The Folly of Erasmus and the Vices of Luther:

Sixteenth-Century Ethnocentricity
Wasn't Much Different from Today's.

By Ronald Fritze
Posted on January 23, 2012, from Athens, Alabama

Human beings have a strong tendency to be ethnocentric, i.e., they categorize the people in their world into “Us” or “Them.” By “Us” or “Them,” we mean those inside the group and those outside the group, whatever that group might be: clique, town, state, region, nation, race, or political party. Scholarly discourse refers to those outsiders as “the other,” but that is just another way of saying “them.”

Humans have created classifications of “Us” and “Them” throughout history. The process becomes particularly pronounced when there is conflict and competition. There is nothing like war to bring out the ethnocentricity of a society.

The process of classification helps humans satisfy a fundamental psychic need to make sense of the world around them. All things are put into one, another, or several categories, and humans are foremost among the living things put into categories. While humans are all part of one species — for those of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, it's not always comfortable to admit that they are descended from a common ancestor, Adam — it is also obvious that there is a tremendous amount of variety among humans. Irish, Chinese, and Pygmies are all quite different in appearance and culture. So it will not be surprising to learn that well-educated early sixteenth-century Europeans classified the people around them with gusto — and not necessarily in a complimentary fashion.

'How Much Pleasure
Selflove Everywhere Supplies'

In his famous book The Praise of Folly (1511), Desiderius Erasmus (c1469-1536) made fun of the way his fellow Europeans classified themselves in enthusiastically positive light. Erasmus provided a long discussion of the human trait of self-love in its various manifestations. He also pointed out that groups of people engaged in such self-love through their particular group. According to the satire of Erasmus:

“Nature has not only given every mortal his own brand of self-love but has also grafted a sort of communal form of it to particular nations and even cities. Hence it is that the British lay claim above all to good looks, music, and fine food. The Scots pride themselves on their nobility and close blood-ties to the royal house, not to mention dialectical subtlety. The French claim for themselves refinement of manners. The Parisians arrogate to themselves theological learning, to the exclusion of almost everyone else. The Italians lay claim to literature and eloquence, and on one point they all preen themselves most complacently: that, of all mortals, they alone are not barbarians. In this sort of happiness the Romans lead the way, and still dream sweet dreams about that ancient Rome of theirs. The Venetians are happy in their reputation for nobility. The Greeks, as the founders of the various branches of learning, emblazon themselves with the ancient renown of their famous heroes. The Turks and all that scum of the real barbarians claim for themselves the praise due to religion, ridiculing Christians precisely because of their superstitions. But the Jews have it even better, still waiting faithfully for their Messiah and clinging to their Moses tooth and nail even to this day. Spaniards yield to no one in military glory. The Germans pride themselves on their tallness and their knowledge of magic. But, not to run through all of them one by one, you see (I think) how much pleasure Selflove everywhere supplies to individual mortals and to mankind as a whole, and in this function her sister Flattery is almost her equal.”

Erasmus leaves his native Netherlanders out of this discussion for some reason. But he did have personal experience of all the other groups he discusses except probably the Turks.

Make the Best of the Vices
And Swill without Stopping.

In contrast to Erasmus, Martin Luther’s (1483-1546) ethnic classifications tended to be voiced on the vices common to the group. One evening in late 1536, Luther announced to his guests (the Luther family frequently had house guests and always boarded students to earn extra money, so their house was always full) that he had to lecture the next day on the drunkenness of Noah. As he put it to his guests, “I should drink enough this evening to be able to talk about that wickedness as one who knows by experience.” One of his guests, the Lutheran pastor Conrad Cordatus, remonstrated by saying, “By no means, you ought to do the opposite.” To that the sometimes impish Luther replied, "One must make the best of the vices that are peculiar to each land. The Bohemians gorge themselves, the Wends steal, and the Germans swill without stopping. How would you outdo a German, dear Cordatus, except by making him drunk — especially a German who doesn’t love music and women?”

Luther showed a readiness to recognize a failing of his own German people — drunkenness — in contrast to Erasmus, who glosses over his own Dutch. In fact, Luther has been incorrectly credited with the ditty:

“He who loves not women, wine, and song
Remains a fool his whole life long.”

But while Luther did not originate that couplet, he was making a true observation about his people. Germans had a long history of engaging in recreational binge drinking. The Roman historian Tacitus in 98 AD reported in his Germania that the German tribes were hard drinkers and often conducted business at marathon drinking parties lasting twenty-four hours.

Whether the poor Wends were really the thieves that Luther asserted is another story. But the idea of hard-drinking Germans and gluttonous Bohemians was definitely part of Luther’s worldview. A few years after the Noah incident, Luther was traveling on business during 1540. To his wife Katherine von Bora he penned one of his typically playful letters, reporting, “I wish humbly to inform your Grace that I am doing well here. I eat like a Bohemian and drink like a German; thanks be to God for this. Amen.”

So Luther had his prejudices — and we haven’t even touched on his attitudes toward the Turks. Clearly Erasmus ranked the Turks far lower than any of the other peoples that he discussed. The topic of the sixteenth-century European view of the Turks would fill volumes.

No More Hateful than Other Eras

One might think that with all this prejudice, the sixteenth century was a hateful time. In fact, it was no more hateful than any other period of history. People might have held uncomplimentary stereotypes of neighboring nations and they engaged in frequent wars, but prejudice and war were not connected. No one made war on Germans because they were hard drinkers or the Bohemians because they were gluttons. No one invaded France because they claimed to have the best manners or Britain because they had good food.

Throughout this era, many people traveled for business, for education, or on pilgrimages and other forms of tourism. Travel was dangerous because law and order was often weak, and evil people took advantage of strangers, but travelers were not killed simply because they were German, French, Italian, or Spanish. People got along. They had to get along, or else travel would become impossible and trade would grind to a halt. In that way, our ancestors are not so very different from us.