I present here an exchange of emails I had with a professor for whom I will present no identifying information, because he sure came out looking pretty dumb. To simplify matters, I present my own writing in blue, and his in black.
My first letter:
Dear Paul,
I’ve been on a crusade lately to combat two myths regarding Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. The first is the misquote about books. The incorrect version, which you’ve probably seen, is “Whenever I get a little money, I buy books; if any is left over, I buy clothes and food.” The correct version is not quite so compelling: “As soon as the money arrives, I shall first buy some Greek authors; then clothes.”
But I write to nag you about the second falsehood: that Erasmus was gay. You propagate this myth on your website. I’ve been trying to track down the source of this story. My guess is that it arose during the high period of gay assertiveness in the 70s and has simply been passed from mouth to mouth, or rather from webpage to webpage. The earliest reference I have found was in a polemically negative biography by Christopher Hollis, a Jesuit, published in 1933.
Most people now recognize the futility of argument about the sexual preferences of historical figures, but I think it’s worthwhile raising the point in this case because the question is not even debatable; the evidence in favor of Erasmus’ homosexuality is based upon a blundering misinterpretation of his letters. I have written a short essay on the matter; it’s here.
And please forgive me for nagging; I’m something of an Erasmus groupie.
Chris Crawford
His response:
Chris Crawford wrote:
> Most people now recognize the futility of argument about the sexual preferences of historical figures,
I do not think it is futile at all.
> but I think it’s worthwhile raising the point in this case because the question is not even debatable; the evidence in favor of Erasmus’ homosexuality is based upon a blundering misinterpretation of his letters. I have written a short essay on the matter...
I am very interested in the efforts of non-gay people to “disprove” the homosexuality of people in the past: it has become quite a trend in recent years.
The argument that such phrases used by people in the past were rhetorical is now getting somewhat stale, and is based on a somewhat shallow concept of rhetoric. There are lost of possible rhetorical models to call upon – the question is *why* these particular models are used. Your theory of mimesis leaves much to be desired.
Moreover, you do not seem to realize that your claim that Erasmus was informed about and practicing classical rhetoric directly contradicts your claim that he was innocent as to the meanings of love. Erasmus was certainly aware of the distinct meanings of amor, dilectio, caritas, etc., as well as of the various Greek words for love.
My second letter:
Dear me, Paul, you seem quite, er, assertive about this subject. I hope that nothing I wrote earlier gave you offense.
>I am very interested in the efforts of non-gay people to “disprove” the homosexuality of people in the past: it has become quite a trend in recent years.
Gee, I never thought of myself as trendy. In any event, I have no political agenda here; it’s just my rather niggling obsession with getting things right regardless of their political implications. Sort of a moral obligation to correct mistakes where it’s not injurious to do so.
>The argument that such phrases used by people in the past were rhetorical is now getting somewhat stale, and is based on a somewhat shallow concept of rhetoric. There are lost of possible rhetorical models to call upon – the question is *why* these particular models are used. Your theory of mimesis leaves much to be desired.
Well, it may certainly be stale, and I probably do have a shallow concept of rhetoric, but I was wondering if you think that the argument is wrong. If there are other rhetorical models to call upon, then what others might serve to discredit my argument? Could you fill me in on some of the “much” that is to be desired for my theory of mimesis? Please go easy with me – I don’t know much of this stuff you’re referring to, but I do know a bit about Erasmus.
>Moreover, you do not seem to realize that your claim that Erasmus was informed about and practicing classical rhetoric directly contradicts your claim that he was innocent as to the meanings of love. Erasmus was certainly aware of the distinct meanings of amor, dilectio, caritas, etc., as well as of the various Greek words for love.
I think that you’re misconstruing my meaning in the essay. The sentence in question, I believe, is this:
“The word ’love’ did not carry the sexual connotations for Erasmus’ contemporaries that it carries for us. Its connotations were more Christian in nature: ’love thy fellow man’ was not an admonition to homosexuality.”
