The Reception of Erasmus and the Fall of James II

It is perhaps surprising to see the name and legacy of Erasmus embroiled in the party politics of late Stuart England. What did either the Whigs or the Tories have in common with Erasmus? In fact, authors from both incipient parties saw significant advantage in claiming Erasmus as a respected author...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Dodds, Gregory (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Published: 2025
In: Erasmus studies
Year: 2025, Volume: 45, Issue: 2, Pages: 219-244
RelBib Classification:CG Christianity and Politics
KAH Church history 1648-1913; modern history
KBF British Isles
KDB Roman Catholic Church
KDE Anglican Church
SA Church law; state-church law
ZC Politics in general
Further subjects:B Desiderius Erasmus
B Gilbert Burnet
B John Locke
B Samuel Parker
B James II
B Roger L’Estrange
B 1688
B Glorious Revolution
B Edward Stillingfleet
B Restoration
B William Penn
B Sir Peter Pett
B reception of Erasmus
B Declaration of Indulgence
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Summary:It is perhaps surprising to see the name and legacy of Erasmus embroiled in the party politics of late Stuart England. What did either the Whigs or the Tories have in common with Erasmus? In fact, authors from both incipient parties saw significant advantage in claiming Erasmus as a respected authority for key elements of their own agendas. They also sought to use the reputation and writings of Erasmus to support their competing interpretations of the English past. In 1685, Tories saw the moderation and tolerance of the English Erasmian legacy as a model that could build support for the Catholic James II. Whigs, meanwhile, sought to undermine this argument by portraying Erasmus as anti-Catholic, anti-papal, and anti-authoritarian. Both factions understood that history was the foundation for legitimacy and that public perceptions about the nature of the English Reformation and the Elizabethan settlement could determine the success or failure of their competing visions for the future of England. Claiming Erasmus, both believed, was important for the acceptance of the rival stories they each sought to tell.
Contains:Enthalten in: Erasmus studies
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1163/18749275-04502005