Naarmate je vordert in het boek krijg je verdacht meer en meer de indruk dat Huizinga niet altijd objectief of tenminste vooringenomen oordeelt. Zo vermeldt hij weinig ter zake doende dat Erasmus aan de basis ligt van het ontstaan van de wederdopers.

Na wat opzoekingswerk blieek al vlug dat Huizinga op dezelfde leest geschoeid is als Ian Buruma en ook Francis Fukuyuma die ook beiden een mentaliteit van gereformeerden weergeven. Huizinga en Buruma zijn zonen van wederdoperpredikers. Fukuyama zoon van een andere sekteprediker.

Of dit boek een grondige en waardevolle biografie van Erasmus is kan moeilijk worden beoordeeld. Daartoe zouden we eerst moeten kunnen vergelijken met een andere biografie. Het is alleszins een goede eerste kennismaking met Erasmus.

Consequent is de schrijver ook niet in het weergeven van plaatsnamen. Plaatsen die in de tijd van Erasmus nog in de lage landen liggen en die nog Nederlandstalig waren zoals St. Omaars geeft hij met de Franse benaming terwijl sommige plaatsen die nooit Nederlandstalig waren dan weer wel in het Nederlands worden weergegeven. ( )

I’m glad I went back and picked up Huizinga’s, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation. This popular biography was originally written in 1924, so it’s very old. I read a reissued edition of 2002 which also includes some letters of Erasmus. Huizinga died in 1945.

Huizinga is more critical of Erasmus than Augustijn (the other biography I read, Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence), and he offers some cutting criticism. For one, he calls Erasmus “weak” and talks of his “weakness”. While Luther obviously confronted the powers-that-be of his time, and did that quite vigorously, Erasmus kept aloof. Huizinga thinks Erasmus’ weakness was “… the study of a recluse bending over his books,” which, “did more than anything else to prevent Erasmus from understanding the true nature and purport of the Reformation.” (p. 138). It may be that Erasmus did not even read Luther’s most important writings until well after they were published. According to Huizinga, Erasmus thought the conservative reaction to the Reformation was about resistance to learning. There was much more to it than that, and Erasmus never faced up to the singular issues of his day.

Having said that though, I have some reservations about getting rid of Erasmus so easily. Not everyone has the ability, as Luther certainly did, of calling forth inner powers and confronting all the evil of one’s own age. Erasmus did confront evil, but when he did so it was as if behind a veil of language and learning. In fact, this is another of Huizinga’s criticisms of Erasmus. (p. 43) But must Erasmus be judged solely by this standard? Erasmus towards the latter part of his life says, “The essentials of our religion are peace and equanimity. These can hardly exist unless we make definitions about as few points as possible and leave many questions to individual judgement.” (p. 116) Elsewhere he says, “Let us resist not by taunts and threats, not by force of arms and injustice, but by simple discretion, by benefits, by gentleness and tolerance.” (p.152) This almost turns Huizinga’s criticism on its head. In my view, “gentleness” is not always the same thing as “weakness”. Erasmus and Luther were likely after two different things.

In the end, Erasmus remained a Catholic while Luther did not. Erasmus writes to Luther during the freedom of the will controversy in 1526, “I have never been an apostate from the Catholic Church. I know that in this Church, which you call the Papist Church, there are many who displease me, but such I also see in your Church. One bears more easily the evils to which one is accustomed. Therefore I bear with this Church, until I shall see a better, and it cannot help bearing with me, until I shall myself be better. And he does not sail badly who steers a middle course between two several evils.” (p. 165)

There is more criticism of Erasmus here in Huizinga, as well as more insights. I was glad to read this book because it gave me a feeling for the reality of Erasmus, the man. Even the criticism of Erasmus’ weakness has its place, if taken as part of a more holistic view of him. ( )

I have been interested in Erasmus for years and read several of his works in translation. I wanted to find a newer biography and came across Huizinga's 1924 work Erasmus and the Age of Reformation. It was very readable in places and dragged in others. I wanted more than I got out of Erasmus of Rotterdam by Stefan Zweig. Both books were about on the same level so I am still looking for more. Huizinga gave a clear view of Erasmus's wanderings and his search for a permanent place in the world, which sadly Erasmus never found. One of the best points of Erasmus and the Age of Reformation was the inclusion of many letters sent by Erasmus to many influential people of his time. Letter that showed his friendship with Sir Thomas More, Bishop(later Saint) John Fisher and even Martin Luther though Erasmus broke off his contact with Luther in later life. For those letters alone the book is worthwhile. In one letter Erasmus reflected on being placed in a monastic setting when he was too young to make a life commitment. He recognized that he was not suited for the monastic life but he remained as faithful as he could within the promises he made. This book is available for free at Amazon or the Gutenberg Project as a free e-book. ( )

James S. Holmes and Hans van Marle

Summary: An elegantly written biography of Desiderius Erasmus describing his life, thought and character as a scholar who hoped to awaken "good learning" and to bring about a purified Catholic church, and the tensions resulting from being caught between Reformers and Catholic hierarchy.

