Tolerantia: A Medieval Concept Author(s): Istvn Bejczy Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol.

58, No. 3 (Jul., 1997), pp. 365-384 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653905 . Accessed: 16/09/2012 15:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

Tolerantia:

Medieval

Concept
IstvdnBejczy

The notion of toleranceis generallyconsidereda productof moder times and in particularof the Age of Reason.1The enlightenedphilosophers,who laid the foundationsof liberalismand democracy,are often hailed as the men who introducedthe notion of toleranceas a means of guaranteeing maximum freedomto the individualmembersof society.Writingssuch as the Epistola de tolerantia of John Locke and the Traitesur la tolerance of Voltaireprove indeed thattolerancewas an importanttopic in enlightenedthought.Sometimes it is believed that an earliernotion of tolerancecan be found, most notably in the writingsof Christian As a matterof fact,"Erasmian humanistslike Erasmus. tolerance"is a standingphrasein the Netherlands,where the people are happy to link the one virtue for which they openly praise themselves with the only Dutch authorwho is universallyknown. The Middle Ages, on the other hand, have no reputation for tolerance,the lack of which is usually attributed to the influence of a powerfulChurchthat was able andwilling to suppressall majordeviationsfromthe exclusive truthit was convinced it possessed. Only the Reformation,it is often argued,forced the Churchto change its attitude and to redefine its relation towards dissidents.2 As a consequence,many historicalstudiesof the idea of tolerancebegin in only the sixteenthcentury.3 This representation of the historyof toleranceis, however,distorted.In the Middle Ages tolerantia was a highly developed political concept, and it was
'This article was writtenat the Centre for Reformationand RenaissanceStudies and the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, University of Toronto, subsidized by the Netherlands Organizationof Scientific Research (N.W.O.). 2 See, e.g., Joseph Lecler, Histoire de la tolerance au siecle de la Reforme (2 vols.; Aubier, 1955); Klaus Schreiner, GerhardBesier, "Toleranz,"Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, ed. Otto Brunner,WernerConze, and Reinhart Koselleck (7 vols.; Stuttgart, 1972-92), VI, 445-605. 3 See, e.g., Michel Peronnet (ed.), Naissance et affirmationde l'id6e de la tolerance, XVIe et XVIIe siecle (Montpellier, 1988); Marijke Gijswijt-Hofstra (ed.), Een schijn van verdraagzaamheid.Afwijking en tolerantie in Nederland van de zestiende eeuw tot heden (Hilversum, 1989).

365
of Ideas, Inc. of theHistory 1997by Journal Copyright

366

IstvdnBejczy

widely appliedin the ecclesiastical as well as the secularsphere.This observation is not altogethernew. In a limited numberof studies the medievalconcept of tolerance receives due attention.The most importantof these studies are those by Joseph Lecler, Mario Condorelli, and Klaus Schreiner,but unfortunately none of these authorstreatthe subjectof medieval tolerancein a satisfactoryway. In his monumentalHistoire de la toleranceau siecle de la Reforme(1955) Lecler does not investigatethe term or the concept of medieval tolerancesystematically,but briefly surveysthe attitudeadoptedby Christianscholarlyauthorstowardsheretics and unbelievers.In fact Leclertacitly equatesthe notion of "tolerance" with "freedomof religion,"a concept which indeed found little supportamong medieval scholars.4Condorelli's study (1960) is much more systematic,but it has a ratherlimited scope. It concentrateson the development of religious toleration in medieval canon law between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries.5The canon lawyers in fact coined the medieval concept of tolerantia with specific attentionto religious toleration, and for this reason Condorelli'swork remainsimportantand useful. But Condorellidoes not analyze medievaltolerantiain its full range,nor does he comparethe conceptwith lateruses of the term. Schreiner'sarticle on tolerance in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe(1990) containsa detailed discussion of the concept of toleranceand its development in westernintellectualhistory.6 On the patristicandmedievalperiodsSchreiner offers a wealth of material,andhis representations of historicalfacts anddevelopmentsare generally correct.His evaluationsof the facts, however,strikeme as misleading as far as the Middle Ages are concerned. Schreinerrefuses to take medieval tolerance seriously.The pretensionof Christianreligion to embody the absolutetruthandits functionas the main integratingfactorof society would have impededa full developmentof tolerance;Schreinereven considers medievalChristianityintolerantin its very essence. As he argues, Only when the early moder state proceededto make naturalreligion instead of a closed system of belief the consensus-shapingvinculum societatis, it set free spaces of action in which individualsand groups could realize their rights of freedom of belief and conscience.... Only

Cf. Lecler's introductionto the section on the Middle Ages (I, 93): "IIsemble donc, de prime abord,que le moyen age n'apporteaucun t6moignageen faveurde la liberte religieuse. En realite la situation m6dievale est moins simple qu'on ne l'imagine communement..." (my italics). 5 Mario Condorelli, Ifondamenti giuridici della tolleranza religiosa nell'elaborazione canonistica dei secoli XII-XIV(Milan, 1960). 6 Schreinerwrote the article together with Besier, but the sections on the developments before 1600 are his. This article is concernedwith these sections only.
4

Tolerantia: A Medieval Concept

367

the dissolution of the historically grown bonds between religion and justice, which restitutedfreedom to religion and prudenceto justice, enabledthe free expressionof religion in a spiritof mutualpatience.7 We can reproachSchreinerwith several inaccuracies.First,it is questionable whethermedievalreligion representeda closed system which can be opposed to the allegedly more open religious systems of early modem history. Medieval religion and dogma had, of course, a certainelasticity.The hot religious debatesat the universitiesand the division of the theologiansinto different schools, especially in the later Middle Ages, prove that theologians could be very critical of each other within the limits of orthodoxy.True enough, flagrantand obstinateheresy was punishedby death,but the question of how much room for manoeuverChristiansactuallyhadwithin the medievalChurch in comparisonto post-medievalbelievers requiresa carefulanalysis in itselfthe fact that religious transgressionswere suppresseddoes not say anything about how far a Christianshould go in orderto make a transgression.Second, the bonds between Churchand state were far from being loosened after the MiddleAges, as Schreinersuggests. The earlymodem principleofcuius regio, eius religio ratherindicates the contrary,and post-medievaltheocracies like Calvin's Geneva, Cromwell's England, and Endicott's Massachusettsdo not strikeus as examplesof particularly open andtolerantsocieties. But Schreiner's most seriousshortcomings arehis preconceivedideas of whattoleranceis about. He also equates tolerancewith freedom of religion. In his view, tolerance is wherintrinsicallylinkedto the pluralityand the relativityof (religious)truth;8 Schreiner eversucha plurality or relativity does not exist or is not acknowledged, denies the existence of"real" tolerance. In my view the medieval concept of tolerancecontradictsSchreiner'sassertions.Medievaltolerantiais a full-fledged exampleof what tolerancecould loose notion be. It is an even morecoherentand forcefulconceptthanthe rather of tolerancein modem political discourse, precisely because it has nothing to do with religious freedomor the pluralityof truth.As a matterof fact the effort of pluralizing(religious)truthin early modem thoughtwent along with a serious setbackof medievaltolerance. In orderto substantiate these statements,I want to elucidatethe medieval of tolerance parconcept by discussing its use in medieval scholarlyliterature, onward. in the twelfth law from canon and scholasticism, century ticularly Next, I want to point to some importantdifferenceswith the allegedly "tolerant"tendenciesin earlymodem thought,as exemplifiedby Erasmus.My findings will finally permitme to advance some criticalremarksaboutthe notion of "tolerance" in its currentuse.
7 Schreiner,448, 524. 8 Schreiner,457: "Pluralitait verlangt Toleranz."

