Erasmus Batavus: The Auris Batava (1508) Between Ancient Heritage and Italian Disdain

ABSTRACT

A 1508 adage by Erasmus about the Batavian ear is often interpreted as an expression of nationalism. Serious doubts can be raised against such interpretations since there was no such thing as nationalism in the early sixteenth century. Besides this, the interpretation is inconsistent with Erasmus’s degenerative expressions about Batavians and Hollanders elsewhere; nor does the adage describe the Batavians or Hollanders in a truly positive way. I propose an alternative to the nationalistic interpretation of the adage. Based on the Auris Batava, his correspondence, and the rest of his broad oeuvre, I argue that the references to Batavians throughout Erasmus’s works are instead a response to humanist Italy, where a negative stereotype of Northerners was prevalent and where one prided oneself on an ancient lineage. Born in Rotterdam, Erasmus could not appropriate this ancient Roman heritage and therefore took recourse to the Batavians. He appropriated biases against the supposed negative characteristics of the Northerners and Batavians as well, but used these to emphasize his own achievements. Erasmus’s establishment of a Batavian identity can thus be deemed a form of Erasmian modesty, a type of rhetoric that is evident more broadly in his oeuvre.

KEYWORDS:

• Batavian myth
• imagology
• humanism
• historiography
• identity
• appropriation
• Desiderius Erasmus

Introduction

Writing like a true member of the Renaissance Republic of Letters, Erasmus (1469–1536) argued it did not matter where one was born, because every intellectual is a compatriot.¹ Nonetheless, the humanist frequently referred to the birthplace of his correspondents and of other contemporaries. He even hinted towards a sort of national character; according to Erasmus, the Italians are courteous, and the Germans are fierce.² Erasmus also wrote extensively of his own fatherland in some of his adages and throughout his written correspondence. Over the last century, these expressions have often been interpreted as nationalistic or patriotic, sentiments that are otherwise hard to pair with the political situation in sixteenth-century Europe.³ Even if there was such a thing as nationalism in the early sixteenth century, it seems that Erasmus generally abstained from it and preferred to pride himself on his intellect rather than his fatherland, as is evident in several of his letters.⁴ Erasmus’s references to his country of birth thus cannot be deemed patriotic and should be seen in another light, which I will shed on the matter in the present article.

Erasmus most famously discussed his fatherland in the adage Auris Batava, or Batavian ear, which appeared for the first time in the vastly elaborated edition of the Adagia in 1508.⁵ This edition was published in Venice with Aldus Manutius (1449–1515), where Erasmus had lodged between January and September of that year. Erasmus was eager to publish with Manutius because of his specialization in Greek typography – the second edition of the Adagia was not only vastly elaborated in terms of the number of adages but it was also greatly expanded with Greek sayings and sources.⁶ For example, the Auris Batava includes the Greek term for Boeotian ear (βοιώτιον οὖς), which the ancient Roman author Marcus Valerius Martialis (c. 40–104 AD) had transformed to Batavian ear. In a short epigram, Martialis had written that everybody knew his jokes, except people with a Batavian ear (because they are uncultivated).⁷ In his explanation of the dictum in the Adagia, Erasmus criticized Martialis and nuanced his presumption of the character of the Batavians, arguing instead that it would be better if all Christians had Batavian ears, because then they would not be affected by Martialis’s obscene witticisms.⁸ Erasmus furthermore argued that every society was once uncivilized, that contemporary Holland is opulent and that the Dutch should be praised for their domestic mores and their high standard of education in practical matters. Ultimately, Erasmus related his own ‘mediocre’ talents to that of the Batavians.⁹ In short, in the Auris Batava Erasmus countered Martialis by nuancing the negative characteristics of the Batavians and by praising the simple but just character of Batavians and Hollanders, a character he also attributed to himself.

Such characterizations of national types are the research object of imagology, which is ‘the study of cross-national perceptions and images as expressed in literary discourse […].’¹⁰ Joep Leerssen has been a major drive in the development of this field and elaborately described the history and methodology of imagology, stressing the importance of intertextuality and contextuality. According to Leerssen, the imagologist should establish the intertext as a trope (i.e. through a genealogy), contextualize this trope in both the text of its occurrence and in the historical time of its emergence, and assess the purpose of the text. I will apply this framework to Erasmus’s characterization of the Batavian in his broader oeuvre. I will accordingly establish the term ‘Batavian’ as a trope among Italian and Dutch humanists, assess how this term was interpreted during Erasmus’s presence in Italy and how Erasmus described it, and finally try to understand what Erasmus attempted to achieve with the Auris Batava and his frequent other references to Batavia and Batavians. In this way, I will come to a new interpretation of Erasmus’s descriptions of the Batavian character.

The Auris Batava as Sign of Patriotism

Erasmus’s countering of Martialis’s disregard of the Batavians in the Auris Batava has often been interpreted as an expression of patriotism or nationalism, even if it is also generally assumed that Erasmus tried to abstain from patriotism.¹¹ In her assessment of the ‘fate’ of the adage in Dutch historiography, Nicolette Mout analysed the many modern scholarly attempts at explaining the meaning of Auris Batava for Erasmus personally and more broadly within his oeuvre.¹² In strong contrast with early modern authors, Mout concludes, modern historians have been naïve in their interpretations of Erasmus’s exclamations about fatherland and overlooked their place within the broader humanistic discourse. Instead of understanding the Auris Batava as part of the emerging humanistic historiography, twentieth-century historians took it as evidence for the Dutch ‘sense of patriotism and cultural nationalism avant la lettre’.¹³

Johan Huizinga is a striking example of the twentieth-century nationalistic framing of the Auris Batava. In his essay Erasmus über Vaterland und Nationen (1936), he describes Erasmus as a cosmopolitan who nevertheless took the Burgundian Netherlands or, more specifically, the province of Holland as his fatherland. Huizinga presented Erasmus as generally appreciative of Dutch culture: ‘the whole of Erasmus sets on this praise of his homeland’. More specifically, Huizinga described the Auris Batava as a eulogy of Holland and an exaltation of the mores and values of the Dutch – Erasmus himself included.¹⁴ In a more nuanced fashion, many other scholars throughout the centuries seized the Auris Batava as an opportunity to attenuate Erasmus’s generally negative expressions about his place of origin. J.J. Poelhekke observed that while Erasmus generally expressed himself negatively about Holland throughout his life, the Auris Batava is the starting point for some more positive accounts later in life.¹⁵ In the broader oeuvre of Erasmus, István Bejczy similarly recognized ‘his widening national sentiments’ already in the last decade of the fifteenth century.¹⁶

