Church History 82:2 (June 2013), 273–292.
© American Society of Church History, 2013
doi:10.1017/S0009640713000024
An Accidental Historian: Erasmus and the
English History of the Reformation
GREGORY D. DODDS
When post-Reformation English authors sought to describe pre-Reformation
Catholicism, they turned to the writings of Desiderius Erasmus for historical
evidence to back up their arguments justifying the break from Rome. For many later
English schoolboys, Erasmus was one of the only Catholic authors they read and the
depictions of Catholicism found in the Praise of Folly and, especially, in the
Colloquies, became their picture of Catholic clergy, as well as foundational imprints
for their mental image of relics, pilgrimages, and other Catholic practices.
References to Erasmus as a historical authority for his times appear in dozens, if not
hundreds, of texts from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Ignoring the literary
and fictitious nature of Erasmus’s satirical texts, they used Erasmus to justify their
depictions of Catholic corruption, superstition, and irrationality. Over time, these
descriptions became an almost uncritically accepted portrayal of the Catholic world
prior to the rise of Protestantism. This constructed reality thus became the worldview
of English speaking Protestants from the mid-sixteenth century up to nearly the
present. Examining how later English authors used Erasmus helps us understand the
subsequent nature of English historical consciousness and the development of
English and Protestant narratives of Church history.
“A
Christen men beware of consentyng to Erasmus fables, for by
consentyng to them, they haue caused me to shrinke in my fayth
that I promised to God at my Christenyng by my witnesses.”1
These were the words of Thomas Topley as recorded by John Foxe, the
famous sixteenth-century martyrologist and Protestant historian. The fables
Topley was thinking of were the stories Desiderius Erasmus told in his
famous Colloquies. While the Catholic Topley had figured out that they were
fables, many English Protestants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
LL
I would like to thank the wonderful staff at the Bodleian Library, special collections at the
University of St. Andrews, and, especially, the Folger Shakespeare Library. This article would
not have been possible without their assistance. I also appreciated the helpful comments of
scholars at several conferences and, especially, Patrick Henry, for his careful reading of this
article. I also want to acknowledge the support of my own institution, Walla Walla University,
which graciously provided me with a sabbatical and a research grant.
1
John Foxe, Acts and Monuments of Matters Most Special and Memorable, volume 2 (London,
1583), 1047.
Gregory D. Dodds is a Professor of History at Walla Walla University.
273
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
274
CHURCH HISTORY
treated Erasmus’s dialogues as accurate, first-hand, historical descriptions of
the pre-Reformation Catholic world. The words spoken by the various
fictional characters in the Colloquies were presented as Erasmus’s words and
his observations of real Catholic clergy. The line between reality and fiction
was blurred and over time Erasmus’s fictional and satirical texts became
historical reality for English Protestants.
Erasmus (1467–1536) is best remembered as a Catholic reformer who
criticized the Church, but fell out with Luther over Luther’s insistence on
divine predestination. He is also remembered for his biblical scholarship, the
printing of the Greek New Testament, and for his calls for peace and unity
among Christians. He has been called a reformer, a philologist, a theologian,
and occasionally a philosopher. What we do not often hear is that Erasmus
was a historian. Yet, in many of his writings, Erasmus demonstrated a deep
appreciation for historical knowledge and the skills of critical historical
analysis. Not only did he often stress the importance of Christian tradition
and consensus, which required a basic understanding of history, but he also
understood the importance of historical methods for philological studies. As
one English author wrote in 1646, Erasmus was “a man better skill’d in all
Histories and in the Annals of the times, than [others] . . . who are for the
most part strangers and enemies to all good literature.”2 As I will discuss
later, this reputation was important, as respect for Erasmus’s historical skills
lent credibility to his accounts of his own times. Erasmus is not often
thought of in connection with the cultural growth of historical consciousness
or with the development of the modern discipline of history. While he is
acknowledged to be a figure of large historical significance, only limited
attention has been paid to his role in the advancement of historical
awareness, methods, and later cultural understandings of the past.
Renaissance humanists introduced new ways for critically thinking about the
past.3 Rather than assuming that the past was similar to the present, humanists
maintained that the present was fundamentally different than previous eras.
Changes in language, custom, government, and worldview meant that
understanding ancient texts, which were an overriding preoccupation of the
Renaissance, required contextual readings and interpretations. The studia
humanitatis almost presupposed historical consciousness and the awareness
that dramatic changes had occurred in the world since the classical era. The
idea of “rebirth” was a historical concept. The humanist emphasis on
linguistics, ancient texts, and education was closely linked with a more
2
John Bastwick, The Utter Routing of the Whole Army of the Independents and Sectaries
(London, 1646), sig. G2v.
3
See Charles Nauert, Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe, 2nd ed. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2011), 222.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
AN ACCIDENTAL HISTORIAN
275
critical approach to historical development.4 Erasmus was part of a humanist
movement that stressed the importance of historical awareness and sound
historical methodologies. It is not surprising, then, that Erasmus the historian
is visible in his biblical scholarship, his patristic scholarship, and his
depictions of the early church. His importance for historical writing,
however, is not only witnessed in his approach to the past, primarily the
ancient past, but also in a historical legacy, especially in England. English
Protestantism, which was tightly linked with humanist methodologies, was
built on historical narratives that depicted a sharp discontinuity from preReformation Catholicism.5 Contextual readings of the recent past thus
became part of the Protestant historical worldview. Protestants became
increasingly aware of the importance of historical context for understanding
the early Church and as a polemical argument for criticizing the Catholic
tradition of their own times. But what sources could English Protestants trust
for accurate historical accounts of the early sixteenth-century Church? Over
time, Erasmus became a significant source and influence for many early
modern English historians in both a methodological and contextual sense.
During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, England was religiously
transformed by what has been called the long English Reformation.6 The
religious upheavals that shook the nation in the early sixteenth century did
not immediately create a Protestant nation and it would take decades before
the majority of English men and women had internalized a Protestant ethos.7
There are, of course, virtually countless books and articles that discuss the
changes in religion that were brought to England by Henry VIII and his
children and a prominent feature of those stories of the Reformation in
England is the development of anti-Catholic rhetoric and propaganda.8
Recent studies, especially those by Alexandra Walsham, Michael Questier,
4
See E. B. Fryde, Humanism and Renaissance Historiography (London: Hambledon, 1983),
1–33.
5
Margo Todd, Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987).
6
See Eamon Duffy, “The Long Reformation: Catholicism: Protestantism and the multitude,” in
England’s Long Reformation: 1500–1800, ed. Nicholas Tyacke (London: University College
London Press, 2003), 33–70; and, Jeremy Gregory, “The Making of a Protestant Nation:
‘Success’ and ‘Failure’ in England’s Long Reformation,” in England’s Long Reformation: 1500–
1800, ed. Nicholas Tyacke (London: University College London Press, 2003), 307–334.
