men are twice “under fire”: in chapters 25 and 37.
Erasmus “goes on with it”
The enthusiasm of his friends which made Erasmus “go on with it”,
writes Clarence H. Miller, note 7.) So he produces in Phase II another
number of examples of foolish human behavior which is visible within
all sorts of groups in society: people who love shooting and hunting,
hobbyists, inventors, gambling addicts (39) aristocrats (42) and
chauvinists (43) pass by .
Inevitably one question arose in the inner circle of his friends:
“Erasmus, are Christian believers also subject to Stultitia’s power?”
Erasmus’ answer undoubtedly was a confirming one. Stultitia has
already shown her familiarity with the Christian church in chapter 45,
23
whiich means within Phase I. (See Scheme page 11) In chapters 40 –
41 of Phase II she unfolds a panorama of foolish behavior displayed by
Christian believers. She classifies them as predominantly
superstitious. Clergymen are included for a special reason. In chapter
41 Stultitia pays extensively attention to their habit to offer ex-voto’s.
In the eyes of a powerful goddess like Stultitia Christian believers can
only be considered as subject to superstition.
41. But why have I embarked on this vast sea of superstition ? ….. So rife, so
teeming with such delusions is the entire life of all Christians everywhere.
ASD IV-3, lines 9 and 14, p.126
It becomes clear that the foolish behavior of Christian believers and
others, described in Phase II, still fits within the cosmos of Plutus and
herself which Stultita presented in Phase I.
Stultitia also points out in chapter 40 that Christian believers are
adopting characters originating in Greek mythology to add to their
own collection of Saints.
40. Iam vero Georgium etiam Herculem invenerunt, quemadmodum et
Hyppolytum alterum. Translated: Moreover in St George they have discovered a
new Hercules, just as they found a new Hyppolytus. ASD IV-3, lines 966-67,
p.122
Stultitia concludes in chapter 43 her enumeration of follies visible
within a number of groups. She seems to have reached - at least for the
time being - the end of her tether. She concentrates on her assistants
and introduces in chapter 44 Kolakia, who not only excels in flattering
but also seems to be gifted with empathy. However, the First
Interpolation or Phase II remains strictly within the atmosphere of the
core-text or Phase I.
Phase III: A Second Interpolation
Phase III makes a difference in more than one respect as we will see.
There are two additions to the core-text or Phase I: a Second
24
Interpolation - the chapters 48-60 - and an Extension: chapters 62-63
and 65-67
Follies within society
Chapter 48 contains an authentic enumeration of about thirty human
follies which in most cases area associated with money. In chaters 49-
60 Stultitia concentrates on a specific social order: “outstanding
personages” or in J.B. Kan’s translation: “high-placed people”. In short,
she concentrates on the “highly-educated” who often play a dominant
role in society just as the spiritual and the worldly leaders do in public
life. There is another example of Erasmus’ marking the beginning and
the end of a segment of his “Praise of Folly” by way of an accolade.
Two generalizations, related to the group Stultitia focuses upon, mark
the beginning and the end of this Second Interpolation.
48. But we will not survey the lives of any and all people, …. but only the lives of
outstanding personages …. from them it will be easy enough to judge the rest.”
In Latin: ….. unde reliquos facile sit aestimare. ASD IV-3, lines 188-89, p.134
The behavior of the highly-educated serves in many cases as a model
which is adopted and imitated elsewhere in society
The generalization at the end of this Second Interpolation refers to the
financial circumstances of the highly-educated, such as teachers,
lawyers, scientists, theologians, clericals and leaders in church and
state:
60. I have touched briefly on these matters to make perfectly clear that no
mortal can live happily unless he is initiated into my mysteries and has gained
my favor. In Latin: Sed haec ideo paucis attigi, quo palam fieret nullum esse
mortalem, qui suaviter vivere possit, nisi meis initiatus sit sacris meque
propitiam habeat. ASD IV-3, lines 858-60, p.176
“To live happily” indicates the fact that the highly-educated and
“outstanding personages” usually are financially better off.
In the chapters 49-60 a number of “outstanding personages” or highly-
educated are presented in the way caricaturists do their work. They
25
are now portrayed “in words”: teachers, poets, lawyers and scientists.
“Now and then there is a derailment in the satire when Stultitia
criticizes what Erasmus likes to criticize”, writes Johan Huizinga, 11.)
This refers namely to the ample description of theologians and monks
in chapters 53-54 and of high clerics in chapters 57-60. The examples
of foolish human behavior are no longer rooted in social psychology or
anthropology but within the deficiencies of society. A switch is made
from a cosmos of Plutus and Stultitia to a world in which Christian
leaders make their presence emphatically felt. This indicates an
evolution in Erasmus’ mind. From a civilization which is dominated by
Plutus and Stultitia, far away from the “here and now”, he now moves
over into the current way of affairs of his own days. In the Second
Interpolation it results among others in an extensive description of
low and high clerics in the Roman Catholic church at the beginning of
he 16th century. The extensive interpolations Erasmus added in the
1514-edition within chapters 53 and 54 are also related to
Christianity. They do not concern this article, as it concentrates on the
edition of 1511. Erasmus’ private feelings and his belief play a role and
in the end will turn out to be dominant in his “Praise of Folly” as far as
the effects he wants his “little book” to have, are concerned.
The chapters 48-60 are not interpolated very carefully. They are
posted just before chapter 61 which was until then the last chapter of
the book. They damage the tricola which Stultitia had placed at the
end of her core-text or Phase I. See scheme. It is an important
indication that Erasmus’ “Praise of Folly” has been interpolated and
consequently not has been written “in one go” in London in 1509.
An Extension or the Theological Part
A second introduction of Christian believers
The Extension - chapters 62-67 - is announced at the end of chapter
61. Stultitia has a reason for it. She requires witnesses to defend her
case. She finds ample support for her thesis within the Old and the
26
New Testament. Stultitia likes to change her outfit and prefers to dress
as a theologian or a Magister Noster, that is a Doctor in Theology. The
Extension - or the Theological part - brings about the integration of
Christian belief and Christian believers in the “Praise of Folly” in a
more serious way than in chapters 40-41. This second introduction
has been posted just after chapter 61 which was until then the last
chapter of the “Praise of Folly”. Stultitia finds ample support for her
thesis within the Old Testament and the New Testament. In chapter 65
she also includes the Father and the Son into her system. In the
chapters 66-67 of the “Praise of Folly” her strategy becomes the same
as before. In chapter 66 Stultitia sketches the behavior of four
categories of Christian believers:
66 ….. those who believe “out of a natural inclination”; “those who have been
completely taken up, once and for all, with a burning devotion to Christian
piety”. Next to them there are “the ordinary run of men” and “the pious”: …
“the ordinary run of men regard with the greatest wonderment those things that
are most corporeal; they think, in effect, that only such things really exist. But
pious persons, on the other hand, the closer anything comes to the body, the less
they regard: they are completely taken up with contemplation of invisible
things.” ASD IV-3, lines 145-53, respectively lines 180-83, resp. p.189 and 190
Every member of these groups - just as every reader of the “Praise of
Folly” - may “put on the shoe whom the cap fits”. Christian believers
are integrated in the “Praise of Folly” in a more positive way but they
are still included in the catalogue of examples of visible foolish human
behavior. However, there is a stark contrast with the chapters 40-41
where Christian believers are put aside as superstitious. In chapter 67
Erasmus describes the Christian ecstasy as a “tiniest droplet by
comparison with that fountain of eternal happiness”. He points to the
eternal celestial felicity hereafter which forms the highest attainable
happiness to many Christian believers. During the Christian ecstasy
Stultitia is still present:“those who have the privilege of experiencing
this - and it happens to very few - undergo something very like
madness”.
27
A change of intention and a contrast
Within Phase III of Erasmus’ “Praise of Folly” we find quite a different
atmosphere if we compare it to Phase I and Phase II which were
meant to amuse Erasmus and his friends. Now the lucid tone derived
from Lucianus, a satirist from the 2nd century A.D., is gone. In chapter
67, Stultitia refers to the Christian ecstasy, an anticipation of the
highest attainable happiness for Christian believers. So, the cosmos of
Plutus and Stultitia which dominates Phase I and Phase II vanishes
completely. According to his famous Letter to Martin Dorp of
May1515, Erasmus pretends to promote morality, trying to inspire his
readers to lead a Christian life as he intended in 1503 in his
Enchiridion Militis Christiani or Manual of the Christian Knight:
“In the “Folly” I had no other aim than I had in my other writings, but my method
was different. In “The Enchiridion” I propounded the character of a Christian life
in a straightforward way. ….. And in the “Folly”, under the appearance of a joke,
my purpose was just the same as in “The Enchiridion”. I intended to admonish,
not to sting; to help, not to hurt; to promote morality, not to hinder it” 12.)
This forms quite a contrast to what Erasmus wrote in the summer of
1509 in his “Letter to Thomas More” which precedes the text of his
“Praise of Folly”:
“Therefore, since I thought I ought to do something at least, and since that time
seemed hardly suited to serious thinking, I chose to amuse myself by composing
an encomium of Folly “ see: note 6.)
While Erasmus in 1509 suggests that he started his “Praise of Folly”
“to amuse himself”, now - in 1515 - he claims that it was meant to
admonish his public to lead a Christian way of life. Erasmus realized
this switch of intention during the 18 months of his disappearance
from September 1509 until April 1511. In the summer of 1509 his
Encomion was conceived as a funny speech to be presented to an
intimate circle of friends in England who were familiar with the
culture of Greeks and Romans. The cosmos of Plutus and Stultitia
28
stands for a world far from “here and now”. The Second Interpolation
with its critics of society and the clerics of his own days changes the
character of his text completely. Historical actuality and Christian
belief are introduced at the cost of Lucianic wittiness.
There are within the “Praise of Folly” two extreme trends which are in
contraposition: in chapter 45 we have seen a “Praise of Folly” which is
consciously conceived as a text completely void of Christianity. Johan
Huizinga noticed it in 1936:
“Within the greatest part of the Moria every sign of Christianity is
completely absent. All Christian ideas and notions are eliminated in Stultitia’s
speech. A new Lucianus is speaking” 13.)
In the chapter 62-67 we are confronted with a “Praise of Folly” which
presents Christian believers and their highest attainable aim. These
extremes reflect the switch of intention from amusement to
admonition Erasmus made.
No peroration
Normally an eulogy will be ended by a peroration. Stultitia knows it
very well. In chapter 68 she says: “I see you are waiting for an
epilogue”. However, she does not intend to deliver one, using some
silly pretexts. Rosalie Collie quite rightly wrote: “She undercuts and
undermines her whole argument herself to leave each reader alone
with the unpleasant realization that Folly has been consistent to the
last” by producing examples of visible foolish human behavior. Rosalie
Collie concludes: “Stultitia has abandoned the reader to make his own
decisions about value”. 14.) This is, in my opinion, exactly what the
author of the “Praise of Folly” intended. Erasmus certainly did not like
to be known as a moralist; he only offered his contemporaries a
mirror.
29
Conclusion
Erasmus himself tells us in his “Letter to Martin Dorp” from May1515.
15.) that he “spent seven days to finish it” - that is: his “Praise of Folly”.
He stayed in the house of Thomas More in Bucklersbury in London in
1509 in those days. His story has been hold true for a long time.
Though this may be true with regard to some segments of his text, it
can’t be true for the “Praise of Folly” as a whole in the form it was
printed for the first time in the spring of 1511.
The formation of the 1511-edition of the “Praise of Folly” took almost
two years from the summer of 1509 until its first printing in the spring
of 1511. In the meantime Erasmus inserted twice an Interpolation in
his core-text and added the chapters of the Theological Part. He
certainly did not realize the switch of intention “from amusement to
admonition” within the said “seven days”.
It is not only because of the contents of the “Praise of Folly” that we
may be able to prove that Erasmus’ famous text was not written “in
seven days in London in 1509”. It is also visible in the “architecture” of
the core-text of Phase I. The Second Interpolation - Chapter 48-60 -
damages the architecture of the core-text which Stultitia so
systematically had build up with the help of tricolas at the begin and
the end of the first Phase
Will we blame Erasmus for the ambivalence and ambiguity within his
“Praise of Folly”? We rather should admire the virtuosity of his mind.
© Copyright Klaas Potjewijd 2013
30
Notes .
1. Prof. M.A. Screech: Erasmus: Ecstasy and the Praise of Folly,
London Peregrine Books 1988 p. IX and p. 5
2. A.H.T. Levi Introduction to Desiderius Erasmus in: Praise of Folly and
Letter to Maarten van Dorp, translated by Betty Radice
London Penguin Classics, 1993 p. XI
3. Klaas Potjewijd: Zo ontsond de Lof der Zotheid van Erasmus van
Rotterdam, Een wordingsgeschiedenis.
Almere Parhenon 2009
4. Prof. H. Trapman: Dwaze Wijsheid, 500 jaar Lof der Zotheid in Nederland,
Amsterdan, Uitgeverij Balans, 2011 p.23
5. Desiderius Erasmus: The Praise of Folly, translated with an introduction
and commentary by Clarence H. Miller
New Haven and London, Yale Nota Bene booksin 2003
6. Desiderius Erasmus: Erasmus prefatory letter to Thomas More, translated
by Clarence H. Miller, New Haven – London, Nota Bene book 2003 p. 1
7. Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, translated by Clarence H. Miller
New Haven – London, Nota Bene book 2003, p. IX
8. Johan Huizinga: Erasmus, in Verzamalde Werken, 1950, Deel VI p. 67
Haarlem , H.D. Tjeenk-Willink & Zoon 1950
9. Klaas Potjewijd, o.c. p.45
10. Klaas Potjewijd, A matter of Interaction between Erasmus van Rotterdam
and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, 2014 See in this book p. 31
11. Johan Huizinga, o.c. p.71
12. Desiderius Erasmus, Letter to Martin Dorp, translated by Clarence
New Haven – London, Nota Bene book 2003 p. 142 and 143 H. Miller,
or: Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi editor P.S. Allen Tome II p. 93
Oxford University Press 1992
13. Johan Huizinga, Erasmus Maatstaf der Dwaasheid in: o.c. p. 232
14. Rosalie L. Colie, Paradoxia epidemica, Princeton, 1966 cited in:
Sr. Geraldine Thompson, Under the pretext of Praise,
Toronto and Buffalo, University of Toronto Press, 1973, p. 57
15. Desiderius Erasmus, Letter to Martin Dorp, o.c. p.144
ASD refers to the text in Latin in: Editor: Clarence H. Miller
Opera omnia Erasmi Roterodami, Ordinis IV, Tomus III
Oxford/Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Company, 1979
31
B i b l i o g r a p h y
Colie, Rosalie L. , Paradoxa epidemica, Princeton 1966
Erasmus Desiderius, The Praise of Folly, translated with an
Introduction and Commentary by Clarense H. Miller,
New Haven –London, Nota bene book in 2003
Erasmus Desiderius, Erasmus prefatory letter to Thomas More,
translated by Clarence H. Miller
New Haven – London, Nota Bene book in 2003
Erasmus Desiderius. Letter to Martin Dorp,
translated by Clarence H. Miller
New Haven – London, Nota bene book in 2003
Huizinga Johan, Erasmus’ Maatstaf der Dwaasheid in: Verzamelde
Werken, Deel VI, Haarlem, H.D. Tjeenk Willink, 1950
Levi, A.H.T.. Introduction to The Praise of Folly, translated by Betty
Radice, London, Penguin Classics, 1993
Potjewijd Klaas, Zò ontstond de Lof der Zotheid van Erasmus van
Rotterdam, Een wordings geschiedenis, Almere, Parthenon, 2009
Potjewijd Klaas., A Matter of Interaction between Erasmus of Rotterdam
and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola see: Article II in this book.
Screech, Prof. M.A. Erasmus: Ecstasy and the Praise of Folly,
London, Peregrine Books, 1988
Trapman, Prof. Hans, Dwaze Wijsheid, 500 jaar Lof der Zotheid in
Nederland, Amsterdam Uitgeverij Balans 2011
32
C O N T E N T S
Introduction Page 9
Genesis of Erasmus’ “Praise of Folly” of 1511 schematized Page 11
The scheme of Erasmus’ “Praise of Folly” explained Page 12
Phase I 12
Phase II 12
Phase III 13
Strategy and structure Page 13
A twofold introduction Page 14
Phase I – The core-text of the Praise of Folly Page 15
. Power of Plutus 15
. Dominion of Stultitia 16
. Blessings of Stultitia 16
. A cosmos of Plutus and Stultitia 16
. A personal touch 17
. Cbapter 45 18
Phase II - A First Interpolation Page 18
. An “implantation” 18
. Erasmus “goes on with it” 19
Phase III - A Second Interpolation Page 20
. Follies within society 21
Extension or Theological Part Page 22
. A second introduction of Christian believers 22
- A change of intentions and a contrast 23
No peroration Page 25
Conclusion Page 26
Notes Page 27
Bibliography Page 28
Contents Page 29
33
34
II
A Matter of Interaction
Erasmus van Rotterdam versus Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
Introduction
The title above may at first sight give rise to amazement, provoke
astonishment and even protest. One may ask: In which way can two
tycoons of Western Humanism possibly have run into contraposition?
Especially since this contraposition should be visible and recognizable
in Erasmus’ most famous text, his “Praise of Folly”? One even may
start to think of a bad joke.
There is an excuse for this attitude because Erasmus “abstained from
mentioning any names” in his “Praise of Folly”. So he explicitly stated
in his “Letter to Thomas More”, which is the introduction to his book.
1.). Consequently he also left out the names of Giovanni Pico della
Mirandola and his “Oratio de dignitate hominis”. If a reader is not
familiar with the text of Giovanni Pico’s “Oratio”, he certainly will miss
the allusions and references which appear in Stultitia’s eulogy. In the
first instance Erasmus’ text was meant for his friends in England who
certainly were familiar with Giovanni Pico’s “Oratio”. They, no doubt,
did notice the references.
Until now I have only known of one example of a text in which the
textual interrelation between the “Praise of Folly” and the “Oratio de
dignitate hominis" is noticed and demonstrated. 2.)
