Erasmus and the Other On Turks Jews

and Indigenous Peoples Nathan Ron

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/erasmus-and-the-other-on-turks-jews-and-indigenous
-peoples-nathan-ron/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Indigenous Peoples and Mining Good Practice Guide 2nd

Edition International Council On Mining & Metals

https://textbookfull.com/product/indigenous-peoples-and-mining-
good-practice-guide-2nd-edition-international-council-on-mining-
metals/

Indigenous Peoples Consent and Rights Troubling

Subjects Stephen Young

https://textbookfull.com/product/indigenous-peoples-consent-and-
rights-troubling-subjects-stephen-young/

Sovereignty and Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples in

the United States Wayne Edwards

https://textbookfull.com/product/sovereignty-and-land-rights-of-
indigenous-peoples-in-the-united-states-wayne-edwards/

Indigenous Peoples as Subjects of International Law

Irene Watson (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/indigenous-peoples-as-subjects-
of-international-law-irene-watson-editor/
Corporate Responsibility And Human Rights Global Trends
And Issues Concerning Indigenous Peoples Jide James-
Eluyode

https://textbookfull.com/product/corporate-responsibility-and-
human-rights-global-trends-and-issues-concerning-indigenous-
peoples-jide-james-eluyode/

Indigenous Peoples Governance of Land and Protected

Territories in the Arctic 1st Edition Thora Martina
Herrmann

https://textbookfull.com/product/indigenous-peoples-governance-
of-land-and-protected-territories-in-the-arctic-1st-edition-
thora-martina-herrmann/

The Greening of Costa Rica Women Peasants Indigenous

Peoples and the Remaking of Nature 1st Edition Ana Isla

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-greening-of-costa-rica-
women-peasants-indigenous-peoples-and-the-remaking-of-nature-1st-
edition-ana-isla/

Indigenous Peoples, Marine Space and Resources, and

International Law : The Interaction Between
International Human Rights Law and the Law of the Sea
1st Edition Enyew
https://textbookfull.com/product/indigenous-peoples-marine-space-
and-resources-and-international-law-the-interaction-between-
international-human-rights-law-and-the-law-of-the-sea-1st-
edition-enyew/

The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 2357 to 2471 1st

Edition Desiderius Erasmus

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-correspondence-of-erasmus-
letters-2357-to-2471-1st-edition-desiderius-erasmus/
Erasmus and
the “Other”
On Turks, Jews, and
Indigenous Peoples

Nathan Ron
Erasmus and the “Other”
 Nathan Ron

Erasmus
and the “Other”
On Turks, Jews, and Indigenous Peoples
Nathan Ron
School of History
University of Haifa
Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel

ISBN 978-3-030-24928-1 ISBN 978-3-030-24929-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24929-8

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © Harvey Loake

This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

This book, I dare say, is the first full treatment of Erasmus’ views of the
“other.” The book explores how Erasmus viewed non-Christians and dif-
ferent races, including Muslims, Jews, Amerindians and black Africans.1
It deals also with related issues such as waging a crusade against the
Turks, war and peace in general, and the wishful thinking of converting
the Turks and the Jews to Christianity.
Until the late 1960s Erasmus’ attitude toward the “other” received
little attention, if at all, in modern research. Prominent historians and
monographers of Erasmus hardly dealt with it. Thus, Johan Huizinga’s
Erasmus and the Age of the Reformation, which appeared in 1924,
reprinted in 1957, is completely devoid of the words Jew, Jews, Jewish,
Judaism etc. Preserved Smith’s very detailed monograph Erasmus:
A Study of His Life, Ideals and Place of History, published in 1923,
reprinted in 1962, has passim mentions of Jews, but lacks any focal treat-
ment of the subject—there is no chapter or subchapter dealing with it.

1In referring to the indigenous peoples of America (central and south) I have avoided, as

much as possible, using the term “barbarians” which was generally used by Bartolomé de
Las Casas and Erasmus. I use the word ‘Amerindians,’ short for American Indians, which
is the term found in the translations to English of Las Casas’ writings, such as In Defense
of the Indians, and A. Pagden and J. Lawrance’s translation of Francisco de Vitoria, which
contains the relection On the American Indians. Thus, De bello contra Indos is translated
there as On the War against the Indians (p. 231). The reader should bear in mind that
in this book this usage is entirely historiographical and of no legal or other denotation
whatsoever.

v
vi    Preface

The year 1969 marks some change with the appearance of Guido Kisch’s
Erasmus’ Stellung zu Juden und Judentum, the first monograph (39
pages in all) dealing with part of the issue—not the “other,” but the
Jews. Then came the translation from French to English of Shimon
Markish’s book—Erasmus and the Jews (1986).
It was fondly received. Erasmus’ indifferent attitude, a-Semitism,
as Markish called it, was warmly welcome and became almost commu-
nis opinio. Other monographs from that time on devoted a page or two,
occasionally a few paragraphs, to Jews and Turks. The partial treatment
of the issue was sometimes of high quality, as in Cornelis Augustijn’s,
originally written in German, Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence
(1991), and in James D. Tracy’s, Erasmus of the Low Countries (1996).
However, a full comparative study, dealing with Erasmus’ attitudes not
just toward Jews, but also toward Turks or Muslims, Amerindians and
black Africans, was hitherto not published, and this book is the first of its
kind.
Unsurprisingly, Erasmus is the main focus of interest of this book.
However, other figures are dealt with too. A gallery of Renaissance per-
sonae and their relevant outlook is situated in comparison to Erasmus.
These are Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (=Pope Pius II), Nicholas of Cusa,
Bartolomé Las Casas, Michael Servetus, Sebastian Franck and Sebastian
Castellio. By employing such a method one can obtain some enlight-
ening results, such as the intriguing influence of Erasmus on Las Casas’
thought. Another result is the conclusion that Erasmus’ attitude toward
the Turks and Islam, as expressed in his De bello Turcico (1530) in par-
ticular, was significantly inferior, in terms of religious tolerance, to the
attitude that Nicolas of Cusa demonstrated in his inspiring De Pace Fidei
(1453).
Both “Eurocentrism” and “racism” are used in this book. A state of
fluidity existed—still exists—between the two. The book’s arguments are
tested and approved against two reductive state of the art definitions of
racism which require the existence of deterministic and unalterable char-
acteristics of the “other” in order that racism would be recognized as
such. Thus, Erasmus’ smearing of a Cardinal as being born to a Jewish
mother and stating that his appearance and manner of speaking clearly
testify to his Jewishness, is a racist smear according to these definitions.
Eurocentrism means the evaluation of the “other” by a set of values
which are foreign to him, namely Christian-European values. Erasmus’
 Preface    vii

objection to the conclusion of international agreements between

European states and the Ottoman empire, or Muslim nations in general,
is one example of his Eurocentric worldview.
Erasmus was within the familiar tradition of contempt and denigration
as far as the “others” were concerned, Jews in particular. Grading and
degrading of peoples were imbedded in his thought. Turkophobic and
racial antisemitic expressions stain his writings. Often they are religious/
theological by their core, yet racial by their manifestations or implica-
tions. However, those voices which link, directly or indirectly, Erasmus’
pockets’ of racial antisemitism to Nazi antisemitism, or even to its Satanic
aftermath, should be utterly rejected. Erasmus did play a distinct role in
the evolvement of the longest hatred. Yet, his particular antisemitic effect
on his contemporaries or later readers is unknown to us and cannot be
measured. Most probably, it had less impact than the seeds of inflamma-
tory antisemitism which Martin Luther planted. Overlooking Erasmus’
racial antisemitic expressions, or leniently judging them, are wrong.
Linking Erasmus to Nazi antisemitism or to its aftermath, are a despica-
ble absurdity.

Kiryat Bialik, Israel Nathan Ron

 Acknowledgements

The book sums-up a decade of research which started with preparing a

Ph.D. dissertation (in Hebrew) titled Erasmus on Islam and the Turks:
Peace, War and the Conception of Alterity in Erasmus’ Thought, super-
vised by Prof. Joseph Ziegler and Dr. Zur Shalev and submitted to The
University of Haifa. The encouragement and support of both scholars
has been paramount.
My utmost gratitude is extended to Prof. Erika Rummel whose exper-
tise, learned guidance and supportive friendship along years of enriching
contacts have been indispensable to me.
I am greatly indebted to the reviewers of my manuscript, Prof. Raz
Chen-Morris and the anonymous reader. Without their inquisitive eye
and constructive comments the manuscript could not have become a
book.
I am grateful to the team at Palgrave, in particular Phil Getz and Amy
Invernizzi, for their professional efficiency as well as kind attitude and
patience.
Aviva my wife made it possible for me to exploit the precious morning
hours for studying and writing. She tenderly endures my weird on-going
attraction to Erasmus. I owe her so much.

Kiryat Bialik, Israel Nathan Ron

ix
 Contents

Part I Introduction

1 Introduction: Eurocentrism and Racism 3

Part II Turks

2 Turkish Essence 29

3 Conversion or War 37

4 The Origin of the Turks 47

5 Erasmus and Nicholas of Cusa on Islam 61

6 Erasmus’ and Las Casas’ Conception of Barbarian

Peoples 77

7 Displays of Tolerance Toward Islam 97

xi
xii    Contents

Part III Jews

8 Methodological Remarks 121

9 Shimon Markish Revisited 127

10 Purification 141

11 By Race Jews, by Religion Christians 147

12 Learned Converts and Erasmians 155

13 Muslims Are Superior to Jews 161

Part IV Conclusions

14 Conclusions 167

Bibliography 173

Index 189
 Abbreviations

ASD  Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (Amsterdam:

Elsevier, 1969–).
COE  Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of
the Renaissance and Reformation, vols. 1–3, ed. Peter G.
Bietenholz and Thomas B. Deutscher (Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1985–1987).
Comment. Pius II. Commentaries 2 vols., eds. Margaret Meserve and
Marcello Simonetta (Harvard, The I Tatti Renaissance
Library, Harvard University Press, 2003–2007).
Nicolai de Cusa Cribratio Alkorani. Edidit commentariis-
Cribratio Alkorani 
que illustravit Ludovicus Hagemann. XXXIX, 370 paginae.
Hamburgi: in aedibus Felicis Meiner, 1986 (Nicolai de
Cusa opera omnia iussu et auctoritate academiae litterarum
Heidelbergensis ad codicum fidem edita; Volumen VIII).
CWE  Collected Works of Erasmus (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1974–).
De pace fidei  Nicolai de Cusa De pace fidei. Cum epistula ad Ioannem
de Segobia. Ediderunt commentariisque illustraverunt
Raymundus Klibanky et Hildebrandus Bascour, O.S.B.
lviii, 135 paginae. Hamburgi: in aedibus Felicis Meiner,
1959 (Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia iussu et auctori-
tate academiae litterarum Heidelbergensis ad codicum
fidem edita; Volumen VII). Editio altera. LVIII, 136
paginae; 2 tabulae. Hamburgi: in aedibus Felicis Meiner,
1970 (Nicolai de Cusa opera omnia iussu et auctoritate

xiii
xiv    Abbreviations

academiae litterarum Heidelbergensis ad codicum fidem

edita; Volumen VII).
Ep  Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, ed.
P. S. Allen and H. M. Allen, 12 vols. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1906–1958).
Hopkins  Nicholas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei And Cribratio Alkorani
in Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of
Nicholas of Cusa translated by Jasper Hopkins, 2 Vols.
(Minneapolis/Minnesota: The Arthur J. Banning Press,
2001).
LB  Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera omnia. Edited by Jean
Le Clerc. 10 vols. Leiden: Van der Aa, 1703–1706.
Opera  Aeneæ Syluij Piccolominei Senensis […] Opera quæ extant
omnia, (Basel: Henrich Petri, 1551; reprint Frankfurt,
1967).
Pii II. P. M. olim Aeneae Sylvii Piccolominei […] Orationes
Orationes 
politicae, et ecclesiasticae. Edidit Joannes Dominicus Mansi,
Pars I (Lucae: Benedini, 1755).
WA  D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesammtausgabe
(Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883–1929).
 PART I

Introduction
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Eurocentrism and Racism

Abstract Both “Eurocentrism” and “racism” are used in this book. Euro-
centrism, as used here, means judging the “other” according to Christian-
European values. The Eurocentric observation is twisted because it expects,
or desires, the “other” to adapt himself to a cultural conception foreign to
him. Thus, populus Christianus was immeasurably superior to Muslims and
to non-Christians in general. Erasmus’ objection to the conclusion of inter-
national agreements between Europeans and Turks, or Muslims in general,
is one example of his Eurocentric worldview. As for racism, against two
reductive definitions of racism phrased by different scholars and presented
here, the book’s arguments are tested and approved.

Keywords Eurocentrism · Racism · Erasmus · Agreements · Hierarchy ·

Turks

This book is about Erasmus’ ethnology. It aims at defining and classifying

his attitudes toward non-Christians. No comprehensive research on Eras-
mus’ ethnological mind has hitherto been published. Erasmus’ attitudes
toward Turks and Jews have been discussed by researchers analytically but
neither synthetically nor comparatively, as is in this work. Thus, only one
and “a half” books on Erasmus and the Jews are to be found, namely Shi-
mon Markish’s book, which was translated from French, and Guido Kish’s

© The Author(s) 2019 3

N. Ron, Erasmus and the “Other”,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24929-8_1
4 N. RON

booklet—39 pages (in German) and based on Erasmus’ letters only.1 As

for Erasmus and the Turks, no monograph at all has been written on this
subject.2 This book analyzes Erasmus’ attitude toward not just Turks and
Jews, but also Amerindians and Black Africans, making use of Erasmus’
scarce assertions on these two last groups.3
Another innovation, methodological in essence, which the book
presents, is the situating of Erasmus’ thought concerning issues such as
waging a crusade, war and peace, conversion of the Turks to Christianity,
vis-à-vis some intriguing contemporaries who dealt with such issues in their
writings or actions. These figures include the cosmographer and humanist
who became Pope Pius II, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (1405–1464); the
philosopher, scholar, and Cardinal, Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464); and
the Dominican missionary, the famous defender of the Amerindians, Bar-
tolomé Las Casas (1484–1566). Positioning Erasmus against each of the
aforesaid personae enables us to arrive at a sharper comprehension of both
sides of the comparison: Erasmus as well as these protagonists. One can
watch Erasmus and Luther positioning themselves against each other in
their famous debate on free will and salvation.4 Undoubtedly, attention to

1 Guido Kisch, Erasmus ’ Stellung zu Juden und Judentum (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr; Paul
Siebeck, 1969); Shimon Markish, Erasmus and the Jews, trans. Anthony Ollcot (Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press, 1986). As pointed in the preface, most monographes, if
not all, dealing with Erasmus and the Jews delimit their treatment to some scattered references,
or a few pages at most, see notes 9–10, Chapter 9. Certain essays are significant but limited
to a specific point and unavoidably do not cover the whole issue, see, e.g., n. 38, Chapter 9.
2 Specific surveys relating to Erasmus’ tract De bello Turcico, the main source for Erasmus
and the Turks, can be found in ASD V-3 (Introduction, in German, by A. G. Weiler) and
CWE 64 (introductory note and annotations by Michael J. Heath)—see n. 1, Chapter, 2. In
that context, see also A. G. Weiler, “The Turkish Argument and Christian Piety in Desiderius
Erasmus’ ‘Consultatio de Bello Turcis inferendo’ (1530),” in J. Weiland Sperna and W. T. M.
Frijoff (eds.), Erasmus of Rotterdam the Man and the Scholar (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 30–39;
Terence J. Martin, “The Prospects for Holy War: A Reading of a “Consultation” from Eras-
mus,” Erasmus Studies 36 (2016): 195–217; Adam S. Francisco, Martin Luther and Islam:
A Study in Sixteenth-Century Polemics and Apologetics (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), has
a few scattered references to the issue of Erasmus and the Turks (e.g., pp. 43, 50).
3 On the usage of the term Amerindians, see my explanatory note in the preface. Erasmus’
references to Africa, India or the New World are scarce, but Luther’s are scarcer. See Lyndal
Roper, Martin Luther: Renegade and Prophet (New York: Random House, 2016), 405 (all
references are to the paperback edition). In accordance with this, but due to other reasons as
well (see n. 6, Chapter 1), the research regarding Erasmus and these lands has been poor.
4 The debate between Erasmus and Luther took place in 1524–1525 when Erasmus pub-
lished “On Free Will” (De libero arbitrio, 1524) and Luther responded with “On the Bondage
 1 INTRODUCTION: EUROCENTRISM AND RACISM 5

their positioning sharpens our comprehension of their views. Since Eras-

mus did not have similar debates with any of the aforesaid personalities, I
have taken it upon myself to develop a comparison of the positioning of
Erasmus against these protagonists regarding their views on the “other.”
Erasmus is also positioned in this book, in a different context, against
three other challenging figures of his time: the theologian, physician, and
humanist Michael Servetus (1509 or 1511–1553); the humanist, theolo-
gian, and religious reformer Sebastian Franck (1499–ca. 1543); and the
humanist, theologian, religious reformer, and protagonist of religious tol-
eration, Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563).5 The relevance to our study of
Erasmus is their nonconformism and freethinking in general, and their rela-
tion to Islam and the Turks in particular. Besides, they were contemporary
with Erasmus and had some sort of notional linkage to him.
Erasmus’ Turkophobic rhetoric as well as his Judeophobic assertions
stemmed very much from his fear and hatred of these two non-Christian
peoples. But they also derived from his Eurocentric contempt for non-
European peoples. Eurocentrism, as I use it in this book, means judging the
“other” according to Christian-European values. The Eurocentric observa-
tion is essentially twisted because it expects, or desires, the “other” to adapt
himself to a cultural conception foreign to him.6 Thus, populus Christianus

of the Will” (De servo arbitrio, 1525). Later, Erasmus added a work (Hyperaspistes, 1526) that
drew much less attention.
5 Toleration (or tolerance), as used in this book, does not refer (unless otherwise stated)
to medieval legal tolerantia, e.g., the certification given to Jews to live in a certain place at
a certain time. It indicates religious freedom or religious pluralism, however limited, which
started to evolve, not without a struggle, in sixteenth-century Europe. See Hans R. Gug-
gisberg, Sebastian Castellio, 1515–1563: Humanist and Defender of Religious Toleration in a
Confessional Age, trans. Bruce Gordon (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 6; idem “The Defense
of Religious Toleration and Religious Liberty in Early Modern Europe: Argument, Pressures
and Some Consequences,” History of European Ideas 4 (1983): 36, 38; Perez Zagorin, How
the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the World (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2003), 6. For tolerantia as a legal certification, see Istvan Bejczy, “Tolerantia: A Medieval
Concept,” Journal of the History of Ideas 58 (1997): 365–384.
6 Finn Fuglestad, The Ambiguities of History: The Problem of Ethnocentrism in Histori-
cal Writing (Oslo: Oslo Academic Press, 2005). In his first chapter (pp. 9–22), Fuglestad
responds to H. R. Trevor Roper’s Eurocentric (and ethnocentric) statement that black Africa
has no history, expressed in a radio broadcast and later in his Rise of Christian Europe (London:
Thames and Hudson, 1965), 9: “Perhaps in the future, there will be some African history to
teach. But at present there is none, or very little: there is only the history of the Europeans
in Africa.” On Eurocentrism, see also Walter D. Mignolo, The Darker Side of Western Moder-
nity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options (Durham: Duke University Press, 2011), 110–111;
6 N. RON

was immeasurably superior to Muslims and to non-Christians in general.

Religious pluralism did not exist for Erasmus. Christianity, as a set of values
and implications, was the sole measure for all things.
In a recent study, Geraldine Heng presents her maximalist approach
of race. She sees it as “a structural relationship for the articulation and
management of human differences, rather than a substantive content.”7
Accordingly, such terms as “ethnocentrism,” “xenophobia,” “premodern
discriminations,” “prejudice,” “chauvinism,” even “fear of otherness and
difference,” which have been used comfortably by historians to character-
ize the massacres, brutalizations, executions, and mass expulsions during
the Middle Ages—should be replaced by “racism.”8 Without making any
judgment about this wide-ranging definition of the term racism, I prefer to
test my arguments against reductive definitions of racism, such as the one
phrased by Miriam Eliav-Feldon, Benjamin Isaac, and Joseph Ziegler:

racism can be understood profitably only if it is seen in precise terms as an

idea, or set of ideas, and an ideology. In other words, the essential difference
between racism and other forms of prejudice and chauvinism is that the char-
acteristics of the other are determined by nature while the latter attributes
them to custom, social forces or education and the like. The former unlike
the latter thus claim that characteristics are unalterable and passed on from
one generation to the next.9

idem, The Idea of Latin America (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 15–34 (Eurocentrism dominated
European attitudes toward native Americans in Latin America); Samir Amin, Eurocentrism,
trans. Russel Moore (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1989), 72–73: “From that time on
(i.e., the Renaissance—N. R.) Europeans become conscious of the idea that the conquest of
the world by their civilization is a possible objective. They therefore develop a sense of abso-
lute superiority […] From this moment on, and not before, Eurocentrism crystallizes.” Amin
relies extensively on Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978) and on
M. Bernal, Black Athena: The Afro-Asiatic Roots of Classical Civilization (New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press, 1987). Bernal’s thesis regarding the Afro-Asian roots of classical
culture is integrated within the Afrocentric approach, which rejects the Eurocentric concep-
tualization of the West as the sole standard by which to evaluate other cultures, ignoring the
significant contributions made by Africans to world civilization and human progress.
7 Geraldine Heng, The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2018), 3, 19.
8 Ibid., 4, 23.
9 Miriam Eliav-Feldon, Benjamin Isaac, and Joseph Ziegler “Introduction,” in Miriam
Eliav-Feldon, Benjamin Isaac, and Joseph Ziegler (eds.), The Origins of Racism in the West
(Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 12.
 1 INTRODUCTION: EUROCENTRISM AND RACISM 7

No less reductive is the definition of Joan-Pau Rubiés, who argues that

racism “would focus on the existence of a fully worked out theory of how
humankind can be classified according to fundamental biological differ-
ences that are transmitted genetically and which have an impact on cultural
capacities, with the corollary that there exist naturally superior or inferior
peoples.”10 Testing my arguments against these reductive definitions does
not mean that I fully accept these definitions. It means that these definitions
are the most challenging and difficult to cope with, and therefore the best
ones to confront with my own arguments. Accordingly, I do not replace
Eurocentrism with racism, although I do use racism and its derivatives when
I find it fit.
Erasmus’ Christian Eurocentrism is conspicuously present in his “Edu-
cation of a Christian Prince” (Institutio principis Christiani, 1516), where
he put forward the following idea: “The truly Christian prince will first pon-
der how much difference there is between man, a creature born to peace
and goodwill, and wild animals and beasts, born to pillage and war, and in
addition how much difference there is between a man and a Christian.”11
Thus, a Christian is superior to any non-Christian, whether Jewish, Turk,
or pagan, in the same way that a man—any man—is superior to an animal.
Turks are indeed human beings, but human existence, as such, is inferior
to Christian existence, just as animalistic existence is inherently inferior to
human existence.
The same hierarchic conception of humankind is expressed by Erasmus
in his letter to Paul Volz of August 1518, which from that year onward
prefaces “The Handbook of the Christian Soldier” (Enchiridion militis
Christiani). In this letter, Erasmus explains the need to make the Turks
convert to Christianity, explaining: “for though nothing else, they are at
least human beings.”12 To be a Christian, for Erasmus, means to occupy
the pinnacle of existence on earth. In his “Education of a Christian Prince,”
Erasmus warns the Christians of their potential degeneration, which might
cause them to deteriorate and become Turks: “It is more likely that we shall

10 Joan-Pau Rubiés, “Were Early Modern Europeans Racist?” in Amos Morris-Reich and
Dirk Rupnow (eds.), Ideas of Race in the History of the Humanities (London and New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 34.
11 CWE 27, 282; ASD IV-1, 214: “Primum illud expendat Princeps vere Christianus, quan-
tum intersit inter hominem paci ac benevolentiae natum animal, et inter feras ac belluas praedi-
tioni, belloque natas: ad haec quantum intersit inter hominem, et hominem Christianum.”
12 CWE 66, 10; Ep 858: 83–84: “[…] sunt enim et illi, vt nihil aliud, certe homines […].”
8 N. RON

turn into Turks than that our efforts will make them into Christians.”13 This
idea of degeneration and deterioration into the inferior form of Turkish
existence is repeated in Erasmus’ letter to Paul Volz, mentioned above.
As Erasmus puts it, if we cannot set our hearts so that we become an
example for the Turks to convert to Christianity; if we cannot put our
hearts into showing them the true Christian way, “we shall degenerate
into Turks long before we converted the Turks to our way of thinking.”14
Thus, the religious, as well as ethnic, inferiority of the Turks vis-a-vis populus
Christianus is conspicuous.
Erasmus’ irenic ideal was a Christian peace and not a Christian-Muslim
peace. In fact, in Erasmus’ writings there is no yearning or wish for a
Christian-Muslim peace. The princes, says Erasmus in “Education of a
Christian prince,” should initiate and establish eternal peace between them-
selves and make joint plans for that purpose. Eternal peace, indeed, but only
among Christians, such that would enable Christians to unite forces against
the Ottomans.15 Thus, Christian peace is a prerequisite to successfully fight
the Turks.
Francis I (1494–1547), King of France, thought and acted differently.
He wove commercial and unprecedented military ties with the Ottoman
Empire, ties which became by February 1536 an official alliance.16 Eras-
mus objected to this, as may be inferred from a few of his assertions. His

13 CWE 27, 287; ASD IV-1, 218: “Citius fiat, ut nos degeneramus in Turcas, quam illi per
nos reddantur Christiani.”
14 CWE 66, 11; Ep 858: 12–14: “[…] citius futurum est vt nos in Turcas degeneremus
quam vt Turcas in nostras partes pertrahamus.”
15 CWE 27, 278: “The princes must set out to establish a perpetual peace among them-
selves and make common plans for it.” See Neil M. Cheshire and Michael J. Heath (trans.),
Erasmus —The Education of a Christian Prince, ed. Lisa Jardine (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997), 97 n. 169.
16 De Lamar Jensen, “The Ottoman Turks in Sixteenth Century French Diplomacy,” The
Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985): 451–470 (In particular p. 455 n. 17); Christine Isom-
Verhaaren, Allies with the Infidel: The Ottoman and French Alliance in the Sixteenth Century
(London: I.B. Tauris, 2011), 117; Gilles M. Veinstein, “Histoire turque et ottomane,” L’an-
nuaire du Collège de France 109 (2010): 679–704 (http://annuaire-cdf.revues.org/207,
688); John Victor Tolan, Gilles Veinstein, and Henry Laurens, Europe and the Islamic World:
A History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 140; André Clot, Suleiman the
Magnificent, trans. M. J. Reisz (New York: Saqi Books and New Amsterdam Books, 1992),
141–144; Noel Malcolm, Useful Enemies: Islam and The Ottoman Empire in Western Political
Thought, 1450–1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 110–111.
 1 INTRODUCTION: EUROCENTRISM AND RACISM 9

stance had to do, among other things,17 with his principled objection to
agreements between Europeans and Turks, or Muslims in general, which
stemmed from his Eurocentric and, by essence, ethnocentric worldview. In
his “Education of a Christian prince,” his advice to the ruler is as follows:

It is easy for friendship to be made and kept between those who are linked
by a common language, by the proximity of their lands, and by similarities of
temperament and character. Certain nations are so different from one another
in every way that it would be advisable to refrain from any contact with them
rather than be linked to them even by the most binding of treaties. Others
are so distant that even if they are well disposed they can be of no help. There
are others, finally, who are so capricious, so insolent, such habitual breakers
of treaties, that even if they are neighbors they are useless as friends. With this
sort the best plan is neither to break with them by open war nor to be linked
to them by any very binding treaties or marriage alliances. […] One may state
as a general rule that it is not advisable to be too closely allied with those,
such as the heathen, who are divided from us by a difference of religion, and
we should neither encourage nor reject those whom natural obstacles, such
as mountain barriers or seas, separate from us, or those who are totally cut
off from us by vast distances.18

17 The alliance was directed against Charles V. Erasmus’ objection stemmed, firstly, from his
being the emperor’s subject. Furthermore, special relations existed between Erasmus and the
emperor. Erasmus was nominated as his (honorary) councilor, and the emperor was his patron
and paid him an allowance. Erasmus was committed to him by a personal oath. See CWE 9,
385: 626–628; Ep 1342: 575–576: “Vnum obstabat, bellum inter tres Reges. Quorum uni,
nempe Carolo, iureiurando etiam addictus sum.”—“There was one obstacle, war among the
three kings. To one of them, Charles, I am actually bound by oath.” See also: James D. Tracy,
The Politics of Erasmus: A Pacifist Intellectual and his Political Milieu (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1978), 54–55, 159 n. 28; Preserved Smith, Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals
and Place of History (New York: Harper, 1923; Reprinted in New York: Dover Publications,
1962), 67–70.
18 CWE 27, 276–277; ASD IV-1, 207–208: “Et facile coit et cohaeret amicitia inter eos,
quos lingua communis, regionum propinquitas, ingeniorum ac morum similitudo conciliat.
Est tanta inter quasdam nationes rerum omnium dissimiltudo, ut prorsus ab illorum abs-
tiniuisse commercio longe consultius sit, quam arctissimis etiam adstringi foederibus. Sunt
quaedam ita procul dissitae, ut etiam si bene velint, prodesse nihil possint. Postremo sunt
quaedam adeo morosae ac foedifragae et insolentes, ut etiam si finitimae sint, tamen inutiles
sint ad omnem amicitiam. Cum his consulitissimum fuerit nec bello dissidere nec arctioribus
foederum aut affinitatum vinculis alligari […] Illud in genere licet pronunciare non oportere
arctius astringi his, quos religio diuersa a nobis alienat, veluti cum ethnicis, aut quos nat-
urae prouidentia alpibus aut fretis interiectis a nobis separat, aut quos immensum locorum
spatium penitus a nobis semouit; hi nec ad nos accersendi, nec a nobis impetendi sunt.” See
also Nathan Ron, “The Christian Peace of Erasmus,” The European Legacy19 (2014): 36–37.
10 N. RON

Thus, Erasmus believed that connections between nations which differ

from each other significantly in temperament, character, or other essential
elements were doomed to be unsustainable and therefore were undesirable.
In 1525, following Francis’ defeat in Fabia and his capture and imprison-
ment in Madrid, Louisa of Savoy, the king’s mother, who was in charge of
state affairs while her son was in captivity, reached a decision, in agreement
with the king. This agreement led to a change in the traditional foreign
policy of the Most Christian King (Rex Christianissimus ) concerning the
Ottomans and Islam for generations to come. Francis, after some initial
doubts, turned to the sultan, Suleiman I (known as “the Magnificent”),
and asked him for militarily aid to help prevent the emperor Charles V
(1500–1558) becoming king of the world.19
The alliance included military cooperation, coordination and planning
of military moves, and the anchoring of the Turkish navy in French ports.
In October 1534, as part of the military cooperation, an Ottoman fleet
arrived at the port of Marseilles. In the beginning of 1535, the French first
official ambassador to Istanbul, Jean de la Forêt (died 1537),20 arrived
in Istanbul, an unprecedented diplomatic event in the relations between
France and the Ottoman Empire.21
On May 15, 1527, Erasmus wrote to Sigismund I of Poland
(1467–1548) concerning the conflicts between the kings of Europe,
which, he insisted, “opened the way for the Turks to conquer Rhodes first,
then Hungary.”22 In De bello Turcico Erasmus praises the Christian unity
achieved in 1529 with the signing of the treaty of Cambrai, which created

19 Clot, Suleiman the Magnificent, 129–130; M. Giles Veinstein, Histoire Turque et

Ottomane, 686–687; R. B. Merriman, Suleiman the Magnificent 1520–1566 (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1944), 128–129; R. J. Knecht, Francis I (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1982), 187.
20 Forêt was a renowned humanist and was accompanied by the orientalist Guillaume Pos-
tel (1510–1581) who was sent to Istanbul by the Royal Library in Paris to explore Greek
manuscripts in the East. Charles de Marillac, who was Forêt’s cousin, was sent as personal
secretary. Despite the ostensibly scientific-cultural appearance of the expedition, Forêt’s role
was largely political; not only to seek agreements on trade for the benefit of all Christians,
as the matter was presented by the king prior to Forêt’s departure. See Clot, Suleiman the
Magnificent, 139; Veinstein, Histoire Turque et Ottomane, 688–689.
21 Jensen, “The Ottoman Turks in Sixteenth Century French Diplomacy,” 456–457; Vein-
stein, Histoire Turque et Ottomane, 688–689; Tolan, Veinstein and Laurens, Europe and the
Islamic World, 140; Isom-Verhaaren, Allies with the Infidel, 117.
22 Ep 1819: 71–72: “Nunc haec monarcharum inter ipsos conflicatio Turcae viam aperuit,
ut primum Rhodum, nuper etiam Vngariam inuaderet.”
 1 INTRODUCTION: EUROCENTRISM AND RACISM 11

a united front against the Turks. Accordingly, the partners to peace were
described by Erasmus as great rulers, devoted to Christianity, and finally
joined by the King of France.23 Additionally, in a letter of February 1535,
Erasmus mentions the military preparations made by the Imperial Army
aimed, inter alia, “at curbing the audacity of the pirate Barbarossa.”24
These assertions make clear Erasmus’ negative stance concerning the
French-Ottoman relations and alliance.
Erasmus’ opposition to this connection can be implied from another
source as well. In his “On the Wars of Europe and the War Against the
Turks” (De Europae dissidiis, et bello Turcico, Dialogus, 1526), Juan Louis
Vives (1493–1540) wrote: “There is a rumor among people on the face of
the earth that the Turks were brought to Hungary by those who no one
would attribute such a thing to them and no one was never afraid of.”25
From Vives’ reference to the alliance, one may learn about Erasmus’ view.
Vives was intellectually close to Erasmus, especially on matters concerning
war and peace.26 Like Erasmus, Vives also sanctified Concordia and cher-
ished Christian peace. And Vives expressively opposed and condemned the
Franco-Ottoman ties. Vives put in Polypragmon’s mouth the following
words concerning Francis’s role in bringing the Turks into Hungary in

23 CWE 64, 249; ASD V-3, 68. See also CWE 64, 252 n. 216.
24 Ep 3000: 56–57: “[…] ad opprimenda audaciam piratae Barbarosae.” Erasmus calls him
pirate, but Khaireddin (Khair ad-Din) Barbarossa was a senior commander in the Ottoman
fleet. See Knecht, Francis I, 233; Clot, Suleiman the Magnificent, 136; Tolan, Veinstein, and
Laurens, Europe and the Islamic World, 140. Barbarossa’s identity and origin are uncertain
and controversial. See Isom-Verhaaren, Allies with the Infidel, 72–74.
25 De Europae dissidiis, et bello Turcico, dialogus VI, 467: “Atqui constans est apud superos
rumor, immisum Turcam in Pannoniam ab iis quos minime decebat, et a quibus nemo unquam
metuisset.” See also Marcia L. Colish, “Juan Luis Vives on the Turks,” in Paul Maurice Clogan
(ed.), Mediaevalia et Humanistica: Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Culture, New Series,
no. 35 (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009), 5. During 1530–1531, news spread in
Europe that the Turks were planning to attack Austria and Italy at the same time. It was
supposed to be a coordinated French-Ottoman attack, and it was assumed that its aftermath
would see Italy a client state of the sultan and Francis the ruler of northern Italy: Gülru
Necipoğlu, “Suleyman the Magnificent and the Presentation of Power in the Conflict of
Ottoman-Habsburg Papal Rivalry,” in Halil Inalcik and Cemal Kafadar (eds.), Suleyman the
Second and His Time (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1993), 175–176.
26 Robert P. Adams, The Better Part of Valor: More, Erasmus, and Vives on Humanism, War
and Peace 1496–1535 (Washington, DC: The University of Washington Press, 1962); Philip
C. Dust, Three Renaissance Pacifists: Essays in the Theories of Erasmus, More, and Vives (New
York: Peter Lang, 1987). Noreña, Juan Luis Vives, 224–227, defines Vives’ view as Christian
pacifism. Similar to Erasmus he did not object to war against them.
12 N. RON

1526: “There is a rumor among the people on earth that the Turks were
brought to Hungary by those to whom barely anything can be attributed,
and from whom nobody would ever have been afraid.”27 This must have
been a slap in the face of the French king. Besides the harm caused to Con-
cordia, Vives argued that the French-ottoman alliance was hopeless. Vives,
like Erasmus, did not see hope in politics and diplomacy: “If a Christian
does not fulfill his pledge to his fellow Christian, will the Turk fulfill his
pledge to a Christian?”28 This argument is identical to Erasmus’ principled
opposition to international alliances. Vives was a “pacifist” of the same kind
as Erasmus, i.e., a seeker of Christian peace. Francis severely damaged Con-
cordia, which Vives exalted just as Erasmus did. Based on the closeness of
Erasmus and Vives’ minds, particularly their shared perception of Christian
peace, one may assume that Erasmus opposed the alliance.
As regards treaties between states, The Utopians of Thomas More
(1478–1535) favored a similar principled objection to international agree-
ments, as More ascribes to them in his Utopia: “Treaties which all other
nations so often conclude among themselves, break and renew, they never
make with any nation. “What is the use of a treaty,” they ask, “as though
nature of herself did not sufficiently bind one man to another? If a person
does not regard nature, do you suppose he will care anything about words?
… But the utopians, on the contrary, think that nobody who has done you
no harm should be accounted an enemy, that the fellowship created by
nature takes the place of a treaty, and that men are better and more firmly
joined together by goodwill than by pacts, by spirit than by words.”29
Erasmus’ objection to the French-Ottoman ties can also be deduced
from Erasmus’ remark in “A complaint of peace.” He makes the assertion

27 De Europae dissidiis VI, 467: “Atqui constans est apud superos rumor, immisum Turcam
in Pannoniam ab iis quos minime decebat, et a quibus nemo unquam metuisset.”
28 De Europae dissidiis, VI, 470: “Ergo Christianus quod Christiano juravit, non servat,
servabit Turca quod Christiano promisit?” Colish, “Juan Luis Vives on the Turks,” 5.
29 Thomas More, De Optimo Reipublicae Statu Deque nova insula utopia libellus vere
aureus … in Edward Surtz S. J. and J. H. Hexter (eds.), The Complete Works of St. Thomas
More, vol. 4 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1965), 196, 198 (De foed-
eribus): “Foedera quae reliquae inter se gentes toties ineunt: frangunt ac renouant, ipsi nulla
cum gente feriunt. Quorsum enim foedus inquiunt: quasi non hominem homini satis natura
conciliet quam qui contempserit, hunc uerba scilicet putes curaturum? … At illi contra con-
sent, neminem pro inimico habendum, a quo nihil iniutiae profectum est. Naturae consor-
tium, foederis uice esse, et satius, ualentiusque homines inuicem beneuolentiam, quam pactis,
animo quam uerbis connecti.” The English translation: ibid., 197, 199.
 1 INTRODUCTION: EUROCENTRISM AND RACISM 13

that the cruel and bloody wars waged in the past by the Jews against their
enemies, horrific as they must have been, were less so than wars between
Christians. “Moreover, the Jews were mainly involved with non-Jews, while
Christians have a treaty with the Turks and are at war amongst them-
selves.”30 The Christian alliance with the Turks, to which Erasmus refers,
is the peace between Venice and the Ottoman Empire made in 1503 and
1514 and resumed again in September 1517.31 Notedly, in addition to
Erasmus’ aspiration for Christian unity expressed here, there is criticism of
Venice for maintaining an alliance with the Turks.
As far as Erasmus was concerned, Francis’ ties and alliance with the
sultan were acts of betrayal, both of Christianity and of homeland, i.e.,
Europe. Francis, in uniting with a Muslim ruler against a Christian ruler, the
emperor himself, was no longer worthy of the title Rex Christianissimus.
After March 1532, this title would disappear completely from Erasmus’
letters.
Arguably, Erasmus’ opposition to Francis’ ties with the Ottoman Empire
can be deduced also from his fundamental objection to political agree-
ments. In addition to his detailed objection in “Education of Christian
Prince,”32 there is also his statement in Querela pacis (“A Complaint of
Peace”) that “A sound peace does not rest on alliances and treaties between
men, which, as we see, can often lead to wars.”33 Thus, Erasmus believed
that connections between nations, which differ from each other signifi-
cantly, were doomed to be unsustainable and therefore were undesirable.
According to such a view, diplomatic relations between a Christian state—
not only France but any European country—and the Ottoman Empire were
futile and undesired. This was Erasmus’ attitude toward “others,” whether
nations or individuals.
Along the same line of thought, Erasmus argued that intermarriage
posed a danger to the social order. Political stability would be achieved if
princes avoided marriage with spouses from across the border. A concerned
Erasmus reported that intermarriages had become widespread among royal
houses, a phenomenon that threatened the social and political order. Thus,

30 CWE 27, 305; ASD IV-2, 78: “Atque his fere cum exteris res erat, Christianis cum Turcis
foedus est, inter ipsos bellum.” See also Isom-Verhaaren, Allies with the Infidel, 26–34.
31 CWE 27, 305 n. 101. See also Isom-Verhaaren, Ibid.
32 See n. 18, Chapter 1.
33 CWE 27, 311; ASD IV-2, 86: “Solida pax haud constat affinitatibus, haud foederibus
hominum, ex quibus frequenter exoriri bella videmus.”
14 N. RON

the king of Syria may become king of Italy, Erasmus amusingly exagger-
ated.34
Roland Bainton defined Erasmus as a political isolationist, and almost in
the same breath, characterized him as an internationalist and cosmopoli-
tan.35 Yet cosmopolitanism and internationalism are incompatible with
seclusion and political separatism, and certainly not in line with Erasmus’
attitudes toward non-Christians which were interwoven with a hierarchy
of peoples and races.36 Craig Thompson’s assertion that “Erasmian cos-
mopolitanism is a state of culture, an intellectual outlook in an individual
who by education, experience, and taste is not only familiar with other
peoples and cultures but values them,”37 is considerably over-appreciative.
Erasmus hardly knew “others” nor did he value them. Thompson’s over-
appreciation is indeed Eurocentric in essence. It may be also that the respect
and appreciation we tend to feel for Erasmus and his philosophia Christi
make it difficult to identify features, such as intolerance, religious, or eth-
nic, in Erasmus’ attitude toward non-Christians.38
Jenny Teichman related to Erasmus’ cosmopolitanism as follows. The
Church claimed to be universal, above any nation or national power. Since
it has believers among all nations, it should avoid siding with one party
or another when a conflict between nations arises. This Christian princi-
ple is the basis of a pacifist view held by Christian believers. Erasmus held
this principle, and this explains his cosmopolitanism. This is a Christian
religious cosmopolitanism that Erasmus has also fulfilled in his way of life,
as a wandering scholar in various countries, an ardent advocate of Chris-
tian peace and faithful to the principle of the Universal Church.39 How-
ever, I would argue that Erasmus’ seclusive attitude regarding alliances
between nations—albeit different from each other in temperament and

34 CWE 27, 312: ASD IV-2 87: “Nunc hujusmodi matrimoniorum vicibus sit, ut apud
Hibernos natus, repente imperet Indis, aut qui modo Syris imperabat, subito Rex sit Italiae.”
See Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969),
118.
35 Bainton, ibid., 114, 118.
36 Nathan Ron, “Erasmus’ Ethnological Hierarchy of Peoples and Races,” History of Euro-
pean Ideas 44 (2018): 1063–1075. See also Chapter 13, pp. 161–164.
37 Thompson, “Erasmus as Internationalist and Cosmopolitan”: 168.
38 Oberman, The Roots of Anti-semitism, 38–39.
39 Jenny Teichman, Pacifism and the Just War: A Philosophical Examination (Oxford: Black-
well, 1986), 7.
 1 INTRODUCTION: EUROCENTRISM AND RACISM 15

character—is incompatible with cosmopolitanism or internationalism. And

again, his harsh attitudes toward “others” do not allow us ascribing to him
a cosmopolitan outlook.
Admittedly, Erasmus disapproved of national differences and objected to
wars and conflicts among Christian-European nations. Does that make him
a cosmopolitan thinker? In his “Education of a Christian prince,” Erasmus
complains about national effects and suggests an alternative:

Nowadays the Englishman generally hates the Frenchman, for no better rea-
son than that he is French. The Scot, simply because he is a Scot, hates the
Englishman, the Italian hates the German, the Swabian the Swiss, and so on;
province hates province; city hates city. Why do these ridiculous labels do
more to separate us than the name of Christ, common to us all can do to
reconcile us?40

This religious remedy to national divisions, namely a unification under

Christ name, is evident in more details in Erasmus’ future vision: “[…]
the world will not be shaken by so many wars, or so many differences of
ideas, and we will be free both of Judaism and paganism; and Christ will
reign over us and under his standard we will prosper happily and peace-
fully. Finally, the limits of Christian rule will extend over distances.”41 In
this monolithic world, the name of Christ “[…] will be recognized, cel-
ebrated and worshipped throughout the whole world, as the psalm says:
that all nations, in different tongues but with a single voice, in one sin-
gle temple, one united Church, shall sing glory to their redeemer.”42 The
“others” are expected to convert to Christianity and join. This vision is
indeed cosmopolitan—in terms of medieval universalism. William Chester

40 CWE 27, 286; ASD IV-1 218: “Nunc fere Gallum odit Anglos non ob aliud, nisi quod
Gallus est; Anglum Scotum, tantum quia Scotus est; Germanum Italus, Eluetium Sueuus
atque item de caeteris; regio regioni inuisa, ciuitas ciuitati. Cur haec stultissima nomina magis
nos distrahunt, quam conglutinat omnibus commune Christi vocabulum?”
41 Ep 1800: 236–247 (letter sent to King João III of Portugal): “[…] demirabor, si tam
dilucidae Chrysostomi rationes, si tam urgentia Scripturarum testimonia, non saltem huc
adigant, ut pudeat pigeatque tam diutinae calamitatis […] nec tot bellis nec tot opinionum
dissidiis concuteretur orbis, ac longius abessemus omnes et a Judaismo simul et a Paganismo;
sed regnaret in nobis Christus, et sub illius vexillis fellici tranquillitate frueremur. Denique
latius sese profferent Christianae ditionis.”
42 CWE 64, 243; ASD V-3 62: “[…] Christi nomen […] per universum terrarum orbem
agnosci, celebrari, adoriri, juxta Psalmum. Universas nationes variis linguis, sed concordibus
in eodem templo, hoc est in unitate Ecclesiae Redemtori suo canere gloriam.”
16 N. RON

Jordan enlightened us on this: “Universalism - incorporation of all people

through baptism in the Christian community, irrespective of color, ethnic
origin, place of settlement, or previous believes – was a central element of
the ideology and objective of the Catholic Church.”43 This should also be
applied to Erasmus. Thus, religious unanimity or monolithism—not plu-
rality of faiths, nor tolerance toward other religions—is more accurate term
than cosmopolitanism or universalism for the evaluation Erasmus’ Christian
thought which decidedly affected his conception of “others.”
In his colloquy ‘Iχ θ υoϕ άγ iα’ (“Fish diet,” 1526), Erasmus considers
the contradiction between Judaism, typified by its numerous dogmas and
pedantic imperatives, and Christianity, which either abolished the “Laws
of Moses” outright or adopted and converted—such as the replacement
of circumcision by baptism—a few commandments to its own practices.
Here, Erasmus presents a dialogue between two fictive figures, a butcher
and a fish seller, both knowledgeable about religious issues. Lanio, the
butcher, explains that because Christians are only a small part of the world’s
population, Christian territory must be expanded. Says Lanio:

Recently I saw a painting, on a very large canvas, of the whole world. From
it I learned how small a portion of the world wholeheartedly and sincerely
professes Christianity: part of western Europe, of course; then another part
toward the north; a third extending, but only slightly, toward the Equator;
Poland seemed to be as far as the fourth part went, toward the east. The
rest of the world contains barbarians, not so very different from brutes, or
schismatics or heretics, or both.44

43 William Chester Jordan, “Europe’ in the Middle Ages,” in The Idea of Europe: From
Antiquity to the European Union, Anthony Pagden (ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002), 81.
44 Craig R. Thompson (trans.), The Colloquies of Erasmus (Chicago and London: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1965), 323; CWE 40, 686; ASD I-3, 504: “Nuper in linteo quodam
amplissimo vidi totum orbem depictum: illic didici quantula esset mundi portio, Christi reli-
gionem pure sincereque profitens: nimium Europae particula vergens ad occidentem: rursus
altera, vergens ad Septemtrionem: tertia tendens, sed procul, ad Meridiem: ad Orientem ver-
gentis quartae postrema videbatur Polonia. Reliquus orbis aut Barbaros habet, non ita multum
a brutis animantibus differentes, aut schismaticos, aut haereticos, aut utrumque.” See R. J.
Schoeck, “The Geography of Erasmus,” in F. Akkerman, A. J. Vanderjagt, and A. H. van Der
Laan (eds.), Northern Humanism in European Context, 1469–1625 (Leiden: Brill, 1999),
200.
 1 INTRODUCTION: EUROCENTRISM AND RACISM 17

In referring to these lines, Richard J. Schoeck argues that there is no cer-

tainty that Lanio’s cosmographic description really reflects Erasmus’ Welt-
bild. Although the map in question cannot be identified, the colloquy
appeared for the first time in Basel (February 1526) and therefore should be
treated as any cosmographic work created and published there.45 It is likely
that the description provided by Erasmus—who himself was connected to
cosmographers in Basel—in Lanio’s mouth does indeed reflect Erasmus’
view of the world. Furthermore, the reference to schismatics and heretics,
which reminds us of other straightforwardly derogatory statements made
by Erasmus against such people, may indicate that Erasmus’ own Weltbild
is indeed being expressed by Lanio.46
If by the words “The rest of the world contains barbarians […]” Eras-
mus is referring to the New World—and there is no reason to reject this
interpretation—then this should be regarded as a very rare reference by
him to the New World and its inhabitants. The borders of Erasmus’ Welt-
bild are sharply defined: all who are not Christian-European (aside from
schismatics, heretics, and Jews) are rank barbarians. This categorization of
humankind is a clear demonstration of Erasmus’ Eurocentric mind. Such
was the mind that Heiko A. Oberman referred to in his attempt to trace
the seeds of racial anti-Semitism.47 He argued that these seeds germinated

45 Schoeck, “The Geography of Erasmus,” 200–201.

46 Presumably, by “schismatics and heretics” Erasmus did not mean Lutherans. He might
have meant Anabaptists, of whom he harshly disapproved, and “Bohemian schismaticis” (Ep
549). The generalization “Bohemian schismaticis” indicates that the majority of Bohemians
were Hussites (Ep 950 in CWE 6, 323, n. 53). Erasmus objected to capital punishment for
heretics, with a few important exceptions. Accordingly, two kinds of heresy held the doomed
of capital punishment. The first was manifest blasphemy, such as the negation of Jesus’ divine
nature or the ascription of lies to the scriptures. The second kind of heresy warranting capital
punishment was sedition against the political or the social-economic order of the state. See
ASD IX-3, 288 (Epistola in Pseudevangelicos ) and Roland. H. Bainton, Concerning Heretics:
Whether They Are to Be Persecuted and How They Are to Be Treated: A Collection of the Opin-
ions of Learned Men Both Ancient and Modern. An Anonymous Work Attributed to Sebastian
Castellio (New York: Octagon Books 1965), 41. Erasmus harshly condemned schismatics and
heretics: John Marshal, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 2006), 235–236. Bainton, Concerning Heretics, 41, referring to
Erasmus’ rejection of Michael Servetus’ antitrinitarianism, posed the (rhetorical?) question:
“One wonders whether Erasmus might not have approved of the execution of Servetus on
the score of blasphemous heresy.”
47 Heiko A. Oberman, The Roots of Anti-semitism in the Age of Renaissance and Refor-
mation, trans. James I. Porter (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984); idem, The Impact of the
Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994).
18 N. RON

in Reformation Europe due to protagonists such as Luther and Erasmus.

This claim is put to the test in Part III of this book.
Erasmus’ anti-Jewish assertions reveal a religious core, one which appar-
ently excludes an ascription of a racial outlook to him. However, these
assertions frequently consist of racial manifestations and implications and
thus reaffirm Oberman’s observation. Furthermore, Erasmus adhered to an
ethnological hierarchy of peoples and races, by which Christian Europeans
(populus Christianus ) were, not surprisingly, at the top. Second to them
were “half-Christians,” i.e., Turks, or Muslims in general. Below them were
Jews, and lower still in the hierarchy were black Africans (Aethiopes ). Thus,
the observation that the idea of a hierarchy of civilizations gained ground
from the late Renaissance, i.e., late fifteenth century to the beginning of
the seventeen,48 should be somewhat amended. It can be discerned already
in the first half of the fifteenth century in Erasmus’ ethnological ranking.
This book employs Nicholas Terpstra’s emphasis on the concept of Corpus
Christianum as a metaphor of purity that was predominant in Christian
religious and social life and had the effect of distinguishing Christianity
from Judaism and Islam, both spiritually and physically.49 This explains
some of Erasmus’ most denigrating assertions concerning the expulsion of
the Jews from European countries.
Indeed, conversion to Christianity was open to Jews, and Erasmus
desired it. In his mind, no one was unworthy of conversion to Christianity,
even the most inferior barbarians, slaves by nature, as defined by Aristotle.
Erasmus believed that barbarians of any kind deserved Christianity without
being brutally forced to accept it. However, in practice, Erasmus defined
converts from Judaism as “half-Jews, half-Christians” or “by race a Jew, by
religion a Christian” (in the case of the learned convert Matthew Adrian).
This, in addition to the principle that Christian peace does not exclude war
against the Turks, is the core of Erasmus’ pax et concordia.
In Chapter 2, Erasmus’ Turkophobic rhetoric is analyzed. Erasmus con-
ceptualized a construction of genus Turcarum as a loathsome race typically
characterized by a repulsive complex of fixated failings. Turkish essence
was the inhumanity that the term Immanitas Turcarum expressed. This
term was used by Italian humanists and by Erasmus to essentially define

48 Rubiés, “Were Early Modern Europeans Racist?” 36–37, 68.

49 Nicholas Terpstra, Religious Refugees in the Early Modern World: An Alternative History
of the Reformation (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 21–22.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
back
back
back
back
back