Abstract
A peaceful conversion of the Turks to Christianity was Erasmus’ wishful thinking. Accordingly, emissaries should be sent to the Turks and make them realize that their salvation is sought and not their empire or wealth. Notedly, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, despite his crusading ambition and militant reputation, never argued for the forced Christianization of Muslims or Turks. In his letter to Sultan Mehmed II, which was never sent, he asked the sultan to convert to Christianity and thus to become the recognized emperor of the East. He desired, as Erasmus did, a non-forcible conversion of the Turks to Christianity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
CWE 64, 265; ASD V-3, 81: “Illud in primis erat optabile, si liceat Turcarum ditiones ita subigere, quemadmodum Apostoli cunctas mundi nationes subegerunt Imperatori Christo.”
- 2.
CWE 66, 10; Ep 858: 80–86: “Sed quid futurum arbitramur, si victis (neque enim vniuersos, opinor, ferro trucidabimus) vt Christum amplectantur. Occamos aut Durundos aut Scotos aut Gabrieles aut Aluaros proposuerimus? Quid cogitabunt aut quid sentient (sunt enim et illi, vt nihil aliud, certe homines), vbi audierint spinosas illas et inextricabileis argutias.”
- 3.
See n. 13.
- 4.
See n. 18, Chapter 2.
- 5.
See further on pp. 157–158.
- 6.
Ramon Lull (1235–1315), Riccoldo da Monte di Croce (ca. 1243–1320) and Saint Francis’ attempt to Christianize the sultan of Egypt in 1219 are a few well-known cases.
- 7.
Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II), Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Epistle to Mohammed II), ed. and trans. Albert Baca (New York: Peter Lang, 1990), 17–18 [121–22]; Opera, 872–904: “Si vis inter Christianos tuum imperium propagare et nomen tuum quam gloriosum efficere, non auro, non armis, non excercitibus, non classibus opus est. Parva res omnium qui hodie vivunt maximum et potentissimum et clarissimum te reddere potest […] id est aquae pauxillum, quo baptizeris et ad Christianorum sacra te conferas et credas Evangelio. Haec si feceris, non erit in orbe princeps qui te Gloria superset aut aequare potential valeat. Nos te Graecorum et Orientis imperatorem appellabimus et quod modo vi occupas et cum iniuria tenes possidebis iure.”
- 8.
Hankins, “Renaissance Crusaders,” 129–130; Nancy Bisaha, “Pius II’s Letter to Sultan Mehmed II: A Reexamination,” Crusades 1 (2002): 183–200; Bisaha, Creating East and West, 86–87, 147–152.
- 9.
Hankins, “Renaissance Crusaders,” 129.
- 10.
Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), 198–199. See also Malcolm, Useful Enemies, 44, who convincingly explains how “despair under extreme conditions” (military and political circumstances) had driven the pope to write the letter.
- 11.
Bisaha, Creating East and West, 152; A synthesis, somewhat problematic, is presented by Thomas M. Izbicki, Gerald Christianson, and Philip Krey (Pope Pius II, Reject Aeneas, Accept Pius, 51–52), who do not doubt the sincerity of Pius II and even link him to Juan de Segovia, but at the same time state that “Aeneas’ letter, like many others in his collection, is an exercise in self-fashioning, in this case as a visionary for world peace.”
- 12.
CWE 27, 287; ASD IV-1, 218: “Primum hoc agamus, ut ipsi simus germane Christiani, deinde si visum erit, Turcas adoriamur.”
- 13.
CWE 64, 265; ASD V-3, 81: “Illud in primis erat optabile, si liceat Turcarum ditiones ita subigere, quamadmodum Apostoli cunctas mundi nationes subegerunt Imperatori Christo: proximum esto votum, sub armis hoc pottissimum agere, ut se victos esse gaudeant. Ad id praecipue conducet, si viderint Christianismum non esse verba, sed in nobis conspexerint mores Evangelio dignos. Tum, si mittantur in messem integri Praecones, qui non quaerant quae sua sunt, sed quae Jesu Christi. Postremo, si qui nondum possunt allici, sinantur aliquamdiu suis vivere legibus, donec paulatim nobiscum coalescent. Sic olim Imperatores Christiani paulatim aboleverunt Paganismum. Initio patiebantur illos aequo cum nostratibus Jure vivere, sic ut neutri alteris facesserent negotium. Deinde, templis idololatrarum ademerunt sua privilegia. Postremo, victimas ab illis immolari palam, vetuerunt, mox omnem simulacrorum cultum submoverunt. Ita sensim invalescente nostra Religione, Paganismus extinctus est, et Christi trophea mundum universum occuparunt.” Erasmus finds no fault in Theodosius’ systematic persecution of pagans and heretics, particularly Arians. According to Erasmus, the Arians were not just heretics, blatantly sacrilegious, but also rebels who threatened the political order; therefore, their persecution and execution was justified. Theodosius’ Imperial edicts, issued from February 380 onward, were essentially, as can also be concluded from their phrasing, nothing less than the expression of imposed Christianization on various populations. This was justified, and even glorified, by Erasmus. For the texts of the Theodosian edicts: Edward Peters (ed.), Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe. Documents in Translation (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980), 42–47. See also Gerard Friell and Stephen Williams, Theodosius: The Empire at Bay (London: Routledge, 1998), 53–56; Robert L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983), 13–32.
- 14.
See Erasmus’ dedicatory letter to King Francis I which became the introduction to Erasmus’ paraphrase of Mark, CWE, 49, 2–3; ASD VII-1: “Et interim exsecramur ac devovemus Turcas. Quod autem spectaculum gratius exhiberi poterat Turcis, aut si qui sunt qui pejus volunt nomini Christiano, quam tres longe florentissimos totius Europae Monarchas exitialibus dissidiis inter sese committi? Vix mihi persuadeo, quenquam esse tam truculentum Turcam, qui plus malorum imprecetur Christianis, quam ipsi vicissim infligunt sibi.”
- 15.
See n. 12.
- 16.
Romans, XIII, 4: “But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Erasmus says (CWE 64, 235; ASD V-3, 56): “Besides, Paul appears to commend the sword which is used to punish the wicked and to reward the virtuous. Someone may quibble and say that here Paul is only referring to a pagan magistracy, to which he wanted Christians to submit, because if Christians were to seem to undermine the statutes and ordinances of the state, the Gospel would be brought into disrepute. My reply is that since, among Christians, there is no other way of keeping the peace, secular magistrates are necessary to deter criminals who do not observe the laws and customs of the state with the threat of punishment. Now, if we allow the magistrates this right, we must allow princes the right to make war. However, although I am quite convinced of this, I also think that all other expedients must be tried before war is begun between Christians […].” On Erasmus’ pro-war attitude toward the Turks: Ron, “The Christian Peace of Erasmus,” 34–38.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ron, N. (2019). Conversion or War. In: Erasmus and the “Other”. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24929-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24929-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24928-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24929-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)