I. As a distinct elite group engaged in public life with a particular sense of its own moral authority, intellectuals came into being in late nineteenth-century France, as the turmoil of the Dreyfu...

The aim of this essay is to show that Erasmus’s concept of peace should be understood as a form of irenicism rather than pacifism. I argue that Erasmus’s basic claims on war and peace do not qualify him as a pacifist, first of all because his concept of peace is non-universal: it is exclusively Christian since it does not include Muslims and Jews unless they have converted to Christianity. Secondly, Erasmus’s willingness to fight the Turks and his call for a (...) Christian war against them suggests that he was not a pacifist. Since the peace Erasmus preached for was exclusively Christian, it cannot be identified as pacifism in its accepted universal sense, but rather as a commitment to the peace of Christendom, and therefore his concept of peace should more precisely be described as irenic. By shedding new light on Erasmus’s notion of war and peace, this essay suggests that his alleged religious tolerance should be considered anew. (shrink)

Reading Nicolas of Cusa’s works on Islam reveals a sharp distinction between his De pace fidei with its tolerant attitude and his Cribratio Alkorani with its much less tolerant approach. Some eight years passed from the appearance of De pace fidei until the publication of Cribratio Alkorani. I argue that in the period between the appearances of these books, Cusanus changed his attitude to Islam, and the Turkish threat may have been the reason.Certain historians have pointed to Desiderius Erasmus’ objection (...) to the waging of crusades and to the term semichristiani, which Erasmus occasionally used in reference to Muslims. According to these historians, the term semichristiani echoed Cusanus’ optimistic view according to which the Turks were «half-Christian». However, I found that Cusanus never used this term in any of his writings, and that the term sits in Erasmus’ writings side by side with manifest contempt and degradation expressed toward the Turks. Thus, Erasmus’ rhetoric and hostile attitude toward the Turks and Islam was far from the moderation and toleration which Cusanus presented in his De pace fidei. In its attitude and spirit Erasmus’ De bello Turcico should be compared to Cusanus’ Cribratio Alkorani rather than to De pace fidei. (shrink)

ABSTRACTNo comprehensive research of Erasmus’ ethnological mind has been published, so far. Erasmus’ attitudes toward Turks and Jews were discussed analytically but not synthetically or comparatively. An attempt to widen the ethnological scope and to define and classify Erasmus’ attitudes toward different non-Christian groups is presented here. Christian Europeans were at the top of Erasmus’ echelon. Second to them were ‘half-Christians’, i.e. Turks, or Muslims in general. Below them were Jews, and lower in the hierarchy were black Africans. Yet, no (...) one was unworthy of conversion to Christianity, even barbarians of the third kind – according to Bartolomé Las Casas’ sort – the most inferior barbarians, slaves by nature, as defined by Aristotle. According to Las Casas, these barbarians were too low to ask for God and were not candidates for conversion to Christianity. Erasmus’ believed that Barbarians of any kind deserved Christianity without being brutally forced to accept it. Yet, in practice, converts from Judaism to Christianity were rated, even by Erasmus, as lower than Christians. This, in addition to the principle that Christian peace excludes war against the Turks, is the very essence of Erasmus’ pax et concordia. (shrink)