This article has firstly been written to prove the occurrence of Pico
della Mirandola and his “Oratio de dignitate hominis” within the text of
Erasmus’ “Praise of Folly”; secondly to register Erasmus’ comments on
the opinions Giovanni Pico displayed in his “Oratio de dignitate
hominis”.
35
The search for “the most fortunate of living things”, § 6 proclaimed by
Giovanni Pico in the opening phrases of his “Oratio”, runs through this
article like a thread.
As I became more and more involved in Giovanni Pico’s world of
thoughts, I now suggest that the First Part of his “Oratio” should be
interpreted in a way which include the structure of medieval mystic
texts.
Respect for historical situations is a pre-eminent condition, not only
for those who specialize in the discipline. Any researcher has to stick
to historical reality, whether he likes it or not. In the words of Johan
Huizinga: “ … not only existing factual material is relevant for an
historian. The dream and suggestion also are important with regard to
historical knowledge. Ways of life and thinking do belong to the past
just as well as feats of arms and economic structures.” 3.)
The scientific climate in the second half of the 15th century may in
some respects seem an horreur to the present generation of scientists.
For the contemporaries it was “all in a day’s work”. Erasmus had to
deal with it and so he did. Extreme situations always give a specific
episode in history more contrast and character.
We can’t leave out Thomas More when we study Erasmus’ concern
with Giovanni Pico and his “Oratio”. Thomas More admired Giovanni
Pico. There even may have been a disagreement about him between
the two friends of a lifetime. Both of them published a text about
Giovanni Pico in a hidden way: Erasmus gave his opinion within eight
chapters of his “Praise of Folly”. Thomas More published his Life of
Pico within a collection of devotional texts. Why did he leave out
important details? The main question is: why did Erasmus insert
allusions on the person of Giovanni Pico and his “Oratio” within the
core-text of his “Praise of Folly” during his homeward journey on
horseback in the summer of 1509? I have tried to find an answer to
this questions in chapter IV.
36
Chapter I The main differences
The power of Nature or Erasmus versus Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
In his “Oratio” Giovanni Pico’ unfolds a picture of the creation of man.
Man, according to Pico, occupies a special position within the whole of
God’s Creation. His situation is completely different from the rest of
God’s creatures who live on earth, in the water or are present in the
universe. The creation of man was not materialized within the “seven
days” according with the description in the Old Testament. In Giovanni
Pico’s view God left it to human kind to finish its creation itself:
“We have made you a creature neither of heaven nor of earth, neither
mortal nor immortal, in order that you may, as the free and proud shaper of your
own being, fashion yourself in the form you prefer. It will be in your power to
descend to the lower, brutish forms of life; you will be able, through your own
decision, to rise again to the superior orders whose life is divine.” §§ 22-23 4.)
God also granted man, according to Giovanni Pico, the possibility to
change his figure i.e. metamorphosis.
. “…… at the moment of his creation, God bestowed seeds pregnant with all
the possibilities, the germs of every form of life. Whichever of these man shall
cultivate, the same will mature and bear fruit in him; if vegetative, he will
become a plant, if sensual he will become brutish, if rational , he will reveal
himself a heavenly being …..” §§ 27-29 5.)
There is in Giovanni Pico’s picture of human kind a third privilege
which God did not vouchsafe the rest of his Creation:
“The nature of all other creatures is defined and restricted within laws
We have laid down; you, by contrast, impeded by no such restrictions, may, by
your own free will, to whose custody We have assigned you, trace for yourself
the lineaments of your own nature.” §§ 19-20 6. )
Erasmus criticizes this last of Giovanni Pico’s statements as in
practice inconsistent with the first one. He does so in a way which is
at the same time subtle and effective pointing to a detail man and
women have to go through if they want to become father and mother.
37
He kills two birds with one stone in this case. Johan Huizinga describes
the position of man in his biography of Erasmus in 1924 as follows:
“When a wise man wishes to become father, he has first to play the
fool. For what is more foolish than the game of procreation?” 7.)
Stultitia’s now uses this primary for her own purpose. In chapter 11
we find the first proof of visible foolish behavior of man and woman
which she brings forward in her eulogy:
“Thus, this game of ours, giddy and ridiculous as it is, is the source of
supercilious philosophers ( ) and kings in their scarlet robes, and pious priests
and pope-holy pontiffs. “ ASD IV 3, 169-172, p. 80 8.)
At the same time it makes clear that human beings are subject to a
pre-existent natural law, or a conditio sine qua non. To Giovanni Pico
this was one of the “restrictions defined for all other creatures” § 6
from which only man was excepted. However, is man “the free and
proud shaper of his own being” § 22-23 when there is an inevitable
condition for man if he ever wants to generate new life? By way of
Stultitia Erasmus underlines this aspect and now convincingly
replaces human beings back in line with the nature God defined for all
other of His creatures, reminding Giovanni Pico not to forget the
human condition to which he was born.
Mariages inégales or uneven marriages See page 30
Nobody can escape the extensive attention Stultitia pays to the
marriage inègales or uneven marriages in chapters 30 and 31. It
certainly forms an essential part of Erasmus’ strategy to criticize
Giovanni Pico. The phenomenon of a male or a female of old age in
love with a young person has held its own through time. Its frequent
portrayal in the days when Erasmus wrote his “Praise of Folly” is
conspicuous: Hans Holbein’s small drawings of an old “bachelor” and
an “old maid” in Erasmus’ copy of 1515 (see opposite page) are
reproduced in many illustrated editions of the “Praise of Folly”.
38
Albrecht Dürer, Quinten Massys – or Metsys – and his son John
39
40
portrayed the relationship 9.) One also should not overlook Jacob
Cornelisz van Oostsanen’s painting “Saleswomen of spectacles”, dated
ca. 1520 . (see opposite frontispiece) Sebastian Brandt includes this
theme in “Das Narrenschiff” of 1494. The phenomenon manifests itself
within different social groups. (see opposite page) Whether there was
a peak in relationships of this type in the days Erasmus wrote his
“Praise of Folly” may be decided by historians of civilization. Erasmus,
always a keen observer of his contemporaries, tells us through the
voice of Stultitia in chapter 31:
“In fact, to see old codgers with one foot in the grave marry some sweet
young thing – with no dowry at that, and of far more use to other men than to
him – this sort of thing happens so often that people almost consider it
praiseworthy” ASD IV 3, 685-687, p.108
Stultitia ‘s detailed description of men and women of old age looking
for a young partner has - I think - not been presented “by accident”.
There is reason to assume that there is a purpose to this exposè en
detail. Erasmus describes the visible world - the “here and now” - to
prove his case, as he consequently does in his “Praise of Folly”.
Stultitia makes clear that males and females of old age still are subject
to natural powers like sexual drive and eroticism. There is no reason
for shame or alarm in this regard according to her in chapter 31-32:
“But shame, disgrace, reproaches, curses do harm insofar as they are
perceived. If they are not noticed, they are not harmful. Even so, I can imagine
the philosophers’ objections: “But to be caught in the tolls of such folly, to err to
be deceived, to be ignorant – such an existence is itself miserable.” One thing is
sure: such it is to be a man. –Immo hoc est hominem esse. - But I don’t see why
they should call him miserable, since this is the way you are born, this is the way
you are formed and fashioned, this is the common lot of everyone.” ASD IV 3,
702-709. P.110
Stultitia’s observation in chapter 32 is clear as a bell: “Immo hoc est
hominem esse” or “such it is to be a man.” Man’s passions and
emotions are literally “incorporated” within the physical appearance
41
of men and women. Here is another example which proves that human
beings - as in the case of procreation - are subject to powers rooted in
the laws of nature, pre-existent and in many cases stronger than man
himself. The human species is confronted with a number of powers
rooted in nature such as the necessity to eat, to drink and to sleep
which she can neither deny nor escape. So the “old codgers and old
maiden” prove once again that Giovanni Pico’s third privilege is not
verifiable. Erasmus underlines that human beings are subject to a
number of natural laws which Giovanni Pico classifies as “restrictions”
from which man was excepted according to him.
Do these “restrictions” make man unhappy or miserable? Not
necessarily according to Stultitia. Immediately after her sketch of the
position of the human sort as cited above she goes on :
“But nothing is miserable merely because it follows its own nature, unless
perhaps someone thinks man’s lot is deplorable because he cannot fly like the
birds, or run on all fours like other animals, and is not armed with horns like
bull.” ASD IV 3, 709-711, p.110
Human felicity
There is even more to it in Erasmus’ view:
“Denique cum praecipua felicitatis pars sit, ut quod sis esse velis”
According to Stultitia felicity for man consists in :“to wish to be what
you actually are” (Chapter 22). Erasmus’ view on human happiness is
based on self-acceptance. Apart from being aware of personal
circumstances, qualities and/or deficiencies, man should be conscious
of the conditions which are rooted within natural law and accept
them. Giovanni Pico is “forgetting the human condition to which he
was born”, according to Erasmus in Chapter 35 of his “Praise of Folly”.
He eliminates the natural laws or preconditions for man, as we have
seen above. He finds the “wondrous and unsurpassable felicity of man”
in being granted “to have what he chooses, to be what he wills to be”.
§ 24.
42
O summam Dei patris liberalitatem, summam et admirandam hominis
foelicitatem, cui datum id habere qoud optat, id esse qoud velit !
To Erasmus the peak of happiness implies also staying within natural
borders which means accepting natural laws. To Giovanni Pico the
basis of happiness is the complete absence of borders and restrictions.
He proclaims a complete independence of the laws of nature for man.
Magic and science in the second half of the 15th century
Giovanni Pico also introduces in his “Oratio” new possibilities for man
such as immortality and metamorphosis:
“Who then will not look with wonder upon man….. because he molds ,
fashions and transforms himself into the likeness of all flesh and assumes the
characteristic power of every form of life ?” § 41-42 10.)
One may now quite rightly ask in which way a human being will be
able to bring about such a metamorphosis. We may leave out as
irrelevant here the question whether these metamorphoses should be
realized physically or should have a contemplative character.
Nevertheless, it is inevitable that Giovanni Pico’s statement provokes
curiosity at least. The answer may be dazzling and even shocking to
many a one who now belongs to a modern scientific team: Marsilio
Ficino and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, the most learned and
“enlightened” men in the second half of the 15th century, both did not
exclude Magic nor Cabbalism from their scientific activities. So
Giovanni Pico announces the Magia Naturalis, in his “Oratio”:
“To be nothing else but the highest realization of natural philosophy”
§ 215 11.)
. “and the cultivation of it, “both in antiquity and at almost all periods
… the source of the highest renown and glory in the field of learning.” § 220 12.)
Such an attitude may be unacceptable, even shameful and humiliating
to a Post-Enlightment scientist. However, a reaction of this type
reveals a lack of understanding of his colleagues, who lived during one
of the most confusing episodes in the history of science in Europe.
43
Gutenberg produced the first Bible using a printing press in 1454.
Marsilio Ficino was 21 years of age at that time. When he died in 1499
all over Europe there were between 200 to 300 printing presses in
operation and at least over 10 million books were already available.
This “tsunami” of information originated for the greatest part from
Byzantium after its “fall in 1453”. It contained a lot of material from
the first centuries of Christianity during which occultism had
flourished. This “tsunami” washed ashore of a scientific landscape
where standing methods for systematic scientific research into nature
were non-existing. These only took shape in Europe during the 17th
century and later.
“Until then everything was natural and nothing was impossible for
man while in scientific research magic coincided with nature from which God is
the top-Magician”. 13.)
In other words with regard to the philosophy of nature in the 15th and
16th centuries it is hardly to decide where science starts and magic
ends. In chapter 38 of the Praise of Folly Stultitia presents two types of
madness related to her eulogy on Folly: there exist a malicious one
and a kind-hearted one:
“For there are two forms of madness: one which is sent up from the
underworld by the avenging Furies whenever they dart forth their serpents and
inspire in the breasts of mortals a burning desire for war or an unquenchable
thirst for gold …… There is another kind far different from the first, namely the
kind which takes its origins from me and is most desirable.” ASD IV 3 873-890.
P.116-118
Renaissance-scientists made the same distinction: they distinguish
Magia which originates from “demons” and Magia Naturalis. Giovanni
Pico works out the difference in his Oratio §§ 214-233 which begins as
follow:
“I have also proposed certain theses concerning magic, in which I have
indicated that magic has two forms. One consists wholly of the operation and
44
powers of demons, and consequently appears to me, as God is my witness, an
execrable and monstrous thing.
The other powers, when thoroughly investigated, prove to be nothing else but
the highest realization of natural science.” §§ 214-215 14.)
Giovanni Pico also introduces his skill as a cabbalist in his “Oratio” in
this way:
“I come now to those matters which I have drawn from the ancient
mysteries of the Hebrews and here adduce in confirmation of the inviolable
Catholic faith. Lest these matters be thought by those to whom they are
unfamiliar bubbles of the imagination and tales of charlatans, I want everyone to
understand what they are and what their true character is, ,,,,,; how mysterious
they are and divine and necessary to men of our faith for the propagation of our
religion ..” §§ 234-35 15.)
It may be clear that Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico kept strictly
aloof from “Magia demoniale”. Demonic magicians ended unrelenting
on top of the stake and many of them even still in the first decades of
the 17th century and later.
Marsilio Ficino 1433-1499 and Giovanni Pico 1463-1494
Giovanni Pico had been a student since he was fourteen. He swapped
from Canon Law to Natural Science shortly after his mother died in
1478. He moved from Bologna to Florence. Here he met Marsilio
Ficino, thirty years his senior, who was responsible for the translation
of the complete works of Plato from Greek into Latin, in first instance
by orders of Cosimo de Medici, later of his son, Lorenzo. The project
took over 20 years. Marsilio Ficino started this magnum opus in 1463.
At a special request by Cosimo he had first finished the translation of a
text, Corpus Hermeticum by Hermes Trismegistes. 16.) It arrived in
Florence from Macedonia in ca. 1460. Cosimo de Medici had bought it.
In 1471 Marsilio Ficino published fragments from the Corpus
Hermeticum, titled Picander and Asclepius, respective: “About God’s
Power and Wisdom” and “About the divine Will”. Both Marsilio Ficino
45
and Giovanni Pico, who mentions him in his “Oratio”, owed a lot to
Hermes Trismegistes who should have lived in the days of Moses
around 4000 A.C. and was supposed to be an Egyptian priest.
The illusion of possessing a copy of the oldest existent written text
was shattered in 1614 by Isaac Casaubon, one of the best specialists in
Greek, classical culture and church-history in his days. He identified
the Corpus Hermeticum as a text from the 2nd century A.D. If contains
a collection of texts by different Greek authors. 17.) By then the two
most “enlightened scientists” of the second half of the 15th century
already had passed away for over a hundred years.
Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola belonged to a
generation of scientists who were satisfied no longer with answers to
their questions based on theory. They were looking for answers which
were demonstrable and practicable, being “men of action” with an
open mind, interested in new ideas and concepts which now were
flooding Italy from Byzantium. They were also ready to use them.
Marsilio Ficino developed ideas in his Theologia Platoninca in the
years 1469-1474 which awakened a fascination in Giovanni Pico he
could never since get rid of.
“The ultimate godlike act is creating. Man, created in the likeness of God,
is thus the most godlike when, he too creates. This creativity will eventually lead
him back to his godlike origin. It is his capacity to create, to will, to act, which
makes him “free” from the bounds of the great chain. “ 18.)
The possibility for man to be able to hold a godlike position is an
important aspect of Marsilio Ficino’s philosophy as a whole.19.) It has,
no doubt, stimulated Giovanni Pico’s thinking a great deal. Trying to
discover passable ways to concrete “spiritual continents” is in line
with the ambition of the explorers of the oceans who had been looking
for coasts of unknown continents. They were discovered recently in
Africa, Asia and the America’s. The same spirit lived among the
painters and drawers who now wanted to know what is under the
naked skin of their models. In other words: contemplation became
46
observation; modern scientists were “man of action”. Leonardo da
Vinci (1452-1519) is thereof the foremost example facing the
challenge “to make the impossible possible”. His experiments with
helicopters in 1496, and sub-marines in 1502 are examples of this
ambition. In fact Giovanni Pico’s ideas are in the same line, be it in the
field of the spirit. He also tried “to make the invisible visible”. If Magic
and Cabbala could contribute to this end, there was no reason to leave
them out.
Erasmus and Hermes Trismegistes
Was Erasmus of Rotterdam familiar with Hermes Trismegistes and his
work? Undoubtedly! The Corpus Hermeticum was edited 12 times up
till the end of the 16th century. Erasmus and his pupil, Alexander
Stuart, stayed in Siena in the winter of 1508/09. Hermes Trismegistes
is portrayed here in mosaic in the floor of thr Cathedral. 20.) It cannot
have escaped Erasmus’ notice. In his “Praise of Folly” Erasmus
describes in Chapter 32 the Egyptian god Theutus whose high priest
Hermes Trismegistes should have been. Erasmus criticizes his
contemporaries who are more interested in Chaldeans and Egyptians
than in St Paul and are often:
…………..“rather perturbed by the dreams of a certain little man, if not an
imposter, which apart from bringing in nothing, also means a huge waste of
time.” 21.)
Here we have an identification and an evaluation of Hermes
Trismegistus by Erasmus in his Paraclesis of 1519.
Chapter II: Giovanni Pico and his “Oratio de dignitate hominis”
Giovanni Pico’s starts his “Oratio” with his credo: “Man is the most
fortunate of living things”, § 9, 22.) In the following lines §§ 10-44 p.
23.) he describes the foundation of this statement, summing up three
privileges which I quoted at the begin of this article. According to
Giovanni Pico, being born privileged doubtless has consequences:
47
“Since we have been born into this condition of being, what we choose
to be, it may never be said against us we failed to appreciate it.”
The words of Asaph the Prophet: “You are all Gods and sons of the
Most High” might rather be true. § 46. 24.)
