What do you think?
Rate this book
Delphi Collected Works of Desiderius Erasmus
The Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus was the greatest scholar of the northern Renaissance, as well as the first editor of the New Testament. A classical scholar that wrote in a pure Latin style, Erasmus earned the sobriquet "Prince of the Humanists". Using the philological methods pioneered by Italian humanists, he helped lay the foundations for the historical-critical study of the past. This comprehensive eBook presents Erasmus’ collected works, with numerous illustrations, rare texts appearing in digital print for the first time, informative introductions and the usual Delphi bonus material. (Version 1) * Beautifully illustrated with images relating to Erasmus’ life and works * Concise introductions to the texts * All the major works, with individual contents tables * Features rare translations appearing for the first time in digital publishing * Two translations of ‘The Praise of Folly’: John Wilson and the anonymous 1887 Hamilton, Adams and Co. Translation * Excellent formatting of the texts * Easily locate the dialogues or essays you want to read * Special criticism section, with essays evaluating Erasmus’ contribution to literature, including P. S. Allen’s seminal study * Features three biographies – immerse yourself in Erasmus’ medieval world * Scholarly ordering of texts into chronological order and literary genres Please visit www.delphiclassics.com to browse through our range of exciting titles The Books The Manual of a Christian Knight The Praise of Folly Colloquies Ciceronianus The Education of Children Against War The Complaint of Peace The Criticism The Age of Erasmus by P. S. Allen Times of Erasmus and Three Lectures by James Anthony Froude The Biographies Erasmus and the Age of Reformation by Johan Huizinga Erasmus by Richard Claverhouse Jebb Life of Erasmus by P. S. Allen Please visit www.delphiclassics.com to browse through our range of exciting titles or to purchase this eBook as a Parts Edition of individual eBooks
- GenresPhilosophy
3568 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 12, 2011
115 people are currently reading
80 people want to read
About the author
Erasmus
1,113 books439 followersDesiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (28 October 1466 – 12 July 1536), known as Erasmus of Rotterdam, or simply Erasmus, was a Dutch Renaissance humanist, Catholic priest, social critic, teacher, and theologian.
Erasmus was a classical scholar and wrote in a pure Latin style. Among humanists he enjoyed the sobriquet "Prince of the Humanists", and has been called "the crowning glory of the Christian humanists". Using humanist techniques for working on texts, he prepared important new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament, which raised questions that would be influential in the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation. He also wrote On Free Will, The Praise of Folly, Handbook of a Christian Knight, On Civility in Children, Copia: Foundations of the Abundant Style, Julius Exclusus, and many other works.
Erasmus lived against the backdrop of the growing European religious Reformation, but while he was critical of the abuses within the Catholic Church and called for reform, he kept his distance from Luther and Melanchthon and continued to recognise the authority of the pope, emphasizing a middle way with a deep respect for traditional faith, piety and grace, rejecting Luther's emphasis on faith alone. Erasmus remained a member of the Roman Catholic Church all his life, remaining committed to reforming the Church and its clerics' abuses from within. He also held to the Catholic doctrine of free will, which some Reformers rejected in favor of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road approach disappointed and even angered scholars in both camps.
Erasmus died suddenly in Basel in 1536 while preparing to return to Brabant, and was buried in the Basel Minster, the former cathedral of the city. A bronze statue of him was erected in his city of birth in 1622, replacing an earlier work in stone.
Erasmus was a classical scholar and wrote in a pure Latin style. Among humanists he enjoyed the sobriquet "Prince of the Humanists", and has been called "the crowning glory of the Christian humanists". Using humanist techniques for working on texts, he prepared important new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament, which raised questions that would be influential in the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation. He also wrote On Free Will, The Praise of Folly, Handbook of a Christian Knight, On Civility in Children, Copia: Foundations of the Abundant Style, Julius Exclusus, and many other works.