368

Istvcn Bejczy

in mediIt is possibleto distinguish of tolerantia threedifferent meanings in threedifferent eval andearlymodemsources,meanings whichoriginated stoodfor InAntiquity, in stoicwritings, tolerantia cultural contexts. especially more thebearing of anything whichwasa burden to thehuman often, bodyor, tolerantia to thehuman mind.Early a second Christendom meaning: developed butwithrelistill indicated the bearing of physicalor psychological burdens, individuals Itreferred of Christian to thevirtuous giousconnotations. capacity Inthissense,as a withcalmthemanysufferings to endure existence. of earthly New Testament the term in the once (2 Cor.1:6) synonym ofpatientia, appears andrather in thewritings Fathers.9 of theChurch frequently In bothits classicalandits earlyChristian refersto indisensetolerantia human viduallife. It meansthebearing whichstrike of difficulties beingsperof an invention As is a social and tolerantia however, sonally. political concept, the MiddleAges. In medievalscholarly cameto denotewritingtolerantia to in works of some incidental the Augustine-the foranalogously examples of badpeople(theimmoral, the infidel)by thosewho bearance theheterodox, in this thirdsense hadthe powerto disposeof them.The objectof tolerance werepeopleandtheirallegedly badhabits, peoplewho wereseenas a burden thetoleratto societyandnot, at leastnotprimarily, to individuals. Moreover, but a powerful collectivity ing subjectwas no longera powerlessindividual not thatcoulddestroythe tolerated it to but if wanted ought to do so. people Tolerance thus cameto implythe self-restraint of politicalpower,the abstisocinencefromcorrectional ordestructive forceby theauthorities governing is theimplibetween oftolerantia thethree ety.Thecommon ground meanings evil forces. cationof a passiveattitude of the goodandthejusttowards The development of tolerantia as a politicalconceptwas especiallyfurthered canon law the The two maincollecfrom twelfth onward. by century tionsof canonlaw,theDecretum of about1140(whichreliedheavily Gratiani on the Church andtheDecretalsof Gremost on Fathers, notably Augustine) on circumstances in 1234,10 containseveralstatements goryIX promulgated tolerareis freunderwhichevil practices verb The be left may unpunished. to the usedin thiscontext. TheDecretum devotesa complete quaestio quently never in mankind can which Gratian that matter, realizing concludes-perhaps be purgedcompletely frombad intentions"-thatevil whichcannotbe cor-

9Ibid.,450-55;see also Lecler,I, 65-92. 10 TheDecretum is a private textsfromthe Bible,the Church of authoritive compilation and early medievalauthors in practiceas a sourceof law. The which functioned Fathers, Decretals of Gregory IX (alsocalledLiberExtraandabbreviated as X) arean officialcollecarefrom tionof papaldecreescompiled de Peiiafort Quotations by Raymond (1175/80-1275). iuriscanonici,ed. AemiliusFriedberg Corpus (2 vols.;Leipzig,1879-81). " C. 31 q. 1 c. 9 (Chrysostom).

Tolerantia: A Medieval Concept

369

rectedwithoutdisturbingthe peace in the Church,should ratherbe tolerated.'2 Correspondinglythe Decretals state that many things which would be supBoth law collecpressed if broughtbefore a courtaretoleratedwith patience.13 tions point notably to Jewish rites as practices that are rightfully not to be
interfered with.14

Medieval canonists who commented on these statementsintroducedand elaboratedthe concept of tolerantia as a judicial notion. This development went hand in hand with the extension of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole of mankind.The Decretumhad originatedas a collection of ruleswhich defined the attitudeof the ChurchtowardsChristiansonly. Withregardto nonChristians,Gratianhad left the judgment of those who are outside of the faith to God (referring to 1 Cor.5:12-13).'5Latercanonistsgraduallyabandoned this reluctance,stating eventuallythat the pope could uphold naturallaw against At the anybody in the world, regardlessof the faith of the person in question.'6 same time the notion of tolerancewas appliedto all nationsandreligionsalike. Pope InnocentIV himself acknowledged,in one breathwith his confirmation of universalpapaljurisdiction,thatthe pope sometimesrefrainedfrompunishing infractionsof naturallaw not only by lack of actualpowerbut also because punishmentseemed undesirablein certain cases.17Influentialcommentators such as Hostiensis (Henryof Segusio, c. 1200-1270) and JoannesAndreae(c. could Innocent'sview, statedthattoleratingunbelievers 1270-1348), supporting even be a duty,providedthey did not present a serious threatto Christianity.'8 The concept of tolerantiadid not referto any act of non-interference whatsoever on the part of the Church.Raymond of Peiiafortgave the following explanationin his Summade iure canonico (c. 1222/24): Permissionis taken in three differentways. First, when somethingis allowed that is not forbiddenby any law.... Second, when somethingis indulgedthatrunscounterto humanrules....This is properlycalled the trueandabsolutepermission,and it excuses from sin. The thirdtype of
12C. 23 4 c. 17 q. d.p. 3 X 3.5.18 (Innocent III). 14 See, e.g., D. 45 c. 3; X 5.6.3, 5.6.7, 5.6.9. '5 C. 23 q. 4 c. 16 d.p. 16 See WalterJ. Pakter,Medieval Canon Law and the Jews (Ebelsbach, 1988), 47-83. 17In V libros Decretaliumcommentaria(Venice, 1570) X 3.34.6 ? 6. 18Hostiensis, In Decretalium libros commentaria (Venice, 1581; facs. Turin, 1965) X 3.34.8, III f. 128v; Joannes Andreae, In Decretalium libros nouella commentaria (Venice, 1581; facs. Turin, 1963) X 3.34.8, III f. 172v. Their views were frequentlyrepeatedin the late Middle Ages, see, e.g., Panormitanus (Nicolaus de Tudeschis, 1386-1445), Super Decretales (Perugia, 1509) X 3.34.8 ? 10, V f. 168v (quoting Hostiensis). The ecclesiastical pretensionof universaljurisdictionwas thereforenot an impedimentto religious tolerance, as is suggested by Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of MedievalAnti-Judaism(Ithaca, 1982), 262.