At least until the publication by Nicolette Mout, scholars approached Erasmus’s comments on the Auris Batava as a nationalist statement in praise of his fatherland. Such statements persist in the twenty-first century. For example, Niek van Sas described Erasmus’s defence of the Batavian ear as setting the trend for thinking about Dutch identity, whilst Enenken and Ottenheym understood the adage as Erasmus’s attempt to construct a positive Dutch identity.¹⁷ Perhaps the nationalistic reading of the Auris Batava persists because ‘it is easier to depict the contents of the adage than to interpret it’ – which is why Mout did not attempt to provide a new analysis of the saying.¹⁸ She did provide a thorough examination of the adage, however, as well as a Dutch translation, to encourage a new interpretation of the Auris Batava in its humanist context. In what follows, I build on Mout’s work to propose an alternative to the patriotic reading of the Auris Batava.

Erasmus among Italian Disdain

In line with the imagological approach and following Nicolette Mout, I will assess references to the Batavians among Italian humanists as a trope, bearing in mind that the 1508 edition of the Adagia was compiled and published in Venice. For this purpose, I will react to Ari Wesseling, who seems to have been the first to respond to Mout’s appeal to study the adage in its humanistic context. More specifically, Wesseling understood the Auris Batava in the light of the Italian disdain for the Northerners. He recognized that Erasmus’s praise of the Batavians and Holland in the Auris Batava was made in sheer contrast with his regular criticism of Hollanders in which he denigrated Hollanders for ‘their cultural backwardness, their gluttony, and their failure to appreciate Erasmus himself.’¹⁹ According to Wesseling, Erasmus changed his tone in the Auris Batava in an attempt to advertise his works among his humanist colleagues by rectifying the negative views about the Northerners.²⁰ I tend to endorse this reasoning, but I nuance the Italian disdain to the extent that it does not suffice to explain Erasmus’s change of tone.

Ari Wesseling rightfully argued that sixteenth-century Italians generally held a negative stereotypical image of people from Holland. According to Wesseling, Italians and Spaniards exploited the term ‘Batavian’ as an insult and, based on a few examples, Wesseling argued that as Batavians, Hollanders were culturally backward or even barbarous in the eyes of the Italians.²¹ This implies that the message in Martialis’s epigram about the Batavian ear was still alive so many centuries later. However, Italian criticism of the Dutch went beyond the demarcation of what was ‘Batavian’. As others have indicated before, there was a strong and deeply rooted rivalry between Italy and greater Germany, which also included Holland.²² However, I only trace the negative stereotype among those who had not visited the Netherlands and I argue we should not overestimate its prevalence.

The negative stereotypes are indeed hardly present in sixteenth-century journals of Italian travellers who visited the Low Countries for reasons ranging from commerce to missionary work, warfare, and intellectual aspirations.²³ In an account of his journey made to the Low Countries in 1517–1518, the Southern Italian cleric Antonio de Beatis characterized the inhabitants of Holland as a generally clean, devout, healthy, and honest people, even though they consumed a lot of butter and beer. The women are described as beautiful (despite their bad teeth, which were thought to result from their dairy diet) and as active as men in every trade.²⁴ While De Beatis did not praise the Dutch for their intellect or civilization, the negative stereotype of the Batavians as phrased by Martialis is not prevalent.

Sometimes the stereotype does appear in Italian travel accounts, but only to negate the trope. An example can be found in the writings of Crisostomo Colonna (1455–1539), an Italian humanist who travelled to Holland in 1514. In his description of Holland, Colonna referred to the land as ‘Olandia’ rather than ‘Batavia’ because he did not want to use a term with a negative connotation to refer to an area he liked so much: ‘minus barbarum sonat “Olandia” quam “Batavia”.’²⁵ Wesseling cited this statement in his article, but only to argue for the negative associations with the latter term. He failed to recognize that this stereotype was apparently outdated. Of course, by replacing ‘Batavia’ with a substitute, Colonna made no attempt to disconnect the negative associations from ‘Batavia’. He did, however, disconnect the negative stereotype of the Batavians from the contemporary inhabitants of Holland, and indirectly from Erasmus.²⁶ Similarly, the Italian advisor of Charles V, Luigi Marliani, was equally positive of the sixteenth-century inhabitants of the ‘Island of Batavia’ even if they used to be uncivilized. In a letter to his Antwerp patron Jerome Busleyden, Marliani provided an update of the Batavian character because ‘such a change of states, people and manners has taken place among the Germans, Belgians and Batavians that a new description of them is needed.’ Marliani asserted that the increased contacts with the entire world have greatly improved their culture; now, he ‘cannot express [his] admiration for this island enough, whether for its extraordinary qualities, its beauty, or its prosperity […].’²⁷ It must be concluded that the inhabitants of Holland are no longer associated with the stereotypical blunt Batavian. At the same time, the dissociation of Batavia and Holland meant that sixteenth-century Hollanders could no longer appeal to the heroic ancient origins associated with the Batavians – a point to which I will come back below.

The publication of Erasmus’s Auris Batava predates the accounts cited above. We should therefore consider the possibility that Erasmus influenced the Italian perception of the Dutch in such a way that the negative associations had disappeared altogether.²⁸ However, the consulted authors were all seemingly surprised by the contemporary level of civility and speak of a changed culture, suggesting that among Italians without direct contact with Hollanders, the stereotype persisted even after Erasmus’s intervention. If this is indeed the case, the question remains whether Italian humanists considered Erasmus a Batavian, with or without its negative connotations. To answer this question, we may reside to a few examples in which a Batavian connotation with Erasmus occurs. Around 1519, the Dalmatian humanist Andronicus Tranquillus accused Erasmus of being a Batavian and around 1527 Erasmus was called a Batavian by the Italian bishop and humanist Benedetto Tagliacarne, both associating the term with negative characteristics.²⁹ These examples, however, are too infrequent to speak of a general characterization of Erasmus as an uncultivated Batavian. Rather, it was Erasmus himself who actively appropriated the attribution for reasons that will be expounded below.