7
Eamon Duffy’s work has been especially important in demonstrating the longevity of Catholic
popularity among the English people and the very gradual acceptance of Protestantism in England.
See Stripping the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400–1580, 2nd ed. (New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press, 2005); of Morebath (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2001); and
“The Long Reformation.” Also see Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1998).
8
Of particular recent interest regarding English anti-Catholic rhetoric and propaganda is Leticia
Ávarez-Recio, Fighting the Antichrist: A Cultural History of Anti-Catholicism in Tudor England
(Eastbourn, U.K.: Sussex Academic Press, 2011).
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
276
CHURCH HISTORY
Christopher Highly, and Stefania Tutino, among others, have provided us with
carefully nuanced interpretations of English Catholicism in post-Reformation
England.9 One thread that these studies have not explored, or even seemed
to notice, however, is the role of Erasmus in shaping English perceptions
of Catholicism during this era. The reception of Erasmus in England and
his importance for developments in education and religion is well
documented.10 I have argued elsewhere that Erasmus was widely read
throughout the long English Reformation and that his views on predestination,
moderation, and the philosophia Christi played a critical role in the
development of uniquely English ways of being Christian.11 But if the
Catholic Erasmus was so widely influential, then how and to what degree did
his works shape later perceptions of Catholicism? While this article does not
attempt to reinterpret the broad strokes of how England became Protestant or
how anti-Catholic polemic developed in England, it will focus on a very
significant and overlooked aspect of Protestant historical rhetoric. Perhaps
more than any other author, Erasmus crafted an image of early sixteenthcentury Catholicism that became the received truth for generations of English
Protestants.
A number of scholars have examined Erasmus’s historical methods and
analytical interpretations of the past. Hilmar Pabel, for example, has studied
Erasmus’s employment of historical setting for his paraphrase on Acts of the
Apostles.12 Others, such as Jacques Chomarat, have looked at Erasmus’s
approach to the Roman historians, while Peter Bietenholz examined Erasmus’s
use of history and biographical writing.13 Despite these studies, very little
9
See Alexandra Walsham, Church Papists: Catholicism, Conformity and Confessional Polemic
in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, U.K.: Boydell & Brewer, 1999); Michael Questier,
Catholicism and Community in Early Modern England: Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and
Religion, c. 1550–1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Christopher Highly,
Catholics Writing the Nation in Early Modern Britain and Ireland (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008); and, Stefania Tutino, Law and Conscience: Catholicism in Early Modern England
(Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2007).
10
For the early Tudor period see, James K. McConica, English Humanists and Reformation
Politics under Henry VIII and Edward VI (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965). For the later Tudor
period and the seventeenth century, see Gregory D. Dodds, Exploiting Erasmus: The Erasmian
Legacy and Religious Change in Early Modern England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
2009).
11
Dodds, Exploiting Erasmus, xi–xx, 264–268.
12
Hilmar Pabel, “Retelling the History of the Early Church: Erasmus’s Paraphrase on Acts,”
Church History 69, no. 1 (March 2000), 63–85.
13
See Jacques Chomarat, “La Philosophie de l’histoire d’Érasme d’après ses reflexions sur
l’histoire romaine,” in Miscellanea Moreana: Essays for Germain Marc’hadour, eds. Clare M.
Murphy, Henri Gibaud, and Mario A. di Cesare (Bloomington, N.Y.: Medieval and Renaissance
Texts and Studies, 1989), 159–167; Jacques Chomarat, “More, Érasme et les historiens latins,”
Moreana 86 (1985): 89–99; and Peter G. Bietenholz, History and Biography in the Work of
Erasmus of Rotterdam (Geneva: Droz, 1966). Other studies dealing with Erasmus’s approach to
historical inquiry include: Myron P. Gilmore, “Fides et Eruditio: Erasmus and the Study of
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
AN ACCIDENTAL HISTORIAN
277
work has focused on examining how later authors developed their historical
understandings and approaches from the writings of Erasmus. Erasmus was
not only influential in the development of early modern historical writing, but
he also became something of an accidental historian on his own times. This
happened in two ways. First, while writing history was never his primary goal,
his use of historical skills and methodologies were critical to these works. And
second, Erasmus’s writings, especially his early critical texts the Praise of
Folly and Colloquies, became widely used as historical records by later
writers. Erasmus thus became a historical authority on his own times for early
modern authors writing the history of the early Reformation. It will be this
second aspect of Erasmus’s historiographical legacy that I will examine here.
There were a number of early modern English authors who directly cited
Erasmus to substantiate their historical descriptions of Catholicism and the
pre-Reformation world. These included Holinshed, Thomas Dorman,
Richard Crompton, Sir Francis Hastings, John Foxe, Francis Godwin,
William Somner, John Bastwick, Francis Fullwood, Peter Heylyn, Joseph
Hall, Henry Foulis, Jeremy Taylor, Francis Bacon, Sir Peter Pett, and Henry
Care. This list is only partial and it grows much larger when one looks not
only for direct references to Erasmus, but also for similarities in historical
methodology and for particular phrases that were either paraphrased or
directly plagiarized. The histories these authors constructed were critical to
Protestant self-identity during the second half of the sixteenth century and
into the seventeenth century.14 During the reign of Elizabeth I and the Stuart
monarchs who followed her, Protestants defined themselves in opposition to
Catholicism. Protestant historians retold the story of Catholicism’s demise
during the reign of Henry VIII so future generations of Protestants in
England would understand both who they were and who they were not. The
construction of historical memory served a critical function in the making of
national identity.15 And central to the stories these historians wrote were
History,” in Humanists and Jurists: Six Studies in the Renaissance (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1963), 87–114; and István Bejczy, “Overcoming the Middle Ages: Historical
Reasoning in Erasmus’ Antibarbarian Writings,” Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook 16
(1996): 34–53.
14
For a good collection of essays about the formation of identity in post-reformation England, see
Muriel C. McClendon, Joseph P. Ward, and Michael MacDonald, eds., Protestant Identities:
Religion, Society, and Self-Fashioning in Post-Reformation England (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1999). For the importance of defining Catholicism in Protestant England, see
Ethan H. Shagan, ed., Catholics and the “Protestant nation”: Religious Politics and Identity in
Early Modern England (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005).
15
For the importance of historical writing for the formation of Protestant identity, see Bruce
Gordon, ed., Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-Century Europe, 2 vols. (Aldershot,
U.K.: Ashgate, 1996) and Paulina Kewes, ed., The Uses of History in Early Modern England
(San Marino, Calif.: Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, 2006).
