Rowens argues that the Bishop of Cambrai cut
off Erasmus' financial support because he learned that Erasmus was gay. This
simply doesn't accord with the sequence of events. The blow-up with the
guardian occurred in June or July of 1497, but as early as September 13, 1496,
Erasmus was writing, "The bishop of Cambrai is being extremely kind to me.
His promises are generous, though, to be quite frank, he does not send generous
remittances." In April, 1498, Erasmus writes, "...and of money the
bishop of Cambrai is a very poor provider. In every way he is more warm-hearted
than lavish, more generous with all kinds of promises than actual
help...". Seven months later, on 29 November 1498, things have changed:
"...think what friendliness thebishop used to show me, and what hopes he
used to hold out, and now he is coldness itself." In July of 1500 he
writes "...and the bishop goes so far as to turn his back on me."
Thus, the bishop was holding out on Erasmus nine months before the incident,
and his generous attitude had not changed nine months after the incident.
Something did happen in 1498, a year after
the incident with Thomas Grey's guardian. It appears that some sort of
inquiries were made as to Erasmus' behavior in Paris, the result of which seems
to have been unflattering to Erasmus. Again, we don't know any details; the
best we have to go on is Erasmus' reply to a letter from his good friend Willem
Hermans. Hermans had apparently written critically of Erasmus' lifestyle. These
are some significant fragments from that letter:
"What,
my dear Willems, did you mean when you wrote, 'You yourself are aware, nor am I
unaware, what manner of life you live there.'? Alas for myself, I greatly fear
you may suppose that I am wasting my time here in frivolity, feasting, and
love-affairs."
"Now
what was the meaning of the letter in which you appear to censure my way of
living? do you really wish to learn (for it is proper that you should know
every detail of my affairs) how your Erasmus conducts his life in this place?
He is alive, or rather I think he may be; but alive on the most wretched terms,
exhausted by grief of every kind: endlessly intrigued against, deprived of
friends' support, and tempest-tossed on waves of disaster. Nevertheless he
lives in perfect blamelessness.I know that I shall hardly be able to convince
you of the truth of this. You still think of me as the Erasmus of old: of my
personal freedom, and of such luster as my reputation retains; but if I had a
chance to speak with you in person it would be the simplest thing on earth to
persuade you of its truth.Therefore, if you wish to form a true picture of your
friend, you must imagine him, not indulging in frivolity or feasting or
love-affairs, but distraught with grief..."
"What,
if so, was your purpose in calling me your Pylades, your Theseus? You ought,
however, to have reversed the appellation and rather called me Orestes or
Pirithous."
The reference in the last fragment to the
four Greek mythological figures is particularly revealing: these friendships
were celebrated for their depth and intensity; in each case, one friend
sacrificed himself for the other. Yet neither relationship was gay.
The first two fragments are significant for
several reasons. First, Erasmus declares that he lives in perfect
blamelessness. Let's walk through the various logical possibilities:
A. Erasmus was gay and so was Hermans. Why
then would Hermans have castigated Erasmus for his gay lifestyle? Surely he
would have sympathized with Erasmus' difficulties and been supportive rather
than critical.
B. Erasmus was gay but Hermans wasn't and
didn't previously know about it. Yet Hermans declares that he knows what manner
of life Erasmus is living in Paris. How could Erasmus have responded by
claiming that he lived in perfect blamelessness when he knew that the he'd been
brought out of the closet?
C. Erasmus was not gay. This is the only
explanation that fits this letter.
Even more telling is the phrase
"frivolity, feasting, and love-affairs", which is used twice in the
letter. It seems likely to me that Erasmus was quoting a phrase from Hermans'
letter, because he reverses the order of the words in the phrase the second
time around. This suggests that he was not quoting some well-known equivalent
to our English "wine, women, and song". This in turn suggests that
Willem Hermans had accused Erasmus of having "love-affairs". What did
he mean by this?
Everything here depends on the precise
meaning of the Latin words used in Eramus' letter: 'amare' and 'amatorem', which
are maddeningly ambiguous; indeed I suspect that Hermans was deliberately using
delicate terminology that could be taken to indicate either a major crime or a
minor peccadillo. Ultimately, there is no compelling evidence that Hermans
accused Erasmus of sexual transgressions, although there is a solid basis for
suspicion. There is no indication whatever that these purported sexual
transgressions were homosexual in nature.
This was followed by a more explicit
investigation in fall of 1500. Erasmus wrote to his friend Jacob Batt:
"As
you know, Jan Standonck returned the other day from Louvain accompanied by a
master of humble condition, a native of Mechelen; to whom that serious-minded
bishop [the bishop of Cambrai -- CC] allotted the task of scenting and
ferreting his way through all the secret places of my life in Paris, and of
sending him a written report of what he discovered, with the promise, to boot,
of a rich reward for the informer. In his brazen folly he added that he was
surprised at my impudence in remaining in Paris without his permission."
As far as I can tell, nothing ever came of
this investigation; there are no references to it in any of Erasmus' later
letters. My guess is that the investigator came up with plenty of gossip but
nothing substantial; the bishop's suspicions were kept alive but could not be
furthered, and the entire affair simply died off.
My impression is that the brouhaha was
solidly founded on Erasmus' diet, which was certainly extravagent by
contemporary standards, and that evil-minded conjecture expanded the list of
suspicions to include any number of other crimes. The starting point for this
was Erasmus' experience at Montague college, the proper place of residence for
him as a poor religious. Run by the ascetic Jan Standonck, the place was
horrifying: brutal discipline, unsanitary conditions, and food consisting of
rotten eggs, bad fish, and sour wine. Most of the poor religious students
accepted the harsh conditions as the price they paid for their free education;
Erasmus was not so tolerant. There's no exaggeration here -- the mortality rate
of students at Montague college was a serious concern. Erasmus left the place
and found better accomodations. There can be no doubt that he did so for
reasons of health: all his life Erasmus complained about his ill health, and
followed a regimen we would now recognize as quite healthy. He ate only fresh
food, in moderation; he rose early and went to bed early; he took a walk after
the main noonday meal. But his insistence on fresh food and unspoiled wine led
his less-charitable contemporaries to brand him a gourmand. All his life, he
endured criticism for his diet. He had the last laugh: Erasmus outlived all his
contemporaries. But that didn't stop them from spreading evil rumors about his
dissolute lifestyle.
Home:Library:Erasmus Contents:Erasmus Was Not Gay