Instead of scolding Erasmus as a Batavian, Italian humanists criticized Erasmus on different grounds. Johan Huizinga argued that the Italians saw Erasmus as an enemy of their country, but only because Erasmus ridiculed some of the characteristics of their national character.³⁰ An instance of such criticism occurs in the Praise of Folly (1511), where Erasmus asserted that Italians have excessive self-love and describe themselves as eloquent and well versed.³¹ This characterization of the Italian character, as well as a characterization of the Germans, is also evident in Erasmus’s response to a flattering letter of the German jurist Ulrich Zasius in 1514, in which he wrote: ‘Let us have none of that exchange of compliments with which scholars in Italy habitually regale one another, and speak the honest simple truth as one German to another […].’³² On the basis of such statements, we may imagine why Italians scorned Erasmus; and Erasmus was indeed aware of Italian hostility against himself. In a letter to Damiaan van Goes in 1535, Erasmus wrote: ‘In the whole of Italy they rant against me in offensive pamphlets.’³³ Perhaps he referred to pasquils, or satirical verses that were attached to statues in Rome. Several pasquils targeting Erasmus had occurred a decade before his complaint to Van Goes and it is imaginable that Erasmus continued to be satirized in this popular manner, which in Italy had a long-standing tradition.³⁴

In another letter, Erasmus suggested that the Italian hostility towards himself was aroused by his book Ciceronianus (1528), in which he criticized authors who favoured a puritan Latin style and language in imitation of the Roman statesman, lawyer, and scholar Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BC).³⁵ In this contribution to the Ciceronian debate, Erasmus argued that Cicero’s Latin is unsuitable for Christian authors because Cicero did not live in a Christian environment. In their writings, so-called Ciceronians consequently ‘praised Romulus or the great and almighty Jupiter’ instead of Christ, Erasmus argues.³⁶ He therefore believes that Latin should continuously be adapted to new contexts rather than remaining a dead language. It can be argued that apart from criticizing the linguistic customs of the Ciceronians, Erasmus indirectly also criticized Italian nostalgia for the days of ancient Rome. The association between Ciceronians and nostalgia is evident in the Ciceronianus, where Erasmus connected strict imitation of Cicero with ‘men who dream of ancient Rome’.³⁷ Such sharp expressions of criticism dented Erasmus’s reputation among many Italian neo-Latinists, such as the physician, historian, biographer, and prelate Paolo Giovio. In his short biography of Erasmus (‘ex Insula Batauorum’), Giovio praised Erasmus but argued he would have been more admirable had he more closely imitated the founders of the Latin language.³⁸

Bram Kempers argued that the discord between Erasmus and the Italians caused by Erasmus’s critique of Italians in Praise of Folly and Ciceronianus was amplified by jealousy. According to Kempers, when Erasmus left Italy in 1509, Italians became jealous of Erasmus’s new host and felt nostalgic for the time they spent with Erasmus, bringing the northern and southern humanists at odds with each other.³⁹ However, there is no indication of a persistent Italian rejection of Erasmus following his departure.⁴⁰ Writing to Erasmus from Cambridge in 1516, a year after his stay in Italy, the theologian John Watson praised his recipient and noted that he was extolled throughout Italy, especially by the most learned, that Erasmus’s books were popular among Italians and that a mere acquaintance with Erasmus bestowed one with great esteem.⁴¹ Thus, Erasmus’s Italian contemporaries did not collectively ascribe Batavian vices to the learned and established humanist. Moreover, the tension that had emerged upon his departure from Italy seems to have been based more on his writings than on his heritage. An Italian disdain for Northerners is therefore unlikely to have been the sole reason for Erasmus to write about the Batavians, especially because he published the Auris Batava when he was still in Venice.

Humanism and Ancient Ancestry

Now that I have attenuated the supposed relationship between Italian disregard of the Dutch and Erasmus’s intentions with the Auris Batava theme, I will argue that in writing the Auris Batava, Erasmus was foremost driven by the humanist endeavour for ancient heritage. This humanist endeavour was not to imitate ancient scholars, as Jacob Burckhardt had argued in the nineteenth century, but to apply antiquity to modern issues. Antique sources were deemed applicable because they were part of Italy’s heritage.⁴² Of course, Roman antiquity was not part of Erasmus’s heritage, so he resorted to Batavian antiquity. Recently Karl Enenkel already hinted towards such an interpretation: ‘Erasmus’s identification with ancient Batavia was meant as an antidote against the monopoly-like claim of the Italian humanists as the only legitimate heirs of Roman antiquity.’⁴³ Erasmus arrived in Italy when humanist historiography was already an established discipline. While exploring Greek and Roman literature, Italian humanists had become acquainted with ancient historians such as Plutarch, Livy, Thucydides, and Sallust. Historiography became one of the central genres of humanist literature and Italian humanists started imitating ancient historians in their language and style.

The first historian in this renewed genre is generally taken to be Leonardo Bruni (c. 1370–1444), whose last books on the history of his native Florence were published in 1449. According to Eric Cochrane, Bruni patterned his books on ancient models that had been forgotten for over a millennium. When humanist historians such as Bruni modelled their writing style after ancient sources, they also imitated them in emphasizing truth over myth and by understanding history as a practical utensil rather than a mere source of knowledge.⁴⁴ In his study of Italian historiography, Cochrane distinguished between several types of utility, among which the most obvious are prudence and political wisdom. In fifteenth-century Italy, unison of politically and military independent states and cities emerged as a new goal of historiography. This quest for unity had gained topicality when the surrounding rulers, especially the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, gained power and control as a result of the excessive ambitions and contradictory intentions of Italian rulers and their increased dependence on foreigners for domestic affairs.⁴⁵ In response to the foreign threat on their independence, Italian humanist historians attempted to unite the previously independent parts of the peninsula.

Flavio Biondo (1392–1463) was the first to attempt such a national history in his Historiarum ab inclinatione Romanorum imperii decades (1483). For his Historiarum, Biondo was strongly inspired by his contemporary Bruni in style and framework, but rather than as a history of a single city state, Biondo wrote his history on the entire Italian peninsula. Cochrane has identified three ways in which Italian historiographers wrote a national history for independent areas: by causally connecting various contemporary events to a common forebear; by creating an encyclopaedic overview of local histories; and by identifying a period in history when the contemporary independent areas had been united. Drawing a parallel between Pliny the Elder’s Italy and the Italy of his own time, Biondo employed the third method as described by Cochrane.⁴⁶ In late fifteenth-century Italy, linking antiquity to the present was thus an established endeavour that served a legitimizing and glorifying purpose.

As humanism spread north, Dutch humanist historiography developed in ways comparable with but different from Italian historiography.⁴⁷ Where humanism in Italy served the political goal of centralization, Dutch humanism seems to have had a more personal, upper-class undercurrent. Coen Maas distinguished three phases in the development of Dutch humanist historiography. In the first phase, in the age of Erasmus, historiographers re-established the historical canon by exchanging their medieval forebears for classical sources. Classical texts were understood as trustworthy, and their language was imitated. These sources had been unavailable to medieval historiographers, who now came to be neglected. Taking classical sources as their cultural capital, the first generation of Dutch humanist historiographers placed themselves above their predecessors.⁴⁸ However, in contrast to their Italian colleagues, Dutch historiographers did not intend to unite their country on the basis of their own ancient heritage. On the one hand, there was far less evidence for this heritage and on the other, there was nothing to unite. While the Italian city-states were independent centres of power, the Netherlandish principalities were already united in the Habsburg Empire.⁴⁹ Rather than giving voice to the idea of a unified whole, German and Dutch humanists emphasized more local and recent memorabilia in order to compete with Italy and emphasize the long history of their Christian devotion.⁵⁰ Dutch humanist historiography thus resembled its southern counterpart in methodology but developed quite independently and did not equally value political utility.

Erasmus is seemingly in between Dutch and Italian discourse when it comes to historiography, imitating the Italian appreciation of ancient ancestry in pursuit of Dutch self-identification. Like his humanist colleagues, Erasmus prefers classical authors over more recent ones, and with this he is in line with humanist historiography in general. For example, in a letter to a student, Erasmus proposes to read Livy, Plutarch, and Tacitus, three ancient historiographers.⁵¹ He disagrees with some of the utilitarian aims of his Italian colleagues, however, and is quite outspoken against their incentive of recreating the ancient Roman Empire.⁵² Rather than presenting a nostalgia for ancient political systems, Erasmus praises recent German achievements, which is in line with his Northern colleagues. Specifically, Erasmus ascribes the rediscovery of some ancient books to the Germans and lauds the invention of the printing press.⁵³ Among the rediscovered books were accounts on ancient Northern peoples such as the Batavians, through which Erasmus constructed a substitute for an ancient Roman heritage, as I will explain below.

After the rediscovery of most notably the works of Tacitus, what is now known as the Batavian myth was the most important answer to the Dutch call for individual and local ancient ancestry.⁵⁴ Starting in the fifteenth century, a heroic past was sought for Holland in order to assert its own, unique identity among the manifold Burgundian counties.⁵⁵ Elsewhere in Europe and even within the Low Countries, rulers, nobility, and eventually cities had already been attributing to themselves a Trojan ancestry since approximately the twelfth century. This ancestry initially granted worldly and religious legitimization, but in the fifteenth century it merely served to embellish one’s lineage.⁵⁶ Importantly, the Trojan myth now applied to individual family lines rather than to society at large, resulting in an undesirable multiplicity of contradictory sages.⁵⁷ According to Karin Tilmans, the emphasis on the Batavian heritage by Dutch humanists was merely a Renaissance continuation of the medieval Trojan myth. The Batavian myth improved on the Trojan Myth in methodology and applicability. As regards method, the historiographers employed classical sources rather than popular stories and etymology, and they exalted truthfulness. Regarding its applicability, Tilmans asserted that the Batavian heritage was attributed to the entire province of Holland rather than to single cities or dynasties.⁵⁸ Hereby, the Batavian myth responded not only to humanist historiography but also to sixteenth-century socio-political demands in the light of ongoing Burgundian attempts at centralization.

Rather than Erasmus’s adage, publications on Dutch history by other Dutch humanists seem to have initiated a more widespread engagement with the Batavian heritage. I am here mainly referring to Cornelius Aurelius’ Divisiekroniek (1517), Reinier Snoy’s De Rebus Batavicis (which circulated but was not published until 1620) and Gerard Geldenhouwer’s Historia Batavica (1530). Only two references to the Batavians in Erasmus’s correspondence precede the publication of the Divisiekroniek. One of these letters was sent by Reinier Snoy in 1516 and concerned his manuscript of De Rebus Batavicis.⁵⁹ The second early letter also dates to 1516 and was written by Allard van Amsterdam (1491–1544), who was acquainted with Erasmus and with Willem Hermans (c. 1446/9–1510), a close acquaintance and another humanist who was preparing a book about the Batavians.⁶⁰ Erasmus himself used the term Batavian especially in his later letters. In earlier letters, he had a tendency towards using Hollandia and Hollandici when writing about his native country and its inhabitants. He sometimes employed Batavia merely as a synonym of Hollandia, but these instances are by far surpassed by instances in which the term clearly carries a negative connotation.⁶¹

The ancient Batavians were thus a trope among Italian humanists and, as of the second decade of the sixteenth century, among Dutch humanist historiographers, although the theme referred to by these tropes was vastly different. For Italian humanists, ‘Batavian’ referred to a blunt Northerner while for Dutch historiographers the term referred to a brave and honest ancient people that had withstood the power of the Roman Empire. As a travelling humanist with little to no aspirations to return to his native Low Countries, we cannot tar Erasmus with the same brush as Dutch humanist historians, even if a handful of them did engage with Batavian history. More than his colleagues, Erasmus described the culture and identity of the Batavians. In the Auris Batava, he mentioned their proficiency in war but he did not expand on their victories, because his aim was not to present a history of the Batavians or to glorify their achievements against the Roman empire but rather to outline a relatable identity. Without an esteemed family heritage to relate to (and perhaps even to draw attention away from his undesirable lineage), Erasmus resorted to the trope ‘Batavian’ as it was used by his Italian colleagues, and thereby sought to certify not the bravery or civilization of his ancestors, but the reliability of his own character.

Erasmian Modesty

I argue that rather than being a mere appraisal of his fatherland, Erasmus’s engagement with Batavian history in the adage is unstraightforward and rather aimed at self-promotion. While he claimed to consider himself an heir to the Batavians, it is questionable to what extent Erasmus truly attributed the prevalent negative characteristics to himself. Like many Italian authors, Erasmus used the term Batavian with a negative air. For example, he argued that his Batavian heritage was in need of civilization.⁶² By identifying himself as a Batavian, Erasmus appropriated the common attributes attached to this, such as being savage and unfamiliar with the graces.⁶³ I interpret this remarkable appropriation as ‘Erasmian modesty’, meaning that a seemingly negative characterization of himself actually served to praise him.⁶⁴ Indeed, Erasmus argued that despite the unfortunate initial identification as Batavian, he still managed to become an established scholar. As he started from a backward position, all advances are fully his own achievements.⁶⁵ This is slightly different from Dorothée Sturkenboom’s interpretation of the adage as ‘revalorisation strategy’, because she argues that by praising bluntness as honesty, Erasmus actually gave a positive twist to the Batavian stereotype.⁶⁶ While Erasmus indeed greatly amplified the stereotypical Batavian, the lack of grace and cultivation remained prominent.

I argue that by assuming a Batavian identity, Erasmus confronted two specific difficulties he experienced as a Dutch humanist in Italy. As I discussed above, the Italians looked down upon Northern-European culture, but above all, Erasmus could not participate in the Italian revaluation of their ancient heritage because as a northerner he could not identify himself with the ancient Romans. Killing two birds with one stone, the Auris Batava enabled Erasmus to appropriate an ancient heritage and frame the responding characteristics to haul his personal virtues. In this way, the Auris Batava primarily served an individual purpose for Erasmus, and might have been of nationalistic interest to all Hollanders only secondarily and unintentionally.

In appropriating a Batavian heritage to emphasize his own achievements, Erasmus had to argue that his background made his scholarly journey more difficult but not impossible. To this purpose, he emphasized the malleability of a Batavian heritage in his appropriations of the negative associations with the Batavians, for example in a letter of 1519 replying to praise and compliments of the Italian cardinal and diplomat Lorenzo Campeggio (1474–1539): ‘I am not ungrateful for your kind misunderstanding about my character, which is in fact Batavian […].’⁶⁷ Erasmus continued his letter by arguing that he had increased his efforts to live up to the expectations of his correspondent, by which he suggested that it is possible to overcome the backwardness of a Batavian, but only with an enormous amount of effort. Erasmus alluded to the potency of the Batavians in several other instances as well. In a letter of 1523 to Johann von Botzheim (ca. 1480–1535), he argued that one cannot blame the Batavians for being uncivilized because they were deprived of all resources and unacquainted with the Muses, as the humanities were still undeveloped in the region.⁶⁸ Such a statement might be reminiscent of cultural relativism, because he calls for consideration of context when judging peoples from another time or culture. However, Erasmus implies that the Batavians could have been more civilized if they would have had access to the humanities and to a more refined culture and thus judges the Batavians by external, humanist criteria. Similarly, in a letter of 1526 to bishop Andrzej Krzycki (1482–1537), Erasmus describes his Batavian background as a disadvantage that could only be overcome with the help of humanities.⁶⁹ The malleability of a Batavian heritage inspired Erasmus to write his early works for the Dutch and Germans, or so he argues here.⁷⁰ Seen through the lens of Erasmian modesty, Erasmus assumed a Batavian identity to argue that his erudition did not drop into his lap but must be the result of his own ambition and dedication.

Even if Erasmus frequently called himself a Batavian, he sometimes refused this identification. These cases do not, however, undermine my interpretation. In a letter to Petrus Manius in 1520, after trivializing the role of heritage for one’s esteem, Erasmus wrote that he was without doubt a Hollander, but that it was less straightforward whether he was a Batavian. However, this negation is offered in the context of a discussion on geographical borders rather than cultural heritage.⁷¹ Another example of Erasmus’s rejection of a Batavian identity occurs in a letter of 1533 in which he argued that he is truly unlike the ancient Batavians, who were rude and insensitive to the graces.⁷² Here, Erasmus again alludes to the malleability of the Batavians, emphasizing that those were also the characteristics the Batavians used to have (fuisse).

My reading of the Batavian theme in Erasmus’s oeuvre might be extended to his use of a loconym. Like the Batavian theme, the addition of ‘of Rotterdam’ to his name might be understood as an argument for nationalism or patriotism, even if no elaborate study of Erasmus’s name(s) has yet been made.⁷³ However, while it was not unusual to refer to a city in a name,⁷⁴ I believe Erasmus’s loconym is in line with his frequent references to his Batavian heritage and can equally be understood in terms of Erasmian modesty. Erasmus did not directly contribute to his own esteem by describing himself as either born in Rotterdam or descending from the Batavians; rather, he used these references to praise his own efforts towards and merits for becoming an esteemed scholar. Rotterdam was a minor city in Erasmus’s lifetime and certainly did not have any scholarly or educated connotations prior to Erasmus’s fame. Indeed, it was only through Erasmus that the city increased in esteem. In their itineraries many travellers described Rotterdam as little more than Erasmus’s birthplace. The only words Antonio de Beatis spent on Rotterdam are: ‘A league away is a town called Rotterdam, the native city of Erasmus, a man deeply versed in Greek and Latin, who has produced many volumes of writing in every branch of learning. The city is very fine and has 1,800 hearths, and we lunched there […].’⁷⁵ Writing in 1567, Crisostomo Colonna described Rotterdam in some more detail, but does not neglect to write that ‘above all of its merits, what makes [Rotterdam] bright and famous is that it was the birthplace of the most learned and most enlightened Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, source of science and virtue, for near the aforementioned church one can still see his small house with the small room where he was born, which is visited, admired and revered by every virtuous mind who comes to Holland.’⁷⁶ In the sixteenth century, Rotterdam was thus truly the city of Erasmus and nothing more.

Rotterdam made use of this fame by presenting itself as the city of Erasmus, evidenced for example by the statues that have been made of the scholar since 1549, the exploitation of his birth house, and the postcards that have depicted Erasmus from the seventeenth century onwards.⁷⁷ Erasmus was critical of such affairs. When Petrus Manius asked Erasmus to attribute Batavia to Germany to prevent a French claim on Erasmus, he answered: ‘To me, it seems irrelevant what your birthplace is; and I deem it empty glory when a city or nation prides itself on bringing forth someone, who by his own studies rather than by the protection of his fatherland, achieved his prestige and fame’.⁷⁸ Erasmus would thus criticize the exploitation of his name by his birthplace that emerged after his death. It seems, however, that Erasmus did not truly believe one’s birthplace to be entirely irrelevant, because he obviously emphasized his own birthplace in his loconym and throughout his correspondence, and especially after his travels to Italy.

Conclusion

In the above, I have indicated that Erasmus’s outings about the Batavian heritage, of which the Auris Batava is the most striking but his correspondence the most telling, should not be understood in terms of a patriotic or nationalist statement. Rather, it should be seen in Erasmus’s humanist context, as Nicolette Mout has also argued. Through his travels and frequent international contacts, Erasmus’s way of dealing with the issue of heritage cannot be reduced to a national type, and it is obvious that his treatment of history cannot be gathered under what, on average, the Italian, Dutch, or German schools of humanist historiographers brought forward. In order to interpret Erasmus’s comments on Batavians, it is important to relate his publications and correspondence to his biography, as I have done here.

The single continuum in Erasmus’s decades-long engagement with his Batavian heritage is the Auris Batava, since this adage would be reprinted almost unchanged in the many later editions of the Adagia.⁷⁹ Because of this consistency throughout later publications, it is essential to consider when, where and why Erasmus’ commentary on the dictum was initially published. Erasmus had arrived in Italy in 1506, only to depart in 1509, and the adage, as well as its later recurrences, should be understood in that context. We have seen the reverence Italian humanists showed for their Roman ancient heritage in the first decade of the sixteenth century. Erasmus, however, was an outsider to this ideal because of his birth, which put him closer to the Batavians than to the Romans. It is important to consider that Erasmus was the first of the humanists elaborately to discuss the Batavian character and the first to ascribe a Batavian moral to contemporary Hollanders on the basis of their ancient heritage. Erasmus even took a further step and ascribed to himself a Batavian heritage as well as the corresponding characteristics. This could indeed be understood as nationalism or patriotism were it not that Erasmus ultimately did not praise his patria. Rather than countering Martialis’s characterization of Batavia, Erasmus more broadly described Batavians and Hollanders as rural, practical peoples inexperienced in high arts and insensitive to the graces. He thus indirectly describes himself as being of humble descent. It would however be illogical if Erasmus ended the Adagia by downplaying himself. It is for this reason that I understand the adage as a form of Erasmian modesty: even if Erasmus is of uncultivated descent, he still, by his own efforts, managed to become an established and famous scholar.

If the Auris Batava alone does not convince us of such a reading, several of Erasmus’s letters combined point in the direction of this same interpretation. First, Erasmus argued that a Batavian heritage does not mean one cannot engage with high arts and the graces; instead, Batavians (and Hollanders) can cultivate themselves by immersing themselves in the study of the humanities. However, it takes more effort for someone of low descent, such as Erasmus, than for someone of high descent, such as boys born in a wealthy Italian family. Second, Erasmus argued that he managed to cultivate himself through reading, travelling, and working.⁸⁰ It thus seems that both in his adage and in his correspondence, Erasmus directly engaged with preconceptions of the Batavians to provide himself with an ancient, Batavian heritage. Thorough investigation of Erasmus’s broader oeuvre could give insight into his concern for the Batavian heritage in other contexts.

My interpretation of Erasmus’s engagements with his Batavian heritage separates him from contemporary Dutch humanists such as Aurelius and Geldenhouwer, as well as against previous analyses that generally saw a joint effort towards the creation of the Batavian Myth. These analyses usually concluded that Erasmus was hardly influential for the development of the myth itself.⁸¹ My interpretation of Erasmus’s engagements with the Batavian history is at once more personal and more international. It suggests a different motivation than the political motivation of the national myth. On a personal level, Erasmus was able to influence his own image among contemporaries. On the international level, he may have wished to contextualize the Dutch stereotype prevalent among his European contemporaries. At the same time, both the image of himself and the notion of the Dutch that Erasmus provided may have had a long-lasting and far broader influence on identity formation and on the imagination of his readership, especially since Erasmus remains a widely read author up until today. Of course, such statements are mere hypotheses and are difficult or even impossible to prove, but a longer-term analysis of the reception of the Auris Batava and/or the image of Erasmus himself could provide insights into the impact of Erasmus’s commentaries on our modern understanding of Erasmus, the Batavians, and the Dutch. This is especially important in the light of the various appropriations of a Batavian identity beyond the sixteenth century. Until such inquiries are made, our new interpretation of the role played by the idea of a Batavian heritage in Erasmus’s oeuvre corrects some of the more ahistorical interpretations and offers new insight into Erasmus’s development of his personal brand.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Allen IV, Ep. 928 (to Louis Ruzé in March 1519) and Allen IV, Ep. 1147 (to Petrus Manius on 1 October 1520). Cf. ‘true nobility’ Enenkel, ‘“Identities” in Humanist Autobiographies and Related Self-Presentations,’ 37–38.

I am grateful for the feedback provided on earlier drafts of this article by my supervisors Han van Ruler and Ronald van Raak.

2. Erasmus characterizes the Italians in Allen VIII, Ep. 2328 (to Lorenzo Campeggio on 24 June 1530): ‘delectauit Italicae gentis humanitas’ (‘I was charmed by the courtesy of the Italian people’). In Allen III, Ep. 990 (to John Claymond on 27 June 1519), Erasmus writes about a group of young Germans: ‘Equidem non nego veniam dandam aetati, imo etiam genti, praesertim cum tam acerbis odiis irritentur vt in aduersarios nihil possit satis asperum dici’ (‘Personally I do not deny that one must make allowances for youth and, if you like, for nationality, especially when men are roused by such bitter opposition that no language would seem harsh enough for their adversaries’, emphasis mine). Unless otherwise specified, all translations from the correspondence of Erasmus are from the book series The Correspondence of Erasmus published by De Gruyter.

3. Mout, ‘Het Bataafse Oor.’ Some scholars do recognize nationalism in the sixteenth century, see Greenfeld, Nationalism, 13–32; Appelbaum, ‘Biblical Nationalism and the Sixteenth-Century States.’

4. Allen IV, Ep. 1165 (to Wolfgang Faber Capito on 6 December 1520); Allen III, Ep. 928 (to Louis Ruzé in March 1519). Interestingly, where Erasmus tends towards France in this letter, he tended towards Germany in the letter to Capito; it seems that Erasmus’s nationalistic tendencies are more strongly related to his correspondent than to himself. See Thompson, ‘Erasmus as Internationalist and Cosmopolitan’.

5. An interpretation and a Dutch translation of the adage can be found in Mout, ‘Het Bataafse Oor.’

6. Geanakoplos, ‘Erasmus and the Aldine Academy of Venice’.

7. ‘Tune es, tune’ ait ‘ille Martialis,/Cuius nequitias iocosque novit,/Aurem qui modo non habet Batavam?’ (‘“Are you,” he said, “that Martialis,/whose wicked songs everyone knows/who does not have a Batavian ear?”’) Martialis, Epigrammaton Libri, bk. 6, ep. 82; Veenman, ‘Martialis en het “Bataafse Oor”,’ 10–12.

8. Erasmus, Adagiorvm chilias qvarta, 40, l. 453–455 (adage 3535): ‘Vtinamque Christianis vel omnibus aures essent Batauae, quo pestilentes eius poetae facetias aut non admitterent aut certe his non caperentur!’ (‘If only all Christians had “Dutch ears,” so that they would not take in the sickening jokes of that poet, or at least not be infected by them!’). All translations of adage 3535 are taken from Wesseling, ‘Are the Dutch Uncivilized?’.

9. Ibid., 42–43, l. 475–477: ‘Nam ingenium non esse negatum illis plurimis constat argumentis, quanquam mihi sane quam mediocre contigit, ne dicam exiguum, vt et caetera pleraque.’ (‘For it is certain, and many things go to prove it, that they are not wanting in intellectual power, though I myself have it only in a very modest degree, not to say scanty-like the rest of my endowments.’)

10. Leerssen and Beller, Imagology, ii.

11. Tracy, The Politics of Erasmus, 46; Wallace, ‘The Merits of Being Obscure,’ 209.

12. Mout, ‘Het Bataafse Oor’.

13. Ibid., 26–27.

14. ‘Der ganze Erasmus steckt in diesem Lob seiner Heimat.’ in Huizinga, ‘Erasmus über Vaterland und Nationen,’ 37–38.

15. Poelhekke, ‘Het Naamloze Vaderland van Erasmus.’ This is also expressed in the biography of Erasmus by Huizinga that initially appeared in 1924: Huizinga, ‘Erasmus,’ 44–45.

16. Bejczy, ‘Erasmus Becomes a Netherlander,’ 394.

17. Sas, De metamorfose van Nederland, 597; Enenkel and Ottenheym, ‘The Batavians as Ancestors in Early Dutch Humanism,’ 151–53.

18. Mout, ‘Het Bataafse Oor’, 6.

19. Wesseling, ‘Are the Dutch Uncivilized?’, 72. See Wesseling, ‘Het Beschavingsideaal van Erasmus,’ 118.

20. Wesseling, ‘Are the Dutch Uncivilized?’.

21. Ibid., 73.

22. Tracy, ‘Against the “Barbarians”,’ 11.

23. Cochrane, ‘Italians in the North’

24. J.R. Hale, The Travel Journal of Antonio De Beatis, 84–103.

25. Wesseling, ‘Are the Dutch Uncivilized?’, 73, n.13. For a discussion about Erasmus’s distinction between Holland and Batavia, see Poelhekke, ‘Het Naamloze Vaderland van Erasmus,’ 110–12.

26. This does not mean ‘Olandia’ had no negative connotation itself, for ‘Olandesi’ were those ‘Fiamminghi’ who were rebellious heretics. Van Kessel, Van Fiandra naar Olanda.

27. Cited from Tilmans, Historiography and Humanism in Holland in the Age of Erasmus, 337–39; Meijer Drees, Andere landen, andere mensen, 58.

28. In a similar fashion the provost of Konstanz argued that the transformations recognized by Colonna and Marliani should be attributed to Erasmus: Allen VI, Ep. 1648 (from John Matthew Schad to Erasmus on 19 November 1525): ‘cuius [Erasmo] singulari doctrina nostra germania, antea rudis ac omnium literarum expers, ita illustratur ac reuirescit vt propediem cum Italicis musis in arenam descensura videatur.’ (‘It is because of Erasmus’ remarkable learning that our native Germany, once a boorish and unlettered place, has now burst forth with such splendour and vitality that it will soon be ready to enter the lists with the Muses of Italy.’).

29. Allen III, Ep. 991 (to Tranquillus Andronicus Parthenius on 28 June 1519): ‘In hoc [carmen] me vt Batauum et a Gratiis alienum incusas […].’ (‘In the other [poem] you upbraid me as a crass Batavian who has no use for the Graces […]’); Allen VI, Ep. 1791 (from Peter John Olivarus to Erasmus on 13 March 1527): ‘Benedictus Theocrenus […] Battauum te vocat.’ (‘You are being called a “Dutchman” by Benedetto Tagliacarne’).

30. Huizinga, ‘Erasmus über Vaterland und Nationen,’ 48.

31. Erasmus and Miller, Moria encomivm, 128, lines 64–66: ‘Itali bonas literas & eloquentiam asserant, atque hoc nomine sibi suavissimè blandiantur omnes, quod soli mortalium barbari non sint.’ (‘The Italians usurp culture and eloquence, and hence they’re all happy congratulating themselves on being the only civilized race of men.’ English translation by Betty Radice from Collected Works of Erasmus 5:117).

32. Allen II, Ep. 307 (to Ulrich Zasius on 23 September 1514): ‘Ut missas faciam istas delicias quibus apud Italos vulgo docti sese delinire consueuerunt, et homo Germanus cum Germano germana illa et simplici veritate agam […]’

33. Allen XI, Ep. 3019 (to Damiaan van Goes on 24 May 1535). Erasmus argues similarly in a letter to Johann Koler a few months later (Allen XI, Ep. 3032).

34. Biondi, ‘La giustificazione della simulazione nel cinquecento,’ 35–36.

35. Allen XI, Ep. 3032 (to Johann Koler around August 1535).

36. Allen VIII, Ep. 2215 (to William Blount on 8 September 1529). This is one of many letters in which Erasmus berates the Italian response to his Ciceronianus.

37. Erasmus, Scott, and Monroe, Ciceronianus; or, A Dialogue on the Best Style of Speaking, 112.

38. Giovio, Elogia Virorum literis illustrium, quotquot vel nostra vel avorum memoria vixere, 175.

39. Kempers, Ruysch En Erasmus in Rome, 28; Heesakkers, ‘Erasmus Tegenover Het Italiaanse Humanisme,’ 26–27.

40. Heesakkers, ‘Erasmus Tegenover Het Italiaanse Humanisme,’ 24–25.

41. Allen II, Ep. 450, 17–22.

42. Everhart Quillen, ‘Humanism and the lure of antiquity’

43. Enenkel, ‘“Identities” in Humanist Autobiographies and Related Self-Presentations,’ 54.

44. Cochrane, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance, 3–4.

45. Ibid., 300–1. Also when Erasmus travelled through Italy, he experienced war, especially in Bologna in 1506, as is evident from Allen I, Ep. 203 (to Servaas Rogier on 16 November 1506).

46. Weiss, The Renaissance Discovery of Classical Antiquity, 66; Castner, Biondo Flavio’s Italia Illustrata: Text, Translation, and Commentary, xxiii.

47. For some insights about the formation of a German school of humanists, see Bernstein, ‘From Outsiders to Insiders’

48. I follow Coen Maas and John Guillory in understanding canons as cultural capital, or ‘the specifically cultural assets that allow an individual to achieve upward social mobility and thus provide power and prestige.’ Maas, ‘Hadrianus Junius’ Batavia and the Formation of a Historiographical Canon in Holland,’ 42; Guillory, Cultural Capital.

49. Schepper, ‘The Burgundian-Habsburg Netherlands’

50. Bejczy, Erasmus and the Middle Ages, 169.

51. Allen VI, Ep. 1798 (to Valentin Furster on 24 March 1527).

52. Allen II, Ep. 586 (to the dukes Frederick and George of Saxony on 5 June 1517).

53. Allen III, Ep. 919 (written in 1519, published in a new edition of Livius).

54. Mout, ‘Het Bataafse Oor’, 89.

55. Keesman, ‘De eindeloze stad,’ 419.

56. Romein, Het onvoltooid verleden, 194.

57. The locality of the Trojan myth is strikingly evident from Keesman’s 2014 dissertation on Trojan origin myths. Keesman discusses the most important regions separately (Brabant, Flanders, Hainaut, Holland, Gelre, Friesland, and bishoprics) because they each individually developed the sage by tracing their lineage back to the Trojans. Keesman, ‘De eindeloze stad’

58. Tilmans, Historiography and Humanism in Holland in the Age of Erasmus, 206–8. Note the difference with Italian humanist historiography, which defined a national identity, uniting local identities, whereas Dutch historiography defines a local identity as distinguished from the more general, Burgundian identity.

59. Allen II, Ep. 458 (to Reinier Snoy on 1 September 1516).

60. Allen II, Ep. 485 (from Allard van Amsterdam to Erasmus on 11 November 1516).

61. In Allen VIII, Ep. 2088, Allen X, Ep. 2809, and Allen XI, Ep. 3064, Erasmus calls himself a Batavian, but he likely alludes to Holland.

62. Allen VI, Ep. 1753 (to Andrzej Krzycki on 9 September 1526): ‘Equidem adnixus sum vt nostra Batauia mitesceret commercio bonarum litterarum.’ (‘I have worked hard to smooth the rough corners of my Dutch nature by contact with the humanities.’).

63. Allen X, Ep. 2795 (to Guillaume de Horion on 21 April 1533): ‘Tum vere essem, quod olim fuisse dicuntur Bataui, trux et a Gratiis alienus.’ (‘If so, I would truly be what they say the Batavians once were: crude and far removed from the Graces.’).

64. Jan van Herwaarden traced the term ‘Erasmian modesty’ to Erasmus’s own lifetime in Allen IV, Ep. 1061 (Edward Lee to Erasmus on 1 February 1520): ‘Nam prorsus contemnam: nec est cur pili faciam quo diam prope vulgo iactata sit prouerbii loco Erasmica modestia in rabulam qui furiis quempiam ac dicacitate lacessit.’ (‘I shall simply despise them; why should it make a scrap of difference to me if Erasmus’ humility towards a noisy ruffian who attacks someone with a torrent of raving words is by now almost proverbial?’) (emphasis mine). Van Herwaarden, Between Saint James and Erasmus, 519.

65. In a letter to Adolf van Veere in 1498 or 1499 (Allen I, Ep. 93), Erasmus argues that someone with humble lineage will not be able to obtain all the merits of a good education, while someone of noble lineage will stand out even when receiving mediocre education.

66. Sturkenboom, ‘Understanding Emotional Identities,’ 181.

67. Allen IV, Ep. 996 (to Lorenzo Campeggio on 14 July 1519): ‘De nostro ingenio vere Batauo deque studiis nostris non fuit ingratum quod tam erras amanter’

68. Allen V, Ep. 1341a (to Johann von Botzheim on 30 January 1523).

69. Allen VI, Ep. 1753 (to Andrzej Krzycki on 9 September 1526). According to Ari Wesseling, