The Dynamics of

Erasmus' Thought on War

by ROSSDEALY
is generally assumed or argued that Erasmus' thought on war
I"moved
T within the framework of the traditional [scholastic] just war
theory This thesis is most insistently set forth by J. A. Fernandez-
Santamaria : Erasmus "willingly grants all the theoretical assumptions
cherished by men like [Francisco de] Vitoria concerning the justice of
war. "'` Even Erasmus' feelings differed not at all from scholastics: Scho-
lastics "are as appalled by war as Erasmus is. "3 Unlike scholastics,
however, Erasmus was a "utopian" pacifist. Though not lacking in good
intentions or "fine sensibilities," he lacked philosophical acuity and
therefore indulged in "narcissism. " Erasmus' best known treatises on
war are mere emotional diatribes, "grandiloquent rejections of violence
which are little more than a collection of moralizing maxims. " 5
The evidence will not support this thesis-nor does it justify the in-
ferences drawn from the thesis. First of all, war occupies an entirely
different place in Erasmus' thought than it does in scholastic thought. In
scholastic thought, war is but one item-whether analyzed extensively
or in short-within massive logical and metaphysical frameworks. For
Erasmus, war is not an element of logic, but a phenomenon at the very
center of his concerns. This is evident even in a work so traditional in

' Roland Bainton, "The "

`Querela facis' of Erasmus, Classicaland Christian Sources,"
42 (1951),45.
Archivfiir Reformationsgeschichte,
2 "Erasmus on the
Just War," Journal of the Historyof Ideas,34 (1974),225.
3 Ibid.
4 The State, Warand Peace
(New York, 1977), pp. 110, 158, 194passim.
5 Ibid., 132.
p. John C. Olin argues, to the contrary, that humanity sorely needs Eras-
mums'moral idealism, but he too believes Erasmus' "perspective" has its counterpart in
medievalthought. "Erasmus's attitude correspondswith the dictum of St. Thomas: 'Grace
does not destroy nature but completesit."' See "The Pacifismof Erasmus," Thought,50
(1975),430, 419, 420n., resp. Accordingto StevenOzment, all the thought of Erasmusand
other humanists was dependenton scholasticism:"Critical of scholasticform and method,
they became docile before the capital points of scholastic doctrine." See his The Age of
Reform(1250-1550)(New Haven, 1980),p. 306. Ernst W. Kohls makes the same point, but
positively:Erasmus' views represent the best of what philosopherslike Aquinashad said.
See his Die Theologiedes Erasmusvon Rotterdam(Berlin, 1967), 1, 71-2.

[53]
 54

format as The Education of the Christian Prir2ce (1516. )() Customarily the
last chapter of such a treatise dealt with ordinary military affairs, but
' Erasmus uses this heading, "On Beginning War," to attack war per se
and to praise peace.' Even classical parallels for his discussion are
nonexistent.s 8
For scholastics, war per se is not a sin. For Erasmus, war in any form is
inherently sinful and entirely at odds with rationality and one's own true
self-interest. The picture of war which Erasmus paints is one of night-
mare and horror: blood, guts, disease, dying, mental anguish, decay, and
mass hopelessness. In stark contrast Aquinas states, without any special
concern, that even priests should "prepare and urge others to fight in a
just war":

Physical wars should be considered by Christian people as directed towards

a divine spiritual good as their end, and to this end clerics are called. Accord-
ingly they ought to prepare and urge others to fight in a just war. Clerics are
forbidden to fight in war, not because it is a sin, but because it is unbecoming
their persons. 9
For Erasmus, war is a key illustration of how, through pretext, men
fool themselves and others; of how men break faith with nature and
reason; of how, therewith, men fail to live Christianity. He accuses
scholastics of making the word "Christian" a cover or rationalization for
evil desire. To use his words from The Praise of Folly, scholastics are
"learned sycophants" who devise "names" whereby one may "whip out
his sword, stick it into the guts of his brother, and nevertheless dwell in
that supreme charity. "1° Christ admonished us not to resist evil, to turn
the other cheek, but scholastics claim, all so conveniently, that these
precepts are mere counsels and that biblical prohibitions of all war per-
tain only to the disposition of one's heart, not to outward action. Logic is
the means by which scholastics approve indirectly what Christ forbade

f Trans. L. K. Born
(New York, 1936);hereafter cited as Born.
7 AllenH. Gilbert notes Erasmus'
originalityhere without analyzingthe significance,in
Machiavelli's'Prince'and its Forerunners(Durham, 1938), pp. 165 and 222.
8 L. K. Born notes this fact but still fails to considerthe
possibilitythat Erasmusmight
have had anything significantto say on the subject. See the introduction to Born, p. 95.
9 Summa
Theologiae(Cambridge, 1964- ; hereafter cited as S.1'.), II-II, 40, 2, Reply
obj. 3.
1" Trans. Hoyt H. Hudson (Princeton, 1941);hereafter cited as Hudson.
 55

absolutely. Such thinking allows princes and others to deceive them-

selves into thinking any war is just. 11I
Examining Aquinas' discussion on war, we find support for Erasmus'
interpretation. Christ's precepts in the Sermon on the Mount "are always
to be kept in our hearts to give us the proper frame of mind, so that a
man may be ready not to resist or even not to defend himself, if cir-
cumstances demand this of him for the common good. ,12 Erasmus'
criticism that there was always an "if" in scholastic thought and that the
"circumstances" never arrived seems at least worthy of consideration.
We also need to analyze the pattern of Erasmus' thought and the roots of
that thought.
The "conditions" for just war, so often discussed by scholastics, are
totally ineffective, argues Erasmus, and, being covers for evil, they can
actually increase the possibilities for war. The conditions for just war that
are most commonly mentioned by scholastics were those discussed by
Aquinas: (1) proper authority, (2) just cause, and (3) right intention.
Erasmus repeatedly rejects and ridicules such reasonings. For the purpose
of simplicity, we will center our comparison of Erasmus' views on a long
paragraph added to Dulce Bellum in 1526.
(1) Regarding proper authority, we begin with a quotation from
Aquinas:
If a private person uses the sword by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or
a public person uses it through zeal for justice and by the authority, so to speak,
of God, then he himself does not 'draw the sword,' but is commissioned by
another to use it, and does not deserve punishment. 13

By contrast, Erasmus strongly denies that authority or position makes

anything right or uncensurable. And those persons, whether public or
private, who claim that the authority of God or his ministers impels
them to war, do deserve condemnation. The scholastics' claim that
citizens can fight if the war is a just one is deceitful: "Just indeed-this
means any war declared in any way against anybody by any prince. "144

t t Born, 257.
p.
t2 S. T. II-II, 40, 1, Reply obj. 2. Aquinas cites Augustine. The influential Decretals
(c. 1148)of Gratianstates the matter similarly:The biblical"precepts of patiencedo not so
much concern exterior acts as the disposition of the heart." See Causa 23, q. 1, c. 1; ed.
Richter-Friedberg(Graz, 1955), I, p. 890.
'3 S. T. II-II, 40, 1,
Reply obj. 1.
ta DulceBellum
Inexpertis,trans. and ed. M. M. Phillips, The Adages(Cambridge, Eng-
land, 1964), p. 337; hereafter cited as Phillips.
56

Roman law "regards war as praiseworthy if it is just. 'Just' is defined as

what has been ordered by the prince, even if he be a child or a fool."15
Citizens are not compelled to believe that such wars are just. Moreover,
men call rule what is really administration: Humans are by nature free,
and right (ius) can be taken away from rulers by popular consent. 16 Nor
are soldiers obliged to fight, but "here these rabbinical distinctions are
brought forward: 'It is lawful for a paid soldier to fight, in the same way
as it is lawful for a butcher to prepare meat according to his skill; the one
has learnt to cut up beasts, the other men.' Also ridiculed is the idea
that "priests and monks are not allowed to brandish a sword, but they
can be present and take command. "18 The influence of these "creatures in
black and white cloaks"" is deadly, for they are supposed to be nearest
Christ. Above everything said looms one truth: Christ denied war abso-
lutely. Any justification of war on the authority of God is thus invalid
and evidence of deceit.
(2) Regarding "just cause," Aquinas quotes Augustine as follows:

A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation
or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted
by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly. 20
This thesis may perhaps seem obvious, but Erasmus found cause to
criticize it over and over, with innumerable illustrations. Princes assert
their rights for trivial reasons, and for those rights think nothing of
imperiling the whole kingdom. Then, too, "if a claim to possession is to
be reckoned sufficient reason for going to war, ... there is no one who
docs not possess such a claim. "2' "Who does not think his own cause
iUSt?"22 Augustine had stated that unjust war is "no more than robbery
on a majestic scale. "23 and Gratian, Aquinas, and Vitoria, to name a few,
agreed with him; but for Erasmus, the scholastics' jvtst war entails "rob-

15
Phillips, p. 331.
'Slbid., p. 341.
" Ibid., 337.
p.
18 ibis.
The Colloquiesof Erasmus,trans. Craig R. Thompson (Chicago, 1965),p. 391; hcreaf
ter cited as Thompson.
20S. T. II-II, 40, 1,
Reply.
21
Phillips,p. 341.
22Ibid., 337.
p.
z3 The
City of God, IV, ch. 6.
 57

bery on a majestic scale." In addition, case studies by Erasmus show that

no war, however just the causes, can result in real material benefits for
one's kingdom. This is the reason for his famous contention, often mis-
understood, that "an unjust peace is far preferable to a just war. "24
Spiritually, also, there are no causes which are just causes before God.
(3) Regarding "right intention," the Summa Theolqqiae states:
Even they who are engaged in a just war may sin in taking spoils through
cupidity arising from an evil intention if, to wit, they fight chiefly not for justice
but for spoils
In the paragraph under discussion, Erasmus replies to this view also: "It
is a sin to fight in a spirit of vengeance, but not if it is for love of
justice. ,26 Discussions of right intention merely hide the vengeance.
Right intention is another "name" whereby one may cruelly "whip out
his sword, stick it into the guts of his brother, and nevertheless dwell in
that supreme charity."27 Right intention is, in fact, not evidenced by
words, but by deeds, by life. This thesis is illustrated over and over, not
only in his war writings but in works such as The Colloquies. Christianity
without results does not exist; Christ's precepts work. Those who have
good intentions can illustrate them through adherence to the Prince of
Peace in all their actions. The extent to which humans implement truth
reflects precisely the degree of 'right intention.'
Where did the realism lie-with the scholastics, or Erasmus? The con-
clusions of Frederick H. Russell in his award-winning book, The Just
War in The Middle Ages (1975), seem to be apropos. The fact that Russell
evidences no acquaintance with the thought of Erasmus makes his com-
ments of even greater interest:

"That everyone agrees with the abstract definitions of a just war is irrelevant;
the just war theory is simply too successful to be effective. ,,2H"If justice is the
will of the prince, then he will naturally consider his own cause to be just. To
forestall that conclusion, Augustine and medieval scholars necessarily assumed
that the ruler acted out of pure and impartial motives and without passion, a
position that militates against what we know about rulers of any age. Con-
sequently both princes could claim justice, so that the war would be fully justified

24
Phillips,p. 341.
25S. T. II-II, 66, 8,
Reply obj. 1.
26
Phillips,p. 337.
27Hudson, 101.
p.
28Russell, 306.
p.
58
on both sides, an absurdity in theory, practice and common sense. With this the
whole structure tumbles down. "29 "Within the theory there is simply no way to
prevent a successful war from being treated as a just war." 311Might made right.
"No hostile act was licit or illicit by itself, but according to the authority on
which it was committed. "31 "In an actual situation it is psychologically very
difficult for the aggrieved party to distinguish lust for vengeance from defense of
his own rights. " 32Just war theory was ineffective because it was possible for
injustice to be found on both sides,33 and because there was no competent tribu-
nal to judge and enforce a just war.34 "For the past 3000 years, just war theories
have had the dual purpose of restraining and justifying violence, essentially a self
contradictory exercise.... It remains an open question whether just war theo-
ries have limited more wars than they have encouraged. ,35
We would add only that Desiderius Erasmus, a much maligned thinker,
came to very similar conclusions 450 years ago.
A major problem with all analyses of Erasmus' positive thought on war
is that they focus on particular statements rather than the contexts of
those statements. Scholars have, as a result, failed to understand the
dynamics of his mind. There are two very distinct sides to his thought
and this fact, never clearly recognized, much less explained, has led to
perplexity and confusion. On the one side, war seems to be disallowed
absolutely; on the other side, war seems allowable.36

29Ibid.
30Ibid.
31Ibid., 307.
p.
3zIbid., 305.
p.
33And becauseboth sidescould
(and did) find a war just. Cf. DulceBellum:"Two armies
march against each other each carrying the standard of the cross ... and we make Christ
the witness and authority for so criminal a thing!" (Phillips, p. 321). Cf. the colloquy
"Charon" (1529):Priests "proclaim the very same thing [just war] on both sides.... But
if anyone doesget killed, he doesn't perish utterly but fliesstraight up to heaven, armed just
as he was.... What can a pretense of religion not achieve?"(Thompson,pp. 391-2). The
"straight up to heaven" criticism may well have been aimed at Gratian's Decretum.See II,
23.8, can. 9, 'Omni timore'; I, p. 955.
34Russell, 305.
p.
;Slbid., p. 308.
36The confusion is evidenced
by Pierre Brachin's claim (in line with Fernandez-
Santamaria and most analysts) that Erasmus was guilty of "hesitations," "evasiveness,"
"variations," "conditions,' and "confusion." Brachin concludes that Erasmus' extreme
pacifistic statements are merely "tactical" ploys. See his "Vox Clamantis in Deserto:
Reflexionssur le pacifismed' Erasme," in ColloquiaErasmianaTuronensia(Paris, 1972),I,
esp. pp. 265-68. According to Robert Regout, Erasmus often exaggerated, but this meth-
 59

On the seemingly pacifistic side, we read that war is entirely at odds

with nature and nature's reason. A truly wise person will always rule out
war, for war always entails more cost-economically, politically,
socially-than gain. In terms of economics, for example, sober calcula-
tions reveal that the destruction of men and property in war makes peace
cheap at any price.37 This is true, win or lose, and it matters not that the
war is considered legally "just." There is a price to pay for peace, but the
price of war is at least ten times greater. Erasmus expounds these ideas
often and in great detail.
The economic, political, and social costs of war are part and parcel of a
reason even more important why war should be absolutely disallowed:
Christ's precepts. Christ himself, as also Peter and Paul, "everywhere"
disapproves of war, and "the whole philosophy of Christ teaches against
it. "38 When Christ said "turn the other cheek," he meant it. "One com-
mandment Christ called his own-the commandment of love. What
could be more opposed to this than war?" "He gave his disciples nothing
but peace, only peace he left them. "39 "What agreement can there be
between military forces and the Church? One points to dissension, the
other to togetherness. "4° Christ's prohibition of war applied to all
humans equally, without regard to station, and to all types of wars
unconditionally. Robert P. Adams is quite wrong when he states that
Erasmus never questioned the justice of repelling invasion.41 Defensive
war-returning force with force ('vim vi')-is a human and worldly

odology led sympathizersastray and alienated adversaries-while the truth suffered. See
"Erasmus en de theorie van den rechtvaardigen oorlog," in Voordrachten gehoudenter
herdenkingvan densterfdagvan Erasmus(The Hague, 1936),p. 170.John C. Olin dismisses
the subject: "We need not enter into a niggling discussionas to whether his pacifismwas
total and absoluteor not."See "The Pacifismof Erasmus, " p.421. James D. Tracy's recent
work, The Politicsof Erasmus:A PacifistIntellectualand his PoliticalMilieu(Toronto, 1979),
reveals much regarding Erasmus' knowledge of political events but little regarding the
workings of his mind.
37 The
Complaintof Peace,trans. John P. Dolan in The EssentialErasmus(New York,
1964), p. 95; hereafter cited as Dolan.
38Born, 251
p.
Phillips,p. 327.
4" Dolan, 186.
p.
41 The BetterPart Valor
of (Seattle, 1962), p. 117.
60

response totally at odds (like offensive war) with Christ's teachings.

Erasmus emphasizes the point:

They say, why should we not cut the throats of those who cut ours? ... Do
you think it is a Christian deed to kill even the wicked ?42Christ told Peter to put
away the sword. Would He be defended with the sword who prayed for the
authors of His death while dying ?43If the sword which Christ ordered them to
buy after selling everything else [Luke 22:36] signifies a temperate self-defense
against pcrsccution (as some [i.e., scholastics] interpret it, not only ignorantly
but impiously) why did the martyrs never use it?44
Erasmus finds reason to be very pessimistic about the implementation
of these precepts. And this pessimism is every bit as pronounced in Dulce
Bellum and The Complaint of Peace as in his later writings, against a
common opinion.45 If experience does not teach, states The Complaint of
Peace (1517), why is it that Christ's "most cogent doctrine, that of peace,
has no effect among men? If nature is inadequate, then why is the more
powerful teaching of Christ also ineffective?' 41 "Has Christ with his
commandments and mysteries accomplished nothing?"47 Learning pro-
duces men: "What a disillusion! "4s "Neither nature, nor nature's reason,
nor Christ himself mean a thing." "Nowhere is there any trace of
humanity. "49 Christians, so called, fight men, and "worst of all, Chris-
tians fight Christians." "No one is astonished, no one is horrified. ,50
Scholastics and others are determined to bend Christ's precepts until they
fit, ever so conveniently, ever so worldly, particular and general desires.
Near the conclusion of Dulce Bellum, we find what may seem to be a
consequence of this pessimism:
Our one aim in life is to take flight from this life ... as unburdened as we
may, if we strive with all our might towards heavenly things, if we place our
whole happiness in Christ alone, if we believe that everything truly good, truly

'`'`
Phillips,p. 344.
43Dolan, 186.
p.
''4
Phillips,p. 337.
4' Even Robert P. Adam's
appreciative(and influential)work, TI2eBetterPart of Valor,
emphasizes that Erasmus' early views exhibit optimism while his later views, allegedly
more informed by hard political realities, exhibit pessimism.
46Dolan, 180.
p.
47Ibid., 187.
p.
48Ibid., 181.
p.
49
Phillips,p. 316.
50 Ibid.,p. 321.
 61

splendid, truly joyful, exists only in him; if we are convinced that no one can
harm the faithful, if we consider how empty and ephemeral the playthings of
human life are.51
And we can understand why Margaret Mann Phillips, Eberhard von
Koerber, and so many others, contend (with less evidence than we have
given) that in his early writings Erasmus was an absolute pacifist.52 But is
this conclusion correct?
There was another side to Erasmus' thought. In seeming contradiction
to the pacifistic theme, Erasmus explicitly and repeatedly denies that he
has ever ruled out war absolutely. And these denials are found even in his
earliest writings on war-not far from his pacifistic statements. So much,
again, for the claim that Erasmus' views changed when he was later
confronted with hard reality, the incursions of the Turks, and the criti-
cisms of philosophers.53 In an important letter to Leo X, in 1515, he
grants that physical wars as well as spiritual wars ought to be carried
on. 54 In the 1515 Dulce Bellum, he categorically denies that he is absolute-
ly condemning an expedition against the Turks.55 By 1518 we find him
replying to those who, like moderns, failed to understand this side of his
position. In the letter to Paul Volz, which prefaced the 1518 Enchiridion,
one reads:

If anyone recalls that it is truly apostolic to draw the Turks to religion with the
help of Christ rather than arms, he is immediately suspected of teaching, as it
were, that the Turks should in no way be checked if they attack Christians. 56
51Ibid., 351.
p.
52
Accordingto Phillips, "There is no suggestionin his great writings againstwar (Dulce
Bellum,Complaintof Peace)of any circumstancesin which war could bejustified."Erasmus
"felt there were no casesin which war could possiblybe in harmony with the Gospel." "If
this is not complete pacifism ... it is difficultto understand his position." See her edition
of The Adages(Cambridge, England, 1964),pp. 113-14.In Koerber's view, Erasmus' early
works, Dulce Bellum, 7'he Educationof the ChristianPrince, and The Complaintof Peace,
exhibit "unrestrained pacifism." See Die Staatstheoriedes Erasmusvon Rotterdam(Berlin,
1967), p. 101.
53
According to Fernandez-Santamaria,Erasmus' views had to change. Since the "just
war" approach worked out by scholasticphilosophers was the only valid approach, and
since Erasmus was lacking in philosophical acuity, but not entirely lacking in natural
intelligenceand awarenessof events, Erasmus' "ultimate surrender" was "inevitable." See
The State, War andPeace,pp. 122, 143n., 150passism,and "Erasmus on the JustWar," pp.
219, 220, 224.
54Allen, Erasmi
Epistolae,no. 335, 11.163-82; hereafter cited as Allen.
ss Phillips,p. 348.
56Trans.
John C. Olin (New York, 1965), pp. 123-4; hereafter cited as Olin.
62

Discussing a new humanist edition of the writings of Tertullian, in a

1521 letter, Erasmus faults the lattcr's utopian and "erroneous" view that
war among Christians is not allowed: "If one would make a bent stick
straight, it must be bent in the opposite direction.
Other major arguments in his writings on war are far from the utopian
absolutism of Christ's message. Change is difficult and only takes place
slowly, over long periods of time. Writings such as the Dulce Bellum and
the Utilissima Consultatio de Bello Turcis Inferetido (1530) emphasize that
the habit of war can be eliminated only gradually, little by little
(paulatim).58 This is only natural, for the extremes of modern warfare
have developed gradually, over the centuries. In one long and detailed
discussion of this phenomenon of gradualism, Erasmus even rationalizes
cannibalism: If cannabalism had ever been carried out by necessity alone
it might have been excusable, but now we kill with machines and with-
out humanity. 59 Earlier we mentioned Erasmus' claim, in Dulce Bellurrl,
that "our one aim in life is to take flight from life." Only a few pages
away we find a statement which seems prima facie, contradictory: "the
end and aim of the faith of the Gospel is conduct. "60 Action in an im-
perfect world is here the sine qua non of Christianity.
I know of no instance in any writings by Erasmus, early or late, where
he, Erasmus the person, rules out war absolutely. Erasmus claims that
Christ's teachings deny war absolutely, but Erasmus the person never
denies war absolutely. Why? Does not Erasmus make a fool of himself?
What does he accuse scholastics of, if not of conveniently bending abso-
lute truth to fit immediate worldly desires and practical needs? Does not
the apparent contradiction illustrate the naivete and philosophic shallow-
ness of Erasmus' mind? Were contemporary scholastics, and their mod-
ern followers, correct in their various criticisms?
A more analytic reading of the contents of all our quotations will
prove that there are in fact no contradictions in the thought of Erasmus

57Allen, no.
1232, II. 56-57.
58
Phillips, p. 330; UtilissimaConsi4ltatio
de BelloTunis Itiferendo(hereaftercited as Con-
sultatio),in Opera Omnia(Leiden, 1703-06;hereaftercited as LB), 10, 368A.Jacques Cho-
marat discussesErasmus' use of "paulatim" in the Paraphrases,in "Grammar and Rhetoric
in the Paraphrasesof the Gospels by Erasmus," Erasmuso,f Rntterdam SocietyYearbookOne
(1981), pp. 60, 66, passim.
59
Phillips, p. 316.
6° Ibid., 346.
p.
 63
on war. There are two sides to his thought, but they are not con-
tradictory. He does not say in one place that Christ denies war absolutely
and then elsewhere, as if forgetting himself, that Christ allows it. Christ
never allows war. But there is another side to Christ. Christ shows us
how to cope with the real-life reality of war; how to make war less
attractive, less practiced, less evil. There is more to Christian truth than
abstractions (even if these abstractions are non-scholastic). As The Praise
of Folly states, and in so many ways illustrates, some things are "truer
than truth itself" (vero verius).61 The truth of Christ is as closely related to
the vita activa as to the vita contemplativa. Christ taught truth with his life,
as well as with his precepts. Christ was perfect, yet he alone knew how
to deal with the imperfect human world. He alone lived exactly what he
taught. This in itself gives the lie to scholastics, for whom high-sounding
words are never implemented and are mere covers for deceit. Christ was
no utopian; he did not attempt to overcome imperfections immediately.
He "did not extinguish the smoking flax nor break the bruised reed,
according to the prophecy, but cherished and bore with the imperfect
until it could grow better."12 Christ does not physically compel men to
reform'3 and thus conform to absolute truth; he "invites" and "draws"
men little by little and in accordance with their situation." And nature is
in entire conformity with this method.
Ordinary mortals must, like Christ, "draw" and "invite" others. But
precisely how? Against a common opinion, 65 again, Erasmus never be-
lieved that eloquent words (though far more effective than the language

61ASD
(OmniaoperaDesideriiErasmiRoterodami,Amsterdam, 1969- ), IV-3, 621.
62
Phillips, p. 346.
For instance, Paraphrasisad Romanos,LB, 7, 788E.
64For instance, Consultatio,367B and 368A. Albert Rabil has much to
say about "invit-
ing" and "drawing," though in a diffcrent context, in Erasmusand the New Testament(San
Antonio, 1972).
65The common
opinion is illustratedby the failureof scholarsto criticizeJ. H. Hexter's
claim (contrasting the "open-eyed" and "hard-headed" realism of Thomas More) that
humanistsofErasmian vintage "were sustainedin their effortsby an abiding trust that mere
verbal utterance, effectivelyarranged, appropriatelyvaried, and frequently repeated, does
indeedactuallyperform work in the world.""To the ancientand traditionalsocialcriticism
and satire Erasmusimparted a high literary polish, and that is about all." SeeMore's'Utopia:
The Biographyof an Idea' (Ncw York, 1952), pp. 123, 63, passim.I examine in detail the
"realism" of Erasmus and the relationshipto More's Utopiain my book, nearing comple-
tion, titled Warand Rhetoric:Erasmus,More, Quiroga,and the SpanishNew World.
64

of logicians) would in themselves go far in solving fundamental social

problems. Manner of life is the sine qua non. The soldier of Christ must
learn, first of all, following St. Paul, to "be all things to all men. " But in
adapting to all men outwardly-with gentleness, affability, friendliness,
agreeableness-our inward resolution must remain firm.66 This is the
rub. As The Praise o, f Follyso graphically illustrates, abstract truth has no
effect on the generality of men, yet few adherents of abstract truth are
able to join the world without deceitfully succumbing to it.
What separates Erasmus from most moralists (and many analysts pass
over this) is his insistence in his thought on war that Christian behavior
should not merely accord with certain canons but that Christian behavior
has, through the imitation which it evokes, direct and predictable social
consequences. The life of a prince, for example, is mirrored in the be-
havior of his peoples "The affections of the populace are won by those
characteristics which, in general, are farthest removed from tyranny.
They are clemency, affability, fairness, courtesy and kindliness. "(,8 Kind-
ness compels kindness. Forbearance generates forbearance.69 But bad
example is every bit as powerful as good example. The Turks are being
devastated by bad example. Turks hear the words of Christianity, but see
the opposite. They observe at first hand Christian ambition, avarice, lust,
and cruelty. Worst of all, they see Christians fighting Christians. How
they must laugh at such deceit! The effect is more deadly than it would be
if Christianity did not even exist. "We complain of wars when we our-
selves are the ones who invite war. "70 What an effect the "mighty
eloquence"71 of good example would have on them.
Erasmus' thought on war cannot be grasped by thinking in terms of
"either/or": either abstract truth or the bending of truth to fit reality;
either absolute pacifism or a caving-in to Turkish advances and the need
to punish evildoers. One must think instead in terms of "both/and":
both abstract truth and the truths of practical implementation. These two
types of truth are inseparable: the more abstract, the more realistic; the
more realistic, the more abstract. In Erasmus' argument, the logicians
lacked both the abstract model and the means of implementation.

66 The Enchiridion,trans. and ed.

Raymond Himelick (Bloomington, 1963), p. 160.
67Born, 156-7.
pp.
68 Ibid.,p. 209.
69
QuerelaPacis,LB, 4, 637E.
70Consultatio,360F.
71
Phillips, p. 348.
 65

The lack of an absolute model (the constant bending of truth to fit

human standards, desires, and perceived necessities) was particularly
critical, for it made logicians blind to even the need for implementation.
In the Sileni Alcibiadis (1515), he exclaims: "Why do we mix up together
things which are so conflicting? Earthly and heavenly, highest and low-
est, heathen and Christian, profane and sacred-why do we confuse
them all?"" Near the conclusion of Dulce Bellum: "If Christ is a figment,
why do we not frankly reject him? Why do we glory in his name?' 73 In
many places Erasmus argues that Christ is the "scopus," the target
toward which all must strive.

Therefore, if you set forth a worldly target in place of the heavenly one [like
scholastics], that man who strives to advance will not have the goal for which he
may rightly make the effort. That which is highest must be fixed upon by all of
us so that we may at least attain that which is mediocre
The title of an adage puts it succinctly: "Try for the highest, and you
"75 Erasmus'
may achieve a moderate result. commentary explicitly con-
trasts this view with that of the "Aristotelian" theologians. As an Eras-
mian Carthusian states in a 1523 colloquy, in response to the taunt of a
soldier, "If we cannot come up to Christianity, at least we follow after
it. "76 With an unbending model, it is never possible to be lulled into
complacency or self satisfaction. There is always an infinite distance to
travel and our own faults, rather than the faults of others, are at the fore.
With such a model we can at least reverse our priorities when dealing
with war, from material war to spiritual war.
If even the best of humans now and then find war allowable, war is
never justifiable in terms of Christ. As stated in Dulce Bellum: "A doctor
who is truly Christian never approves of war; perhaps sometimes he may
think it is permissible, but with reluctance and sorrow. "77 Or take The
Education of the Christian Prince: The Church Fathers now and then allow
war, but who wants to consider the many times they condemn and abhor
it? "Why do we slur over all these matters and fasten upon that which

72
Phillips,pp. 289-90.
73
Phillips,p. 352.
74Olin, 121.
p.
75
Phillips,p. 111.
7(,ASD, 1-3, 316, 1. 89.
p.
"
Phillips,p. 338.
66

helps our sins?' 71 Or consider the Consultatio on the Turks (1530) where
he remarks that his purpose in writing is not to deny the possible neces-
sity of war, "but to demonstrate that the more flourishing was the true
evangelical spirit in the church the more living was its horror of wars and
capital punishment. In a 1529 reply to Noel Beda, Erasmus desires to
know, and quite correctly, how he can be accused of absolute pacifism
when he has so often discussed the moderation which should be practiced
in war. "And yet it is true," he adds, "that if one regards Christ and the
words of the Apostle [Paul] and the origins of the church, Christians are
forbidden to make war. "80 What must one do, he asks in the 1518 letter
to Volz, when the rules of Christian charity "clash with those practices
which have been accepted in the public usage of the ages and which have
been sanctioned by the laws of princes? For this frequently occurs."81
There can be but one answer: "Do not corrupt the heavenly philosophy
of Christ with human decrees. "82 "Do not immediately make Christ the
author of that which is done by princes or secular officials, nor claim that
it is done by divine right, as they now say. "83
On a few occasions Erasmus refers to the theoretical possibility of a
"just" war. What does he mean? Noting one such discussion, Eberhard
von Kocrber reports that Erasmus here shows us his "real" views, as
opposed to his "propagandistic" denials of war. Expressing himself with
"modern clarity," Erasmus enumerates conditions under which just war
is possible and these conditions, states Koerber, reveal that Erasmus is a
precursor of Hugo Grotius.84 Another German scholar, Otto Schotten-
loher, seeing Erasmus' thought here in a similar light, speaks at length of
his "lex belli. "85 In truth, however, there is nothing startling in Erasmus'
discussions of "just" war, no change in viewpoint, nothing that ties him

?8 Born,p. 253.
356C.
79 CmlSl¡/tatio,
s° LB, 9, 708F-709A.
81Olin,
pp. 117-18.
82 Ibid., p. 118.
83Ibid.,
pp. 119-20. Variationson these themes are found in Erasmus' Annotations(1516)
on Luke 22:36, in LB, 6, c. g. 320E and 321E.
84Die Staatstheorie, 100.
p.
85Otto Schottenloher, "Lex Naturae und Lex Christi bei Erasmus," ScriniumEras-
miatlllm(Leiden,1969),II, esp. pp. 296-7. In his translationof LB, 4, 637F(QuerelaPacis),
Dolan renders "qui simplici pioque studio" and "suo periculo" as "who undertake legiti-
mate war" (195). Like others he reads scholasticways of thinking into Erasmus.
 67

to scholastic thought. And such statements are found even in Erasmus'

earliest writings. Erasmus is merely discussing the truths of implementa-
tion, the indirect approach. If humans find it necessary to
become involved in war now and then, notwithstanding all their efforts,
let them carry out the war without ambition, wrath, ferocity, or greed-
and especially, without deceit of themselves or others. If a war were ever
carried out in this way, which none at present is, it "might be called
just."" Erasmus is not affirming scholastic "conditions" or a scholastic
methodology. Nor is he denying the absolute pacifism of Christ's
precepts.
Erasmus did what the logicians were not able even to conceive. He
stepped outside the standard and accepted ways of thinking about war.
Were we to eliminate blinders imposed by the philosophic tradition, we
might see Erasmus' thought on war as it was: a profound attempt, build-
ing on the rhetorical tradition, to come to grips with theoretical and
practical realities of his time.

UNIVERSITY
OF WISCONSIN-MARINETTE

86Born, 252.
p.