This sentence does not say that Erasmus was ignorant of the meanings of the words; indeed he was, and in fact, he used them with telling precision. I examined the Servatius letters and found that the vast majority of such words were either amare forms or amicitia forms. There were also a goodly number of carrissima’s and even a few suavissimi’s. There were a few voluptare forms, but none of them referred directly to Servatius; a typical one was that Servatius’ letter gave Erasmus voluptas. There was not a single use of dilector in any form.
My sentence concerns the difference between Erasmus’ use of the amare forms and our use of the word love. When we translate an amare form into “love”, it’s all too easy for a modern reader to infer sexual love where the Latin word does not imply sexual love. Chalk up one for a rare case of semantic poverty in the English language.
Any other criticisms or corrections you can make to the essay would be much appreciated.
All good wishes,
Chris
His second letter:
>Dear me, Paul, you seem quite, er, assertive about this subject. I hope that nothing I wrote earlier gave you offense.
>> I am very interested in the efforts of non-gay people to “disprove” the homosexuality of people in the past: it has become quite a trend in recent years.
>Gee, I never thought of myself as trendy. In any event, I have no political agenda here.
In fact you do, although so does everybody else, so I do not blame you for that. You begin by setting the stage of your discussion by imputing various motives to gay people, etc. etc. That is political.
>; it’s just my rather niggling obsession with getting things right regardless of their political implications. Sort of a moral obligation to correct mistakes where it’s not injurious to do so.
>>The argument that such phrases used by people in the past were rhetrorical is now getting somewhat stale, and is based on a somewhat shallow concept of rhetoric. There are lost of possible rhetorical models to call upon – the question is *why* these particular models are used. Your theory of mimesis leaves much to be desired.
Well, it may certainly be stale, and I probably do have a shallow concept of rhetoric, but I was wondering if you think that the argument is wrong.
It’s is not *your* rhetoric that is wrong, but your analysis of Erasmus’ use of rhetorical models. There are literally hundreds of ways of practicing rhetoric, and thousands of model sentences to choose from. The question is why he choose these particular ones.
>If there are other rhetorical models to call upon, then what others might serve to discredit my arguement? Could you fill me in on some of the “much” that is to be desired for my theory of mimesis? Please go easy with me – I don’t know much of this stuff you’re referring to, but I do know a bit about Erasmus.
If you don’t know about the academic study of the history of rhetoric, why on earth are you trying to make a case on the basis you do. HUmility does not work here when your argument is based on the implicit claim that you know what you are talking about!
>There were also a goodly number of carrissima’s and even a few suavissimi’s. There were a few voluptare forms, but none of them referred directly to Servatius; a typical one was that Servatius’ letter gave Erasmus voluptas. There was not a single use of dilector in any form.
>My sentence concerns the difference between Erasmus’ use of the amare forms and our use of the word love. When we translate an amare form into “love”, it’s all too easy for a modern reader to infer sexual love where the Latin word does not imply sexual love. Chalk up one for a rare case of semantic poverty in the English language.
This is a better grounds of discussion. What you call “amare” forms are indeed about erotic love (Erasmus must surely have known that “amor” was the Latin translation for Greek “eros”), but by Erasmus’ time it is true the word had become overlayed with romantic meanings acquired in Medieval contexts. But, unless I am missing something here, the language does not support your argument.
My third letter:
OK, Paul, let’s see if we can gather together some strands into something that either or both of us can learn from. Your two arguments are that 1) there’s no justification for my assertion that Erasmus’ amatory letters to Servatius were stylistic exercises; and 2) that Erasmus’ use of amare forms does indeed suggest erotic intent.
On the first point, your suggestion that I have ultracrepidated is accurate, but doesn’t address the issue at hand. We’re trying to evaluate two competing hypotheses (gay communication versus stylistic experiment). My ignorance of the history of rhetoric doesn’t help the discussion, but it certainly doesn’t invalidate the argument. Concentrating on that ignorance is an ad hominem approach. The question is, what supporting evidence can be advanced in support of each hypothesis? In the case of the gay communication hypothesis, there’s nothing else to bring to bear: no similar letters to other correspondents, no independent testimony, no semen-stained clothing, etc. The only support for the gay communication hypothesis is the language of the letters themselves.