“Let us disdain the things of the earth,…..putting behind us all the things
of the world, hasten to the court beyond the world, closest to the most exalted
Godhead. There, as the sacred mysteries tell us, the Seraphim, Cherubim and
Thrones occupy the first places; but, unable to yield to them, and impatient of
any second place, let us emulate their dignity and glory. And, if we will, we shall
not be inferior to them in nothing”. §§ 46-50, 25.)
Aiming at a place “closest to the most exalted Godhead” means that
we should try to materialize such a vicinity of God. According to the
hierarchy of Dionysius the Areopagite, God stays in Heaven above the
Thrones, Seraphim and Cherubim. Giovanni Pico’s ambition is clear:
“not to be inferior to them”, that means to try to pave the way to
Heaven for living human beings. He starts his project by looking into
the past. He finds medieval mystic texts intended to prepare Christian
believers for celestial felicity i.e. the Union with God, normally
coinciding with their passing away. So, the first Part of the “Oratio”
contains a segment - §§ 51-97 resp. p. 13-23 - which has much in
common with the structure of medieval texts of this type. Jan van
Ruusbroec (1294-1381) wrote such a text: “Seven Steps toward
Spiritual Love”, 26.) translated from Dutch into Latin by L. Surius in
1552. 27.) Here we find the same elements which are present in the
first part of Giovanni Pico’s “Oratio”, such as: the way up to Seraphim,
Cherubim and Thrones, Jacob’s Ladder, a description of the state of
celestial felicity and the preparation for it. So far the similarities. The
differences may help to provide a clear view on Giovanni Pico’s
intention and the ambition he cherished. Jan van Ruusbroec’s
guidelines are meant for a wide range of readers while Giovanni Pico
encourages highly-educated individuals, challenging them with his
slogan “since we will, we can”. This also goes for the indications the
48
authors give preparing their readers. Jan van Ruusbroec indicates
attitudes and moods in a concrete way such as “voluntary poverty”,
“purity of body and soul” and “an unwavering spirit”. Giovanni Pico
lodges these elements in abstracts like “ethics”, “dialectics” and a
number of scientific disciplines, revealing the public he focuses on:
intellectuals. This corresponds with his intention to use his “Oratio” as
an introduction for the audience attending his public debate in 1487.
Jan van Ruusbroec presents a picture of the Union with God in his
“Seventh Step” :
“It means that, disconnected from knowledge and awareness, we are in a
state of a basic “not-knowing”; that we without mentioning the name of God or
one of his creatures pass over and die in an eternal Namelessness”. 28.)
Giovanni Pico gives a similar description but only after a certain event.
His text presents the preparation of a wedding between a living soul
and Jesus Christ in the presence of the Father, a type of Union with
God originating from Origenes, 30.) which stands for a marriage of
Jesus Christ with his Church. In Giovanni Pico’s words:
“so that, too, when the soul of man, by means of moral philosophy
(ethics) and dialectics shall have purged herself of her uncleanness, adorned
herself with the many disciplines of philosophy as with the raiment of a prince’s
court and crowned the pediments of her doors with the garlands of theology the
King of Glory may descend and, coming with the Father, take up his abode with
her. If she proves worthy of such a great a guest she will, (through his boundless
clemency) arrayed in the golden vesture of the many sciences as in a nuptial
gown, receive him, not as a guest merely, but as a spouse.” §§ 96-97, 29.)
Needless to mention that the summing up of a number of scientific
disciplines is completely absent in Jan van Ruusbroec’s “Seven Steps to
Spiritual Love”. It will now become clear that Jan van Ruusbroec and
Giovanni Pico used the same “ladder of Jacob” for different ends,
though both are aiming at a Union in Heaven. Jan van Ruusbroec is
leading his contemporaries on their way to eternal felicity at the end
of their lives. He underlines the indivisibility of the Trinity within the
49
process in the highest of his “Seven Steps”. Giovanni Pico tries to
connect belief and science suggesting that they are interdependent.
He sketches a meeting between the soul of a living person with the
Father and the Son, “Who will descend”, culminating in a marriage
with Jesus Christ. The possibility of being in Their Presences must
have been an ultimate fascination to Giovanni Pico. He presents now
in his “Oratio” the same elements to prepare the Union with God Jan
van Ruusbroec gives. However, he intermingles a number of scientific
disciplines as we will see.
“Whoever is a Seraph, that is a lover, is in God and God is in him.”
§ 61, 31.)
“We, therefore, imitating the life of the Cherubim here on earth, by refraining the
impulses of our passions through ethics, through moral science…” § 71, 32.)
Jacob’s ladder is present. The feet represent “where lust ferments and
voluptuous softness is fostered. ” § 78, 33.)
“Let us bath in moral philosophy as in a living stream these hands, that is, the
whole sensual part in which the lusts of the body have their seat. § 80, 34.)
“For it is a patent thing, o Fathers, that many forces strive within us in grave,
intestine warfare, worse than the civil wars of states. Equally clear is it that,….. if
we are to achieve that peace among the exalted of God, philosophy alone can
compose and allay that strife.” §§ 87-88, 35.)
“Dialectic will compose the disorders of reason torn by anxiety and uncertainty
amid conflicting hordes of words and captious reasoning. § 90, 36.)
“Natural philosophy will reduce the conflict of opinions and the endless debates
which from every side ever vex, distract and lacerate the disturbed mind.” § 91,
37.)
“ To bestow such peace is rather the privilege and office of the queen of
sciences, the sacrosanct theology. Natural philosophy will at best point out the
way to theology and even accompany us along the path, while theology, seeing
us from afar hastening to draw close to her will call out: “Come to me, and I will
give you the peace which the world and nature cannot give you.” §§ 92-93, 38.)
50
The copying of Seraphim and Cherubim and the study of ethics,
dialectics, philosophy, natural philosophy and sacrosanct theology
should help to pave the way for a meeting of a living person with the
Father and a Union with the Son - be it with a little advance on
Heaven’s Benevolence: “through His Boundless Clemency”. In Latin:
“quae est illius immensa clementia”.
After the wedding the living soul:
. “will prefer to leave her own people and her father’s house. Forgetful of
her very self she will desire to die to herself in order to live in her spouse…” § 97,
39.)
May we recognize here the state of “Namelessness” which Jan van
Ruusbroec indicates, in the of lines Giovanni Pico’s text?
The presentation of Giovanni Pico suggests that a Union with Jesus
Christ could be celebrated before passing away. Was such a thing
possible according to the Church? Did Giovanni Pico’s ideas find their
way to the public? We may perhaps catch a glimpse of it in the last
line of a sonnet of 1555 40.) by Michelangelo Buonarrotti (1475-
1564) :
. “Half the way to heaven for me, o Lord,
. Even to go halfway is not possible for me without Your help.
Make me hate all what is important in the world and
. her beauties which I honor and worship,
. that I may acquire eternal life before dying”.
Giovanni Pico’ presentation suggests the possibility for a living person
to meet the Father and the Son culminating in the Union with Jesus
Christ. Is it far-fetched to suggest that Giovanni Pico tries, by way of
his presentation, to implement Marsilio Ficino’s ideas about man’s
godlikeness? Or should we consider this scene as an example of a man,
made “neither mortal, nor immortal”, being a creature “who can be,
what he wills to be”, who shows proof of his “dignitas hominis” - his
51
human dignity – by “equaling Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones”? §§
46-50, 41.)
Both Francesco Bausi and Jan Papy completely leave out this aspect of
Giovanni Pico’s thinking in their respective introductions of Giovanni
Pico’s “Oratio”. Francesco Bausi considers the §§ 51-141 as a whole to
represent an “Eulogio della Filosofia” or a “Praise of Philosophy” 42.)
To Jan Papy - who added an excellent introduction and comment to
Michiel Op de Coul’s translation into Dutch of the “Oratio” - this part
of the “Oratio” is “the philosophic-mystic choral-song/prayer
embodying Giovanni Pico’s conviction :“if man displays his essence, he
should choose gradually to go up unto the divine: the “One”. 43.)
I think it is possible to distinguish three segments within the §§ 51-
141 of the first part Giovanni Pico’s “Oratio” .
1. Giovanni Pico paves a way to Heaven, be it only for intellectuals in
§§ 51-97, 44.)
2. Giovanni Pico points onto the necessity of a proper preparation for
those who are in a situation where direct contact with God can be had
and for those who themselves are to be godlike. §§ 98 – 113, 45
3. Finally Giovanni Pico describes the initiated, “who is no longer
himself but will be the one who made him” – “iam non ipsi nos, sed ille
erimus ipse qui fecit nos.” §§ 114 – 141, 46 Reinforced by ethics,
dialectics and theology he recognizes himself in philosophers and the
gods of classical Greece, in the wisdom of the Chaldeans, Zoroaster
and last but not least in Abraham’s land. So he lives within the light of
noon in Heaven which enflames the Seraphs an illuminates the
Cherubs. If man feels dizzy after his fall from Heaven – the banishment
from Paradise - he should ask the archangels Gabriel and Michael for
help
Francesco Bausi quite rightly underlines the uselessness of looking for
any intention of “emancipation” within the Oratio de dignitate hominis
as Jacob Burckhardt and many others have done in the past. According
52
to Giovanni Pico man is completely free to live a Christian life or not.
§§ 23, 47.) He placed man in a position which makes any need for
“autodeterminazione” completely superfluous. The flood of new
information from Constantinople and the thinking of Marsilio Ficino
rather have been Giovanni Pico’s sources of inspiration. We do feel his
burning longing for the acknowledgement of his godlikeness as a
“creative philosopher”, and his being on equal footing with the Father
and the Son. Marsilio Ficino opened the “flood-gates” for ideas of this
kind in 1482. These should greatly outlive the inventor and his friend.
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola 1463 - 1494
The Holy Trinity, no doubt, formed a central element in both the
minds of Erasmus of Rotterdam and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola but
the similarity stops here. Erasmus fits exactly – in my opinion –
within the essence of Humanism or the character of a Humanist as
sketched by Professor Sem Dresden in 1971. 48.) “Man is a being with
creative power but also created. He may be proud of the first capacity,
but avows at the same time his dependency implied in the last”. Apart
from his physical problems with the kidney stone Erasmus was aware
to be subject to natural laws. To Giovanni Pico any form of
dependency for man is non-existent. There are no bounds for man
according to him. He even storms heavenward to meet the Father and
the Son for a Union which he prepared and sketched in his “Oratio”.
One may state that one’s vision on man reflects his personal
circumstances. Giovanni Pico’s unrestricted possibilities lay open to
him primarily because of his good health and his complete financial
independence. He was rich since his mother’s death in 1478. No entry,
be it of a royal palace, a university or a learned individual in Europe
was denied to him.
Jan Papy does justice to historical reality when he characterizes
Giovanni Pico as a “womanizer” 49.) which resulted in behavior which
was at times inconsiderate, as in the case of his abduction of the wife
of a relative of Lorenzo de Medici in October 1486. Was it the drive to
53
”score” in another field that made him now arrange his public debate
in Rome for Epiphany 1487, quite shortly after the scandal? Jacob
Burckhardt pointed to a phenomenon, which developed in Italy earlier
than in the rest of Europe: the tendency of individuals to distinguish
themselves among their fellow men, contemporaries and compatriots.
50.) The crowning of poets with a wreath of laurels knew already a
long history in Italy. Competition laid at the root of it. Leonardo da
Vinci and Michelangelo took part in a contest in Florence in 1504
regarding the decoration of the city hall. Giovanni Pico’s public debate
in Rome fits within the same tradition. Was he “living too fast” in these
days, slightly overestimating himself as he tried in the latest moments
to avoid problems which could have been foreseen earlier? The
genesis of the Second Part of the “Oratio”, doubling yhe size of it, may
be proof of this. Jan Papy points to the fact that that he even adapted
the “Oratio” shortly before his arrival in Rome 51.) Such things are
easily understood in the case of a brilliant and rich young man who is
confronted with new information just before the start of the debate.
He was no doubt gifted with an extraordinary intelligence, a very
lively fantasy and an open mind. Francesco Bausi rightly remarks that
he was an enthusiastic human being. Jan Papy describes Giovanni
Pico’s “crisis of identity” in the years before 1485.
There may have been more to it. It will perhaps help if we consider
Erasmus’ position before and after his sojourn in Italy. When he left
England in 1506, his status was the same which he had when he
arrived in England in 1499: the status of an “orator”. After his
doctorate in theology, obtained in Turin the 4th of September 1506, he
returned in England as a “Magister Noster”, qualified to publish texts
about subjects in the field of theology. Though such a thing wasn’t
important to Erasmus personally he notes: “But one should conform to
the customs of the times.” 52.) Giovanni Pico did not have any
academic degree though he had visited some of the most famous
universities in his days: Bologna and Paris. The fields of his research
such as causa rerum, naturae vias, universi rationem, Dei Consilia and
54
the mysteries of earth and heaven were not inserted within the
curricula of the universities. In a way he was a pioneer and
consequently he must have felt alone as is clearly visible within the
first pages of the Second Part of his “Oratio”.
According to Jan Papy, Giovanni Pico preferred “the contemplative
side of the philosophical way of life”. It is difficult to recognize this in
the last version of his “Oratio”. His many-sidedness in the field of
knowledge reveals itself convincingly in the way he prepared the
“marriage with Jesus Christ”: moral philosophy, dialectics, Greek
philosophy of Aristoteles and Plato, philosophy of nature, magia,
practical cabbala, - not the contemplative type of it - and last but not
least, theology. Such an encyclopedic mind surpasses a contemplative
one. Neither from his biography, nor from his knowledge one can trace
back a definite contemplative character in Giovanni Pico until 1487. A
text about a soul on his way to Heaven obviously has a contemplative
subject but that does not make the author a “contemplative
philosopher” ipso facto. We should not ignore in this context
Francesco Bausi’s publication of 1996: Nec Rhetor neque Philosophos
nelle prime opera di Giovanni Pico. Fonti, lingua e stile nelle prime opera
di Giovanni Pico della Mirandola 1484-1487. Considering Giovanni
Pico’s texts, mainly from the point of view of a philologist, Francesco
Bausi also underlines the importance of the year 1487.
“Il 1487 che constituisce un punto nodale e un autentico spartiacque
nella vita e nell’ opere di Pico.” 53.)
In these pages we have observed Giovanni Pico in a very specific phase
of his life: a young man hunting after fame, fascinated by the idea of
godlikeness and immortality, basically longing for recognition as a
“creative philosopher”.
Thanks to his nephew Gianfrancesco della Mirandola we are informed
of the aftermath of the cancelled public debate in 1487, such as the
problems he encountered with the Roman clergy, jealousy and
malevolence.. Giovanni Pico even forbade those who hated him, and
55
also those who loved him, to read the text of the 13 Conclusiones
disapproved by the church. Thomas More estimates Giovanni Pico’s
situation in 1487 in his version of Life of Pico “à titre personnel” which
means he does so in a strictly personal way:
“So this end had Picus of his high-minded and proud purpose (with
which) he thought to have gotten perpetual praise; there had he much work to
keep himself upright: that he ran not in perpetual infame and slander”.
(orthography modernized)
From here Thomas More again follows Gianfrancesco’s text but not
before he added as a title of the new segment: “Of the Change of His
Life.“
“But as (he) himself told his nephew he judged that this came such to
pass: by the especial provision and singular goodness of almighty god / that by
this false crime untruly put upon him by his evil will he should correct his very
errors / and that this should be to him (wandering in darkness) as a shining
light: in which he might behold and consider: how far he had gone out of the way
of truth. For before this he had been both desirous of glory and kindled in vain
love: and held in voluptuous use of women. …. But after that he was once with
this variance wakened he drew back his mind flowing in riot and turned to
Christ. Women’s blandishments he changed into the desire of heavenly joys &
despising the blast of vainglory which he before desired / now with all his mind
he began to seek the glory and profit of Christ’s church and so began he to order
his conditions that from then forth he might have been approved & though his
enemy were his judge.” 54.) (orthography modernized)
In 1487 “God’s love had not yet touched him.”, writes one of Giovanni
Pico’s biographers. May we from now think of two Giovanni Pico’s, like
two sides of the same medal: one who lived before 1487 and another
one who lived since 1487? Nonetheless, his ideas about godlikeness
and immortality lived on until the end of the 16th century. Rafael,
Leonardo di Vinci and Michelangelo usually were indicated with
“godlike” before their names. See also: Appendix II. The development
of Giovanni Pico’s lines of thought after 1487 does not fall within the
56
scope of this article.
57
Chapter III: Erasmus and the “Oratio de digntate hominis”
Erasmus’ criticism regarding Giovanni Pico’s “Oratio de dignitate
hominis” far from dominates his “Praise of Folly” as a whole. It only
takes shape passim in a few chapters of Phase I of Stultitia’s speech.
Later on we find it concentrated within a segment of eight of the sixty-
eight chapters of his book, chapters 30-37. These form a sort of
intermezzo as Stultitia now focuses on ideas instead of persons.
Erasmus organizes his resistance against Giovanni Pico’s ideas in
different ways, harping more than once the same string.
I. Erasmus disliked the way of thinking of the Stoics from the bottom
of his heart. According to Stultitia - in chapter 30 - Stoics consider
every emotion an “illness”:
“Frankly, he – Seneca – sets up a marble of a man, utterly unfeeling and
quite impervious to all human emotion” ASD IV 3, 634-635, p 106
Erasmus amply gives way to his anger, his irritation and his hurt
feelings in chapter 30:
“Who would not flee in horror from such a man, as he would from a
monster or a ghost – a man who is completely deaf to all human sentiment, who
is untouched by emotion, no more moved by love or pity than a chunk of flint or
a mountain crag…..?” ASD IV 3, 637-640, p. 106
Is it far-fetched to suggest that a passage from the “Oratio” generated
his anger? Giovanni Pico wrote his “Oratio” as an introduction to a
public debate about 900 Conclusiones to be held in Rome in the
presence of high clerical authorities. The “learned contest” was open
to scholars and learned men from all over Europe. Giovanni Pico
anticipates in his “Oratio” upon the position off a loser in such a
debate.