370

IstvdnBejczy so as to prevent occurswhen lesserevils arepermitted greater permission ones. This is called thepermissio comparativa,and it does not excuse from sin. It should, however, be called tolerantia rather than permission.19

of the concept of Raymond'sexplanationbrings two essential characteristics toleranceinto light. First,toleranceis appliedto evil. Tolerancedoes not imply that the evil characterof the tolerated act is denied or extenuated;it means simply that certain evil acts remain unpunished.Ecclesia non approbat,sed permittit, several commentators explained.20Tolerance offered no licentia peccandi but only a liberatio a pena,2' and it was conceived of as non-interference with practicesthatwere neverthelessunequivocallyconsideredloathsome. Second, tolerance was applied in orderto preventa greaterevil than the toleratedone. Minus malumtoleraturut maius tollatur,it was sometimes said Noninjuridicalliterature.22 Tolerance was the resultof weighingopportunities. interferencewith certainevil acts shouldpreventthe occurrenceof even worse evil. Raymondwas not the only canonistto understand tolerantiaas permissio comparativa.3 Some canonists aspired to define this permissio even closer, such as JoannesAndreae, who distinguishedthreetypes of tolerance: permissio simplex,the mereabstentionfrompunishingevil acts;permissiotollensimpedimentum,which, moreover,obliged the Churchto restrainother people from proceedingagainstthe evil acts in question;andpermissiopraestans iuvamen, the case in which the Churchwas requiredto foster actively the occurrenceof some evil act (e.g., the punishmentof criminalclerics).24
iure canonico, ed. Xaverius Ochoa and Aloisius Diez, Universabibliotheca iuris I.A (Rome, 1975), 1.5.4, 8-9. 20 Joannes Teutonicus, Glossa D. 3 c. 4 ad v. permittit: "secundumhanc permissionem The Glossa ordinaria [tolerantia]dicit canon quod ea, quae permittimus,non approbamus." the are standard are on the Decretum;quotations from the Corpusiuris (ca. 1216) commentary canonici in trespartes distinctum(Lyons, 1671). See also Geoffreyof Trani(d. 1245), Summa super titulis Decretalium (Lyons, 1519; facs. Aalen, 1968, 1992), f. 206; Hostiensis, Summa una cum summariiset adnotationibusNicolai Superantii(= Summaaurea) (Lyons, 1537; facs. Aalen, 1962) V.11 ? 4, f. 236. Cf. C. 31 q. 1 c. 9: "aliudest enim precipere,aliud permittere" (Chrysostom);Antonius de Butrio (1338-1408), Commentariiin libros Decretalium (Venice, 1578; facs. Turin, 1967), X 4.14.6 ? 7, [VI] f. 37: "tolerantiahaec generaliternon excusat a peccato."See also Condorelli, 134. 21 JoannesTeutonicus,Glossa D. 45 c. 3 ad v. licentiam. 22 Rhetorica ecclesiastica (ca. 1160-80), ed. Ludwig Wahrmund, Quellen zur Geschichte est des r6misch-kanonischen Prozesses im MittelalterI, 4 (Innsbruck,1906), 20: "Tolerantia de maiori duorumvel plurium malorumdeclinatio";Summa "Elegantiusin iure divino" seu Coloniensis (1169), ed. Gerardus Fransen and Stephanus Kuttner(New York-VaticanCity 1969- ), I, 26: "tolerantia[est] de malis et mortalibus,cum minus toleraturut maius tollatur"; Joannes Teutonicus, Glossa D. 3 c. 4 ad v. permittit: "illicitum permitti, ut magis illicitum vitetur ... appellaturtolerantia."See also Condorelli, 23. 23 See JoannesTeutonicus,Glossa D. 3 c. 4 ad v. permittit. 24 In titulumde regulis iuris nouella commentaria(Venice, 1581; facs. Turin,1963), regula Peccatum 5.8 ? 4, f. 64.
19 Summade

Tolerantia: A Medieval Concept

371

The main social groupsthat profitedfrom the tolerantiarecommendedin canon law seem to have been non-Christians, especially Jews, and prostitutes. The concept of tolerantiawas chiefly developedas an answerto the questionof how ecclesiastical authoritiesshould deal with the practices of Jewish religion.25 Jewish rites were considered an evil that had to be tolerated;the major evil that was thus preventedwas the forced conversion of the Jews, for conversion to Christianityhad to be a matter of free will. Moreover,the Jews would be more willing to embrace the Christianfaith, the canonists argued, when they were treated with benevolence.26Accordingly, Joannes Andreae mentioned the Jewishritesas an exampleof actsthatshouldmeet withpermissio tollens impedimentum: the Churchshould not only leave the rites unpunished The same argumentsfor but shouldalso preventothersfrom disturbingthem.27 toleranceappliedto otherunbelievers,notably to Muslims. Canonlaw mostly treatedJews and Muslims underthe same headings, althoughcanonists often took a harsherstance against the latter because, as a result of the crusades, Christianitywas at war with them. The canonists agreed, however,that Muslims who lived in peace with Christiansought not to be attackedor expelled. Other infidels living on the bordersof Christendom(Prussians,Lithuanians) had to be treatedanalogously.28 The toleranceof prostitutionis less markedly expressedin canon law, yet prostitutionwas often mentionedas a sin that was rightfullyallowed.29 Majorevils that were thus preventedwere, accordingto medieval authorities,adultery(with honorablewomen, that is), rape,and sodomy.30

By the thirteenth centurythe concept of tolerancethathad been elaborated in canon law was introducedinto scholasticism, where its scope broadened considerably.The schoolmen considered tolerance an attitudeto be adopted not only by the Churchbut also by the state. Especially when they were definsurvey of the attitudeof the canonists see Pakter,op. cit. See Geoffrey of Trani,Summa f. 206; Hostiensis, In Decretal. X 5.6.7, V f. 31v; id., Summaaurea V.11, f. 235v-236v; Joannes Andreae,In Decretal. X 5.6.7, V f. 41v; also, e.g., Antonius de Butrio, CommentariiX 5.6.7 ? 3, [VII] f. 38A (quoting Hostiensis and Joannes Andreae); Panormitanus, Super Decretales X 3.34.8 ? 15, V f. 168v; Joannesde Anania (d. 1457), SuperquintoDecretalium(Lyons, 1553) X 5.6.7 ? 8, f. 73v-74 (quotingJoannesAndreae). See also Schreiner,462-65.
26 27 28

25 For a

See above n. 24.

See Peter Herde, "Christiansand Saracens at the Time of the Crusades:Some Comments of Contemporary Studia Gratiana, 12 (1967) = CollectaneaStephanKuttner, Canonists," II, 359-76; James Muldoon, Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels: The Churchand the Non-Christian World1250-1550 (Philadelphia,1979); James M. Powell, "The Papacyand the Muslim Frontier,"Muslims under Latin Rule, 1100-1300, ed. Powell (Princeton, 1990), 175-203. 29 A survey in James A. Brundage,"Prostitutionin Medieval Canon Law,"Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church,ed. Vern L. Bullough and Brundage(Buffalo, 1982), 149-60. 30 See, e.g., C. 32 q. 7 c. 11 (Augustine); Thomas of Chobham,Summaconfessorum(c. 1220), cited in Schreiner,471-72; Alexander de Nevo, Contra iudeos fenerantes (1441), ed. una cum SummaPisanella (Venice, 1482), f. A3v-4.

372

Istvin Bejczy

ing the relation of secular power to the Jews, the schoolmen eagerly took recourse to the doctrine of tolerantia from canon law. The Summa theologica ascribedto Alexanderof Hales (c. 1185-1245), for instance,containsan extensive defense of the toleranceof Jewish rites, with a large numberof references to canonist writings.31 The work of Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) also offers good examples. Particularly illuminatingis a passage from his Summatheoloon the rites of the infidels. Thomas answeredthe question whethernongiae Christian cults should be toleratedby Christianrulersin the affirmative (with a referenceto the Decretum Gratiani32). Those who are in power, Thomas explained, rightly permit certainevils lest some good be broughtto nothing or greaterevils take their place. Accordingly,prostitutionis allowed by human because, asAugustinesaid, societywouldbe devastated government, by unchecked lust if prostitutionwere forbidden.So, althoughinfidels may sin by their rites, they are to be toleratedif some good can be drawnfrom them or if some evil is avoided. Thus, the rites of the Jews should be tolerated,because they foreshadow the Christianfaith, which is a good; for in this way we obtain testimony to our faith from our enemies. The rites of the other infidels, from which no good proceeds, can be tolerated so as to avoid scandal or hatred towardsChristianitywhich could be the result of their suppression.33 Tolerancefor the sake of the good that may result from the permittedevil seems to have been Thomas'sown idea. This idea did not alterthe fact thatthe toleratedevil remainedas evil as it ever was. Thomasalleged thatthe Jews sin in their rites and he called them "ourenemies."His argumentshows that one did not have to like the Jews to be tolerant;to the contrary,one had to dislike them to be tolerant, for tolerance only applied to evil. Tolerancewas not an imperativeof love but a restrainton one's hatred.It is thanks to this restraint, however,thatJews, in the Thomisticconcept, were permittedto live theirown lives within the bonds of a Christiansociety. If we turn to the small treatise on the governmentof Jews that Thomas wrote for the duchess of Brabant,we see the same line of argument.Thomas began with the statementthatthe Jews, because of their guilt for the crucifixion, aredestinedto perpetualslaveryandthereforecould be treatedas slaves by Christianrulers.34 Yet, Thomas argued,it is our duty to walk honestly towards themthatareoutside, as the apostlesays (1 Thess.4:12). Christian rulersshould

31 Summa theologica, ed. PP Coll. S. Bonaventurae(5 vols.; Quaracchi, 1924-69), III, 728-31. 32D. 45 c. 3. 33Summa Theologiae, Operaomnia iussu Leonis XIIIPM. edita (hereafter:ed. Leon.) IVXII (Rome, 1888-1906), II.II.10.11;the quotationfrom Augustine is from De ordine II, 4. 34On the theory of the servitus iudaeorum see Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious 1952-83 [2]), IX, 135ff.; XI, 3ff. For its History of the Jews (18 vols.; New York-Philadelphia, insertionin canon law see X 5.6.13 (Innocent III).

Tolerantia: A Medieval Concept

373

morefrom therefore to theirJewish andexactnothing behave subjects correctly the ruler not that themthanis permitted custom.35 Thomas did say by Again, in hisvision,theyremain mustembrace theJewsas if theyweregoodsubjects; have rulers sinfuloutsiders butprecisely Christian becausetheyareoutsiders, to bearthemselves to them.Thomas evenallowedforsomeroomfor honestly the the evil practice of usurywith whichthe Jewswereconnected. Although rulerswoulddo betterto compelthe Jewsto work,they were,in Thomas's view, entitledto levy taxes on the incometheirJewishsubjectsdrewfrom knewverywell that usuryandto spendthemfor the commongood.Thomas waspermitted toolto economic lawas a necessary prosperity, usury by human In he in a direct never of recommended the tolerance way.36 although usury view of the factthatChristian Jewsandotherinfidelschiefly rulers tolerated for Jewishmoneybecauseof their utilitas,37 allowance Thomas'squalified of Jews.38 musthaveworked as a strong of thetoleration lenders encouragement found can be to those of Thomas quite Arguments Aquinas comparable oftenin moralizing of the laterMiddle Ages. Manyauthors politicalliterature to demonstrate howto handle madean appeal to theideaof tolerantia in order of evil elements in a Christian to theprinciple especially society.Theyreferred wrote a who as in the of 1236-c. case of Lucca 1327), (c. opportunity, Ptolemy continuation of the speculum Thomas Aquinashad principisthathis teacher of prostituthe evil for the of to composed king Cyprus. According Ptolemy, tion hadto be tolerated evil of sodomy.He the greater becauseit prevented andthesewer ascribed the to between falsely Augustine comparison prostitution of a palace: "Doawaywiththe sewer,andyou will fill thepalacewithstench; do awaywiththeprostitutes, andyouwill fill theworldwithsodomy."39 Partly it wasbelieved andpartly thesewords because that hadreallyspoken Augustine in becauseit wasbelieved thatThomas himselfhadquoted Augustine Aquinas in favor hisspeculum thispassagebecame anauthoritative argument principis,
35 Epistola ad ducissam Brabantiae, ed. Leon. XLII (Rome, 1979), 375-76, echoing X

5.6.9 (Clement III). 36 belown. 44. Ibid.; cf. Summatheologiae II.II.78.1 ad 3, quoted 37See Powell,op. cit., 203. 38 It is therefore as Cohendoes, to includeThomaswithoutqualification unjustified, of the Jewish the mendicant who contributed to the gradual among theologians disappearance from the Summa from does not take into the Cohen account population Europe. passages andtheEpistola thesetextswereextensively ad ducissam discussed here,although theologiae of canon usedby latemedieval authors theinfluence whodebated Jewish toleration. Moreover, betweentolerant law on scholasticism in matters of tolerance Cohen'sdistinction invalidates on the other-a distinction on the one handand intolerant mendicants popesand canonists of Pefiafort which is little convincing (who gave an anyway,since the canonistRaymond authoritative definition of tolerance, as we haveseen above)is depicted by Cohenas the evil intolerance. geniusbehindmendicant
39 De regimineprincipum,ed. RaymundusM. Spiazzi,Divi ThomaeAquinatis... Opuscula

(Rome,1954),IV, 14 (1073). philosophica

374

Istvdn Bejczy

of the toleration of prostitutesin the later Middle Ages. Not only did other but so did the rulers writersreferto it in orderto reinforcetheirown arguments, of urbancommunitieswho hadto defendthe existence ofmaisons de tolerance within the limits of their towns.40 Again, tolerancehad nothingto do with approval.Prostitutionwas not allowed because it was considereda good but because its suppressionwould result in even greaterevils.41 Apart from Jews and prostitutes,marginalizedgroups such as lepers, the insane, and beggars seem also to have benefitedfrom the idea of tolerance.In the later Middle Ages tolerantiahad become an argumentto justify the existThis is not to ence of all social deviance, especially in the urbancommunity.42 in that medieval was tolerant say society reality. Pogroms against the always Jews and expulsions of marginalpeople as well as non-Christiansdid occur. But the theory of tolerantiawas upheldby the popes, the canonists,and many authorsinfluenced by them,43 and they served at least on a moral level as an to blind destruction of what we nowadayswould call "otherness." impediment To be sure, this theory did not imply that worldly and ecclesiastical rulershad to take all evil for granted.Tolerance,it should be repeated,was extendedto minor evils that were thought usefully left without interference.As Thomas Aquinasargued,humangovernmentshouldproceedagainstvitia graviora such as theft and murderbut should leave lesser sins unpunishedwithoutapproving of them, for one could not expect all citizens to be perfect. Minor evils could even be profitableto the state, and leaving room for them could consequently be an act of wise statesmanship.44 Whetheror not certainphenomenashould be considered intolerablevitia graviora is of course open to debate. Neither Thomas nor the majorityof his
40 See Jacques Rossiaud, MedievalProstitution,tr. Lydia G. Cochrane(Oxford, 1988), 81 n. 17; Schreiner, 471-72. The expression "maison de tolerance" was used in late medieval France, see Schreiner,458. 41 See Peter Schuster, Das Frauenhaus. Stddtische Bordelle in Deutschland, 1350 bis 1600 (Paderbom,1992), 212. Jews and prostitutesseem to have been treatedin much the same way in late medieval towns; see ibid. 212-13; Leah L. Otis, Prostitutionin Medieval Society: The History of an Urban Institutionin the Languedoc (Chicago, 1985), 69-70; Diane Owen Hughes, "Distinguishing Signs: Ear-Rings,Jews, and FranciscanRhetoric in the Italian Renaissance City,"Past and Present, no. 112 (1986), 3-59. 42 See Frantisek Graus, der stadtischen Gesellschaft im Spatmittelalter," "Randgruppen 4 historische Zeitschriftfur Forschung, (1981), 385-437. Infamous people like street musicians paid "tolerancemoney" in orderto stay in town, see Schreiner,450, 472. 43 Powell, "Introduction" Muslims under Latin Rule, 5-7 (as for religious toleration); Pakter,27: "No canonist ever advocatedexile of the Jews internallyor externally." 44 Summa theologiae I.II.93.3 ad 3; I.II.96.2; I.II.101.3 ad 2: "sapientis legislatoris est minores transgressiones permittere,ut maiores caveantur"; II.1.78.1 ad 3: "leges humanae dimittunt aliqua peccata impunita propter conditiones hominum imperfectorum, in quibus multae utilitates impedirentursi omnia peccata districte prohiberenturpoenis adhibitis. Et ideo usuras lex humanaconcessit, non quasi existimans eas esse secundum iustitiam, sed ne impedirenturutilitates multorum."

Tolerantia: A Medieval Concept

375

did allow for heresy. In the very periodwhich gave birthto the contemporaries idea of tolerance,Christianitybecame increasinglyintolerantof religious dissentin practiceas well as in theory.Even scholarswho, with Richard Kieckhefer, combat the view of the Inquisitionas a monolithic repressiveagency directed by Rome, do not questionthe fact that "medievalchurchmenfrom the twelfth centuryonwardclearly did wish to exercise tighter controlover the Church's membersand to define more narrowlyand precisely the boundariesof permissible belief and conduct."45 Anotherphenomenonthatwas generallyconsideredintolerable was homoHereticsandhomosexualswere not even in theoryallowed to dwell sexuality.46 in the marginsof society, like Jews and prostitutes.Heresy and homosexuality were not seen as minor evils that society could afford.Heresy endangeredthe very core of Christiancivilization, whereashomosexualitywas felt to threaten the distinctionbetweenthe sexes, the main distinctionwhich Christiancivilization maintainedwithin its own ranks. Tolerantiawas a way of walking honestly towardsoutsiders;towardsinsiders, strictnessprevailed. the latterdifferenceis commonlydisregarded in modemscholUnfortunately of deviand the extermination arship,which tends to take the marginalization ant social groupsas two facets of one andthe same process of "exclusion."47 In its medievalcontext,however,marginalization is, paradoxically enough, a way of incorporating deviantgroups in society, albeit in its outerspheres.48 Only the extermination of deviantgroupsat the gallows or the stakecan be accountedas real exclusion, as a way of getting rid of evil when tolerancewas felt to be out of place-as was the case with heretics, homosexuals,and ordinarycriminals. For the total and final exclusion of evil, however,medieval Christianshad to

45Richard Kieckhefer,"The Office of Inquisitionand Medieval Heresy: The Transition from Personal to InstitutionalJurisdiction," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 46 (1995), 3661:40. Kieckhefer'sarticle sums up the discussion on the natureof the Inquisitionelicited by his Repression of Heresy in Medieval Germany(Philadelphia, 1979). 46 See John E. Boswell, Christianity, Social Toleranceand Homosexuality:Gay People in Western Europefrom the Beginning of the ChristianEra to the FourteenthCentury(Chicago, 1980); for ThomasAquinas, see Summatheologiae II.1.154.12. Graus,399, points to the fact that heretics and homosexualswere the two main "marginal" groupsthat were not toleratedin late medieval society. 47 See Robert I. Moore, The Formationof a PersecutingSociety: Power and Deviance in Western Europe,950-1250 (Oxford, 1987); see also Graus,433: "ihrgemeinsamesKennzeichen wurden."Schuster, [of marginalgroups] war nur, dass sie von der Gesellschaft nicht integriert 212, argues rightly that the toleration of prostitutes was a means of integrating them into society, in spite of the fact that they were universallyheld in contempt. 48 Michel Foucault,Histoire de la folie a I'age classique (Paris, 1961), 14: "la situation liminairedu fou l'horizon du souci de l'homme medi6val"is expressed"parle privilege qui est donne au fou d'etre enfermeaux portes de la ville; son exclusion doit l'inclore; s'il ne peut et ne doit avoir d'autreprison que le seuil lui-meme, on le retientsur le lieu du passage. II est mis a l'int6rieurde l'exterieur, et inversement."

376

Istvdn Bejczy

wait for the Last Judgment.During the saeculum, minor evils had to be supportedand could even be used for the sake of the common good. Earlymodem history offers a differentpicturein this respect.The process of pluralizing religious truth seems indeed to have been initiated in the sixthe humanteenthcentury.Especiallybeforethe beginningof the Reformation, ists, especially those who were active northof the Alps, advocateda moderate diversitywithin the sphereof Christiandoctrineand practice,thus introducing a freedom that their medieval predecessors had been unwilling to concede. Authors such as Erasmus abhorreddoctrinal disputes and were much more interestedin restoringa trueChristian piety,thatcould make itself felt in different ways. It is not certainwhetherthe relativefreedomof religious thoughtand actionenvisaged in Christianhumanismreally left more room to the faithfulin comparisonto medievalpractice,in which divergentopinions coexisted (after all, one of the most frequenthumanistreproofsto scholastic theologians was precisely that they never agreed with each other). Nevertheless, Erasmusand his fellow humanistsdefended at least the idea of the flexibility of Christian truthas a matterof principle. It is the appeasingattitudeof Erasmusin an age of growingreligiouspolarThis notion, ization which has inspiredthe notion of "Erasmiantolerance."49 his ideas on the is rather recommended out of Erasmus never however, place. For Erasmus matterin the name of tolerance,as MarioTurchettihas argued.50 tolerantiawas a choice for the lesser of two evils. Yet he did not consider the relative freedom of belief that he advocatedas a lesser evil which would be betterleft withoutinterference to preventworse things, butratheras something Whatnormaland acceptable,so thatthe questionof tolerancewas irrelevant. ever the merits of his views may have been, the term "tolerance"is not right. Reluctancein rejectingthe opinions of others is not the same thing as tolerating opinions one actuallyrejects. In fact Erasmusrecognized several forms of orthodoxy,which is quite different from allowing forms of heterodoxy.It is thathe precisely on behalf of the unity and the concordiaamongthe Christians worked out the idea of a harmlessreligious diversity.5'
49 See, e.g., Wallace K. Ferguson, "The Attitude of ErasmustowardsToleration," Persecution and Liberty:Essays in Honor of GeorgeLincolnBurr (New York, 1931), 171-81; Lecler, I, 133-49; Myron P. Gilmore, "Les limites de la tolerance dans l'oeuvre politique d'Erasme," Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia(2 vols.; Paris-Toronto1972), 713-36; Karl Heinz Oelrich, "ZumToleranzbegriff des spaten Erasmusvon Rotterdam," Festgabefur Ernst WalterZeeden Erasmus (Miinster, 1976), 248-59; ManfredHoffmann, "Erasmusand Religious Toleration," 2 (1982), 80-106. of RotterdamSociety Yearbook, 50 "Une Bibliotheque question mal posee: Erasmeet la tolerance.L'idee de sygkatabasis," d'Humanismeet Renaissance, 53 (1991), 379-95. See also next note. 51 Schreiner,473, observes rightly that Erasmusdid not use the term "tolerantia" to denote his ideas on religious peace and freedom, but "pax"and "concordia." See also Lecler, I,

Tolerantia: A Medieval Concept

377

Towards realheterodoxy, In his view Erasmus was not usuallyindulgent. that could not be reconciled with as the he conceived Christian faith it opinions he mayhavebeencompared withsomecontemporar(moreamenable though had to be if even the death Of courseone ies) suppressed necessary by penalty. hadto tryto cureheretics beforeinflicting on them,butif punishment capital no other remedies wereeffective, onehadto cutofftheheretical limbsfromthe socialbody in order to prevent the contamination of the wholecommunity.52 Whenheresy wentalongwithinsurrections, theevildoers evenbe putto should deathwithouthesitation,53 unlessa majorpartof societywas afflicted; for a evil thanthe existenceof heretics. Thislast religiouswarwouldbe a greater lineof thought reminds oneof themedieval Erasmus added tolerantia, although thatthe allowance of heresyshouldonly be a provisional with the solution: of had to be the of as from monster passage time,society purged heresy soonas the opportunity itself.54 In dealingwithheretics, was then,Erasmus presented no less than medieval after his death usually intransigent Only theologians." dida generation of Catholic as well as Protestant elaborate theidea theologians thattheevil of heresyshouldin principle be tolerated in caseof political need, most notablywhentolerance couldprevent the maiusmalum of a massacre amongthe citizens.56 There someimportant to Erasmus's lackof indulare,however, exceptions to In the the tares fromthe of the wheat and gence heresy. expounding parable Erasmus stated to Christ, gospelof Matthew that, (13:24-30), according explicitly the mixture of the wheat(good Christians) in andthe tares(badChristians, hadto be tolerated untilthe conclusion of history, when particular heretics)

125: "Aussi bien leur ideal [of the Christian humanists] n'est pas tant la tolerance que la reduction des divergences religieuses par un loyal effort de conciliation" Accordingly, the term "tolerantia"is absent from sixteenth-centurytreaties on religious pacification like the Peace of Augsburg(1555), which employs the term "concordantia" (Schreiner,447). 52 See Adversus monachos quosdam hispanos, Opera omnia, ed. Joannes Clericus (10 vols.; Leiden 1703-6; hereafterLB), IX 1054B, 1056B, 1059E. 53 See, e.g., Opus epistolarium Des. Erasmi Roterodami, ed. Percy S. Allen et al. (12 vols.; Oxford, 1906-58; hereafterAllen), Epp. 1526: 155-59, 1690: 104-5; Supputatioerrorum Beddae LB IX 581B; Adversus monachos LB IX 1056B; Epistola contra pseudevangelicos, Opera omnia (Amsterdam, 1969- ; hereafter:ASD), IX-1 288/137-41. 54 See Allen, Epp. 1924: 32-35, 2366: 51-55. Lecler, I, 138, thinksthatin Ep. 2366 Erasmus applied the Thomistic tolerance of infidels from Summa theologiae II.II.10.11 to Christian heretics. 55 VitaHieronymi:"in the matter of heresy tolerance is a wrong, not a virtue," The Collected Works of Erasmus(Toronto, 1974-; herafterCWE), 61 44; Erasmi Opuscula.A Supplement to the Opera omnia, ed. W. K. Ferguson(The Hague, 1933), 165: 868-70. 56See Lecler,I, 289-95; II, 197-203. JoannesLensaeus(1541-93) explicitly appliedThomas Aquinas's argumentsin favor of the tolerationof infidels to heretics.

378

Istvdn Bejczy

God would separatethe two at the Last Judgment.57 This view can be qualified as genuinely tolerant,and indeed as a departurefrom medieval rigidity. Still, when the Lutheran authorGerardGeldenhouwerpublishedin 1529 a selection of Erasmus's statements in favor of the tolerance of heretics, Erasmuswas upset. In his reactionto Geldenhouwer,Erasmusclaimed never to have said that heretics should not be put to death,but only that one should not immediately drawthe swordafterany accusationof heresy whatsoeverby any monk or theologian whatsoever,because charitydemandedthat one firsttry to help the fallen. As for the parableof the wheat and the tares, Erasmusarguedthat not pulling out the tares only applied to the early Churchand to the apostles who had no other sword than the word of God,58 but that it did not imply any restrictionof the powerof worldly rulerswho used real swordsagainstheretics.59 Erasmus's overall position with regardto heresy, then, was rathertraditional. But if he did not consistentlyplead for the extension of toleranceto the field of heresy,what attitudedid he adopttowardmedievalviews of tolerance? Although the term tolerantia occurs in Erasmus'swork mostly in its classical and its biblical sense,60 some echoes of medieval tolerantia can be found as well, notably with regardto Jews,61tolerationfor whom Erasmusseems to have taken for granted. Unlike some of his contemporaries,Erasmusnever called for the expulsionof Jews or the use of violence againstthem.Neitherdid he take a firm standagainstthe acts of violence to which Jews fell victim in his age. Apparentlythe tolerationof Jews did not interestErasmusvery much; all we can say is thatat least he did not oppose himself to it. Nonetheless it is clear fromhis writingsthathe did not like the Jews. It would not even be impossible
57Paraphrasis in MatthaeumLB VII 80E-F. Cf. Supputatio LB IX 580Cff.; Adversus monachos LB IX 1054Bff.; Ad censurasfacultatis theologiae Parisiensis LB IX 904Fff.; Apoin PsalmumII ASD V-2 145/539logia ad blasphemiasStunicae LB IX 373C; Commentarius 40; Allen Epp. 916: 244, 1202: 10ff., but on the other hand 2583: 18-20. 58 In the same sense: Divinationes ad notateper Beddam LB IX 464A-C; SupputatioLB IX 582A; Adversusmonachos LB IX 1056D. 59 Contra pseudevangelicos ASD IX-1 287/107-15, 288/126-31. In his discussion of Erasmus'suse of the parable,Corelis Augustijn,Erasmus:His Life, Works, and Influence, tr. J. C. Grayson (Toronto, 1991), 177-78, ignores Erasmus's recantation(even though Contra pseudevangelicos was edited by Augustijn himself!) and praises Erasmus's"plea for toleration." For similar misrepresentations see Oelrich and especially Hoffmann, 106. De conscribendis 60Erasmus often mentioned Socrates as an example of "tolerantia": epistolis ASD I-2 413/13-414/1, Colloquia ASD I-3 644/50-51, EncomiummatrimoniiASD I5 398/178-80, Christiani matrimonii institutio LB V 660A. For "tolerantia"as a Christian virtue (Erasmus retainedthe term at 2 Cor. 1:6 in his New Testamenttranslationand added it at 2 Thess. 1:4 and James 5:11) see e.g. Epistola de philosophia evangelica LB VI *5; Allen Epp. 710: 85, 1177: 44. With Erasmus the verb "tolerare"seems, in all its meanings, to be cf. ApophthegmataLB IV 314A: "Fertautem qui tolerat." synonymouswith "ferre," 61 Cf. e.g., Declarationes ad censuras Lutetiae vulgatas LB IX 909B, Ecclesiastes ASD V-5 254/232-34, Interpretatio in PsalmumLXXXVASDV-3 406: 90ff., Paraphrasisin Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos LB VII 808F, Allen, Ep. 2443: 314-16; see Shimon Markish,Erasmusand the Jews, tr. Anthony Olcott (Chicago, 1986), 66-111.

Tolerantia: A Medieval Concept

379

to chargeErasmus with antisemitism. But contrary to whatsome scholarsthink,62 this is not an argumentagainst Erasmiantolerance.Toleranceapplied only to evil; thus, if Erasmushad not consideredthe Jews evil in some respect, there would have been nothingfor him to tolerate.Erasmusdid not like the Jews,but he did not disputetheirrightof existence in Christiansociety either,and this is exactly what makes him tolerant (although his statementson the matterare rather weak in comparisonto medievaltradition).Erasmus'sdislike of the Jews is a prerequisiteof his tolerance,not an impedimentto it. Towardsmarginalpeople other than Jews who in the medieval tradition met with tolerance in theory and often in practice as well, Erasmusseems to have felt the need for tolerationeven less, and sometimeshe explicitly pleaded (acagainstit. He does not seem to have favoredthe tolerationof prostitutes63 the course of became forbidden tually prostitution throughoutEuropeduring the sixteenthcentury),and he expressedhimself repeatedlyagainstthe toleration of beggars64 and of otherpeople who, in his view, were useless and harmful to society. As he put it in his Institutioprincipis christiani: ... [I]t is far betterto ensurethat no offences at all are committedthan to punishthem once they have been perpetrated. This will be achieved if the princecan destroy,if possible, or at least check and reduce anything that he has noted as a likely source of criminalbehaviour....The vigilant prince will thereforeensure that he has as few idlers as possible among his subjects,eithermakingthem work or banishingthem from the state.65 Here Erasmusdefends the typical humanistidea thatthe prince,as an educator of his people, should teach his subjectshow to behave as good citizens and to abstainfrom evil. The statementthatthe prince should cut all social evil at the roots, ratherthan to let it grow in order to punish it, was a commonplace in Renaissancepolitical writings. Contraryto medieval opinion, evil was not to be tolerated,neitherin the centernor in the marginsof Christiansociety. Illustratinghis view with the same medicalmetaphorhe used with regardto heresy,
62 See, in the Age of Renaissance and e.g. Heiko A. Oberman,TheRoots of Anti-Semitism Reformation,tr. James I. Porter(Philadelphia, 1984), 38-40. 63 Cf. e.g. Institutio matrimoniiLB V 719F-720A. 4 Cf. Colloquia ASD I-3 258/823-26, 437/143-45; Allen, Epp. 964: 50-54, 967: 20-22; and cf. JuanLuis Vives, De subventionepauperum (1526). 65 InstitutioCWE 27 266-67, ASD IV-1 196/916-198/954. The passage is followed by an enumerationof idlers, to which Erasmusreckons beggars, tax farmers,peddlers,usurers,brokers, panders, estate managers, game wardens, courtiers, soldiers, decayed noblemen, and many monks and universityteachers. "If the prince will banish from his realm all such seedbeds of crime,"Erasmusconcludes, "therewill be much less for his laws to punish"(CWE 27 268, ASD IV-1 198/971-72).

380

IstvdnBejczy

Erasmusstatedthat harmedpartsof the social body had to be removedbefore they contaminatedthe whole, either by restoringthem to health or by cutting them off.66On no accountcould social evil be toleratedin its state of depravity. Not only were the traditionalvitia graviora envisaged here, but so were all sortsof moraldegradation, in Erasmus's the effect of which was much harsher, Although it would be opinion, than state control of the citizens' conduct.67 unfairto depictErasmus,or the Christian humanistsin general,as purelyintolerant-we could point to several passages in Erasmus'swork which deal less uncompromisinglywith social evil68-one cannot overlook the tendencies in Renaissancepolitical thoughtto strive against all evil elements in society and to exclude them ratherthanto incorporate them if this seemed to be opportune, as medieval authorshad recommended.69 A majorreasonfor Erasmus'suncompromising to social evil seems attitude to be his idea thatonly when one makes effortsto realizethe ideal situationcan one hope to bringforthan even modestlybetterstateof affairs.In his commentary to the adage "Graspthe summit, and halfway will be yours,"Erasmus attackedthe scholastics who debatedthe extent to which it was permissibleto give in to evil, since it was betterto combatevil in all its forms:only this would eventually lead to improvementsof some sort.70In his preface to the 1518 After edition of the Enchiridionmilitis christiani we find the same argument. for human criticized the scholastics directions for clear-cut never having giving conductbut indicatinginsteadwhatwas tolerabilis,Erasmusexplainedthatthe highest goal-Christ and his teaching in all its purity-"must be set before Thus Erasmus everyone, that at least we may achieve something half way."71 criticized the medieval traditionnot for showing a lack of tolerance but for having too much of it. Contentingoneself with the lesser of two evils was no serious option for him.As he put it inAntibarbari:"Somethingthatis tolerated can even be pleasing when it is comparedwith something worse; but it will please a great deal more if it is changed into somethingbetter."72
IV-1 196/928-197/933. Ibid., ASD IV-1 198/990-93. An exception is Erasmus'squalified defense of the marriage of clerics as a "minusmalum"(Appendixde scriptis ClichtoveiLB IX 81 IF) preventing debauchery. 68 In the InstitutioErasmus points twice to the possibility of tolerationof evil (ASD IV-1 173/213-16, 187/675-78) and states that it can scarcely be hoped that all men will be good (140/116). Cf. also Allen, Ep. 858: 281-83. For a literal echo of the medieval idea of tolerance see Erasmus'Annotationsto the New Testament, ed. Anne Reeve and M. A. Screech (3 vols.; London, 1986-93), I, 213 (on Luke 22:36): "Postremosunt in rebushumanismulta necessaria eo quod excludantmaioramala, non probantur, ut Evangeliaedoctrinae." mala, quae tolerantur 69 For a more detailed discussion see my Pape Jansland en Utopia.De verbeeldingvan de beschaving van middeleeuwenen renaissance (Nijmegen, 1994). 70Adagia II iii 25, CWE 33 142-43, LB II 492A. 71 CWE, Ep. 858:346-51 (Allen, 324-29). 72 CWE 23 79, ASD I-1 101/6-8.
67

66 Ibid., ASD

A Medieval Concept Tolerantia:

381

Erasmus's to continue of tolerance, tradition themedieval then, willingness is remarkably low.However, he madeextensive useof theconceptoftolerantia in a fieldthathascommonly theProtesbeenoverlooked: his polemicsagainst tants.Opposing himselfto theradical medieval from the of Lutheranism break Church-a break to Erasmus, wasbasedon theideathatonce which,according a newChurch wasfounded, andmorality wouldbe safe-he frequently religion tookrecourse to the ideaof tolerance. to think He insisted thatit wasnonsense thatthe newChurch wouldbe someholycommunity against decay. protected Erasmus was had and thus to be intrinsic to existence Evil, argued, earthly toleratedin any humaninstitution.In his invectiveagainstthe Lutheran Geldenhouwer he affirmed: As longas thenetof theChurch thecourseof earthly is trailed through andhasnotyet reached themixtheshore,one should tolerate history tureof good andevil; it has alwaysbeenthe case andwill alwaysbe the case for the humancondition than thatit yields morebitterness honey." If human faultswereto be corrected at all, Erasmus one shouldbe continued, careful thewrongs of theinstitution at stake,nottheinstitution onlyto remove itself.ButtheProtestants wereanything butcareful anddestroyed everything. theparable from wrote: Matthew Erasmus Geldenhouwer, Turning "you against out the wheat with I out the should rather tares,or, peoplepull say,youpull the wheatinstead of thetares."74 As solution. thetares, then,wasa better Tolerating
Erasmusstated in HyperaspistesI, in which he attackedLutherdirectly:

I knowthatin thischurch, therearemanypeople whichyoucallpapist, whodisplease me:butI see suchmenin yourchurch as well.However, evil to which one is used is tolerated moreeasily. I shall therefore tolerate this church untilI shallsee a betterone....He who holdsthe middlecoursebetweentwo different evils is not an unhappy navigator.75 HereErasmus a tolerant in themedieval senseof theterm, attitude adopts for the the greater lesser evil of to prevent Catholicism allowing degenerated evil of Protestant seemed Evena moderate of superstition anarchy. tyranny

73Contra ASD IX-1304/615-18. Erasmus madethe samepointagainst pseudevangelicos Martin II LB X Bucer,Allen, Ep. 2615: 495-99, and againstLuther himself,Hyperaspistes 1483C-D. 74Contra ASD IX-1 292/239-40. pseudevangelicos 75Hyperaspistes I LB X 1257F-1258A.

382

Istvdn Bejczy

thatdidnotresult moretolerable to himthana totalrevolution.76 Superstitions in in impietyshouldbe tolerated, as Erasmus declared, just ineptdepictions anduniversities, and(as long as therewas no churches, failingmonasteries of Jews OnceErasmus evenputthetoleration scholastic alternative) theology.77 andof medieval on one line: Catholicism TheApostlesshowedtoleration to theJews,whocouldnotbe weaned tastefor the Law;andthe same,I believe, awayfromtheiringrained have to would show thesemenwho forso manycenturies they rightly of allthosecouncils theauthority andpopesanddistinguished accepted in the new wine of this and find some teachers, difficulty swallowing
moder teaching.78

ideathatone can andmustcreatea then,withthe Protestant Confronted, Erasmus Christian from thetraditional Church, societyby turning perfect away in order to abandoned his visionthatone shouldalwaysstriveforperfection of theCathomakeatleastsomeimprovements. Hepleaded instead fortolerance if necessary lic tradition, untilthe end of history. Thusthe most cogentexbut springfroma of Erasmian tolerance announce do not modernity amples a newidea concern to preserve medieval Catholicism. Rather thandeveloping medieval the of of tolerance as aninstrument the totalitarian against aspirations to opposethe no less Erasmus usedthe existingconceptof tolerance Church, totalitarian of that it Protestantism could realize,or thatit even assumption the Cityof Godon Earth. represented, enables tolerance andhumanist towards attitudes My surveyof medieval meto draw Schreiner's somecritical conclusions. to Klaus statements, Contrary did not truth the pretension the absolute of the medieval Church to represent its own define to a the of tolerance. It is in order limitation of imply meaning thattheChurch truth attitude towards thosewhodidnotconform to theabsolute from and the idea oftolerantia. Heretics enemies within) developed adopted (the from werepersecuted, enemies butunbelievers, Jews without) (the especially whooffended weregranted a rightof existence, as weremostsocialelements It andsanctified. themoralcodewhichthe absolute truth religious legitimized in the Middle is also evidentthatthe close bondsbetweenChurch andstate it. Ecclesiastical did not weaken the of tolerance reinforced but Ages impact
76De esu carniumASD IX-1 38/563-64. 77 Modus orandi deum ASD V-1 154/135-36 (superstition),163-65 (depictions);De recta pronuntiationeASD 1-4 24/344-54 (monasteries,universities);Allen, Ep. 1127: 14-16 (scholasticism). 78 CWE, Ep. 1341A: 1172-77, Allen, I, 30: 28-33. Erasmusdoes not speak in so many words of "tolerantia" but of "moderatio." "Modem teaching"refers to Lutheranism.

Tolerantia: A Medieval Concept

383

authorsthemselves advised worldly rulersto adopta tolerantattitudetowards evildoers,by taking recourseto the concept of tolerancein canon law and applying it in the secular sphere. Schreiner'sassumptionthattoleranceimplies freedomof religion andplumistaken.In the medievaltradition, ralityof truthseems to me fundamentally toleranceis a preceptof non-interference on the partof those who are in power. Once religious freedom is acknowledged,religion becomes politically neutral and hence offers no ground for interferenceor non-interferenceany longer. Religious freedom and religious tolerantia are thereforelogically incompatible. Pluralityof truth,on the otherhand,is compatiblewith tolerantia,but the two concepts do not requireeach other.Tolerancedoes not concern the truth but the untrue.Whetherthe truthin question is uniformor pluralis irrelevant. History actually teaches us that medieval tolerancecoexisted with a uniform truth,whereas the effort of pluralizingreligious truthin early moder times was accompaniedby a decreasingwillingness to toleratesocial deviance. If we put it in generalterms,we could say thatmedieval tolerantiadefines the attitudeof Christiancivilizationto its own counterpart. Withinthe rangeof Christiancivilization a set of absoluterules prevails(hence the persecutionof heretics); tolerantia, however, offers the possibility of coming to terms with the outerworld. It is a way of getting along with essential culturaldifferences between Christiansociety and its outsiders.The allegedly toleranttendencies in Renaissance thought, on the other hand, define only the relations within Christian civilization. Erasmian concordia invites us to consider Christian civilization as composed of relative, pluriformrules. It offers no possibility, however,of coming to termswith the outerworld.In fact there is little roomfor such a world:harmlessculturaldifferencesare allowed among the insidersof Christian society, but essentialculturaldifferencesshouldpreferably disappear. In contrastwith tolerantia,concordiameans reluctancein rejectingothers,but not in suppressingthe rejected other. It teaches us to accept some variation within the range of the civilized; tolerantia, on the other hand, teaches us to live with real differences. The moder confusion between the notions of "concord"and of "tolerance"might be a heritageof enlightenedphilosophy.In the eighteenthcentury the distinctionbetween tolerareand approbarefrom canon law was no longer maintained.79 When Voltairepleaded for "tolerance" in religious affairs,what he had in mind was the peaceful coexistence of different systems of belief thus came to mean which, to him, had no real significanceanyway."Tolerance" little more than "indifference." This ratherfeeble notion of "tolerance"still dominatesin moder political discourse.Whennowadayspeople urgethe politicians (or politicians urge the people) to be tolerant,what they really have in
79Schreiner,533.

384

Istvdn Bejczy

view is anindifferent we should therelativity of ourtruths, attitude. Admitting be reluctant to condemn the acts or beliefs of our fellow human beingsthat differfromourown-that is thebasicideaof ourso-called An idea tolerance. thatmakes us morally if outright evil showsup;anidea,moreover, defenseless thatshouldmakeus prayneverto findthe absolute truth again,forthatwould end of tolerance. apparently implythe Fromthe medievaltradition of tolerancewe could learnthatthese last thattheypossessed are wrong.Medieval neverdoubted authors impressions
the absolute truth,but they developed the concept of tolerantia as a way of

defenseMedieval authors werenevermorally gettingalongwiththe untrue. less againstoutright findit, evil andcondemned believed to it wherever they butstill theyadvocated notto interfere withit if thisseemedto be opportune. we do not have the same enemies as medieval Obviously people.Still,with to thequestion of howto handle theenemieswe do havewithout regard going to theextremes conof tolerance of tyranny andinertia, themedieval doctrine tainsa lessonforourage as well. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.