On the other hand, the stylistic experimentation argument has plenty of corroborating evidence. Erasmus produced a wide variety of literary forms during those years; on many occasions he explicitly declared that he was, or had been, experimenting with a variety of literary forms.
Lastly, there remains the large array of negative arguments I raised in the website essay; together, they greatly undercut the gay communication hypothesis. No corresponding set of negative arguments weakens the stylistic experimentation hypothesis.
So let’s turn to the language of the letters themselves, as it is the only evidence in support of the “Erasmus was gay” hypothesis. I will begin by acknowledging that there is definitely something going on here; the letters undeniably contain an emotional element. The problem lies in disentangling the emotional substance from the literary hyperbole. Having read a lot of Erasmus’ stuff, I can assure you that his use of hyperbole far exceeded modern standards. When I make my decidedly non-ultracrepidarian deduction for Erasmus’ hyperbole, my modern translation and condensation of Erasmus’ letters reads something like this: “Garsh, Servatius, you and I are good friends, but you’re always busy with other stuff, and it really bugs me. Can’t you at least tell me why you’re pissed at me?”
On your second argument, your reasoning confuses me. You assert that amare is indeed an erotic form, but then you concede some dilution in that meaning, and then you vaguely re-assert your point. Whatever your precise meaning, I can offer some comments: first, amare and eros are not cognate; amare comes from Indo-European *amma and the furthest back I can trace eros is to the god himself. More to the point, Renaissance letters teem with the amare form. In just five minutes’ searching, I found it used in a Leo X letter to Erasmus and an Erasmus letter to Henry VIII; moreover, I recall seeing it many times in his other letters. If the amare forms suggest erotic intent, then almost everybody back then was gay.
Whaddya think?
Chris
His third letter and last letter:
>OK, Paul, let’s see if we can gather together some strands into something that either or both of us can learn from. Your two arguments are that 1) there’s no justification for my assertion that Erasmus’ amatory letters to Servatius were stylistic exercises; and 2) that Erasmus’ use of amare forms does indeed suggest erotic intent. On the first point, your suggestion that I have ultracrepidated is accurate, but doesn’t address the issue at hand. We’re trying to evaluate two competing hypotheses (gay communication versus stylistic experiment). My ignorance of the history of rhetoric doesn’t help the discussion, but it certainly doesn’t invalidate the argument.
Taking classical rhetoric seriously, it means you have no *standing* to make the argument you do.
>Concentrating on that ignorance is an ad hominem approach.
Not in the usual sense of “ad hominem” it isn’t. I am not saying you argument is invalid because you reflect any particular quality, or have any intrinsic demerit, but simply because you do not know what you are talking about. If I were to begin making arguments based on physics, for instance, someone could respond accurately in exactly the same way. If you had studied rhetoric, you would understand why your charge of an ad hominem fails here!
>The question is, what supporting evidence can be advanced in support of each hypothesis? In the case of the gay communication hypothesis, there’s nothing else to bring to bear: no similar letters to other correspondents, no independent testimony, no semen-stained clothing, etc. The only support for the gay communication hypothesis is the language of the letters themselves.
>On the other hand, the stylistic experimentation arguement has plenty of corroborating evidence. Erasmus produced a wide variety of literary forms during those years; on many occasions he explicitly declared that he was, or had been, experimenting with a variety of literary forms.
No. Erasmus did not write this sort of letter to everybody, and in fact was rebuffed by Servatius who told him not to express feelings in the way he did. So we have not just the words, but a certain context as well, including the response of the recipient.
Secondly, there was a pattern in Erasmus’ life of falling for men – the case of Thomas Gray is a case in point. Your discussion here is actively misleading. Gray was not a “kid” – he was 22 years old (Erasmus was about 10 years older) and he was not accused of going after both students, just one. In your discussion you effectively try to hide the age of this “kid”, and that Erasmus interest in other men was not simply a matter of an 18 year old’s crush, but something evidenced in later life.
