Erasmus's Controversies (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Erasmus’s Controversies Anthony F. D’Elia (bio) Erasmus. Erasmus’s Controversies. Volume 84 of Collected Works of Erasmus. Edited by Nelson H. Minnich and Daniel J. Sheerin. Translated by Daniel J. Sheerin University of Toronto Press. 792. $175.00 Volume 84 of the prestigious Collected Works of Erasmus series provides a clear, readable translation with abundant notes and apparatus of Erasmus's controversies with Alberto Pio (1475–1531), a conservative and influential Catholic layman. Daniel Sheerin enriches each page of his translations of the four works with on average a half-page of notes, in which he compares texts, situates passages in the larger historical context, and offers updated bibliography for further readings. Nelson Minnich provides an exhaustive introduction (126 pages) on Alberto Pio and Erasmus. This will be an essential starting point for anyone working on Pio, High Renaissance Rome, Catholic reform, Erasmus, and the early Reformation. Unlike other critics of Erasmus, Alberto Pio was a layman, who was a relative and confidant of popes and emperors. After reading In Praise of Folly, Pio accused Erasmus of impiety, of supporting Luther, and preparing the ground for the Reformation. While most critics had limited their attacks to a single topic and received single responses from Erasmus, Erasmus and Pio debated over twenty major questions discussed in at least fifteen of Erasmus's works. Erasmus's replies often descend into invectives against Pio's character and, according to Erasmus, his questionable sanity; Erasmus even mocks Pio's funeral – not even death spared him! Alberto Pio had an excellent education. The legendary printer Aldus Manutius trained him in Greek and Latin, and his uncle, the even more famous Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, gave him a grounding in scholastic philosophy. As prince of Carpi, Pio tried to establish a learned court by buying Giorgio Valla's library and hiring the humanist Marcus Musurus to be librarian and Greek tutor. So, Erasmus's opponent was no narrow-minded cleric, but a sophisticated man with humanist learning and pretensions. Pio worked as ambassador in Rome from 1512 to 1527, and it was during this time that he encountered Erasmus's writings. In particular, he was disgusted by the anticlericalism in the In Praise of Folly. While he respected Erasmus as a humanist, Pio thought he was a bad philosopher and theologian. The similarities with Luther were too close, and Pio agreed with Zúniga's accusation that 'either Erasmus lutherizes or Luther Erasmusizes.' Erasmus's responses to Pio's attacks are lengthy and not always clear. He tends to follow the structure of his accuser, and his responses follow in the order given. Because he is writing an apology, Erasmus's text is necessarily defensive rather than a coherent articulation of a philosophical [End Page 403] position. In book 3 of his Apology, for example, Erasmus defends the supposed blasphemy in his In Praise of Folly. When Folly says that the cult of the Virgin Mary and the saints is insane, Erasmus says that she is criticizing the many superstitions surrounding the saints and pilgrimages, the magical prayers, and the belief that Mother Mary was greater than her Son. Folly similarly attacks the improper use of indulgences, not indulgences themselves. Folly, he says, does not condemn clerical wealth but only criticizes popes, cardinals, and priests who try to imitate secular monarchs rather than Christ. Erasmus did not always deign to reply to his critics. This volume of his responses is especially important for understanding the reception of his works, his polemical purpose behind a work of satire like the In Praise of Folly, his strong support of church reform, and his own assertion of his orthodoxy in the face of Catholic and Protestant critics. Anthony F. D’Elia Anthony D’Elia, Department of History, Queen’s Univerity Copyright © 2007 University of Toronto Press Incorporated