“Rather, it is because I understand that in this kind of learned contest the
real victory lies in being vanquished. Even the weakest should not shun them
out, as well they may.
58
For the one who is bested receives from his conqueror a benefit: he returns to
his house richer than he left, that is more learned and better armed for future
contests” §§ 168, 55.)
His complete ignoring of feelings of disappointment, humiliation,
shame and frustration by Giovanni Pico is unforgivably to Erasmus.
One feels his rage: he can hardly stop his tirade in chapter 30. The
“learned contest” was cancelled in 1487 because of objections from
the Roman clergy.
II. In chapters 11 and 31-32 of his “Praise of Folly” Erasmus makes
short work with Giovanni Pico’s statement that God had excepted man
from natural laws as we already have seen in Chapter I of this article.
He points extensively and explicitly to the natural powers man has to
deal with. His sketching of the unequal marriages almost visualized
the phenomenon. He probably did so to deliver visible proof, which is
a tactics Erasmus prefers and uses consistently.
III. We now have to realize that Erasmus’ “seeing is believing” has no
preponderance in a scientific climate where Magia Naturalis and
Cabbala have equal rights in the field of learning and science. Erasmus,
compelled by necessity, now changes tactics and now abolishes
knowledge and learning as a whole He carefully builds up his
argument in the second half of chapter 32, proclaiming “branches of
learning” a barrier for happiness. He even introduces Theutus, known
from the “Corpus Hermeticum” - the god of Wisdom for the Egyptians
and familiar to Greeks and Romans - now presented as the origin of
evil:
“…….. the different branches of learning, which were actually thought
up by Theutus, a spirit quite hostile to mankind as instruments of man’s utter
ruination. So little do they contribute to man’s happiness that they defeat the
very purpose for which they were supposedly invented..” ASD IV 3, 720-723, p.
110
59
In other words the “branches of learning” went down because they
overshoot their mark and degenerated through the work of “demons”
as so many good things in life have been corrupted in the course of
time.
“Thus the branches of learning crept in - along with the other plagues of
man’s life, and from the very same source from which all shameful crimes arise -
namely the demons, who also derive their name from this fact, since “demon”
comes from δαημονεζ (scientes”, knowing ones). ASD IV 3 724-727, p.110
The simplest and most effective way to prevent problems in this field
is to avoid whatever contact with a “scient”. Stultitia now recommends
a complete anti-intellectualism in chapter 34:
“After all, don’t you see that, among all the other kinds of living
creatures, those which remain the furthest removed from any formal learning
and take Nature for their only teacher lead the happiest life ?” ASD IV 3, 755-
758, p.112
IV. Erasmus’ familiarity with both the “Oratio” and the Corpus
Hermeticum” need not to be under discussion here. Erasmus has an
identical problem with both of the authors. In chapter 32 he points to
the Golden Age when “they considered it unlawful for mortals to seek
knowledge beyond the limit of their lot”. In Latin: “Nefas esse rati si
homo mortalis ultra sortem suam sapere conaretur”. This is - in my
opinion - the kernel of Erasmus’ resistance against all the doings of
Giovanni Pico who “trespassed the limit of his lot” by trying to pave
the way to Heaven for living intellectuals as presented in the first part
of his “Oratio”. Secondly while learnedness never could be a condition
for such an entrée. To strive for godlikeness was utter megalomania to
him as we will see later.
“Erasmus, heir to the philological tradition of humanism that ran from
Valla to Politian, had less interest in the metaphysical tradition of humanism,
especially insofar as the Neoplatonism of Ficino or Pico was tinctured with
Hermetic Magic and Cabbalism” 56.)
60
Erasmus also managed to “catch” Giovanni Pico “in the very act” while
he did “ go beyond of his lot”. At the beginning of the Second Part of
his “Oratio” Giovanni Pico profiles himself as a Philosopher of Nature
and sums up a number of objects for study, such as: quasi rerum
causas, naturae vias. universi rationem, Dei Consilia, caelorun
terraque mysteria pre oculis. In English: the causes of things, the ways
of nature, the plan of the universe, God’s Counsels, the mysteries of
heaven and earth. §145, 57.) Erasmus refers to this program in his
“Praise of Folly” at the end of chapter 32 summing up the same
subjects: “the secrets of Nature, the Stars and their motions and to
Seek the causes”, leaving out two of Giovanni Pico’s list: God’s
Counsels and mysteries of earth and heaven as it was “unlawful for
mortals to seek knowledge beyond the limits of their lot”. To consider
God’s Counsels an object for scientific study must have been not only
the top of foolishness but also utterly improper to Erasmus. His “down
to earth-mentality”, which he demonstrates so clearly in his “Praise of
Folly” certainly made him averse to magic, cabbalism and any form of
occultism and mysteriousness.
V. Sometimes Erasmus comments on Giovanni Pico’s opinions in a
direct way, for example in the case of the “admiration” and the “envy”
he attributed to man in the opening phrases of the “Oratio”, as these
also should contribute to his felicity.
“I have come to some understanding of why man is the most fortunate
of living things and, consequently, deserving of all admiration; of what may be
the condition in the hierarchy of beings assigned to him, which draws upon him
the envy …… “. § 6, 58.)
One may consider the whole of the “Praise of Folly” as a counterweight
to the admiration Giovanni Pico attributed to the human species.
Doesn’t the catalogue of foolish behavior of man in the “Praise of
Folly” rather point to the ridiculousness of man?
At the beginning of chapter 31 Erasmus sketches the misery human
61
species may meet during lifetime in order to do away with the envy
for it suggested by Giovanni Pico.
VI. Metamorphosis emerges twice in the Praise of Folly. In chapter 13
Stultitia pretends also to be able to do the same trick:
. “she brings people of age to the Lethe, so that they may drink large
drafts of oblivion,….and grow young once again. ……. Thus, the widespread
notion of second childhood is quite accurate !” ASD IV 3, 204-207, p.82
In chapter 34 Erasmus introduces “The Cock” from Lucianus’ satire
because of his experience with metamorphosis”, again harping the
same string:
. “which in his life had been, in his single person, a philosopher, a man,
a women, a king, a private citizen, a fish, a horse, a frog, even a sponge but who
decided that no creature was a more miserable than man because all the others
were content to remain within the limits of Nature, while man alone tried to go
beyond the bounds of his lot.” ASD IV 3, 776-780, p.112
VII. Finally Erasmus presents an alternative for Giovanni Pico’s
“credo”. No wonder it focuses again on the happiness of man, more
specifically on the crucial question: who are the most fortunate among
living things? Stultitia’s answer in chapter 35 may be astonishing and
surprising at first sight:
“But, by all Gods above, is anyone happier than the sort of men who
are called fools, dolts simpletons, nincompoops …… “ ASD IV 3, 793-797, p.113-
114
None of the blessings and benefits vouchsafed these dolts, naives,
simpletons and nincompoops - whether in their personal lives or
within in society - is left out in the chapters 35 and 36. If ever there
was a grand finale or peroration to Stultitia’s “Praise of Folly”, she
presents it here.
The position left to Giovanni Pico and his friends is at the utmost
opposite end of the spectrum:
62
“..those men who seek wisdom are furthest from happiness, indeed
they are fools twice over, because forgetting the human condition to which they
were born, they aspire to the life of the immortal gods and (like the giants, Lat.
Giganti exemplo) wage war against Nature with the engines of learning.” ASD IV
3, 789-792, p.112-113
Giovanni Pico’s presence among those described above may be
proven clearly as they are indicated as: 1. being scientists, 2. more
specifically studying Nature, 3. forgetting their human condition and
4. aspiring to be immortal. Data 1-4 may apply directly to Giovanni
Pico as we have seen, but not necessarily to him personally. We should
not consider the idea of man’s deification, reflected in Erasmus’ text
above, as an isolated example of it as we will see in the next article
“In this immense empowering of divine love (i.e. the Incarnation),
Christ, by assuming human nature, made possible man’s deification: “God
became man, so that man became God”, as Giles of Viterbo and other
contemporaries proclaimed”. St. p.316
However, Erasmus added also a detail from a passage from Giovanni
Pico’s “Oratio” to his final ordeal:
“At one time we shall descend, (from the ladder) dismembering with
titanic force (Lat. vi Titanica) the “unity” of the “many”, like the members of
Osiris”; at another time we shall ascend (the ladder), recollecting those same
members, by the power of Phoebus, into their original unity.” § 82, 59.)
The mention of the “Giants” - “Vi Titanica” in his ordeal - points most
probably to an intention. By mentioning them within his “Praise of
Folly” Erasmus gives a hint to those who are familiar with the “Oratio”:
it means that Giovanni Pico, the author of the “Oratio de dignitate
hominis”, is among those “who are furthest from happiness”.
If anyone has not so far recognized the “Oratio de dignitate hominis”
and its author within the “Praise of Folly”, here - at the beginning of
Chapter 35 - Erasmus’ gives a detailed description of the person of
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola by identifying him:
1. as the author of the “Oratio de dignitate hominis”,
63
2. being a person who forgets his human condition,
3. who profiles himself as an active Philosopher of Nature,
4. belonging to those “who aspire to the life of the immortal gods”,
5. and last but not least as the one who proclaimed “man being the
most fortunate of living things”, from which he is now removed “as far
as possible”, according to Stultitia.
She underlines her case usually by visualizing what she brings
forward. So she does now by giving in chapter 37 a description of a
person who is “as far as possible removed from happiness”. It is a wise
and learned man. At the end she asks: “what does it matter when such
a person dies, since he never really lived?” expressing her preference
of life to knowledge or of “vivere” to “sapere” as Johan Huizinga
noticed in 1936. See my book of 2009 p. 9.
Erasmus van Rotterdam 1466 – 1536
Erasmus defended the independency of his mind throughout the
whole of his life. He never crossed a palatial threshold without reserve
as he was not willing to be an “ornament” or even the singer of songs
written by others. He stuck to his principles, not being much inclined
to compromise. However, he paid a price for it: the dependency of a
Maecenas. Socially his position was no more rose-colored as he was
the second son from the same illegitimate relationship. Thanks to
high-ranking clericals in England, he overcame some handicaps
resulting from his lowly birth. Erasmus felt vulnerable; he was to a
high degree aware of the danger to become isolated in society. This
may even have been the main reason he left out the name of Giovanni
Pico and his “Oratio” in his “Praise of Folly”. This fact could very well
also indicate the popularity and fame of the “Oratio” and the respect
and esteem for its author in those days. Erasmus knew perfectly well
that even though it is possible to change a person’s opinion, it is
completely impossible to change the state of mind of a person nor to
alter a common opinion which is dominant in society within a phase of
64
history for a while. In 1509, at the end of chapter 29 of his “Praise of
Folly” the comment he gave is as clear as a bell:
“And surely it is perverse not to adapt yourself to the prevailing
circumstances, to refuse - to do as the Romans do - to ignore the partygoer’s
maxim: take a drink or take your leave……. True prudence, on the other hand,
recognizes human limitations and does not strive to leap beyond them”.
ASD IV 3, 612-617, p.105-106
Erasmus might have been able to unmask Hermes Trismegistes. He
was as well equipped as Isaac Casaubon in 1614 as he also disposed
over: Greek language, Classical literature and history of the Church.
Erasmus undoubtedly witnessed the changes in the second half of the
15th century such as the possibilities of the printing-press, which he
managed to exploit to the utmost through his entire life. He warmly
embraced the flood of information from Byzantium and the Middle-
East but not without reserve. He started to learn Greek in order to be
able to read the New Testament in its original language in the first
place. He also enjoyed and translated Greek classical literature, a feat
until then unknown in Western-Europe. On top of that he disclosed
the work of Early-Christian theologians. But the flood also contained
the “Corpus Hermeticum” by Hermes Trismegistes which aroused a lot
of interest among the intellectuals. It also was the focus of attention of
two learned celebrities in those days: Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni
Pico della Mirandola. In the case of the latter Erasmus thought he
needed to take action, to begin within the circle of his friends in
England as we will see later. Once the idea was born in to publish the
core-text of his “Praise of Folly”, Erasmus inserted his critical notes on
Giovanni Pico’s “Oratio” in eight chapters, 30-37, like a little “contra-
Oratio”. They were part of the First Interpolation. Erasmus may have
been challenged in this case by his friend Thomas More as we will see.
These critical notes became public property when his “Praise of Folly”
came out in print for the first time in 1511 though only recognizable
for insiders as Erasmus “left names out”.
65
Chapter IV: Erasmus, Thomas More and Giovanni Pico
So far one important question has not been posed: in which way was
Erasmus’ criticism aimed at Giovanni Pico and his “Oratio de dignitate
hominis” in his “Praise of Folly”? Two questions arise if we consider
the text itself. First: why did Erasmus insert allusions to Giovanni Pico
and his “Oratio” in some chapters of his core-text? That means in the
oldest part of the “Praise of Folly” which was conceived on horseback
on his way from Italy to England in the summer of 1509 ? Second, why
did Erasmus add a number of chapters with criticism on the “Oratio”
of Giovanni Pico after his presentation of the core-text within in
September 1509?
In the opening sentences of his Letter to Thomas More, which precedes
the “Praise of Folly”, Erasmus recalls ”the most learned and charming
friends whom I had left in England”. He quite unexpectedly took leave
in the summer of 1506 and traveled via Paris to Italy in the company
of the two sons of Henry VIII’s court-physician and their tutor. The
main question is: why does Erasmus, thinking of his coming home in
London in 1509, associate with Giovanni Pico? What makes him insert
allusions to him into a text he intended to present to his friends after
his arrival? What do these allusions refer to? Giovanni Pico had
already passed away fifteen years earlier. So, the allusions could only
have been to his ideas. Thomas More finished his Life of Pico in 1505.
This text is normally indicated as his first translation from Latin into
English. It contains a biography of Giovanni Pico written by his
nephew Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola. Thomas More admired
Giovanni Pico and expressed his high regard for him. Erasmus
certainly disagreed with him and - I am afraid - could not convince his
friend of a lifetime in a heated argument shortly before his departure
for Italy in 1506. It may have ended in a stalemate. There was no room
for “extra time” and possibly an agreement was reached in 1506: the
publication of Thomas More’s Life of Pico was postponed to give
Erasmus an opportunity for a rejoinder, which was also to be
66
published in print. Now, three years later, on his way home, in the
summer of 1509, Erasmus prepared for the “rejoinder” interweaving
allusions to Giovanni Pico in his eulogy as a reminder for his friend.
It is a great surprise to have to ascertain that Thomas More, just as
Erasmus, presented his picture of Giovanni Pico in a hidden way in
1509/10. The title, Life of Pico, is utterly misleading. His work was
dedicated to a nun, Sister Joyeuce Leigh, whose identification is
problematic. It was intended as a gift for New-Year1510. Life of Pico is
the first of a number of edifying and devotional texts in English among
which are three letters from Giovanni Pico. It also contains the
renderings in verse by Thomas More of Pico’s The Twelve Rules of
Spiritual Battle and other work originally written in prose. Giovanni
Pico’s “inner conversion” in 1487 fits perfectly in an anthology of this
type. However, in his translation Thomas More left out a great deal of
Gianfrancesco’s Vita such as Giovanni Pico’s works, including his
“Oratio”, the extent of his library, his interest in Magia Naturalis and
Cabbala, as well as personal foibles and information concerning his
family:
“ In sum, the passages omitted by More from Gianfransesco’s Vita
are primarily those that emphasize Pico’s roles as scholar and controversial
thinker or stress his relationship at various levels to the secular world.” 60.)
It is clear that Thomas More concentrates in his Life of Pico on the
“believer” and his “conversion” in 1487. Erasmus focused on the
author of the “Oratio”, the “creative philosopher”. Phase II of the
“Praise of Folly” primarily contains Erasmus’ critical notes on
Giovanni Pico and his “Oratio” in the eight chapters 30-37. These may
be considdered his “rejoinder”, agreed in 1506. A few months later
Thomas More’s Life of Pico was printed. It was presented as a New
Year gift for 1510. We have seen that Giovanni Pico’s “role as a scholar
and controversial thinker” is completely left out in Thomas More’s
text. The question whether Thomas More’s text was written in 1505 or
shortly before 1510 becomes now relevant. Did Thomas More revise
67
his text shortly before 1510? Did he intentionally convert
Gianfrancesco’s Vita by restricting it in his translation to an edifying
“conversion-story”as he leaves out Giovanni Pico’s “role as a scholar
and controversial thinker”? Is it a coincidence that Erasmus also
changed his intention with his “Praise of Folly” as we have seen. 61.) Is
his switch from amusement to admonition accidental as he also
adjusted his satiric-ironical text into an edifying one?
It seems that the dispute from 1506 ended in a sort of “unisono in
silence” or a tacit agreement in 1509 The deal of 1506 was
materialized: both authors published a text in print, be it both in a
hidden way: Thomas More published his Life of Pico within an
anthology of edifying and devotional texts circa New Year 1510.
Erasmus’ rejoinder, was housed within in his “Praise of Folly”,
printed in the Spring of 1511. Both authors finally tried, each in his
way, to inspire their readers with a Christian spirit and a state of mind
which leads to a Christian way of life.
I have tried to connect a few historical facts in a way which may make
sense. Are Erasmus’ allusions to Giovanni Pico’s “Oratio” in the
summer of 1509 connected with an agreement from 1506? May we
consider the publications by the friends of a lifetime - respective at the
turn of the year 1509/10 and in the Spring of 1511 - as the result of
it? I am quite aware of the speculative character of my answers to the
question posed above. Speculation is an unavoidable part of an
historians job. So we have to be content with a degree of probability
until new factual material turns up.
The reminders
In which way did Erasmus interweave allusions into the core-text of
his “Praise of Folly” in order to turn the attention of his friend in
England to Giovanni Pico and his “Oratio” during his presentation of
the Phase I of his “Praise of Folly” in September 1509?
68
1. In chapter 13 Stultitia points directly to an aspect from the “Oratio”:
the ability for man to metamorphose. Stultitia herself knows the trick
as well: she brings “people of age to the Lethe … to let them grow
young again”.