Erasmus lived against the backdrop of the growing European religious Reformation, but while he was critical of the abuses within the Catholic Church and called for reform, he kept his distance from Luther and Melanchthon and continued to recognise the authority of the pope, emphasizing a middle way with a deep respect for traditional faith, piety and grace, rejecting Luther's emphasis on faith alone. Erasmus remained a member of the Roman Catholic Church all his life, remaining committed to reforming the Church and its clerics' abuses from within. He also held to the Catholic doctrine of free will, which some Reformers rejected in favor of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road approach disappointed and even angered scholars in both camps.
Erasmus died suddenly in Basel in 1536 while preparing to return to Brabant, and was buried in the Basel Minster, the former cathedral of the city. A bronze statue of him was erected in his city of birth in 1622, replacing an earlier work in stone.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 4, 2022
I had often been curious about Erasmus. He seemed so brilliant, and so ahead of his time, why are not modern scholars and Christians enthusiastic about his writings? I desired to get to know his writing better and feel now that I have gotten to know something of his perspective.
Of course a strong reason he is not embraced is that he wrote most of his works in Latin, or he re-presented Greek literature with corrections and commentary, including the New Testament and many of the writings of St. Jerome. I am especially impressed with his desire to replace traditional understandings of New Testament passages by going back to the original language (not simply the Latin Vulgate) and seeing passages in context in order to comprehend the meaning of the authors. This was quite ground-breaking in his day, and has had a great impact on scholarship.
He felt that there was too much acceptance of the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas without any deliberation or comparison of his teachings with those of the early church fathers. He felt a return to the New Testament in the original language and a relearning of the teachings of the church fathers would breathe new life into the Church. But his critical thinking was often viewed as dangerous. In fact some felt he led the way to the Protestant Reformation. Luther, in fact, had hoped to bring Erasmus on board, but Erasmus refused to leave the Church that he saw as deeply corrupt and flawed in many ways. His hope was that reason and knowledge would eventually reform the Church, he feared that Luther's enthusiasm would be a destructive force in society and the Church. Luther ended up very angry with Erasmus, but the Catholic Church leaders also felt the "Lutheran problem" was something that Erasmus brought about.
Erasmus was a man of literature, and he lived to bring classical ancient literature back to modern society. He was in many ways a humanist, but without abandoning belief in the supernatural or putting unreasonable faith in mankind. In many ways, despite his great learning, he desired a simple faith that sprang from true devotion from the heart rather than empty ceremony. He loathed dissension and unrest, whether in the Church, in society, or between nations. Some of his writings about how to live the Christian life well were very touching and meaningful to me. I was also impressed with his writings opposed to war between states or nations. Much of that content could be very applicable to our world today.
He had wit and good humor, as could be seen in his work, In Praise of Folly. He used satire to make fun of corruption and ridiculous beliefs and practices, but without coming off as hateful or mean, but edging pretty close to that line at times.
In the end, I feel he is not embraced by Christians today because he satisfies neither Protestants nor Catholics very well. He straddles those two groups, a bit like C.S. Lewis did, but Lewis came along later, and everyone was willing to let him occupy that middle ground a bit more than Erasmus was allowed to do in his day. Evangelicals might find his critical thinking and humanism threatening. Catholics have other philosophers and theologians who are more bought into those practices of theirs that Erasmus had the audacity to question. But I feel any Christian could benefit from reading some of his works that emphasis simple faith and obedience, as well as true devotion from the heart. I felt it did me good. I spent about 8 months reading this very long collection, but I never grew tired of it. The biographical writings at the end became a little repetitive, but they were quickly gone through.
Looking forward now to a little fiction to read!
Of course a strong reason he is not embraced is that he wrote most of his works in Latin, or he re-presented Greek literature with corrections and commentary, including the New Testament and many of the writings of St. Jerome. I am especially impressed with his desire to replace traditional understandings of New Testament passages by going back to the original language (not simply the Latin Vulgate) and seeing passages in context in order to comprehend the meaning of the authors. This was quite ground-breaking in his day, and has had a great impact on scholarship.
He felt that there was too much acceptance of the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas without any deliberation or comparison of his teachings with those of the early church fathers. He felt a return to the New Testament in the original language and a relearning of the teachings of the church fathers would breathe new life into the Church. But his critical thinking was often viewed as dangerous. In fact some felt he led the way to the Protestant Reformation. Luther, in fact, had hoped to bring Erasmus on board, but Erasmus refused to leave the Church that he saw as deeply corrupt and flawed in many ways. His hope was that reason and knowledge would eventually reform the Church, he feared that Luther's enthusiasm would be a destructive force in society and the Church. Luther ended up very angry with Erasmus, but the Catholic Church leaders also felt the "Lutheran problem" was something that Erasmus brought about.
Erasmus was a man of literature, and he lived to bring classical ancient literature back to modern society. He was in many ways a humanist, but without abandoning belief in the supernatural or putting unreasonable faith in mankind. In many ways, despite his great learning, he desired a simple faith that sprang from true devotion from the heart rather than empty ceremony. He loathed dissension and unrest, whether in the Church, in society, or between nations. Some of his writings about how to live the Christian life well were very touching and meaningful to me. I was also impressed with his writings opposed to war between states or nations. Much of that content could be very applicable to our world today.
He had wit and good humor, as could be seen in his work, In Praise of Folly. He used satire to make fun of corruption and ridiculous beliefs and practices, but without coming off as hateful or mean, but edging pretty close to that line at times.
In the end, I feel he is not embraced by Christians today because he satisfies neither Protestants nor Catholics very well. He straddles those two groups, a bit like C.S. Lewis did, but Lewis came along later, and everyone was willing to let him occupy that middle ground a bit more than Erasmus was allowed to do in his day. Evangelicals might find his critical thinking and humanism threatening. Catholics have other philosophers and theologians who are more bought into those practices of theirs that Erasmus had the audacity to question. But I feel any Christian could benefit from reading some of his works that emphasis simple faith and obedience, as well as true devotion from the heart. I felt it did me good. I spent about 8 months reading this very long collection, but I never grew tired of it. The biographical writings at the end became a little repetitive, but they were quickly gone through.
Looking forward now to a little fiction to read!
May 7, 2022
A good collection of Erasmus' works, though by no means comprehensive. It would have benefited from having an editor, as the works were in no particular order, and some were included more than one time. One was in untranslated Middle English with the letter "u" used in place of "v", but also for "u", and other such confusing syntax.
Erasmus was a brilliant man and in many ways ahead of his time, though obviously also a product of it. He was part of the broad reform movement sweeping through the monastic orders of the Christian Church in the days leading up to Martin Luther's break with the Church (Luther also being a member of the monastic reform movement). To hear Erasmus' version, he was the only one who valued and cherished enlightenment, learning, the advancement of human knowledge, religion, and so on. He was especially negative about the renaissance monastic orders, though even he had to admit there were individual examples of piety, self-sacrifice, and service to be found among them.
Erasmus was in many respects a porto-Liberal (not "liberal" in the sense used today as another word for Progressive, but the original meaning of Liberty). He was "proto" in that he was not focused on the type of government, but rather on individuals being free and having basic civil rights, regardless of the form of government under which they lived. He was a fan of peace, but being in thrall to the warlike structure of nobility and entitlement put that value on a collision course with lasting peace.
Like most luminaries of the renaissance, he was influenced by the version of Classical-era nobility as passed on by Socrates, Plato, and so many other aristocratically-minded (Erasmus detested Aristotle). Therefore he positively held everything to do with money or work in contempt. This of course poisoned much of the opportunity to advance further in the renaissance, as the noblemen commanding armies and achieving success through conquest, rape, and plunder were "noble" and to be admired, while carpenters, merchants, or bankers were money grubbers to be despised and pitied for having to work for a living. Deirdre McCloskey can give you an earful about this, and in fact does in Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World.
He also shows what a product he was of his time in his virulent anti-Semitism. Some of his remarks about Pharisaical observances of this or that could be taken in the strain of outward ritual done for appearance sake versus more spiritual but more internal practices, much as is phrased in the New Testament. However, he uses such selective terms interchangeably with "Jewish" and freely uses "Jewish" and "Jew" in a pejorative manner; one is reminded of William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice.