It is surprising to me how few biographies I can find of Desiderius Erasmus in online searches, and most of these older works. The good news is that Huizinga's very readable account of Erasmus' life is available in either low cost reprints or for free digitally due to its passing into the public domain. There are also free versions of many of Erasmus' works in various digital formats. I found the edition that was the basis of this review in the bargain shelves of my local used book store. If you want to readable introduction to the life of Erasmus, this is a great place to start to understand the life of this humanist scholar overshadowed in some ways by the Reformers.
We learn about the early life of this out-of-wedlock son of a Catholic priest, forced by poverty to take monastic vows. Yet from early on it was clear that Erasmus was a scholar, not a monk, who found a way through the Bishop of Cambrai for whom he served as secretary, to pursue theological studies at the University of Paris in 1495. Huizinga portrays a man who was something of a rolling stone, moving between England, Paris, Louvain, Italy, and Basle in search of patrons, peace, and publishers. He would be a restless man all his life. He works for a time with the famed Aldus Manutius (after whom the Aldus font is named) and later collaborates with Johan Froben in the publication of a number of his later works including his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. During one of his travels, he pens In Praise of Folly, the work for which he is most famous. He also assembles a collection of adages in Latin (Adagia) that serves as a compendium of the best of the ancient classics.

Huizinga shows us a scholar deeply committed to the value of "good learning", believing the recovery of the classic texts along with careful biblical scholarship would result in a Catholic church purified from the accretions of the centuries. There is a brief, shining moment, around 1517, where profits from publications, renown of scholarship, and sympathies with many other reformers brought him into the limelight at the same time as he is finally released from his monastic vows. All too briefly does he enjoy the life of scholarship, pleasant conversation, and freedom from want.

Soon he is chased from Louvain by those objecting to his efforts toward a purified church. He is courted by Luther and the Reformers only to keep his distance and eventually and reluctantly engage Luther in a dispute over the freedom versus bondage of the will. As he grows older he writes against the excesses of both the humanists (in Ciceronianus) and against the Reformers.

As I commented in my post on "The Challenge of the 'Third Way,' " Erasmus fault was that he was a moderate, who preferred quiet to a fight. He was not an ideologue, but one who cared for clarity in expression, careful scholarship, and purity of morality. Huizinga traces this out in successive chapters on Erasmus' thought and character. For many years, Catholics thought he had given too much aid and comfort to the Reformers. Protestants thought him a sell out, who remained loyal to the church he never wanted to leave. Yet to the last he was a scholar, returning to Basle to wrap up his affairs, entrusting his scholarly legacy to the house of Froben to publish his complete works. And it is as a scholar in the humanist tradition that he is most remembered.

More recent scholarship has raised questions about Erasmus sexuality, particularly his relationship with Servatius and his dismissal as tutor of Thomas Gray. Huizinga, a scholar in an age less concerned with matters sexual and more open to the expressions of spiritual friendship in letters, raises no questions about such things.

Huizinga also provides us with a selection of his letters. Two stand out. One is his letter to Servatius, arguing for why he should not return to the monastic length at such length that I suspect Servatius gave in to gain relief. The second is a finely drawn verbal portrait of Thomas More. We see his early correspondence with Luther, and the later deterioration of the relationship.

So, for both style and substance, I would highly recommend this biography. It leaves one wondering about the might-have-beens of what would have occurred had Erasmus not been overshadowed by Luther, Calvin, and others. My own hunch is that in the end, he would have been opposed and simply withdraw as was his want, and little would be changed. As it was, he refused to "lead the charge", leaving this to Luther and the Catholic hierarchy in turn. If he had influence at all, it was through his translation of the New Testament, used by Luther for a vernacular translation and through his other scholarly works, works that enriched individual minds rather than galvanized movements. ( )