2. In another allusion, following shortly in the same chapter, Stultitia
points to the person of Giovanni Pico. He is identifiable if one analyzes
the Latin text of the “Praise of Folly”. The main theme in this case is:
“man should live his age”:
“Aren’t we put off by the child who has the knowledge of a grown man? .
Don’t we avoid such precocious prodigies like the plague ?” In Latin :
“Quis enim non ceu portentem oderit atque exsecretur puerum virili
sapientiam ? Astipulator et vulgo iactatatum proverbium: Odi puerulum
praecoci sapientia”. ASD IV 3, 210-213, p.82
In the first line a prodigious child is indicated a PUER.
In the second line he is indicated a PUERULUS.
The difference is a matter of age: the first one is older
What can we conclude about the person in the first line ?
1. It is a man .
. 2. It is not a fully grown-up man but he is behaving like a fully grown-up
. 3. He is unmistakably a precocious person or a whizz-kid
If Giovanni Pico is not the person indicated in the text, his description
fits as he was indeed an infant prodigy.
3. In chapter 14 Stultita refers again to her technique of
metamorphosis; she adds a theme we are now already familiar with:
“But I, on the other hand, restore the same man to the happiest part of his
life. In fact, if mortals would refrain completely from any contact with wisdom
and live their entire lives with me, there would not be any old age at all. Instead,
they would enjoy perpetual youth and live happily ever after.” ASD IV 3, 235-
239, p. 84
69
The combination of an element from the “Oratio” – metamorphosis –
with the description of his person no doubt leads to the identification
of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and his work within Erasmus’ core-
text.
Chapter V: The interaction and after
Interaction usually materializes through activities of two groups or
two individuals who have different opinions. What if one of them has
already passed away as in the case of Erasmus of Rotterdam and
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola? The seriousness Erasmus shows in
cataloguing his objections against Giovanni Pico’s ideas - fifteen years
after its publication and seventeen years after the passing away of the
author - indicates his preparedness to still take action against his text.
We have to be aware that any piece of art and all sorts of texts are
born within specific personal, social and historic circumstances, which
are naturally temporary. So Giovanni Pico may have had
considerations about his “Oratio” later, as he also later distance need
himself from his friend, Marsilio Ficino. That’s why we have carefully
to determine the positions of the assailant and his victim. Erasmus, a
middle-aged doctor in theology and a gifted philologist, appreciated
Giovanni Pico because of the quality of his Latin in 1500. 62.)
However: in his “Praise of Folly” he takes up position against Pico’s
text from 1486. The “Oratio de dignitate hominis” was written by a
youngster, extraordinarily gifted, 23 years of age, enthusiastic and
fascinated by the flood of new ideas which arrived in Italy after the
“fall of Byzantium” in 1453. Erasmus catalogues his objections against
Giovanni Pico in the chapters 30-37 of his “Praise of Folly”, probably
challenged by his friend Thomas More who admired Giovanni Pico.
Erasmus smoothly pointed onto the “Achilles tendon” in Giovanni
Pico’s vision of man, because he ignored in his “Oratio” some basic and
undeniable biological and psychological elements within the life of the
human species. Giovanni Pico has “forgotten the human condition to
which he had been born”, according to Erasmus. Stultitia unfolds a
70
vision which is rooted in nature, which means God’s Creation, and
concludes: “Enim hoc est hominem esse”: “such it is to be a man”.
Giovanni Pico’s ideas may have raised a wave of enthusiasm among
the well-educated. Erasmus knew that he was not able to turn the tide.
He could not win this war against the spirit of the age. So the
interaction with Giovanni Pico materialized itself “behind closed
doors” which means in anonymity.
How may a reader of the “Praise of Folly” in our days profit from this
interaction? Firstly, it proves the presence of Giovanni Pico and his
“Oratio de dignitate hominis“ within Erasmus’ text. Secondly there is
not only a number of criticized opinions. Erasmus presents also
alternatives especially concerning human felicity. According to
Erasmus it consists in “to wish to be what you actually are” in Chapter
22 of his “Praise of Folly” To Giovanni Pico it consists in being granted
“to have what he chooses and to be what he wills to be”.
Stultitia also gives an alternative for Giovanni Pico’s “most fortunate of
living things” as she presents in Chapters 35-36 the poorly educated -
“dolts, naives, simpletons and nincompoops” - as such. It means that
Erasmus within his most famous work produces alternatives for the
ideas of an icon of the Renaissance who in the Western world still is
highly respected among the highly-educated of our days.
We also have to be aware that Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico -
sometimes indicated as the “new anthropologists” - differed greatly
from their contemporary humanistic colleagues as these still did
integrate “God’s Grace” in their thinking and writing. 63.) Giovanni
Pico certainly belonged to the theorists who in those days tried to
harmonize classical culture as well as Chaldean, Persian, Indian and
Egyptian religion with Christianity. His concept of a “Pax Philosophica
and Concordia” - his ultimate aim - formed the expression of this.
Professor Weiler describes the person of Giovanni Pico as an “ethical
and intellectualistic individual”. One only hardly recognizes “God’s
Grace” within his text, according to professor Weiler 64.) The
“absence of God ‘s Grace” may have been at the roots of Erasmus’
71
critics of Giovanni Pico. At the same time we have to realize that
professor Weiler’s description of Giovanni Pico can only be true with
regard to the years before 1487, which means before “his conversion”,
as we may have seen in Chapter IV of this article.
This article leaves out of consideration Giovanni Pico’s textual
production after 1487. It is restricted to Giovanni Pico’s most
celebrated text, the “Oratio de dignitate hominis”.
This article also can be proof that Erasmus did not write his “Praise of
Folly” in one go or “within seven days in London in 1509” which has
been common knowledge for a long time. Erasmus’ allusions on
Giovanni Pico and his “Oratio” in the Chapters 12-14 of his core-text
were most probably meant as “a reminder” on behalf of his friend
Thomas More. Erasmus’ critics on the “Oratio” in Chapters 30-37
have a different aim and function. The “reminders” in Chapters 12-14
are meant to catch and/or to focus the attention on a certain person
and his work. In the Chapters 30-37 Erasmus criticizes a number of
Giovanni Pico’s opinions. Trying to catch attention and the presenting
of critics are different aims. An author normally will not try to attain
two divergent aims or intentions within the same segment of his text.
So it is very probably that the fragments - 12-14 and 30-37 - have
been written at different times and not “in one go”.
Erasmus and his Praise of Folly
This article may answer some questions which may have raised
earlier within a reader’s mind reading Erasmus’ “Praise of Folly”.
1. Why does Stultitia – his alter ego – consistently approach “wise and
learned men“ in a negative tone throughout the whole of her speech?
We know that Erasmus did not share the enthusiasm his
contemporaries felt for the thinking of Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni
Pico. Scientists were “straying from the right path” according to him as
they ask questions they should not ask for example with regard to
Consilia Dei or God’s Decrees. Occultism such as Magia Naturalis,
72
Cabbala, Hermetism and Astrology did not match with Erasmus’ down
to earth mentality which was the hallmark of his mind. We may
suppose that Erasmus abhorred aspirations such as Giovanni Pico’s
reaching “for heavenly felicity before dying with the help of many
sciences” or the deification of man which was proclaimed by Giles of
Viterbo and others in Rome in 1509, as we will see in the following
article.
We have to realize that Erasmus certainly censured Giovanni Pico by
way of a pars pro toto. It means that Giovanni Pico only was the
exponent of an attitude which was current and prevailing in society in
those days. Stultitia consistently uses visible proof to state her case.
Magia Naturalis, Cabbala and other procedures and techniques have
now equal rights. “Seeing is believing“ has lost its preponderance in
this context. Against this scientific atmosphere Erasmus does not have
any defense. Desperately he now does away with “all sorts of learning”
including “learned and wise men”.
2. Why does a doctor in Theology and a famous philologist appreciate
the position of “dolts, fools, nincompoops and simpletons” most of all
among the living in this world?
Firstly we should not underestimate the effects of the “10 millions of
books or more” which were available in 1500 for whom was able to
read. The gap between those who could read and those who could not,
grew wider in a high speed. It is reflected in Augustin Renaudet’s
Erasme et l’ Italie:
“However it is an established fact that foreigners notice in Italy with
amazement the difference between the pomp and circumstance during the cult,
the magnificence of the churches, the vehemence, the frenzy of the devotion of
the common people and the indifference among the educated classes, and most
surprisingly, of the priests and prelates.” 65. )
Erasmus” preference of the non-educated, the “fools, dolts, simpletons
and nincompoops”, may originate in the difficult position he felt
himself in. These poorly educated may have been to him what the
73
savage noble or “noble savages” were to Jean Jacques Rousseau in the
18th century. It means a type of man which is untouched by the
degeneration of a civilization, living according to principles rooted in a
natural and pure world. Erasmus certainly preferred these poorly
educated and illiterate persons to those who in those days displayed
quasi-scientific activities and were “ going beyond the bounds of their
lot” according to him
3. Why does Erasmus consistently leave out names throughout his
“Praise of Folly”?
Erasmus answers this question himself. In the summer of 1509 on his
way back from Italy to England he sketches his own behavior at the
end of chapter 29 within his core-text:
“And surely it is perverse not to adapt yourself to the prevailing
circumstances, to refuse “to do as the Romans do”:to ignore the partygoer’s
maxim:” take a drink or take your leave.” … True prudence, on the other hand,
recognizes human limitations and does not strive to leap beyond them; it is
willing to run with the herd, to overlook faults tolerantly or to share them with a
friendly spirit”.
Erasmus probably had met enthusiasm and true interest in Giovanni
Pico’s ideas and other novelties among his contemporaries in Italy.
Erasmus certainly would not be the “kill-joy” and did not risk to
become isolated.
“Roman humanists, for the most part , took up with enthusiasm
Giovanni Pico’s della Mirandola’s goal of a Pax Philosophica, the conviction that
a unity of truth lay behind all theological and metaphysical systems” 66.)
The “unrestricted possibilities” which Giovanni Pico proclaimed in his
“Oratio” from 1486 were present unabated throughout society in
1509.
“Indeed over the next two decades a number of preachers at the papal
court paraphrased in their sermons Pico’s remarks in his “Oration” on man’s
indeterminacy and multi-potentiality. 67.) .
74
It made no sense to criticize openly the spirit of the age or a public
opinion which was prevailing within the circles of Italian intellectuals
at the time. There was only one way out: Erasmus constructed a
mirror for his contemporaries which reflected men and women in
private and public life, the conduct of a number of professionals and of
the officials in church and state. To make it digestible it was presented
by a giggly women - Stultitia - who leaves out any form of moralizing.
In these days it was for Erasmus the one and only possibility to
express his personal feelings. Nothing was left to him but the hope
that the mirror, it means his “Praise of Folly”, would do its work.
© CopyrightKlaas Potjewijd 2014
75
APPENDIX I
Le favole del mondo m’ hanno tolto
Il tempo dato a contemplare Iddio, .
Nè sol le grazie sue poste in oblio, .
Ma con lor più che senza a peccar volto.
Quel c’ altri saggio, me fa cieco e stolto
E tardi a riconoscer l’error mio.
Manca la speme e pur crescie ‘l desio,
Che da te sie dal proprio amor disciolto.
Ammezzami la strada, c’al ciel sale,
Signor mio caro, e a quel mezzo solo
Salir m’ è di bisogno la tuo aiuta.
Mettemi in odio quanto il mondo vale,
E quante sue bellezze onoro e colo,
Ch’ anzi morte caparri eterna vita. Michelangelo Buonarroti 1555
The fables of the world have robbed from me
the time allotted for contemplating God,
and not only have I disregarded his graces,
but have turned to sin more with them than without them.
What makes others wise makes me blind and foolish
and slow to recognize my own errors;
though hope is dimming, yet my desire increases
to be set free by you from my self-love.
Shorten by half the road that ascends to heaven,
my dear Lord, and I still will need your help
even to ascend just the remaining half.
Make me despise whatever the world treasures,
and all its beauties I honor and adore
that I may, before death, secure eternal life. Translated by James H. Saslow 70.)
76
Appendix II
L I V
Aliud fragmentum
Felix, qui chara et pura cum coniuge vivit,
educitque suam sobolem, charosque nepotes,
humani generis memor, et servator honesti.
Fortunatus et ille, sibi qui caelibe vita.
memtem animumque colens, diis se caelestibbus aequat.
Ille nequam est qui non aliis, qui nec sibi vivit.
Girolamo Fracastoro 1476/8 – 1553
L I V
Another fragment
Happy the man who lives with his dear and decent wife,
raising his sons and dear grandsons,
respecting the human race and guarding his honor.
He as well is fortunate who, living a life of celibacy,
makes himself the equal of the gods by cultivating his mind and his soul.
That man alone is worthless who lives neither for others, nor for himself.
Translated by James Gardner 71.)
77
N O T E S
1. 1. Desiderius Erasmus, Moriae Encomion id est Stultitia Laus, ed. Clarence H.
. Miller in: Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, Ordinis IV, Tomus III
, Indicating the text in Latin Lines 58-59, page. 68 , (In future: ASD IV 3 …..)
. Translation: Clarence H. Miller
. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Ocford 1979
2. Eugenio Garin, Erasmo e l’umanesimo Italiano in:
Giornale critico della Filosofia Italliana, Quarta Seria, Volume II, P. 1-13
G.C. Sansoni Editore, Firenze 1971
3. Lem, Anton van der, Johan Huizinga Leven en werk in beelden &
documenten Wereldbibliotheek, Amsterdam 1993 p. 41
4. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Discorso sulla Dignità dell’ Uomo a cura di
Francesco Bausi, § and §§ Indicate the sentence in the text in Latin)
Fondazione Pietro Bembo / Ugo Guanda Editore in Parma, 2007
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, “Oration on the Dignity of Man,
ed. Russell Kirk, P. 7-8 (In future: Op. cit. …… )
A Gateway Edition, Regnery Publishing, Inc., WashinGton, D.C.
5. Op.cit. P. 8
6. Op.cit P. 7
7. Johan Huizinga, Erasmus, biography, Translated by F. Hopman p. 91
Serie “Great Hollanders”, Introduction by Edward W. Bok
Charles Scribners’ sons, New York – London 1924
8. ASD IV 3, 169-172, p. 80
9. L.M.A. Buynsters-Smets, Jan Massys, een Antwerps schilder in de 16de eeuw
Waanders Uitgever, Zwolle 1995, p. 95 vv
10. Op.cit P.11
11. Op.cit. P.53
12. Op.cit. P. 54
13. R. Lenoble, Mersenne ou la naissance du mecanisme, P.85, Paris 1948
14. §§ 214-215
15. §§ 234-235
16 Frances A. Yates, Giorano Bruno en de hermetische tradtitie
. zie: Hoofdstuk I, Uitgeverij Synthese b.v., Rotterddam,
17. Frances A. Yates op.cit . p.379
18. David Rijser, Raphael’s poetics, Art and Poetry in High Renaissance
. Rome p.38-39 Amsterdam University Press , Amsterdam 2012
78
19 Marsilio Ficino, De wereld als kunst werk, Inleiding tot de Platonische .
. Theologie, Vertaling & inleiding Rijk Schipper , P. 18
. Uitgeverij Ten Have Kampen 2005
20 Frances A Yates, op. cit. Picture in front page of the book.
21 . Idem op. cit. p.159 , Desiderius Erasmus in: Paraclesis 1519
22 Op. cit. P.4
23 Op. cit. P. 4-12
24 Op. cit. P. 12
25 Op. cit. P. 12-23
26 Jan van Rusbroec, Van seven trappen in den graed der gheesteleker
. minnen in: Spectrum vande Nederlandse Letterkunde Deel 3,
. P.223-286, Prisma Boeken Utrecht/Antwerpen 1968,
27 Jan van Ruusbroec, De septem gradibus amoris, Opera Omnia, .
. Tomus 9, Translated in Latin by L. Surius, in English by H. Rolfson
. Brepols Publisher Turnhout, 2003
28 Jan van Ruusbroec, op. cit. P. 279
29 Op. cit P. 22-23
30 Origenes in. Patrologia Graeca, Ed. de Migne, 13, 49 A
31 Op. cit. P.14
32 Op. cit. P.16
33 Op.cit. P.17
34 Op.cit. P.18
35 Op. cit. P.20
36 Op.cit. P.20
37 Op. cit. P. 21
38 Op.cit. P. 21
39 Op.cit. P. 23
40 James H. Saslow, The poetry of Michelangelo Buonarotti .
. an annotated translation. P.481, .
. Yale University Press New Haven – London 1991
41 Op. Cit. P. 11-12
42 Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Discorso sulla dignità dell’ uomo”
. A cura di Francesco Bausi, P.IX –LI
. Fondazione Pietro Bembo , Ugo Guanda Editore in Parma,
. Seconda edizione, 2007
79
43 Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Rede over de menselijke
. waardigheid. Vertaald door Michiel Op de De Coul, Ingeleid door
. Jan Papy P. 9-44 Historische Uigeverij Groningen, 2008
44 Op.cit P. 13-23
45 Op. cit. P. 23-25
46 Op.cit. P. 25-33
47 Op. Cit. P.8
48 Sem Dresden, Geloof me, mensen worden niet geboren
. in: Serie Genie en Wereld, P. 109, Hasselt België 1971
49 . Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Rede …….., . P. 18
50. Jacob Burckhardt, Die Kultur de Renaissance in Italien, p 148
. Frankfurt am Main – Leipzig 1997
51. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Rede ……. , P. 24
52. Johan Huizinga, Erasmus P.79 See also: .
. Johan Huizinga, Erasmus and the age of Reformation, P.71 .
. Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey, 1984
53. “Il 1487 che costituisce un punto nodale e un autentico spartiacque nella .
. vita e nell’opere di Pico” in:
. Francesco Bausi, Nec rhetor neque philosophos P.8
. Fonti, lingua e stile nelle prime opere latine di Giovanni Pico della
. . Mirandola Florence 1996
54. Thomas More, Life of Pico - Here is conteyned the lyfe of Iohan Picus
. . Erl of Myrandula a grete Lord of Italy an excellent conning man in all
. sciences & vertuous of lyuing. with dyuers epistles & other warkis of the
- seyd Iohan Picus full of grete vertew and wyswdome: whos lyfe & warkys
. bene worthy & digne to redd & oftyn to be had in memorye. P.58-59 in:
. The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, Volume I
. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1997
55. Op. cit. P . 41
56. James D. Tracy, Erasmus the growth of a mind P. 111
. Librairie Droz, Genève 1972
57. Op. cit. P. 34
58. Op. cit. P. 4
59. Op.cit. P. 18-19
80
60. Anyhony G.S Edwards, Thomas More, Life of Pico
. in: The Complete Works of St Thomas More Volume I P. XLVII
61. Klaas Potjewijd, Erasmus did not write his “Praise of Folly” in “seven
. days”, see Chapter I of this book
62. Desiderius Erasmus, Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Rotterodami
. ed. P.S. Allen, M.A. Tom. I, No. 126 p.293, lines 127-129
. Oxonii Typographeo Clarendoniano 1992
63. A.G Weiler, Christendoam en Humanisme in de Italiaanse Renaissance
. Pedagogiek, p.89 in: De Middeleeuwen voorbij, bezorgd door P. Bange,
. Nijmegen 1992,
64. A.G. Weiler, idem P. 90
65. A. Renaudet, Erasme et l Italie, p.49
- Libtrairie E. Droz, Genève 1954
66 Charles L. Stinger The Renaissance in Rome p. 301, Indiana University
. Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1998
67. Charles L. Stinger, idem p. 301-302
68. Johan Huizinga, Erasmus ‘ maatstaf der dwaasheid
. in: Verzamelde Werken, Deel IV, P.231-232
. H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon N.V. Haarlem 1950
69. Johan Huiizinga, idem P. 233
70. James H. Saslow, The poetry of Michelangelo, an annotated translation,
. P.481 Yale University Press, New Haven – London 1991
71. Girolamo Fracastoro, Latin poetry. Translated by James Gardner P. 344
. The I Tatti Renaissance Library, Harvard University Press, .
. Cambridge Massachusetts - London England 2013
81
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Buonarotti, M. The poetry of Michelangelo,
annotated and translated by James Saslow,
Yale University Press, New Haven – London 1991
Burckhardt, J Die Kulur der Renaissance in Italien, Frankfuri am Main – Leipzig
1997 Buijnsters-Smits, L.M.A. Jan Massys, een Antwerps schilder in de 16de eeuw
Zwolle 1995
Dresden, S. Geloof me, mensen worden nier geboren ...... Hasselt België 1971
Edwards, A.G.S. Life of Pico in: The Complete Works of St.Thomas More
Vol. I, P. XXXVII – LX New Haven and London 1997
Erasmus, Desiderius, Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Rotterodami, Oxonii
1992 Erasmus, Desiderius, Paraclesis, 1519, in: Opera Omnia, Leyden 1703-06,
col. 139
Ficino, Marsilio De wereld als kunstwerk, inleiding tot de PLatonische Theologie,
Vertaling en Inleiding van Rijk Schipper,Kampen 2005
Fracastoro, G. Latin Poetry, translated by James Gardner,
Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England 2013
Garin, E. Erasmo e l’Umanesimo Italiano Firenze 1971
Huizinga, J. Erasmus, New York – London 1924
Lem, Anton van der, Johan Huizinga , Uitgeverij Wereldbibliotheek bv A’dam
1993
Lenoble, R. Mersenne ou la naisaance du mecanisme, Paris 1948
More, Thomas, Life of Pico in: The Complete Works of St. Tomas More Vol. I
P.47-75 New Haven and London, 1997
Pico della Mirandola, G. Discorso sulla Dignita dell’ Uomo,
a cura di Francesco Bausi Parma 2007
Pico della Mirandola, G. Oration on the Dignity of Man, ed. Russell Kirk
A Gateway Edition, Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington D.C.
Pico della Mirandola, G. Rede over de menselijke waardgheid,
Ingeleid door Jan Papy, vertaald door Michiel Op de Coul, Groningen 2008
Renaudet, A. Erasme et l’Italie, Genève 1954
Rijser, D. Art and Poetry in High Renaissance Rome, Amsterdam 2012
Ruusbroec, Jan van, Van seven trappen in den graed der gheesteleker minnen,
Ed. M.C.R.van der Heyden, Deel 3 van: Spectrum van de Nederlandse
Letterkunde, Utrecht – Antwerpen 1968
82
Ruusbroec Jan van, De septem gradibus amoris in: Opera Omnia, Tomus 9..
Translated in Latin by L.Surius, Turnhout 2003
Stinger, Charles L. The renaissance in Rome. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington and Indianapolis 1998
Tracy, James. D. Erasmus the Growth of a Mind, Librairie Droz, Genève 1972
Weiler, A.G., Christendom en Humanise in de Italiaanse Renaissance-pedagogiek,
in: “De Mideeleeuwen voorbij”, Nijmegen 1992
Yates, Frances A. Giordano Bruno en de hermetische traditie, Rotterdam 2010
83
C o n t e n t s
Introduction 31
Chapter I The main differences 33
. The powers of nature or Erasmus versus Giovanni Pico 33
. Mariages inègales or uneven marriages 34
. Human felicity 38
. Magic and science in the second half of the 15th century 39
. Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola 41
- Erasmus and Hermes Trismegistes 43
Chapter II Giovanni Pico and his “Oratio de dignitate hominis” 43
. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola 1463 -1494 49
Chapter III Erasmus and the “Oratio de dignitate hominis” 54
. Erasmus van Rotterdam 1466-1536 60
Chapter IV Erasmus , Thomas More and Giovanni Pico 62
. The Reminders 64
Chapter V The Interaction and after 66
. Erasmus and his “Praise of Folly” 68
.
Appendix 72
Notes 74
Bibliography 78
Contents 80
84
85
86
III
Erasmus of Rotterdam and Rome in 1509
Introduction
Erasmus arrived in Rome in the spring of 1509 in the company of his
pupil, Alexander Stuart, a natural son of the King of Scotland. It was
their first time there for both of them. They met with a specific and
particular atmosphere within the Holy City which was built up by a
number of popes over half a century.
Rome was reborn after the Babylonian banishment in 1400 and again
at the end of the conflict with the Conciliarists in 1439. Now it
considered itself as “fulfilling all of human history that had gone
before”, according to Charles L. Stinger in The Renaissance in Rome: “It
is the persistence of these ideological themes that sets this age apart
as a distinctive period in the history of the Eternal City” 1.)
demarcated neatly between 1443 and 1527. 2.)
Two crises should forever put an end to this distinctive period:
Lutheranism, which started in 1517, and the Sacco di Roma, the
ravaging of the Holy City by troops of the German Emperor, which
followed in 1527.
History itself stimulated the genesis of this particular atmosphere in
the City of Rome within the first quarter of the 16th century. The Fall of
Constantinople in 1453 paved the way for the Eternal City to again
become the caput orbis terrarum - Head of the World - as she had been
in the days of the Roman Empire. Constantinople was the birthplace of
Christendom as a formal religion, founded in 313 by the Emperor of
the Eastern Roman Empire, Constantijn I. (280-337) Now the Eastern
Roman Empire no longer existed. Constantinople was in the hands of
the Muslims. Jerusalem was already lost to pilgrims and Christian
believers for over two hundred years.
87
The City of Rome could now rightly claim to be the crown of Christian
metropolitan cities. From 1440 a number of popes started not only to
prepare the Holy City for the role she now rightly could play, but also
reconsidered their own position within the actual context.
Constantinople - 1453 and after
Contra Turcos
Many Roman citizens may have asked themselves after the Fall of
Constantinople in 1453:“Can such a thing also happen to us”? From a
technical point of view the answer surely should be positive. Venice
had already lost control within Mediterranean waters. In 1479 she had
to give up her position in the Aegean Sea. So the Italian peninsula lay
open to Turkish - Muslim - invaders who captured the first Italian city,
Otranto in 1480. Fortunately Mehmed the Great preferred to wage
war against the German Emperor in the first place. So the Turks laid
siege for Vienna in 1529 which wasn’t to be the last time.
The fall of Constantinople came as a shock not only to Rome but to
Venice, the Kingdom of Naples and the Italian city states as well. For a
while they ended their mutual quarrels. The Peace of Lodi in 1454 is
proof thereof. The pope Nicholas V (1447-1455) summoned the
Christian rulers to a crusade. So did a number of popes after him. Due
to mutual rivalry it was impossible to arrive to any sort of concerted
military action. There is only one lasting result of the disaster of 1453:
the development of a papal fleet and navy. The rowed galleys of
Calixtus III (1455-1458) were constructed along the borders of the
Vatican side of the Tiber. In 1472 they raided the cost of Asia Minor
together with Venice and Naples. In 1481 they contributed to the
recapture of Otranto. Sixtus IV (1471-1484) received the victorious
fleet in Civitavecchia. His nephew, Julius II (1503-1513), started in
1508 the modernization of this harbor, which was founded by the
Roman Emperor Trajanus. As a cardinal he already fortified Ostia. The
memory of the raid of the Saracens, who destroyed the church of St
88
Peter in Rome in 846, pointed to the vulnerability of the Italian
peninsula, which in these days was under attack again. The failing
military response did not put an end to anti-Turkish feeling or activity
within the Holy City itself. The development within the Turkish
empire and its military action were tracked closely. Sixtus IV
proclaimed processions for three days on the occasion of the death of
Mehmed, the conqueror of Constantinople, in May 1481. The
ceremonies took place within the Borgo Leonino, the precinct of St.
Peters’ church. Leo X ordered the same ceremonies in 1518 in
connection with Selim’s conquest of Egypt and Syria. Now the
processions went through the city of Rome where Leo X personally
took part, barefoot, in the company of cardinals, prelates and monks. A
number of relics should help to inspire the participants who “implored
God to free Christendom from Ottoman threat” 3.)
Vatican Hill
The first and foremost thing to do after the Fall of Constantinople was
to provide the papacy with a safe place within the Holy City No
wonder that in 1453 Nicholas V started to restore the walls of Rome
and to develop a concept for the revision of Vatican Hill as it was
better defensible than the bishopric palace and cathedra, St. John
Lateran, which were indicated by Constantine the Great as the formal
seat of the bishop of Rome. Sixtus IV made Vatican Hill the official
papal residence and domicile. Alexander VI finished Nicholas V’s
escape road from the Vatican to the Castel Sant’ Angelo, on the top of
Hadrianus’ tomb near the Tiber. Clemens VII used the passetto in
1527 taking flight for Charles V’s ill-paid and undisciplined
Landsknechte or Lanzichenechi as contemporary Italians called them.
Another important aspect of Vatican Hill still is the presence of the
Bibliotheche Vaticane which had to be built up “from scratch” after the
return of the papacy from Avignon. 4.) The influx of texts from
Byzantium after 1453 certainly had already started in the days of the
Council of Florence in 1439, where Orthodox and Roman Catholics
89
met. The rich production of printed books necessarily asked for a
proper housing as well as for professional control. It were again
Nicolas V and Sixtus IV who took the adequate measures. “By the time
of the death of the famous librarian Platina, in 1481, the Vatican
Library for both the quantity and the quality of its collection stood in
front rank of European libraries” 5.)
Capitoline Hill
Nicolas V also took care to restore the centre of civil administration of
the city of Rome, which since immemorial days was established, on
Capitol Hill. In 1447 Nicolas V regularized in 1447 the façade of the
Palazzo del Senatore and realized the tower which still to this day
dominates the view. He lodged the Roman councilors in a brand new
complex, the Palazzo dei Conservatori which did not imply that they in
reality ruled the city. Mostly the initiatives were taken by the popes
who “assigned their roles in the increasingly elaborate ceremonies
celebrating Rome’s renewal.” 6.) The interventions of Sixtus IV were
far-reaching. He developed general principles for urban renewal,
which also included eviction, forced sale and even compensation in
case “a new owner intended to enlarge or to construct a palace” 7.) As
most cardinals were expected to reside in Rome for much of their
careers, Sixtus IV subsidized them by his bull of 1475 which
“exempted members of the papal court from the rule stipulating that
the property of clerics dying in Rome devolved on the pope provided
that income from benefices and curial offices had been invested in
buildings”. 8.) Public hygiene also came under papal control as the
magistri stratarum “first came under papal jurisdiction, then they
were made subject to papal appointment and finally became salaried
officials of the Apostolic Chamber”. 9.). So a process of curbing the
“baronial prepotenza” was started to make place for a “clerical
prepotenza” within the City o Rome. Also numerous churches were
built and rebuilt: four new churches were founded by Sixtus IV.
90
The Renaissance in Rome 1443-1527
The papacy of the middle of the 15th century knew very well that more
had to be done to make Rome once again the caput orbis terrarum.
“Long abandoned as the papal residence in favor of Avignon, then
further neglected during the chaos of the Great Schism and the Conciliar period,
the decayed city gave domicile to a papacy weakened both in spiritual and
temporal power” 10.)
A combination of human intervention and unpredictable historical
events gave way to a situation which we, from a certain point of view,
rightly may call Rome’s “finest hour”. It didn’t last long as I already
indicated. Erasmus stayed in Rome a short while during this episode.
He was an eye witness and did not appreciate everything he saw.
Before we will look at it we have to discover more about the making of
Rome’s “finest hour”.
The simplest way to restore the interest in the Holy City was to
recommend it as a site for pilgrimage. The proclamation of a Jubilee
Year in 1450 and 1475 were excellent incentives to attract extra
visitors. According to Charles L. Stinger their number surpassed
100.000. A visitor in 1450 recounts 1022 hostelries with signboards,
and an additional large number without. An accident induced Sixtus IV
to build another bridge over the Tiber which still bears his name.
Visitor’s guides - also in different languages - were available in the
seventies of the 15th century, thanks to the printing press. Their title
pointed to an important motive of the pilgrimage: Indulgentiae
ecclesiarum Urbis. 11.) It indicates that there was ample opportunity
to do penance.
The Papacy: A Matter of Identification or Changes of Self-Image
Sixtus IV started his pontificate in 1471 by the translocation of his
collection of bronzes and antiquities from classical times from his
bishopric palace at St. Giovanni Lateran to the Palazzo dei Conservatori
91
on the top of Capitoline Hill. To this very day the spinaro, a young man
pulling a thorn from his feet, and the Etruscan she-wolf who nurtured
Romulus and Remus can be admired within the same Palazzo. By
making his collection public property the pope helped the Romans and
the people responsible for the administration of the city to become
aware of the importance of the history, glory and greatness of their
surroundings. 12.) In 1473 Sixtus IV started building a private chapel
in the Vatican, devoted to the Mother of Christ. Today it is still world-
famous because of Michelangelo’s fresco’s on the ceiling of the chapel
and it is also still named after its founder namely the Sistine Chapel.
The construction is a copy of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem and
follows the measurements given in the Bible. On the roof there were
facilities for the military and the defense of the Vatican. In 1481-83 the
decoration of the walls was undertaken by a number of Florentine
artists, among them Perugino and Botticelli. The fresco’s are on two
opposite walls which present parallel scenes from the lives of
respectively Moses and Jesus Christ. Actual problems for the papacy
were integrated within these representations. The question whether
the supreme power in the church should be in the hands of a Pope or
should be held by a Council, still formed a threat to the papacy in these
days. Within the story of Numbers 16:1-40 the legitimacy of Moses’
position is under attack. It ends with “God’s opening of the earth,
which swallows Korah and his clan”. The meaning is obvious:
“the Punishment of Korah, in particular, was one of the most frequent
cited scriptural justifications of pro-papalist condemnation of the Cociliarists
and Conciliar theory.”13.)
Martyrdom had been the key to St. Peter’s holiness. Within the
biographies of some “post-Avignon” popes - Nicholas V and Pius II -
we find that the martyrdom of St. Peter is “manifest also in the lives of
contemporary popes”. 14.) The identification of martyrdom with the
papacy is evident. !5.) It is noteworthy to find this trend receded in the
course of the 15th century: “in its place emerged emphasis on the
92
Apostle as a heroic spiritual leader”.16.) The decoration of the chapel
in 1481-83 reflects the switch from martyrdom to heroic leadership of
the papacy. It is visible not only via Botticelli’s fresco, the Punishment
of Korah. Now it may also stand for a framework of papal authority.
By exploiting a variety of sources, the humanists and artists of Sixtus IV’s
Rome found in the figure of Moses precedents for the legal, sacerdotal and
legislative powers that comprised their image of papal authority. By the late
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries such references to Moses and Aaron as types
or prefigurements of papal powers had become commonplace. 17.)
More changes of self image of the papacy followed in the years to
come. Sometimes history itself may support a certain trend or
development. This means that external events may stimulate a
tendency within a historical process. So the victory of the Spanish
kings over the Muslims at Granada in 1492 was followed by Columbus’
discovery of the Western Hemisphere. This was simultaneously proof
that the shape of the earth was best expressed through a globe, not by
a map. It definitely changed the view on God’s creation forever. Now
the papacy became involved in the questions which raised about the
rightful property of the newly discovered territories. On the request of
Isabella of Castile Alexander VI decided that the discoveries 100 miles
south and west of the Azores and Cap Verde belonged to her. Later he
became the arbiter between Spain and Portugal at the Treaty of
Tordesillas in 1494. His famous bulls of 1493
“that conceded the islands found by Columbus to the Spanish crown,
emphasized also that along with the rights of property went the responsibility to
propagate the Gospel to the inhabitants of new found lands”. 18.)
Alexander VI Borgia (1492-1503) was the second Spanish pope on the
Holy See after Calixtus III (1455-58). They certainly introduced
bullfights as a public event in the Holy City. The bull also played a role
within Alexander’s coat of arms. Five bulls were killed in the Holy City
on the occasion of Ferdinand and Isabella’s victory over the Muslim
Kingdom of Granada in 1492 apart from the Procession and the Mass
93
in San Giacomo degli Spagnoli. The discovery and exploration of new
lands and peoples was inevitably connected with Christianizing. So the
spiritual territory of the papacy now started to become global. Every
addition went hand in hand with ceremonies within the Holy City.