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
278
CHURCH HISTORY
images of Catholic priests, monks, and prelates. Unsurprisingly, these
portrayals of Catholics were far from positive. What is surprising is how
many times one reads about these monks, friars, and church leaders and
realizes that the language was lifted almost directly from the Praise of Folly
or the Colloquies. When English authors sought to describe pre-Reformation
Catholicism they turned to the writings of Erasmus for evidence to support
their criticisms and to justify the break from Rome.
For many post-Reformation English schoolboys, Erasmus was one of the only
Catholic authors they read and the depictions of Catholicism found in the Praise
of Folly and in the Colloquies became their picture of Catholic clergy, as well as
their foundational imprint for their mental picture of relics, pilgrimages, and other
church practices.16 In fact, Erasmus’s historical skills lent credibility to his
observations regarding the pre-Reformation world. Educated English people
were familiar with his Paraphrases, his New Testament scholarship, and his
patristic scholarship.17 In all of these genres, Erasmus’s historical sensibilities
were evident. His credibility was also strengthened, ironically, by his
commitment to Roman Catholicism. The very fact that he was Catholic meant
that English schoolboys were taught that his views of Catholic corruption
could be trusted because he could not be accused of being a Protestant
painting a biased picture.18 These stories, they were taught, came from a
Catholic. They read his narratives as literal accounts and avoided more
complex readings that might have recognized the satirical and comedic aspects
of his Praise of Folly and Colloquies. As a result, Erasmus’s early criticism of
the Catholic Church became a part of the Protestant historical narrative.19
One of the most common methods whereby later English historians painted a
derogatory picture of late-medieval Catholicism was to describe the cult of
saints. The most often cited historical evidence for this picture was
Erasmus’s description of Canterbury in his Colloquies. For example, Sir
Francis Hastings suggested that the poor and needy were better cared for by
Protestants after the Reformation than they had been under Catholicism. It
16
Good analyses of Erasmus and English education can be found in James K. McConica, English
Humanists and Reformation Politics under Henry VIII and Edward VI (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1965); and Todd, Christian Humanism.
17
For the transmission of Erasmian texts in Elizabethan England, see Gregory Dodds, Exploiting
Erasmus, 61–92.
18
For example, Henry Foulis, The History of the Wicked Plots and Conspiracies of our Pretended
Saints Representing the Beginning, Constitution, and Designs of the Jesuite (London, 1662), 7.
19
This article focuses on the English use of Erasmus’s literary portrayals of Catholic clergy and
does not seek to judge the validity of Erasmus’s depictions. On the one hand, Erasmus was clearly
playing on common stereotypes and his audience would have recognized the figures he portrayed.
On the other, his descriptions were often comedic and satirical in nature and did not represent
Catholic clergy as a whole, of which Erasmus was, of course, a member.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
AN ACCIDENTAL HISTORIAN
279
should be noted that this is not the conclusion of modern historians.20 Hastings’s
proof came from Erasmus’s Colloquies where Erasmus described the shrine of
St. Thomas Becket. Hastings claimed that the gold and jewels covering the
shrine, as described by Erasmus, meant that the Church cared more about its
own wealth and power than helping the poor. He wrote: “whence it hath come
to passe, that many liuely members of Christ Iesus, being colde, naked, and
hungrie haue been neglected, while it was thought an holier worke to shrine in
gold and siluer the bones of dead men, as Erasmus in his Colloquie or
dialogue of peregrination for Religion sake doth note.”21 He then went on to
recount Erasmus’s description of the shrine. Hasting’s point was that not only
was the Church greedy, but also that underlying all of this fraud was
superstition. Using Erasmus was the perfect way to engage readers while
supporting the argument that the Catholic Church was, on the one hand,
devious, cunning, and brilliantly defrauding the people, and on the other, filled
with illiterate, foolish, and almost laughable clerics. English Protestants truly
wanted to have it both ways when they imagined the Catholic Church.
Another historian to highlight Erasmus’s description of Becket’s Shrine and
Canterbury Cathedral was the bishop and historian Godwin Francis. In his 1630
history of the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Mary I, Francis also
stressed the grandeur of the Cathedral and the rich ornamentation of the
shrine. The Catholic Church, in this account, was primarily devoted to the
monetization of salvation. The diamonds, jewels, and gold that could better
have helped the poor were instead being taken from the poor. The church
sought to demonstrate its wealth and power while continuing to steal money
from the people. The source proving the corruption of Catholicism was again
Erasmus. According to Bishop Francis:
for from those times euen almost to our dayes all sorts of people from all
parts of Europe, superstitiously frequented the Shrine of this vpstart Saint,
with rich oblations indeuoring to procure his fauor. Hence the Monastery
was so inriched, that of it and the Church ERASMVS said, That euery
place was enlightened with the lustre of most precious and huge stones,
and the Church throughout abounded with more than Royall Treasure.22
20
See Paul Slack, Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England (New York: Longman, 1988);
Elfrieda Dubois, “Almsgiving in post-reformation England” History of European Ideas 9, no. 4
(1988): 489–495; Ian W. Archer, “The Charity of Early Modern Londoners,” Transactions of the
Royal Historical Society 12 (2002): 223–244; and Thomas Max Safley, ed., The Reformation of
Charity: The Secular and Religious in Early Modern Poor Relief (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2003).
21
Sir Francis Hastings, An Apologie or Defence of the Watch-word (London, 1600), 19.
22
Francis Godwin, Annales of England Containing the Reignes of Henry the Eigghth. Edward the
Sixt. Queene Mary (London, 1630), 40–41. Erasmus’s De libero arbitrio and Luther’s response are
discussed on page 71.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
280
CHURCH HISTORY
The point, for Francis, was to portray the medieval Catholic Church as having
grown extremely wealthy by manipulating the gullibility of the people. This
description, when joined with other descriptions of illiterate and corrupt
monks and secular clergy, became the preferred Protestant memory of
English Catholicism.
Francis also noted Erasmus’s description of the shrine at Walsingham and
stated that during the Reformation it too was pulled down so that it “might
bee no further cause of superstition.”23 Naturally, the point of all of this was
to justify English Protestantism. Erasmus’s literary evidence was very useful
for several reasons. First, his descriptions were interesting, memorable, and
associated with a famous name. Second, he was useful in that he was a wellknown Catholic. Protestant authors could therefore claim the descriptions
were not based on Protestant propaganda. Better yet, as the English
Protestant historian Henry Foulis noted in 1662, Erasmus could not only be
trusted because he was a Catholic commentator on Catholicism, but also
conversely because Catholics, especially Ignatius of Loyola, had rejected
him.24 It was similarly helpful that both the Index of Prohibited Books and
the University of Paris had censored the Colloquies.25 After all, if he was in
the Index, then it was practically an approved book for Protestants. From a
Protestant perspective, therefore, Erasmus was perfectly situated as a reliable
source for Catholic history. He was safe, but he was also credible. The third
reason he was so useful to authors such as Hastings and Francis was because
readers were already familiar with the passages they were quoting from the
Colloquies and educated readers would have read his portrayals of the
shrines when they were learning Latin.26 I have mentioned the histories of
Hastings and Francis as examples of references to Erasmus’s descriptions of
the shrines at Canterbury and Walsingham, but there were many more;
including histories written by Francis Bacon and William Somners.27 These
23
Godwin, Annales, 160. For the context of Erasmus’s visit to Walsingham, see Peter Marshall,
Religious Identities in Henry VIII’s England (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2006), 133–134.
