Madness as a figure in the thought of Desiderius Erasmus

The work called Praise of Folly, written by Desiderius Erasmus, the shining star of the Renaissance, is the focus of this study. The problem of insanity is one of the issues that has been dealt with from different perspectives at different times in the history of thought. In his best-known work, which has survived to the present day, Erasmus aims to confuse his readers by presenting a reversed understanding of madness. The main character of the work, which is written in satirical style, is madness (stultitia), criticizing what are known as human virtues, and presenting the service of man's soul side as the highest virtue. The madness of Erasmus, who tried to tell the truth with laughter, was both appreciated and ruthlessly criticized in the following years. ​Extended English summary is in the end of Full Text PDF (TURKISH) file. Özet Rönesans’ın parlayan yıldızı Desiderius Erasmus tarafından kaleme alınan Deliliğe Övgü adlı eser bu çalışmanın odak noktasını oluşturmaktadır. Delilik sorunu düşünce tarihinin farklı zamanlarında birbirinden farklı bakış açılarıyla ele alınan konulardan biridir. Günümüze kadar gelen ve en bilinen eserinde Erasmus, tersinden bir delilik anlayışı sunarak okurunda kafa karışıklığı uyandırmayı amaçlar. Hiciv tarzında kaleme alınan eserde başkarakter olan delilik (stultitia), insani erdemler olarak bilinen ne varsa yermekte, insanın nefsani yönüne hizmet etmesini en yüce meziyet olarak sunmaktadır. Hakikati güldürerek anlatmaya çalışan Erasmus’un deliliği sonraki yıllarda hem çok takdir görmüş hem de acımasızca eleştirilmiştir.

Empires and Cities—Political Thought in an Age of Expansion

In 1519 Charles V became the most powerful figure Europe had seen for generations, ruling over a vast collection of lands which stretched from the Iberian coast to the Baltic Sea. To the East, however, the position of the Ottoman sultan Selim I was no less auspicious. Not only had he amassed a large territory through conquest and force of arms, but he had established himself as Protector of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. Both men seemed blessed by their respective Gods and charged with authority both political and religious. Their empires would exert a powerful hold over the early modern imagination, as people wrestled with the intellectual as well as the practical implications of imperial rule. Across these lands, the concept of empire was challenged as well as defended, using Roman law, humanism, and religious ideas. Desiderius Erasmus combined classical ideas with Christianity to offer a new mirror for princes, while Niccolò Machiavelli drew on the heritage of ancient Rome to defend a vision of civic virtù. Meanwhile, the Ottoman sultans encouraged the development of an expansive imperial ideology in which the sultan was portrayed as divinely favoured.

An Infinity of Relics: Erasmus and the Copious Rhetoric of John Calvin's Traité des reliques

John Calvin's “Traité des reliques” (1543) inventories early modern Europe's fraudulent relics. Yet, theologically speaking, authenticity is irrelevant: all relics are idols to the evangelical Protestant, while for Catholics prayer's intention, not its conduit, was paramount. This article locates a solution in Calvin's humanist formation: chiefly, his debt to Desiderius Erasmus—not to Erasmus's satirical or devotional works, but to his rhetorical theory of copia. The “Traité” amasses a copia, an abundance, of fakes, burying the cult of relics in its own contradictions. Fusing rhetoric and proof, this mass juxtaposition subjects sacred presence to noncontradiction, patrolling vital confessional borders in Reformation theology.

By grammar alone?

Wilhelm Dilthey once admitted that Matthias Flacius Illyricus either appropriated the fourth book of Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana in detail or took advantage of all of the early Christian exegesis in general in his Clavis Sacrae Scripturae. The aim of this paper is partly polemical. While Flacius himself frequently proved Dilthey’s unfavorable judgment to be correct, he also followed the innovatory footsteps of biblical philologists such as Gianozzo Manetti, Lorenzo Valla and Desiderius Erasmus in order to reaffirm and concretize the Lutheran principle of the intelligibility of Scripture based on its strictly immanent, that is to say grammatical, investigation. Consequently, I would like to discuss the Clavis Sacrae Scripturae as the confessional yet deliberate outcome of the grammatical and rhetorical curriculum of studia humanitatis. All of this, however, will not lead to the conclusion that the Clavis should still remain the enterprise of a less distinguished follower. For decisions made by Flacius regarding the tradition of patristic, medieval, and humanistic exegesis was constantly founded upon the heuristically critical and genuinely hermeneutical principle. Therefore, it is worth asking what this principle was, or more precisely, how can man use philological tools that do not deprive God of his unconditioned sovereignty

Adiaphora, Luther and the Material Culture of Worship

The celebration of the late medieval mass and other religious ceremonies was carefully delineated through the ecclesiastical regulations of the Catholic Church. This legalistic approach to worship was strongly criticized by both Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther before 1517. With the subsequent Reformation, Luther reacted against Catholic legalism which, he argued, ensnared the faithful and threatened Christian freedom. He was therefore particularly reluctant to specify what he considered to be the appropriate form, place and setting for his German mass. Luther utilized the concept of adiaphora to argue that such issues were matters of indifference as they were not fundamental for salvation. However, this stance was tempered by his realization that such Christian freedom actually did require direction to ensure that the Reformation message was not confused or lost.

Henry Care, Roger L’ Estrange and the Contested Memory of Erasmus and the Reformation in Restoration England

Henry Care and Roger L’ Estrange fought a bitter battle in the public press in Restoration England. Exploring the ways in which each employed the writings and reputation of Desiderius Erasmus provides insight into the deep fault lines dividing English society in the decade from 1678 to 1688. Their divergent uses of Erasmus demonstrate how late-seventeenth-century interpretations of the early sixteenth-century Reformation became critical points of conflict in the most significant political and religious debates of the period. Paying attention to the reception of Erasmus also helps explain how these two bitter enemies eventually joined William Penn in supporting James II’s Indulgence for Liberty of Conscience.