My fourth and last letter:
Dear Paul,
>Taking classical rhetoric seriously, it means you have no *standing* to make the argument you do.
OK, I’ll go you one better: I’m worm snot, I’m slime, I’m ignorant seaweed. Given that, have you anything to say pertinent to the argument itself?
>Concentrating on that ignorance is an ad hominem approach. Not in the usual sense of “ad hominem” it isn’t. I am not saying you argument is invalid because you reflect any particualr quality, or have any intrinsic demerit, but simply because you do not know what you are talking about. If I were to begin making arguments based on physics, for instance, someone could respond accurately in exactly the same way. If you had studied rhetoric, you would understand why your charge of an ad hominem fails here!
I admit, you are not saying that my argument is invalid because ____; you are not saying that my argument is invalid. At least, you are not giving any substantial reasons why my argument might be invalid.
>No. Erasmus did not write this sort of letter to everybody, and in fact was rebuffed by Servatius who told him not to express feelings in the way he did. So we have not just the words, but a certain context as well, including the response of the recipient.
I’d sure like to know where you dug up the factoid that Servatius told Erasmus not to express feelings in the way he did. I went through all the Servatius letters (except the later ones when he was abbot) and there is no such reference in them anywhere. I did come upon an interesting item in one letter. Erasmus was recounting a rare face-to-face encounter with Servatius, acknowledging Servatius’ obvious distress upon encountering Erasmus. Erasmus continues: “And unless I was mistaken, I was not altogether unaware what was the source of your pain. I mean that person’s shamelessness in hurling accusations against you without justification or right.” There was an accusation directed at Servatius regarding his relationship with Erasmus – very suspicious indeed. Yet Erasmus explicitly declares that accusation to be without justification. This is about as clear a statement as we can have on the matter. We should take his words at face value and conclude that there was in fact no gay relationship. You may prefer to interpret this statement as false posturing for an unseen third party, but in the very same letter Erasmus proclaims again his love for Servatius – which, by your reasoning, constitutes clear evidence of a gay relationship. There’s a contradiction here. We need to be consistent in our interpretations. Either we take him at face value (in which case we conclude that there was no gay relationship), or we decide that this is all literary posturing – in which case we conclude that there was no gay relationship.
>Secondly, there was a pattern in Erasmus’ life of falling for men – the case of Thomas Gray is a case in point. Your discussion here is actively misleading. Gray was not a “kid” – he was 22 years old (Erasmus was about 10 years older) and he was not accused of going after both students, just one. In your discussion you effectively try to hide the age of this “kid”, and that Erasmus interest in other men was not simply a matter of an 18 year old’s crush, but something evdienced in later life.
Whatever is your source for the assertion that Erasmus homosexually went after Thomas Gray? There is no direct evidence for this of which I am aware. I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide me with the reference for this.
Also, while checking up on the Thomas Gray letters, I discovered an interesting tidbit in reference to the Scotsman who might have made accusations. In a letter to Christian Northoff, on a separate issue, Erasmus reveals that the Scotsman was some sort of representative of the Scottish crown to Paris; that Thomas Gray and Erasmus were both living in his household, and that the Scotsman threw Erasmus out. What’s interesting about this is that Erasmus explicitly states that the antipathy arose from the Scotsman’s antipathy for ’bona litera’. It’s quite clear that the altercation between them was about the new learning and had nothing whatever to do with the relationship between Thomas Gray and Erasmus.
On the “kid” term, I used it because Erasmus’ relationship this Thomas Gray was that of tutor. I certainly did not mean to suggest that a gay relationship would be precluded by reason of Gray being underage. Perhaps I should go back and rewrite that paragraph to tighten up the logic and introduce the new finding in the previous paragraph.
Lastly, I think you’re getting ahead of yourself positing a pattern when you’ve got only two cases to cite, both of which are pretty much blown out of the water by the available information. If you had a hundred vague cases like this, I might be willing to concede a possible pattern, but drawing a line through two faint gray splotches and extrapolating it seems overmuch to me.
With best wishes,
Chris
This is the end of the correspondence. There was no reply from the professor.