Man on His Own: Interpretations of Erasmus, c. 1750-1920.

Reese, Alan W.

This book is the worthy sequel to the author's Phoenix of His Age. Interpretations of Erasmus c 1550-1750. Once again Mansfield has produced an erudite yet highly readable account of the changing fortunes of Erasmus's reputation.

The book opens in the mid-eighteenth century with Erasmus opinion divided among several general interpretations. There was that of Erasmus as "the true pioneer of Catholic reformation, the friend of Thomas More, teaching a purified, but essentially orthodox, form of faith and practice." There was also the contrary view, popular among the Jesuits in the post-Tridentine era, of Erasmus "the corrosive agent, the enemy of scolasticism and so of the indispensable structure of Catholic theology, the mocker . . ." (p. 5). In addition, there was the view, found in Protestant Basel and also popular among Dutch Arminians, of "Erasmus the reformer, the predecessor of Luther and scourge of ecclesiastical abuses, laying the foundation of the new (Reformation) doctrinal structures" (p. 6). Finally there was the view of Erasmus, "the father of the Enlightenment,' who had advocated a rational religion which challenged both the authoritarianism of the old church and the dogmaticism of the new church.

Erasmus's apotheosis as the father of the Enlightenment made him a convenient target for intellectuals who espoused the new ideals of romanticism and nationalism. The very virtues for which the Enlightenment had extolled Erasmus were now viewed as vices. What the Enlightenment took to be Erasmus's tolerance and restraint was taken to be fearfulness; his scepticism, a lack of faith; his openness, frivolity, or emptiness. In this period the work of Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834, surprisingly a philosopher of history as well as a poet) alone avoided sectarian and ideological bias and anticipated. certain modem favourable interpretations of Erasmus.

Unfortunately for the reputation of Erasmus, the work of Johann Casper Lavater (1741-1801) was to have a far wider influence than Coleridge on most subsequent Erasmus scholarship until the twentieth century. Lavater believed that physionomic studies of historical portraits could illuminate the character of their subjects. After examining some Erasmus portraits (mostly those by Holbein in Basel) Lavater pronounced his judgement. Mansfield suggests that Lavater's conclusions owed less to the "science" of physionomy than to a long standing hostile Protestant view that Erasmus's failure to follow Luther stemmed from weakness of character - timidity, overrefinement, softness" (p. 104). Thus strengthened by the authority of Lavater, this negative caricature served to reinforce the prejudices of the nineteenth-century historians and moralizing biographers from many different confessional backgrounds.

Mansfield investigates not only the interpretations of Erasmus by such famous sources as the Encyclopedie, de Burigny, Ben Jonson, Voltaire, Edward Gibbon, Herder, von Mosheim, von Ranke, and Lord Acton but also examines the interpretations of a score of lesser known writers, theologians, and literary figures. From the sheer abundance of writing on the topic of Erasmus in the period 1750-1920 we are led to appreciate the extent of Erasmus's influence. It is clear that the memory of Erasmus howsoever distorted) continued to figure prominently in most of the great debates and encounters among generations, parties, and traditions. Accordingly, Mansfield follows the approach of his previous work by discussing Erasmus as he is found in the contemporary controversies of the times. Again and again we read how Erasmus and his times provided convenient parallels and analogies for historians and writers. Only in the late nineteenth century does the rising professionalism in Erasmus studies begin to produce interpretations of Erasmus somewhat freer from the old confessional and ideological stereo-types.

The book's subtitle, Man on His Own, may mystify some readers. Not until the concluding chapter does one learn that it is taken from The Letters of Obscure Men (whose authors observed that "Erasmus taketh his own part'). Mansfield concludes, "[t]here was an affable, sceptical, |un parteiisch,' indeed a subversive Erasmus that must be mixed in with the theologian, writer of spiritualia and devoted Catholic Christian" (pp. 374-75). Thus the author suggests his own interpretation by giving us "the isolated Erasmus" as a balance to "the Erasmus of the great consensus, Erasmus of Christendom" (p. 375).

Mansfield provides sufficient context for the many writers and historians, helping the reader to appreciate both their personal contexts and the place of their work in the broad scheme of intellectual history. Erasmus scholars will benefit from Mansfield's insights and, perhaps, find antecedents of their own interpretations of Erasmus. The work is also an excellent review of the intellectual history and historiography of the period c. 1720 to 1920. From time to time Mansfield will summarize his analysis and draw together his principal points, this is most useful and appreciated in a book of this length. This book will be of great interest not only to established Erasmus scholars but also to all new scholars facing the daunting prospect of a review of the literature on Erasmus. What remains is for Mansfield to complete his study of interpretations of Erasmus with a final volume treating recent historiographic trends.