24
Foulis, The History of the Wicked Plots and Conspiracies, 7.
25
C. R. Thompson, “Introduction,” in Collected Works of Erasmus: Colloquies, vol. 39 (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1997), xxxix–xxxx.
26
For the use of the Colloquies in English education see C. R. Thompson, “Erasmus and Tudor
England,” in Extrait des Actes du Congrès Erasme, Rotterdam 27–29 Octobre 1969 (Amsterdam:
North Holland Publishing, 1971), 29–68; Todd, Christian Humanism, 93; Ian Green, Humanism
and Protestantism in Early Modern English Education (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2009), 176;
and Dodds, Exploiting Erasmus, 64, 89.
27
William Somner, The Antiquities of Canterbury (London, 1640), 86, 164–5, 170–172, 177–
178. It is also worth noting that in the early seventeenth century, Thomas Bodley, when
commissioning the historical friezes for the library reading room at Oxford, included Erasmus
with other figures who established Protestantism in England. See Ian Philip, The Bodleian
Library in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983),
22–25.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
AN ACCIDENTAL HISTORIAN
281
histories shaped the way educated English people remembered their Catholic
past.
Perhaps more historically significant than Erasmus’s depiction of Catholic
shrines was his portrayal of monks, friars, theologians, and prelates.
Erasmus’s Colloquies and Praise of Folly became definitional texts for
Protestant views of Catholic clergy. Tracing all of the connections in
Protestant works to these Erasmian texts would be nearly impossible. They
show up in hundreds, if not thousands, of texts, though most were without
direct references. But the language and structure of the portrayals leave little
doubt that these originated in readings of Erasmus. The Colloquies and
Praise of Folly were the books, by a Catholic author, that a wide swath of
Protestants continued to read in post-Reformation England. As one Catholic
author astutely bemoaned, “there is commonly read in al scooles a boke of
Colloquies, compiled by Erasmus of Roterdam, wherin be many thynges,
whiche may beate in to younge and tender myndes, ungodlynes, and infecte
the frayle and bryckel age.”28 From an English Catholic perspective, this is
precisely what was happening in England. The Colloquies were filled with
stereotypical views of Catholics that English readers assumed were true for
all Catholic clergy. Here is another description of the Colloquies in England
from 1560:
and as touchynge the colloquies of Erasmus, thus it standeth. Amongst
manye other workes wherby Erasmus wonderfully aduaunced learning, he
made also a booke of Dialogues for chyldren. And seyng it red so gredely,
he ofte augmented the same. And as he was a man of an excellent witte,
and of great eloquence, he toke pleasure to wryte of sondry argumentes
taken out of naturall thynges, and of the lyfe of men. And with a certen
maruelous dexteritie, and style moste pleasaunt, he setteth forth precptes
of Godlye and vertuouse maners, and noteth with all by the same occasion,
olde accustomed errours and vices, whereof commeth this complaynte of
hym.29
The Colloquies were filled with godly wisdom, but this also caused some to
complain. From a Protestant point of view, though, such a “complaynte of
hym” provided yet an additional reason to read and trust such a text.
One of the most prominent writers to draw from Erasmus’s texts for
historical descriptions of the Reformation was the famed martyrologist John
Foxe.30 Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, commonly referred to as the “book of
martyrs,” was perhaps only surpassed by the Bible in popularity in
28
Johannes Sleidanus, A Famouse Chronicle of Our Time (London, 1560), clvi–clvii.
Sleidanus, Famouse Chronicle, clviii.
30
For more on Foxe’s use of Erasmus see Bruce Mansfield, Phoenix of His Age: Interpretations
of Erasmus, c 1550–1750 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 111–114.
29
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
282
CHURCH HISTORY
Elizabethan England.31 On numerous occasions in this text Foxe pointed to
Erasmus as an authority on his times and used references to Erasmus’s texts
to support his negative historical portrayals of the Catholic Church.32
Interestingly, Foxe highlighted the significance of the Colloquies for
undermining Catholicism. I began this article with a quotation from Thomas
Topley that Foxe included in his Acts and Monuments. Taking another look
at Topley’s full statement is useful for understanding his fear of the corrosive
effects of the Colloquies. In his recantation, Thomas Topley specifically
singled out the Colloquies for his loss of faith in the Church:
all Christen men beware of consentyng to Erasmus fables, for by consentyng
to them, they haue caused me to shrinke in my fayth that I promised to God at
my Christenyng by my witnesses. First, as toughyng these Fables, I read in
Colloquium by the instruction of Syr Richard Foxe, of certain Pilgrimes,
which (as the booke doth say) made a vowe to go to S. James, & as they
went, one of them dyed & he desired his felowes to salute S. James in his
name: and an other dyed homeward, and he desired that they would salute
his wife and his children, and the thyrd dyed at Florence, & his felow
sayd he supposed that he was in heauen, and yet he sayd that he was a
great lyer. Thus I mused of these opinions so greatly, that my mynde was
almost withdrawne from deuotion to Saintes. Notwithstandyng I consented
that the diuine seruice of them was very good, and is though I haue not
had such sweetnesse in it as I should haue had, because of such Fables, &
also because of other foolish pastimes, as dauncing, tennes and such other,
which I thinke haue bene great occasions that the goodnes of God hath
bene voyde in me, and vice in strength.33
The fables of Erasmus lessened the “sweetnesse” of Topley’s devotions. This
was a surprisingly candid testimonial about reading Erasmus and the effect
that such reading had on traditional approaches to faith and religious
practice. While Catholics lamented this corrosive Erasmian effect, such a
passage was sure to delight Foxe’s Protestant audience, for whom Erasmus
was the key to exposing Catholic corruption, abuse, and foolishness. This
statement by Topley, however, gets to the problematic nature of using
Erasmus’s Colloquies and Praise of Folly as historical evidence. These texts
combined literary elements of satire, comedy, and fiction to craft polemical
points. In England, though, they were often treated as accurate historical
descriptions of Catholicism. Topley, in contrast, pointed out that they were
31
For a discussion of the importance and print history of Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, see John N.
King, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and Early Modern Print Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2006).
32
See Foxe, Acts and Monuments, 838, 841, 844, 857, 989, 1075, 1113–1114, 1177–1179, 1265,
1298, 1379–1380, 1567.
33
Foxe, Acts and Monuments, 1047.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
AN ACCIDENTAL HISTORIAN
283
fictions or fables, and also suggested that these stories of Catholic corruption
and foolishness were destroying faith. The assumption underlying the text
was that Topley was far from the only reader of the Colloquies to be pulled
away from Catholicism by Erasmus’s stories. From a Catholic point of view
this was the danger of the Colloquies. From an English Protestant
perspective, particularly that of John Foxe, this was exactly what they hoped
would happen when students read Erasmus’s dialogues.
Foxe singled out one colloquy in particular as emblematic of the failures of
the Catholic clergy. The colloquy of the “Abbot and the Learned Lady” was the
perfect vehicle for Foxe to ridicule unlearned and corrupt monks and other
Catholic clergy. It also included some rather interesting critiques about the
role of women in society. Foxe wrote:
there is a learned man, which in a Dialogue that he maketh betwixt a rude
Abbot & a Gentlewoman, hauing skill in learning, jesteth, but with prety
earnest (as his manner is) and geueth a watch worde touching somewhat
my purpose. It is in the end of the Dialogue. The gentlewoman aunswering
the Abbot, for that he had partly checked her, because she was quicke in
vtterance of learning: Syr (quoth she) if you continue therin so dull as you
haue done and dayly do, the world perceiuing it (as they begin fast to grow
quicke in sight) it is to be feared, least they will sette you beside the
saddle, and put vs in your roomes.34
In this instance, Erasmus was not directly named, but was simply referred to as
“a learned man.” Educated readers, however, would have recognized this as
one of Erasmus’s most well known dialogues. The punch line at the end of
the colloquy was that learned women would take the positions of the clergy
if they continued to exhibit such levels of ignorance and incompetence.
While Erasmus may have been using this dialogue to encourage learning in
women, the point for Foxe was clearly directed at the failures of Catholic
clerics and the implication was that all Catholic clergy were ignorant
buffoons. In the early seventeenth century, Thomas Mason provided an
edited version of Foxe’s “book of martyrs” and specifically directed readers
to Erasmus. Following a long passage describing the foolishness of the
monks at the time of the Reformation, Mason wrote that if readers wanted to
hear about “more and worse pranks of Friers and Monks . . . [then] let them
resort to . . . Erasmus, and he shall find ynough to infect the aire.”35 If
readers either did not believe Foxe or needed additional evidence for the
evils of Catholicism then they should read the Colloquies. Erasmus thus
provided English Protestants with evidence for the supposedly derelict state
34
Foxe, Acts and Monuments, 1113.
John Foxe, Christs Victorie ouer Sathans Tyrannie: Faithfully Abstracted out of the Book of
Martyrs, and Diuers other Books. By Thomas Mason Preacher of Gods Word (London, 1615), 219.
35
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
284
CHURCH HISTORY
of affairs within the Church and its clergy prior to the English break from
Rome.
There were similar references to ignorant and corrupt monks and friars in
Francis Fullwood’s The Church-History of Britain. Again, the material
closely reflected passages in the Colloquies, though many of the paraphrases
did not include a direct citation. After one passage describing useless and
lazy monks, however, Fullwood added that “this plainly appeareth out of
Erasmus in his Dialogues.”36 Fullwood’s historical methodology was
obviously rather suspect when he was proving his historical account by
citing a fictional dialogue. But the Colloquies were widely known accounts
that had been written during the time period Fullwood was writing about and
therefore represented, as historical literary works continue to do for modern
historians, a window into cultural perceptions. Early modern English
historians, however, sought to use Erasmus’s fictional dialogues, such as The
Abbot and the Learned Lady, to exhibit the failings of the monastic system
and as proof of the necessity of a reformation in England. Naturally, for
authors such as Foxe and Fullwood, it was appropriate that the monasteries
were dissolved when they were filled with such unlearned, unchristian men.
None of the sources noted that Erasmus had created fictional characters
based on stereotypes that in no way represented the whole of the monastic
system or the Catholic clergy. Instead, they took his accounts as true
representations of the entire Catholic faith.
As late as 1688 we find Sir Peter Pett citing Erasmus repeatedly in his history
of English Christianity. He said that both Henry VIII and Erasmus laughed and
mocked the barbarous papacy and made it the “object of our mirth.”37 He then
suggested that the rise of the Catholic interest in England during the reign of
James II should be dealt with in the same way Erasmus had previously dealt
with it: through mirth and ridicule. In Pett’s mind, Erasmus was associated
with the dawn of the new learning: philology, languages, and clear thinking
in general. Erasmus had helped bring about a new England that broke away
from its superstitious Catholic past.38 In fact, the new experimental
philosophy of the Royal Society, he said, had its roots in Erasmus’s thought
and writings.39 According to Pett, the “Critical Masters of Experimental
Philosophy, and who by means of the great useful pains formerly taken by
36
Francis Fullwood, The Church-History of Britain (London, 1655), 34–35. Also see pp. 166–
167, 275, and vol. 2, pp. 87–88.
37
Sir Peter Pett, The Happy Future State of England (London, 1688), 154.
38
Pett, Happy Future State, 73.
39
Pett was an associate of the Royal Society. See Frances Harris, “Ireland as a Laboratory: The
Archive of Sir William Petty,” in Archives of the Scientific Revolution: the Formation and
Exchange of Ideas in Seventeenth-century Europe, ed. Michael Hunter (Woodbridge, U.K.:
Boydell & Brewer, 1998), 88.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
AN ACCIDENTAL HISTORIAN
285
Erasmus, Sir Thomas Moore and others, in restoring Philological Learning,
have now entire leisure to devote their Studies to the substantial Knowledge
of things, and whose Motto is, Nullius in verba.”40 This last phrase was a
slogan for the Royal Society, which hoped to move beyond the dogmatic
quarrels of the Reformation and, instead, to develop an understanding of
truth from empirical evidence, the knowledge of things. Returning to
“popery” would be to reject an era of dawning rationalism and instead “run
back to implicit faith and ignorance and barbarism.”41 From Pett’s point of
view, the very foundation of social progress was put in jeopardy by a new
era of “popery” in England.42 Pett and his readers believed that Erasmus had
providentially exposed the real historical nature of Catholicism.
Another of Pett’s historical targets was medieval scholasticism. Not
surprisingly, he again turned to Erasmus for corroboration. “The Segacity of
Erasmus,” he wrote, “could not then but easily see through the Cobwebs of
the School-Divines.”43 After quoting directly from Erasmus against the
scholastics, Pett crafted an interesting alliance between Erasmus and Thomas
Hobbes. According to Pett, “here it may not by the way be unworthy of your
Lordships observation as to the concert that is between the Genius of one
great Witt and another, that Erasmus and Mr. Hobbs had the same sense of
School-Divinity and School-Divines.”44 This reputation for great wit was
derived from Erasmus’s Colloquies and his Praise of Folly and though Pett
did not identify his source directly, it is apparent that much of his association
of Erasmus with the witty mockery of scholastics and theologians originated
in the Praise of Folly. He also noted that Foxe had relied on Erasmus for his
histories. Pett wrote that “our Martyrologist Mr. Fox could not have
expressed more anger against a Bishop Bonner, than Erasmus a Papist hath
here against Popish Persecuting Prelates.”45 Erasmus’s credibility in
criticizing Catholic practices was greater, according to Pett, because he was a
“papist.” It is also important to note that Pett connected Erasmus and Foxe
as historical sources critical of papal practices. Pett then continued:
had Erasmus then known of one practice enjoyn’d constantly by the Canons
to Popish Bishops at their Condemning of Heretics . . . I believe the great Wit
of Erasmus would after his ingenious account aforesaid of the Tragedy of the
Condemned Heretic, pleasantly entertained himself and Posterity with the
40
Pett, Happy Future State, 73.
Pett, Happy Future State, 73.
42
For Pett’s philosophical and political views, see Mark Goldie, “Sir Peter Pett, Sceptical
Toryism, and the Science of Toleration in the 1680s,” Studies in Church History 21 (1984),
247–273.
43
Pett, Happy Future State, 70.
44
Pett, Happy Future State, 70.
45
Pett, Happy Future State, 207.
41
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
286
CHURCH HISTORY
wanton cruelty of that Farce that ensued it, and let us see how the Popish
Bishop then using the Speech familiar to some Tooth drawers just before
their operation.46
Even though Erasmus had not written about these particular aspects of torture,
he would have, Pett maintained, if he had known about them. For Pett, Erasmus
appeared to be a reliable early sixteenth-century witness even when he was not.
All these passages from Pett represent a linking of Erasmus and Foxe. They
substantiated each other and if Erasmus was good enough for Foxe, then
Pett’s readers could trust that he was a credible historical source. Together,
Foxe and Erasmus formed the historical justification for Protestantism. In
Pett’s mind, Erasmus’s “great Wit” provided the historical evidence for the
corruption, foolishness, and barbarism of the Catholic Church. Moreover,
Pett’s own depictions of Catholicism in his time were not based on
contemporary accounts, but rather from portrayals found in the Praise of
Folly and the Colloquies written over a century earlier.
Perhaps the most important historical use of Erasmus came in Henry Care’s
history of the Christian Church.47 This was a unique history since it was written
for the vulgar sort and released as a serial over a period of several years
beginning in 1678. During that year, popular hysteria spread throughout
England over the supposed “Popish Plot” to assassinate Charles II and
replace him with his Catholic brother James. Henry Care was at the heart of
the anti-Catholic propaganda that emanated from the English presses. In the
end, at least fifteen innocent people were executed before the Plot was
exposed as a fabrication of Titus Oates and Israel Tonge. During the height
of the panic, though, Care was one of the most vociferous voices railing
against the Catholic threat and calling for a parliamentary bill to exclude
James from inheriting the throne.48 One of the ways Care sought to
demonstrate the evil of Catholicism was through a weekly history pamphlet
designed to attract a common readership. Each publication contained another
chapter in the fifteen hundred year history of the Catholic Church.49 Entitled,
The Pacquet of Advice from Rome: or, the History of Popery, it detailed what
46
Pett, Happy Future State, 207.
For the polemical and political context of Care’s history, see Lois G. Schwoerer, The Ingenious
Mr. Henry Care: Restoration Publicist (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), 44–
75; and Peter Hinds, “‘Tales and Romantick Stories’: ‘Impostures,’ Trustworthiness and the
Credibility of Information in the Late Seventeenth Century,” in Roger L’Estrange and the
Making of Restoration Culture, eds. Anne Dunan-Page and Beth Lynch (Aldershot, U.K.:
Ashgate, 2008), 96–105.
48
Ironically, Care would later become a supporter of James II when James called for full religious
toleration in England. See Lois G. Schwoerer, Ingenious Mr. Henry Care, 189.
49
According to Daniel Woolf, Care’s Weekly Pacquets were the first serial histories published in
England. See Daniel R. Woolf, Reading History in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000), 274.
47
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
AN ACCIDENTAL HISTORIAN
287
Care believed was the corruption of Christianity by the Church and the abuse of
power by the papacy against anyone who resisted its jurisdiction. Taken
together these pamphlets were, in essence, a large historical treatise broken
up into small chapters that the common people could purchase each week for
a penny. In the introduction to his first volume of collected Pacquets, printed
in 1679, Care maintained that he would only use unassailable sources. “The
Authorities I shall make use of,” he wrote, “shall be either Sacred Scriptures,
or such Authors as our Adversaries owne; which muste therefore be
competent witnesses without exception.”50 Apparently, given the large
number of references to Erasmus, Care believed that Erasmus was an
unassailable source for accurate descriptions of the early sixteenth century.
This was, as we have already discussed, because Erasmus was Catholic. Like
Pett, Care also suggested that since Catholicism was irrational and rather
silly the way to combat it was with ridicule and scorn. After stating that he
would be moderate and base his criticisms with fact, Care wrote: “Sure we
may be allowed a little innocent Mirth, when they exercise so much Spleen
and Gall. Indeed Popery is generally so silly a Foppery, that it deserves
none of our Passions but Scorn, bating only their Idolatries and Cruelties,
which rather require our Compassion and Detestation.”51 Care therefore
needed sources that were moderate, judicious, and, if possible, witty.
Erasmus, he believed, was just such a perfect source.
Care’s first pamphlet appeared in 1678 and started with early Christian
history. Four years later, in 1682, his pamphlets had reached the Protestant
Reformation. Over these four years his readership had grown substantially
and it is possible that his was the most widely read history of the
Reformation in seventeenth-century England.52 For Care’s description of
Catholic clergy and theologians at the time of the Reformation, he turned to
Erasmus and the Praise of Folly. Care regularly referred to Erasmus and
Erasmian texts in his writings and in the Pacquets Care paraphrased
significant sections from Erasmus. In fact, two entire weekly chapters of
Care’s Pacquet drew almost exclusively from the Praise of Folly. On Friday,
November 24, 1682, the abstract at the top of the pamphlet read:
Fragments out of Erasmus. His Moriae Encomium. He taxes the lives of the
Schoolmen and Popish Clergy. The Abominable and wicked lives of the
50
Henry Care, The Weekly Pacquet of Advice from Rome: Or, The History of Popery, vol. 1
(London, 1679), 3.
51
Care, Weekly Pacquet, vol. 1, 3.
52
Schwoerer, Ingenious Mr. Henry Care, 72–74. Care felt that his history provided common
English men and women with greater insight into the Catholic Church than any other volume.
See Henry Care, The History of Popery or Pacquet of Advice from Rome, vol. 4 (London,
1682), sig, A2v.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
288
CHURCH HISTORY
Monks and Friers. Their Fopperies and vile way of Preaching. The manners
of Princes, Noble men, and Ladies reprehended.53
What followed this summary, over the next six pages of the pamphlet, were
Erasmus’s depictions of foolish clerics developed from the Praise of Folly.
The presentation, however, made no acknowledgement of the satirical nature
of the text or that Erasmus’s fictional character, Folly, was the main speaker,
not Erasmus himself. Though Folly was indeed making Erasmus’s points,
Erasmus was using satire, hyperbole, and a comedic lightness to get his
readers thinking. All of that is gone in Care’s paraphrase and what remained
was a biting attack on the Catholic Church, an attack ostensibly coming
from Erasmus rather than Care. Moreover, the material was presented as
Erasmus’s objective historical description of his times. After beginning with
a description of the exorbitant pride of the theologians and clergy, Care
turned to the monks. The following passage from Care, which was entirely
drawn from Erasmus, provides a good sense for how English authors were
incorporating Erasmus’s fictional depictions into their own historical
accounts of the period. Paraphrasing Erasmus, Care wrote:
next to these come those who call themselves the Religious, and Monks;
most false in both Titles; when both a great of them, are farthest from
Religion, and to men swarm thicker in all places than themselves; a sort
of wretches they are, that all men detest to that height, that they take it for
ill luck, to meet one of them by chance; yet such is their happiness that
they flatter themselves. In the first place they reckon it one of the main
points of piety, if they are so illiterate, that they can’t so much as Read:
And then, when they run over their Offices, which they carry about ‘em,
rather by rote than understanding, they believe the Gods more than
ordinary pleased with their braying. Some there are among them, that put
off their trumperies at vast rates; yet wander up and down for the bread
they eat. There is scarce an Inn, Wagon, or Ship, into which they will not
intrude, to the no small Damage to the Commonwealth of Beggars: And
yet like pleasant fellows with all this Vileness, Ignorance, Rudeness,
Impudence, and Debaucheries they represent to us (for so they call it) the
holy and mortified lives of the Apostles; and what is more pleasant, still
they do all things by rule, and as it were a kind of Mathematics, the least
swerving from which were a Crime beyond forgiveness.54
There was no indication in the text that this was anything other than an
unembellished description by Erasmus of his times. In Care’s text, Folly was
53
Henry Care, Weekly Pacquet of Advice from Rome: or, The History of Popery, vol. 5 (London,
1683), 97. I would like to thank the helpful staff at the Folger Shakespeare Library for helping me to
locate these specific pamphlets.
54
Care, Weekly Pacquet, vol. 5, 98.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
AN ACCIDENTAL HISTORIAN
289
not the speaker. Instead, Erasmus was the historical authority that should be
trusted by English Protestants. The previous quotation is but one example in
an entire pamphlet that could be quoted to demonstrate Care’s reliance on
the Praise of Folly to justify the English break from Rome.
Two weeks later, on Friday, December 1, 1682, the next Weekly Pacquet
appeared and was again based almost entirely on Erasmus’s In Praise of
Folly. Care began this chapter with a critique of the bishops and episcopal
hierarchy of the Catholic Church:
it would be a kind of Sin to forget the Superiour Clergy, since we have been
so Critical upon the Inferiour, and therefore out of the same Erasmus we will
give you two or three other remarks, which may be as pleasant to be read, as
profitable to be understood; this done we shall briefly answer some
objections and scandalls against the life and story of Luther; and then assume
again Our History.55
As with the previous week’s Pacquet, the pages that followed this introduction
condensed, paraphrased, and quoted from the Praise of Folly. The Catholic
hierarchy was filled with ambitious, prideful, and unlearned men who sought
money and power. They represented the height of foolishness. As with the
previous week, Care presented a paraphrase of Erasmus’s text, but suggested
that it was Erasmus’s observations of his times and again the speaker, rather
than Folly, was an amalgam of Erasmus and Care. For Care, and presumably
his readers, Erasmus’s satire had become the authoritative source for English
Protestant views of Roman Catholicism. These two “Weekly Pacquets” that
quoted extensively from Erasmus were central chapters for Care’s thesis. All
of the weeks, over the previous four years of his serial history, had been
leading his common reader to the inevitability of the break from Rome. And
while he discussed Luther and Calvin, Erasmus was Care’s proof of the
corruption and failures of the Catholic Church and its clergy. He needed to
make his English audience believe that the reforms of Henry VIII and
Edward VI were absolutely necessary. Erasmus provided the evidence that
made everything else Care wrote—and would write—believable. We should
not underestimate the appeal or significance of Care’s texts at a critical
moment in the making of the Protestant history of the Reformation.56 Care’s
anti-Catholicism, built on particularly Protestant readings of Erasmus, shaped
the context for the overthrow of James II in 1688. The Whig political
movement, Protestant populism, and Anglican narrative that emerged out of
this era were built on precisely these historical readings. Erasmus’s early
satirical criticism of the Church had a very long and pervasive afterlife in
55
56
Care, Weekly Pacquet, vol. 5, 105.
See Schwoerer, Ingenious Mr. Henry Care, 75.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
290
CHURCH HISTORY
England and his critiques of the Church became an intrinsic part of the English
story of Protestant identity.
The formation and evolution of historical memory is a complex cultural
process.57 At least a portion of the corporate memory for early modern
English Protestants was built on a particular image of pre-Reformation
English Catholicism—a literary image developed from Erasmus’s early
criticism of the Catholic Church. The amusing pictures Erasmus crafted of
monks, theologians, and clerics became the Protestant historical narrative.
For centuries, Erasmus’s Colloquies remained a significant component
within early modern Latin education. This was especially true in England.
Young Protestant students were served a steady diet of Erasmus’s critical
depictions of Catholic clergy. Unsurprisingly, these images of Catholic
corruption, superstition, and irrationality became an almost uncritically accepted
portrayal of the Catholic world prior to the rise of Protestantism. There is a
distinct irony in the fact that Erasmus, who sought to use his pen to first inspire
reform and then, later, to find common ground in the pursuit of peace, would
help establish a historical foundation for dissenting anti-Catholicism.58
For English Protestants, Erasmus’s depictions of a Catholic Church in need
of reformation became the standard stereotype of Catholic priests, monks,
bishops, theologians, and church government. The Praise of Folly and the
Colloquies played a large role in this. Erasmus, thus, helped both to awaken
historical consciousness at the dawn of the Reformation and, surprisingly,
became the primary source for historical depictions of reformation era
Catholicism for generations of Protestants. We can therefore study Erasmus
the historian in two ways: first, as a pioneer of modern historical methods
and insights through his attempts to better understand the history and literary
context of the biblical and patristic world; and second, as a historical
commentator on his own times whose views shaped approaches to Reformation
history for generations to come. How many modern views of late-medieval
Catholicism and how many stories of the Protestant Reformation are still built
on long-standing English stereotypes of barbarous, greedy, illiterate, and foolish
clergy? And how many of those Protestant stories were founded on a
worldview rooted in Erasmus’s early criticism of the church? Though these
questions cannot be fully answered, the material presented here suggests that
57
See Aleida Assmann, Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Media, Archives
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); and, Christian Emden and David Midgley, eds.,
Cultural Memory and Historical Consciousness in the German-Speaking World Since 1500 (Bern:
Peter Lang, 2004).
58
For an analysis of Erasmus’s peaceful and moderate rhetoric, see Hilmar Pabel, “The Peaceful
People of Christ: The Irenic Ecclesiology of Erasmus of Rotterdam,” in Erasmus’ Vision of the
Church, ed. Hilmar Pabel (Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1995), 57–93.
For a summary of Erasmus’s pacifism, see Patrick Henry, “Christianity without Borders:
Erasmus’ Campaign for Peace,” Journal for Peace & Justice Studies 22, no. 1 (2012): 43–57.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
AN ACCIDENTAL HISTORIAN
291
Erasmus had a profound influence on Protestant interpretations of English history.
But Erasmus’s satire was obviously neither a real nor a complete description of the
Church and its clergy. They were literary constructs and stereotypes that Erasmus
employed to make a point about reform. They were effective for Erasmus,
however, because readers recognized the type of character he was laughing at.
English Protestant authors, however, did not dwell on the fact that Erasmus
remained loyal to the papacy, the Mass, and the Catholic Church as a whole.
As he grew older Erasmus was clear about his loyalty to the Church, his
refusal to support the Protestants, and he increasingly tempered his criticism of
the Church.59 Had he known that his fiction would become an assumed
historical reality and further divide the Christian world, he might have regretted
some of his words even more strongly.
It was once the general story, often associated with the work of A. G.
Dickens, that the Protestant Reformation in England was a popular
movement built on widespread anti-clericalism and opposition to
Catholicism.60 More recently, historians such as Christopher Haigh and
Eamon Duffy convincingly demonstrated that Catholicism was strong,
vibrant, and popular in the early sixteenth century and that the Reformation
was imposed on an unwilling populace from above.61 A veritable library of
books and articles since then have generally supported and corroborated this
picture. What is interesting about the study of Erasmus as a primary source
for English history is that there is a reality to both of these accounts. On the
one hand, we can see how English histories of the Reformation used
Erasmus to construct an image of Catholic corruption and imminent
collapse. However, on the other hand, in analyzing how Erasmus was used
in these histories, we can also clearly see the problematic nature of the
scaffolding upon which the anti-Catholic narratives were constructed and
then sold to the English people. What proved critical in the gradual
protestantization of England was a historical narrative that helped define
both Catholic and Protestant identities. Erasmus, as a historical authority,
became central to this Protestant task. Ultimately, I would argue that
Erasmus was so useful precisely because there was not an A. G. Dickens
type of reformation in England. This may not help us explain why the
59
Erasmus expressed this sentiment on a number of occasions, including in a letter to Jodocus
Jonas. Beatus Rhenanus also noted that Erasmus often told him that he wished he had written
differently early on in his criticism of the Catholic Church. See John C. Olin, Six Essays on
Erasmus (New York: Fordham University Press, 1979), 15n28.
60
A. G. Dickens, The English Reformation, 2nd ed. (University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 1989).
61
See Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and Society under the Tudors
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993); Christopher Haigh, “The Recent Historiography of the English
Reformation,” in Reformation to Revolution: Politics and Religion in Early Modern England,
ed. Margo Todd (New York: Routledge, 1995), 13–32; and Duffy, Stripping the Altars.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024
292
CHURCH HISTORY
Reformation happened, but it certainly helps us understand the subsequent
nature of English historical consciousness. There was, of course, a broad
diversity within English Protestantism and significant differences in how
various types of Protestants read Erasmus.62 However, in the ways in which
Erasmus was used as a primary historical source, the readings were almost
uniformly monolithic.63 Erasmus’s playful characterizations of late-medieval
Catholicism had become serious cultural truths for a broad spectrum of
English Protestants.
In summation, while it makes sense to think of Erasmus as contributing to the
historical understanding of the biblical and patristic worlds, he also became an
accidental historian of his own times. Yet, had later sixteenth and seventeenth
century authors paid more attention to Erasmus’s own historical and
contextual methodologies they would not have focused almost exclusively on
his critical and satirical writings for descriptions of Catholicism; his letters and
later writings often told a different, more nuanced and complex, story. And
they certainly would have sought to analyze the ways Catholicism had
changed over the decades rather than assuming that Erasmus’s clerics were the
same ones still filling the monasteries and schools of Continental Europe.
Unsurprisingly, though, given the pervasive use of the Colloquies in
education, they focused on Erasmus’s fiction and then embedded the
stereotypes found there within the English cultural mentalité. Astute readers
would also have recognized the problematic nature of using satirical texts like
the Praise of Folly as actual historical descriptions of Catholic clerics. But
what began as fictitious narratives became the real narratives for the
development of English Protestant history. Whether the assumptions derived
from his texts about the Catholic Church were valid or not, it is apparent how
important Erasmus’s legacy was for early modern English historical writing
and in shaping the worldview of generations of English Protestants.
62
Some editions of the Colloquies adapted Erasmus’s dialogues to Calvinist theological views by
adding new characters and arguments. Other publishers of Erasmus used him to challenge English
Calvinism. See Dodds, Exploiting Erasmus, especially ch. 5.
63
There were authors, such as Peter Heylyn, Jeremy Taylor, and Edward Stillingfleet who used
the memory of Erasmus to challenge assertions that the reformation in England was Calvinist in
nature, but even they supported the stereotypes of Catholic corruption. See Petery Heylyn,
Historia Quinqu-Articularis (London, 1660), 109, 112; Peter Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus
(London, 1668), 38–39; Edward Stillingfleet, Several Conferences between a Romish Priest, a
Fanatic Chaplain, and a Divine of the Church of England Concerning the Idolatry of the
Church of Rome (London 1679), 115–119; and, Jeremy Taylor, The Second Part of the
Dissuasive against Popery (London, 1667), 36, 70, 81, 143, 185, 195, 280, 295.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 18 Jun 2017 at 17:57:24, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009640713000024