Erasmus is a purist. He scorns and despises all that he does not understand or approve of, without making any effort to understand that maybe different people are different, and without the humility to accept that he cannot know the hearts of other people. While outward religious rituals and forms and memorized prayers may not mean much to him, they can be deeply meaningful for some people. Which is not to say there aren't people going through empty motions and then getting right back to a life filled with sin, surely his judgments were informed by real life examples. But he seemed to generalize from particular cases, and tended not to see serious fault in himself about anything. He did have a sardonic sense of humor and could crack self-effacing jokes, but these did not usually cut deep.
For me, the Praise of Folly was hands-down the best part of the collection and deserves to be read today. Against War (War is Sweet to Those Who Don't Know It) is another well worth reading. The rest is of mixed readability and value. There are several biographical sketches and essays by others about Erasmus (and some more than once!), mostly of good quality, but James Anthony Froude's read like hagiography and didn't seem to rise to the level of the others.
A good read overall but not fantastic. At least make sure you get around to reading Praise of Folly and Against War sometime in your reading life, and the others too if it sparks your interest.
Erasmus was a brilliant man and in many ways ahead of his time, though obviously also a product of it. He was part of the broad reform movement sweeping through the monastic orders of the Christian Church in the days leading up to Martin Luther's break with the Church (Luther also being a member of the monastic reform movement). To hear Erasmus' version, he was the only one who valued and cherished enlightenment, learning, the advancement of human knowledge, religion, and so on. He was especially negative about the renaissance monastic orders, though even he had to admit there were individual examples of piety, self-sacrifice, and service to be found among them.
Erasmus was in many respects a porto-Liberal (not "liberal" in the sense used today as another word for Progressive, but the original meaning of Liberty). He was "proto" in that he was not focused on the type of government, but rather on individuals being free and having basic civil rights, regardless of the form of government under which they lived. He was a fan of peace, but being in thrall to the warlike structure of nobility and entitlement put that value on a collision course with lasting peace.
Like most luminaries of the renaissance, he was influenced by the version of Classical-era nobility as passed on by Socrates, Plato, and so many other aristocratically-minded (Erasmus detested Aristotle). Therefore he positively held everything to do with money or work in contempt. This of course poisoned much of the opportunity to advance further in the renaissance, as the noblemen commanding armies and achieving success through conquest, rape, and plunder were "noble" and to be admired, while carpenters, merchants, or bankers were money grubbers to be despised and pitied for having to work for a living. Deirdre McCloskey can give you an earful about this, and in fact does in Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World.
He also shows what a product he was of his time in his virulent anti-Semitism. Some of his remarks about Pharisaical observances of this or that could be taken in the strain of outward ritual done for appearance sake versus more spiritual but more internal practices, much as is phrased in the New Testament. However, he uses such selective terms interchangeably with "Jewish" and freely uses "Jewish" and "Jew" in a pejorative manner; one is reminded of William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice.
Erasmus is a purist. He scorns and despises all that he does not understand or approve of, without making any effort to understand that maybe different people are different, and without the humility to accept that he cannot know the hearts of other people. While outward religious rituals and forms and memorized prayers may not mean much to him, they can be deeply meaningful for some people. Which is not to say there aren't people going through empty motions and then getting right back to a life filled with sin, surely his judgments were informed by real life examples. But he seemed to generalize from particular cases, and tended not to see serious fault in himself about anything. He did have a sardonic sense of humor and could crack self-effacing jokes, but these did not usually cut deep.
For me, the Praise of Folly was hands-down the best part of the collection and deserves to be read today. Against War (War is Sweet to Those Who Don't Know It) is another well worth reading. The rest is of mixed readability and value. There are several biographical sketches and essays by others about Erasmus (and some more than once!), mostly of good quality, but James Anthony Froude's read like hagiography and didn't seem to rise to the level of the others.
A good read overall but not fantastic. At least make sure you get around to reading Praise of Folly and Against War sometime in your reading life, and the others too if it sparks your interest.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews