Historical story

“War is beautiful for those who don't know it”

April is the month of reflection. At least, for those who are concerned with Guilt and Penance, the theme of the month of philosophy. Professional philosophers and other thinkers are examining the question of blame for the economic crisis. The Netherlands' best-known philosopher and humanist Erasmus would probably have liked to participate in this as well. He did not hide his opinion about self-enrichment.

Self-enrichment was discussed at Erasmus in various ways. Popes who waged "holy" wars to increase their power instead of promoting Christian charity. High clergy who encouraged the sale of indulgences in order to pay for their own luxury life. Princes who fought each other for land and honor, without a thought for their suffering subjects. His best-known work in which these abuses are addressed, disguised as humorous satire, is De Lof der Zotheid (1511).

War was seen as honorable and Desiderius Erasmus (ca. 1469-1536) was the only one in his day to protest against it. War was bad for trade, sowing death, destruction and disease, and no subject wanted it. Glory on the battlefield was folly. Those responsible for the war misery had to realize that the people had to pay for their lust for honour, power and wealth.

His opinion on this can be found in many other writings. For example in the Adagia, a collection of Latin and Greek expressions, he extensively discussed the proverb Dulce bellum inexpertis, War is pleasant to those who do not know it. In his Iulius exclusus Erasmus exposed the warlike Pope Julius II post mortum.

In this he has the pope, in full regalia and with his soldiers beside him, knock on the door of heaven. However, Peter refused to let him in because of his ungodly way of life. These are examples of the finger of blame that Erasmus would lift several times in his life at the elite and the clergy, the ruling classes of his time. According to him, they made a mess of it.

Candle for Mary

Was this envy? Erasmus was simply the child of a priest and his housekeeper who was not very celibate. As a bastard he could never enter the highest spiritual realms, despite his intelligence and piety. But no, if you look at Erasmus's life, you will see his refusal of various paid jobs in order to maintain his independence. He was an idealist who would rather remain poor if only he could work on his Christian philosophy and translation of the Bible.

What was new about this philosophy was the practical side of religious experience. Every person could have an inner connection with God by living according to the Bible. Show and rituals were not necessary for this. Erasmus did not write off these ceremonies, but rejected them as empty formalities. Believers found salvation in the word of Jesus and His way of life had to be taken as an example.

People should not think that they were going to heaven purely for buying indulgences, burning candles for Mary or kissing statues of saints. Once guilty of sin, and what man was not, this was not the way to do penance.

Learned young, done old

To come to inner faith, education was very important. When children came into contact with the civilized culture and literature of antiquity at an early age, this would make them better people. From a social point of view, nothing was more desirable than good education. It was the foundation of all that was good and would even reduce crime. But the heavy-handed parenting methods of his own time were anathema to him.

Erasmus was very innovative in this, as well as with the idea that children learned more through play and should not be treated like small adults. These ideas would only really be followed in the 18th century.

For the children of the elite, a good education was the solution to the ambition and self-enrichment that the ruling class all too often displayed. According to Erasmus, the fact that their way of life rattled on all sides was not necessarily their own fault. Man was not born, but formed. The children had to learn that war was the most reprehensible of all. That a worthy prince did not drag his subjects into war for personal gain.

The theologians would also like to re-educate Erasmus. They liked to discuss, in his view, absurd propositions. For example, whether it was possible that God the Father hated his Son. They could argue about this for a long time and they preferred to use all kinds of astute arguments. A good discussion was more important among theologians than the content of the Bible. Erasmus has made it clear to several writings what he thought of these pompous debates:go back to the Gospels, read Paul's letters!

Back to the sources is a common slogan at Erasmus. He learned ancient Greek so that he could read books of the Bible older than the then-standard translation, the Vulgate. The early church father Jerome had edited the Greek texts into the Vulgate in the 4th century.

Since that time, many copying errors and, according to Erasmus, objectionable interpretations had crept into the original text. His ultimate life's work, a new translation of the New Testament, was very different from the prevailing Vulgate version. In order not to get into too much trouble with the church, Erasmus would weaken the most deviant passages. Still, it was a bold release in 1516.

Initiation to rupture

Erasmus was the first humanist to apply textual criticism to the Bible. This, along with his ideas about the abuses in the church, about the ceremonies and rituals not found in the Bible, and about Bible study by all people, would inspire ecclesiastical reformers like Luther. They only went a lot further than Erasmus had envisioned. He wanted to preserve unity within the church and within the faith, Luther believed that the only solution was to tear away from the mother church.

It is ultimately thanks to Erasmus, or due to it, that the world would be turned upside down in the 16th century. The Catholic Church began a purge within its own ranks, but it was already too late. A split within the Christian faith became a fact and the world, in which religion played an enormously important role in people's lives, would never be the same again.

It is a pity that Erasmus's ideas about the warlike and self-enriching elite have not had as much impact on the world as his ideas about religion. Then our society would have looked a lot nicer today.

Read more about Erasmus and philosophy at Kennislink