Especially the Feast of St. Thomas, the Apostle to India, was
extensively celebrated in the church upon St. Peters grave. Another
prospect was now dawning: could the City of Rome become the Capital
of a cosmopolitan spiritual Empire comprising Christian believers all
over the world with the papacy at its head?
Julius II, (1503-1513) no doubt was one of the most gifted who ever
occupied the Holy See. He not only succeeded to combine what was
incompatible: Jesus Christ’s Kingdom was “not of this world”. As the
“keeper of the keys of his Kingdom” Julius II also undertook the
responsibility for “a kingdom of this world” with regard to the Papal
States. Thanks to his initiatives millions of people in our days still
admire pieces of art and architecture which he promoted and ordered.
Julius took primarily on himself the task to recover the Papal States for
the church. In the course of 1504 Cesare Borgia was transferred to
Spain, “passing out of Italian history”. The keys of the towns he once
controlled were safe, back in the hands of the pope. Julius II stopped
the tradition of “privatizing” parts of the Papal States by local rulers
and others. He did so in person and with military means. It was quite a
new trend. One of the cardinals remarked in the days of the Council of
Basel according to Leopold von Ranke in his classical Die Geschichte
der Päpste or History of the Papacy:
“In the past I thought it’s all for the good if spiritual and worldly power
is separated. In these days I have learnt that virtue without power is ridiculous.
The Roman Pontiffs without the Papal States can be no more than a servant of
Kings and Princes”
Julius II was fully aware of the fact that respect of Kings and Princes
primarily depends on the control of their own subjects. So the first
thing to do was to restore his authority within the Papal States.
94
Real power is non-existent without military force which implies the
necessity for a certain amount of money to pay the soldiers. So Julius II
collected 400.000 ducats before he started a military expedition
against Perugia and Bologna in August 1506. These cities were both
the most important administrative centers within the Papal States.
His military success in 1506 paved the way for another change of
papal self-image. It materialized itself with the help of Julius II’s
triumphal entry in Bologna in November 1506. It was modeled after
the triumphal entry of the Emperors in classical Rome and included
the tossing of gold and silver coins through the throngs lining the
route. A reprise of it took place on Palm Sunday 1507 at Julius ’s
return in Rome where the Arch of Domitian in the Corso was
embellished.
When the papal cortege passed beneath it, it was as if, Albertini
remarked, the Emperor Domitian himself had returned to celebrate another
triumph. Near Ponte St Angelo stood a triumphal carro, drawn by four white
horses in accordance with the practice of Roman triumphs. On the car was a
globe (symbol of universal dominion), from which grew an oak tree with golden
acorns (the Della Rovere emblem). In front of the Vatican stood a replica of the
Arch of Constsantine, decorated with a pictorial account of the history of Julius’s
military campaign. 19.)
Christine Shaw rightly remarks that “what was said by other people,
cannot be taken as evidence of Julius’ own motives”. 20.) Julius II
perhaps preferred an identification with Solomon as he laid the first
stone for the new St. Peter in 1506.
. that most wise King of the Hebrews in the time of old law spared no
expense to honor God by building the lavish and magnificent Temple. 21.)
However, the triumphal entries in Bologna and Rome in 1506-07 may
point to another identification. Presenting himself as a Roman
Emperor he legally could claim to combine worldly and spiritual
power as the title of Pontifex Maximus belonged to the Roman
Emperors. It may be considered as an example of irony in history that
95
Julius’ II’s successor, Leo X (1513-1521) was mainly identified with
Augustus, the first Roman Emperor (30 BC-14 AD). His pontificate was
peaceful and prosperous. We have to be aware that to the
Renaissance-Romans “the present had an ante type in the past, and
that the past prefigured significant parts of the present” 22.) As in the
past Julius Caesar preceded Augustus, the identification with Julius
Cesar, seemed to fit in the actual situation. Julius II, who was named
like Caesar, chronologically preceded Leo X who was often indicated
as Augustus.
We have seen a series of changes of self-image of the papacy: from the
martyrdom of St. Peter to the religious-political leadership of Moses, to
Solomon/Julius II as the founder of the Temple in Jerusalem and the
new St Peter in Rome respective. Julius Cesar as a military man was
identifiable with the “Warrior Pope” Julius II and the same goes for
Leo X in his role of Augustus as the first Roman Emperor of an Empire
which comprised the whole of the world in his days. Will he also be at
the head of a global empire which was dawning since the voyages of
discovery started?
The war with Venice
The way Julius II recovered, in 1506, his authority over the Papal
States by military action brought about that the pope also obtained
access to those who played a role in European foreign politics. Military
power and money are primary conditions to participate in
international deliberation and consultation. Julius II was very well
aware that from now the Papal States formed a power amongst the
powers. So he became a partner of the “League of Cambrai”, in 1509,
together with the Kings of Spain, France and the German Emperor.
Each of them had his own interest but there was one common enemy:
La Serenissima Signoria di Venezia, the enemy Julius II hated most. It
was not only because of her appropriation of papal territory but also
because it escaped his papal spiritual control. Formally La Serenissima
belonged still to the Eastern Roman Empire. According to Greek
96
Orthodox canonical law the principle of Caesaropapism was valid
which meant that worldly and spiritual power are united within one
and the same person. In this case they were united in the person of
the Doge of Venice. So Julius II’s problem with Venice was twofold. In
the first place he should recover territory belonging to the Papal State
and, secondly, he should regain spiritual authority in a number of his
cities along the Adriatic coast which were now under Venetian control.
The Doges had appropriated a number of competencies related to
spiritual power within conquered papal territory: e.g. the nomination
of bishops, promotions to benefices and even the imposing of taxes on
the clergy. So control over the clergy within territory and cities
occupied by the Venetians was deposited in Venice, not in Rome. Such
a thing was unacceptable. The crushing defeat of the Venetians in the
Battle at Agnadello, 14 May 1509, by French and German troops 23.)
meant for Julius II that he now had the Venetians where he liked
them: on their knees. In this posture the cardinals had to accept the
conditions of peace in a ceremony in Rome on 24th Februari 1510. 24.)
Forthcoming it was impossible for them to do anything without papal
consent. Obviously these conditions were only valid within the
recovered territory and cities, not within the city in the lagoon itself
where the Doges held on to their privilege until the days of Napoleon.
It was a mere coincidence that Erasmus stayed in Rome in the days of
the war against Venice. His presence did not pass by unnoticed and
Julius II even asked his advice whether he should start a war against
Venice or not. Erasmus himself recounts the story in a Letter to Jean
Botzheim from the 30th January 1523. He was consulted in 1509 by
Rafael Riario, a cardinal who was a close relative and advisor of Julius
II. Erasmus wrote a treatise Antipolemos against war which he also
mentions within his first anti-war text Dolce bellum inexpertis (Adagia
IV 1, 1) The treatise has been offered to the pope. In the end Erasmus’
recommendation seems to have been a positive one as he himself
informs us in his Letter. It is no use to speculate here about the
97
changing of his attitude. Johan Huizinga comments on it in his article
from 1936: Ce qu’Erasme ne comprenait pas 25,)
Giles of Viterbo
We have to consider more precisely the situation of the residents of
Rome in 1509 before we try to understand the atmosphere Erasmus
and his pupil met in Rome when they arrived in the Eternal City. The
residents of the Holy City had learned in the first place “ to see one
thing in another”. If they were accustomed to read the Old Testament
as a pre-figuration of the New Testament they knew to use this
technique in daily life when Julius II and Leo X presented themselves
as Julius Cesar and Augustus respectively. In these days the soil of their
home town produced one important relic of antiquity after another:
an obelisk, a roman bath-tube or particular inscriptions. In 1506 the
Laocoön-group was discovered within the remains of Nero’s Domus
Aurea. It was certainly one of the most impressive pieces of sculpture
of classical times. Many Romans - among them high clericals - were
archeologist and/or collectors. In 1509 Julius II transferred his Apollo,
excavated in Anzio from his private garden to the Vatican where it
became famous as the Apollo Belvedere. Classical art was integrated
within the center of Christian spirituality. The Romans learned to look
at their city which was familiar to them as the Capital of an Empire
that once reigned the whole world. Now the same city was on the
brink of starting a new life as the Capital of Christians all over the
world. The new shape of that world - a globe - was regularly presented
to them for example upon the carro triumphale on the occasion of
Julius II’s entry in the city in 1507.
A “tsunami” of new information, now available in the Biblothece
Vaticane, opened unseen perspectives among the highly-educated.
The residents of Rome lived in a historic ambience which seemed to
start a new life. A new irresistible reality was forced on them. This
generation of Romans needed help to determine anew “their place
under the sun”. Giles of Viterbo (1469-1532) head of the Augustinians,
98
was able to fill in the gap and he did so by an oration De aurea aetate
or About the Golden Age, held 21 December 1507 at the occasion of:
the discovery of Madagascar, the placing under tribute of Ceylon and
the naval victory of the Zamorin in Calicut” by the King of Portugal Manuel I. 26.)
Golden Ages
Giles started his speech by giving his contemporaries a place within
time and history. He recognized within the course of history a series of
five episodes or Golden Ages. 1. the Age of the “fall of Jupiter” which
ended with the creation of Adam 2. the Age of Adam and Eve within
Paradise which may be conceived as sort of pre-historic period which
ended with the Flood. 3. The Age of history of mankind takes shape
after the Flood. Through the descendents of Adam, now being reduced
to the three sons of Noah, the history of Persia, Egypt and Etruria is
coming in existence. The various prophets and prophetesses or Sibyls
belonging to this third period are presented within the lunettes within
the Sistine Chapel. Erasmus did not refrain from visiting the cave of the
Cumaean Sibyl near Naples with his pupil in the spring of 1509. The
fourth Golden Age starts with the coming of Jesus Christ in the days of
the first Roman Emperor, Augustus. Now it is coming to an end. The 5th
or last of the Golden Ages is materializing itself now:
“In his own age, Giles saw, in the pontificates of Julius II and
especially Leo X, the “breaking in” of that final realization, the culminating Age
of fulfillment and renewal.” 27.)
He presented his scheme of Golden Ages on St. Thomas’ name day, 21
December 1507. In these days Erasmus stayed in Padua, the city of the
university of Venice, attending the lessons of the famous Marcus
Musurus, professor in Greek, which still occupied within the Venetian
lagoon the first place above Latin. The League of Cambrai against
Venice took shape in the course of 1508. So Erasmus and many others
left Padua because of the threat of war. After a short stay at Ferrara
Erasmus and his pupil arrived in Siena at the end of 1508. Within the
99
first half of 1509 Erasmus visited Rome three times. 28.)
Charles L Stinger writes in Thr Renaissance in Rome: “Their own time,
Renaissance Romans thought, was the plenitude temporum” 29.)
Rome and the Vatican should hold a primary position within this
Golden Age. A new Augustus, Leo X, brought peace to the Holy City in
the first place, not by the absence of war but also as a pre-condition
for the harmony or Concordia or Pax Philosophica between Christian,
Jewish, Classical, Egyptian and Hermetic philosophy. An idea which
had already been developed by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola in
1487.
The Christianizing of the whole world was another aspect. The
deification of the human sort was at reach “God became man, so that
man might became God” as Giles de Viterbo and others proclaimed.
“Concomitant with this Incarnational focus was e lessened emphasis
on Christ’s Crucufixion” 30.)
The Dignity of man was in the center of the picture. Immortality of
man was a prominent part within this sphere of thinking. It meant that
Heaven and Earth were now on the brink of being united forever.
Time had come to an end.
The Signs of the Time
It belonged to the spirit of Roman Renaissance-thinking to actualize
and materialize ideas. So they recognized prophesies in actual, visible,
concrete situations of their own days. So Giles of Viterbo pointed to a
number of actual historic events to underscore his statements: he
pointed to military successes on the cost of North-Africa shortly after
1500, as a sign of the bridling of Turkish expansion and as an
indication of the coming of peace in the world. Nor was the
geographical position of Rome in this context an arbitrary one. Did not
the Mons Janiculum indicate the god Janus, the father of Etruscan
religion?
100
“Medieval tradition had identified Janus with Noah or with one of his
sons and Giles, too, hold that after the Flood Noah’s teachings had been carried
into Etruria” 31.)
The discovery of new continents pointed to the Incrementum Eclesiae
or the bloom and prosperity of the Church of Rome. The building of a
new Temple upon St. Peters’ grave was certainly a sign of the coming
of a “New Jerusalem on the Tiber”.
Giles of Viterbo was among his contemporaries only one of a number
of prophets of “the End of the World” or the Plenitudo temporum:
“Fulfillment and culmination in their manifold aspects formed the
hallmarks of Roman Renaissance culture in the first decades of the 16th
century. The myth of Golden Age, the recovery of ancient sources of wisdom, the
stimulus of European overseas expansion, the revival of of classical eloquence
and the achievements of poetry and arts contributed to this sense” 32.)
Nature and Human Dignity
We should not underestimate the impact of Greek patristic theology
on the Vatican and the clergy in Rome in those days. Basil (330-379)
and Gregory of Nyssa (330-394) focused upon God’s Creation as it
presented itself to mankind from day to day. That meant that nature
became a source of amazement, joy and happiness. Michelangelo’s
replacing of 20 angels with 20 naked youngsters - Ignnudi - in the
Sistine Chapel may be considered as an expression of this vision. The
creation of man “made in God’s image and likeness” helped to shorten
the distance between God and man.
“Humanity in this way was endowed with a singular dignity and the
dignitas hominis theme was one persistently put forth in the sermons delivered
at the papal court. 33.)
According to Charles Stringer Giovanni Pico della Mirandola was not
in all respects a good representative for Roman thought. However his
“Oratio de dignitate hominis” was cited at the papal court:
101
“Indeed, over the next two decades a number of preachers at the papal
court paraphrased in their sermons Pico’ remarks in his “Oration” on man’s in-
determinacy and multi-potentiality”. 34.)
We know that Erasmus was respected and well-received within the
Vatcican in the first half of 1509. The Consistory even consulted him
with regard to the war against Venice as we have seen above We have
seen that Erasmus made a pejorative allusion on the person of
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola within the core-text of his “Praise of
Folly” in June 1509 on his way back to England. We also know that he
catalogued his disagreements regarding the “Oratio” in eight chapters
of his “Praise of Folly” in September 1509. Erasmus left out the names
of the “Oratio” and the author. 35.) We may presume that Erasmus,
when in Rome in 1509, kept his aversion towards Giovanni Pico to
himself. Did he “run with the herd, to overlook faults tolerantly or to
share them in a friendly spirit”? It seems that Erasmus did not refrain
from to do so as he writes in a letter to John Colet from the 5th of
March 1518 in connection with the stroke of his friend Grocyn: “I
wished that these great minds knew no old age nor death as they
deserve immortality”.
Rome’s “finest hour” 1500-1527
Charles L. Stinger sets apart “the last half of the15th century and the
early decades of the 16th century” as a distinctive period of the history
of the Eternal City”. It was within this particular episode that Erasmus
and his pupil visited Rome. I think it is defensible to state that this
distinctive period coincided with the “finest hour” for the Eternal City
and its population. She effectively fulfilled the role as the Capital City
of the Papal States which were now under papal control again. She
housed the papacy safely on Vatican Hill. The people were aware of
the importance of the Holy City in the past by the Trionfi of the popes
who, disguised as Roman Emperors, evoked the glory of ancient Rome,
even tossing coins to the public. In the case of Leo X there were also
golden balls which pointed to the coat of arms of the Medici-family. In
102
these days the city of Rome might rightfully pretend to be the formal
and indisputable Head of Latin Christianity or Sancta Latina Jerusalem.
The future was no less promising in different respects: primary as the
“New Jerusalem” which was emerging on the Tiber and, still more, as
the City which was to become the capital of a global spiritual empire
with the pope at its head, uniting Christians all over the world thanks
to the Incrementum Ecclesiae or the “growth of the Church” in the
wake of the voyages of discovery.
The End of a Dream: Lutheranism 1517
However this finest hour only lasted a short while. Julius II died on 21
February 1513. Within a few years - in October 1517 – an Augustinian
monk, Martin Luther, opened an attack on the functioning of the
Church of Rome. In 1526, at the Diet of the Reich at Spiers, a law, ius
reformandi, was signed which permitted the States of the German
Empire and the Councils of Reich-Cities to do as they wished regarding
matters of religion within their territories. It implied the possibility of
secularization of church-property and, no doubt, the loss of income for
the church of Rome. In 1530, at the Diet of the Reich at Augsburg, the
principle was accepted: Cuius regio, eius religio : which meant that
within the regio of the person who is holding worldly power, his
religio is obligatory to the inhabitants of his regio. It also meant that
Charles V, a worldly power, gave freedom in spiritual affairs which
normally belonged to spiritual leadership or the papacy. In this way
Scandinavia and much of Germany, Prussia included, escaped papal
control. In 1535 England also got lost in the wake of Henry VIII’s
divorce of Catharine of Aragon.
The End of a Dream: Il Sacco di Roma 1527
Physical force, rape, murder, arson, straight away destruction as well
as robbery and plane extortion: these festivals of brute force were
celebrated in many Italian cities and elsewhere since long. Brescia
1512. Genoa 1522, Pavia 1528, Naples 1528, and Florence 1529/30
103
only are examples of a long sequence. At the dawn of the 6th of May
1527 it started within the Eternal City, as usual by undisciplined and
unpaid soldiers this time originating from Germany, Spain, Italy and
other European countries. These lost their leader, le Connètable de
Bourbon, within the first hour after the beginning of the attack. The
German Landsknechte or Lanzichenechi, as the Italians call them, wrote
their names for ever in the history-books of Rome. It is no use to go
into the question about the origins of this ultimate trial of strength
between the German Emperor, Charles V, and the Pope, Clement VII.
The latter finally escaped his imprisonment in the Maschio-tower of
his own Castel St. Angelo in November1527, after a humiliating treaty
The troops of Charles V definitely left the Holy City on the 17th of
February 1528. Charles V and Clement VII met personally in Bologna
in October of 1529. Charles V’s dominion within the Italian peninsula
was recognized. His crowning as Holy Roman Emperor by Clement VII
took place on the 22nd of February 1530 in Bologna, not in Rome
At the same time the disaster to the Holy City was complete as it also
definitely ended the dream which had been build up in half a century
before. Rome’s “finest hour “ was over. The crumbled Holy City no
longer reflected the shining center of a global spiritual empire with
the pope at its head. The crowning of a German Emperor, Charles V, in
Bologna – underscored this. Giles of Viterbo’s presentation of a Golden
Age was destroyed by one terrible blow. In the words of Erasmus:”It is
not only the City which is lost, it is the whole world”. Many who left
the Hell of the Sacco never returned. Three quarters of the city were
depopulated. Eighty percent of the houses was unfit for human
habitation. The plague had taken its toll among civilians as well as
among the troops of Charles V. Even since 1530 Clement VII did no
longer control the whole of Christiana Latina as we have seen above.
Erasmus, Rome and his “Ciceronianus” 1528
The French historian Pierre de Nolhac published his studies about
Erasmus’ stay in Italy in two printed editions in 1888 and 1925
104
respectively. These studies agree with regard to one aspect: the
information Erasmus himself gives about his stay in Italy and the
Eternal City appear to be negligible.
“These years, 1506-1509, belong to the pages of his biography
which are not very well known. Within his voluminous correspondence there
are only four or five Letters from Italy which also are rather short. 36.)
In 1925 Pierre De Nolhac browses Erasmus’ ”Praise of Folly” of 1509
looking for details which may reflect on his stay in Rome and Italy:
“Chose singulière, there is little attention paid to the journey he just
finished. From this point of view it is disappointing 37.)
There is only one hint within chapter 43 of his “Praise of Folly”,
written in September 1509, indicating the Romans of his days: “who
still dream sweet dreams about that ancient Rome of theirs”.
However, it has been possible for many of Erasmus’ biographers to
give some details about his stay in Rome in 1509, in most cases thanks
to his Ciceronianus. In February 1528 Erasmus finished an educational
text Ciceronianus Or A Dialogue On the best Style of Speaking. I would
like to add that it also regards The best Style of Writing. One may
certainly consider this dialogue obligatory literature to anybody who
has the aspiration to become an author. Didactical elements dominate
in this dialogue though Erasmus started it in the first place to criticize
the Ciceronians who exclusively used Cicero’s words, Cicero’s word-
forms and Cicero’s word-order. Nevertheless, the dialogue also houses
a few passages which directly point to Erasmus’ stay in Rome in 1509.
They reflect on the specific and particular atmosphere Erasmus and
his pupil met in the Holy City in those days.
We have seen above the ability of the residents of the Holy City “to see
one thing in another”. They evoked in their own days the city from the
beginning of the Roman Emperors. The famous painter Raphael
(1483-1520) has been a great help within this process: in a Letter to
Leo X from 1519 he gives a description of the state of the ruins and a
method of reconstruction. 38.) Detailed measuring and drawings on
105
scale of all significant buildings were added. His sudden death on the
6th of April 1520 came as a shock to everybody within the Holy City.
Baldassare Castiglione, his friend, writes in his funerary epigram:
“You too, Raphael, have moved the jealousy of the gods, while
restoring Rome, her whole corpse dilapidated, with your miraculous art, and
recalling to life and pristine glory the remains of a city maimed by arms, fire and
age; as you did so, death’s indignation was aroused by your gift of returning to
life what had been extinct and of renewing once more, disdaining the way of all
flesh, what the long days of time had slowly taken away…..” 39.)
Erasmus may not have unconditionally appreciated exercises of this
sort as he lived very aware of the “here and now”. It may be defended
that his Ciceronianus houses another protest against those who tried
to evoke Imperial Rome, by trying to keep the quality of Cicero’s
eloquence in its highest grade of perfection alive. It was the distinction
of Christophe Longolius as a Roman Citizen in 1522 which gave rise to
the start of the dialogue or was it essentially the protest of a
philologist against the reduction of an author’s freedom? Erasmus’
arguments are twofold: in the first place the city Rome of 1528 is not
the city of Rome of Cicero. Secondly, authenticity is always to prefer
to any form of imitation. Erasmus delivers us a clear view of the way
he experienced the Holy City in 1509:
“Cicero spoke in perfect keeping with his times, not so De Longueil;
for at Rome today there are neither the Conscript Fathers (Council) nor the
Roman Senate, nor the authority of the people, nor the votes of the tribes, nor
the regular magistrates, nor the laws, nor the comitia, nor legal procedure, nor
provinces, nor towns, nor allies, nor citizens, - and Rome, there is no Rome for
there is nothing but ruin and rubbish, scars and tracks of old time calamity”.40.)
This last line reflects the reality as Erasmus saw Rome in 1509 and as
it was again in 1528. Erasmus’ down to earth mentality protested
against a presentation of everyday’s reality which was not
recognizable within the here and now. Visibility is a pre-eminent
principle in Renaissance-Italy. We have seen that Erasmus
106
consequently used it as a weapon in his “Praise of Folly”, always
underlining the examples of human folly by examples which were
visible. In this case the reality existed in “the ruin and rubbish scars,
and tracks of old time – and recent - calamity”.
Erasmus must have possessed an excellent memory as he is able to
reproduce in 1528 the Good Friday sermon from 1509 which he
attended personally in the Sistine Chapel in the presence of Julius II
and a number of cardinals and bishops. The priest who delivered the
sermon had been recommended to Erasmus to “hear the language of
Rome spoken by a Roman“. After having finished his text the speaker
had impressed Erasmus by his rhetoric qualities but. he felt rather
disappointed him mainly because of the complete absence of the
essence of this particular Christian Feast-day and the meaning of it.
“And yet in strength he emulated Cicero. But no mention of the
omnipotent Father to redeem the human race of the tyranny of the devil by the
unparalleled death of his only Son nor of the mysteries - what it is to die with
Christ, to be buried with him, with him to rise again.”41.)
On top of that he was confronted with another papal identification.
This time we find Julius II indicated as Jupiter Maximus Optimus, who:
“holding and brandishing in the powerful right hand the three-cleft
and fatal thunderbolt and causing by a mere nod whatever he wished. All that
had been done in France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Africa and Greece, he
declared, had been done by the will of Julius alone. So spoke at Rome a Roman
in Roman tongue and Roman style.” 42.)
Within the best of Erasmus’ tradition his next argument is
underscored by personal experience and visible proof:
“If ever you have visited the libraries of the Ciceronians at Rome, I
pray you, whether you saw an image of the crucifix or of the sacred Trinity or of
the apostles. You will find them all full of monuments of heathenism. Among the
pictures “Jupiter Slipping into the Lap of Diana through the Impluvium” attracts
our attention rather than “Gabriel Announces the Immaculate Conception to the
Holy Virgin”; Ganymede Stolen by the Eagle” rather than “Christ ascending to
107
Heaven”. These are mysteries hidden under the veil of a Ciceronian name. Under
the show of a beautiful name, I assure you, snares are hold out to simple minded
and credulous youths” 43.)
In this context it doesn’t make sense to consider Erasmus’ Dialogue
On The Best Style Of Speaking as a whole. It is also no use to comment
the quotations I gave above from his Dialogue as these speak for
themselves. They also have been mentioned more than once
elsewhere. The main question in this context is: why does Erasmus
present these personal critical notes on Rome in 1528 and not in
1509? On his way back to England he wrote Phase I of his “Praise of
Folly”, a panorama of foolish human behavior. One might expect that
Erasmus’ mentions his private criticism on the situation in Rome in
1509 after his return in England. There is no sign of it if we pass by his
description of the papal staff in chapter 59 of his “Praise of Folly”. I do
not know of any personal critical reference to the particular
atmosphere in Rome - during his stay - within his work between 1509
and 1528. The particular atmosphere he met in Rome in 1509 most
probably lay at the basis of this lacuna. Didn’t Erasmus recognize
himself within Giles of Viterbo’s eschatological Golden Age? Was there
too little or no response to his personal feelings within the Holy City?
Was he - more than his contemporaries in Rome - aware of the gap
between the Gospel and Classical literature? Anyhow, in 1528, after
the “physical" destruction of the Holy City and the complete
evaporation of Giles of Viterbo’s eschatological future, Erasmus gives
up to keep silent about the atmosphere he met in the City of Rome in
1509 which climaxes in the Ciceronianus in 1528 in:
. “It is – or rather: it was - due to paganism, Nosoponus. We are
Christians only by name. The body is baptized in sacred water but the mind is
unwashed; the forehead is signed with the cross, the mind curses the cross; we
profess Jesus with our mouths, we wear Jupiter Optimus Maximus and Romulus
in our hearts” 44.).
These words from 1528 most probably did not harmonize with the
atmosphere in Rome in 1509. So Erasmus kept his mouth shut at the
108
time. He found a way to handle the situation and delivered it to his
friends in England and to us at the end already in 1509 in chapter 29
of the core-text of his “Praise of Folly”:
“And surely it is perverse not to adapt yourself to the prevailing
circumstances, to refuse “to do as the Romans do” to ignore the party-goers
maxim: “take a drink or take your leave”, to insist that the play should not be a
play. The prudence, on the other hand, recognizes human limitations and does
not strive to leap beyond them; it is willing to run with the herd, to overlook
faults tolerantly or share them in a friendly spirit.” 45.)
In 1528, Rome’s “finest hour” is over and the Holy City is back in the
status where it was a century before: depopulated and in ruins; the
authors, artists, and intellectuals dispersed over Italy; the promising
atmosphere completely vanished. Erasmus gives in 1528, in his
Ciceronianus, free rein to the personal discomfort he felt at the time, in
1509.
Erasmus’ handling of his experiences in Rome in 1509 may give rise to
different reactions. Johan Huizinga sketched the author of the
Ciceronianus as a “reactionary man of age who was preparing
Christian Puritanism.”46.) Someone may find cowardice within his
behavior because he kept silent about his personal feelings in 1509.
Erasmus of Rotterdam is was person with an open mind, who
thoroughly knew every detail of human life, of human characters and
also of human possibilities as well as their restrictions. Erasmus
personally did not allow anybody or anything to take position
between himself and Jesus Christ. Within his Ciceronianus he
demonstrates that one of the foremost intellectuals of his days was a
Christian believer who also knew – in due course - to keep his mouth
shut.
© Copyright Klaas Potjewijd 2015
109
Notes
1. Charles L. Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome, p.5
Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1998
2. Charles L. Stinger o.c. p. 333-334
3. idem p. 52
4. idem p. 283
5. idem p. 286
6. idem p. 257
7. idem p. 30
8. idem p. 30
9. idem p. 26
10. idem p. 1
11. idem p. 34
12. idem p. 255
13. idem p. 205
14. idem p. 189
15. idem p. 177
16. idem p. 189
17. idem p. 215
18. idem p. 120
19. idem p. 236
20. Christne Shaw, Julius II, The Warrior Pope, p. 205
Oxford Cambridge Mass. Blackwell publishers , 1993
21. Charles L. Stinger o.c. p. 222
22. idem p. 5
23. Christine Shaw o.c. p. 235-236
24. idem o.c. p. 241-242
25. Johan Huizinga, “Ce qu’ Erasme ne comprenait pas” p. 247-251
Grotius, Annuaiare International pour 1936,
N.V. Martinius Nijhoff, s’-Gravenhage 1936
26. Charles L. Stinger, o.c p. 120
27. idem p. 319
28. Pierre de Nolhac, Erasme en Italie, Paris 1888 /1988 p. 53
29. Charles L. Stinger o.c. p.296
30. idem o.c. p. 316
31. idem o.c. p.185
32. Charles L. Stinger, o.c. p.318
110
33. idem o.c. p. 316
34. idem o.c p. 301-302
35. Klaas Potjewijd, The “Praise of Folly” and the Oratio de dignitate
homins”, a matter of interaction between Erasmus van Rotterdam and
Giovanni Picodella Mirandola 2014
36. Pierre de Nolhac, Erasme en Italie, Paris, 1888 p. 7
37. Pierre de Nolhac, Erasme et l’ Italie, Paris, 1925 p. 52
38. David Rijser, Raphael’s Poetics p. 35
Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam 2012
39. idem p. 33
40. Desiderius Erasmus, Ciceronianus, p. 112
Or, A Dialogue On The Best Style of speaking, Translated by Izora
Scott M.A., With an Introduction by Paul Monroe, Ph. D.
Lightning Source Ltd, Milton Keynes U.K. 1908
41. idem p. 64
42. idem p. 63
43. idem p. 75
44. idem p. 73
45. Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, p. 44
translated by Clarence H. Miller, New Haven- London
Nota Bene Books 2003.
46. Johan Huizinga, Erasmus in: Verzamelde Werken
. Deel VI, p. 165, H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zn N.V. Haarlem 1950
111
Bibliography
Erasmus Desiderius, Ciceronianus, Or A Dialogue On The Best Style Of Speaking
Translated by Izora Scott, M.A. With an Introduction by Paul Monroe, Ph. D.
Lightning Source Ltd, Milton Keynes U.K.1989
Erasmus Desiderius, Praise of Folly Translated by Clarence H. Miller
New Haven –London, Nota Bene Books 2003
Huizinga Johan, “Ce qu’ Erasme ne comprenait pas”, s-Gravenhage 1936
Huizinga Johan Erasmus, in: Verzamelde Werken Deel VI, Haarlem 1950
Nolhac, Pierre de, Erasme en Italie Paris, 1888
Nolhac, Pierre de, Erasme et l’Itale, Paris 1925
Potjewijd Klaas, A matter of interaction between Erasmus of Rotterdam and
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola See this book Chapter II
Rijser David, Raphaels Poetics, Art and Poetry in High Renaissance Rome
Amsterdam University Press, 2012
Shaw Catherine, Julius II, the Warrior Pope
Oxford - Cambridge Mass. Blackwell Publishers 1993
Stinger Charles L., The Renaissance in Rome
Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press , 1998
112
C O N T E N T S
Introduction Page 83
Constantinopel – 1453 and after Page 84
Contra Turcos 84
Vatican Hill 85
Capitoline Hill 86
Renaissance - Rome 1443 – 1527 87
The Papacy, a matter of identification – changing images 87
War with Venice 92
Giles of Viterbo 94
Golden Ages 95
Signs of time 96
Nature and Human Dignity 97
Rome’s Finest Hour Page 98
The end of a dream: Lutheranism 1517 99
The end of a dream: Il Sacco di Roma 1527 99
Erasmus and his “Ciceronianus” Page 100
Notes Page 106
Biblioraphy Page 108
Contents Page 109
113
114
C o n c l u s i o n
All sorts of professions generate professional deviations of all sorts.
This means that professionals develop allergies for some aspects
within their discipline. At the same time they have blind spots for
other aspects within their field of research. As an historian I have an
allergy related to deficiencies in connection with chronological order.
Normally we have different expectations in different circumstances.
When an historian, who is accustomed to read historical texts, starts
reading an eulogy, he normally will look forward to a definition of the
subject which forms the heart of it, the threads of thought woven
around the theme, paradoxes, display of rhetoric and finally the
glorification of the subject which is printed on the front page of the
text. In the case of Erasmus’ “Praise of Folly” the reader will be
disappointed or rather deluded. The subject – Folly – which is on the
front-page is in this case not the abstraction one may expect: its place
is taken by a person, a performer, a women, called Stultitia. It is true
that she warned us not to expect definitions and the art of rhetoric
within her speech. We now may rightly ask: what will she offer to us
or what have we got instead?
Stultitia presents a pure and simple enumeration of examples of
visible foolish human behavior without comment upon them. The
almost endless enumeration of examples, which she displays,
originated in the author’s keen observation of daily life around him. So
Erasmus delivered a detailed sketch of the manners and morals of his
own days. The “Praise of Folly” becomes in this way a sort of history-
book, but not exclusively. The sketch of the daily life of his fellow-men
was also intended to wake the author’s contemporaries, confronting
them with themselves.
115
Once the numerical character of the “Praise of Folly” is determined, it
is not too difficult to find caesuras within the enumeration as a whole.
Groups of chapters concentrate on the behavior of different categories
of living human beings. Within the core-text we find the behavior of
individuals exposed within their private and public life. Foolish group
behavior is presented within Interpolation 1. Behavior of intellectuals
and leaders of Church and State are sketched in Interpolation 2.
Christianity and Christian believers we find within the Extension.
The echoes of Giovanni Pico’s Oratio de dignitate hominis within the
“Praise of Folly” are too loud to be ignored by those who are familiar
with the Oratio. Erasmus’ comments on this famous text form the first
addition to the core-text of his “Praise of Folly” within the First
Interpolation
In the third article I have tried to expose the atmosphere which
Erasmus met during his stay in the Holy City in 1509. Didn’t he feel at
home? Handled he the situation in the way he described so clearly in
chapter 29 of his “Praise of Folly”? If so, it will also provide an answer
to the question why Erasmus so strictly held on to the anonymity in
his “Praise of Folly” and in his criticism of Giovanni Pico della
Mirandola and his Oratio de dignitate hominis.
Erasmus confronts us within Article II with the power of nature and
makes us aware of the natural laws to which the human species is
subject during the whole of its life. The necessity for man to eat, to
drink, to sleep, to rest, to move and last but not least to reckon with
the conditions with regard to his procreation are dictating his agenda
every 24 hours.
The third of these articles may make clear that, within the field of the
spirit and the mind, man also is subject to powers which are
unavoidable, ineradicable and in many cases stronger than man
himself. Common opinion, traditionalism, spirit of the age, fear of
innovation, xenophobia and last but not least conservatism and
116
unwillingness play a role within everyday’s social life in every society.
Erasmus was well aware of the mines and the booby traps within this
field. He was aware of the dangers as well as the escape routes. He
knew what to do in cases of this sort, as we may have seen. At the
same time Erasmus shows that he was not only a learned man but that
he also was a wise man
© Copyright Hilversum 2015
117
118
119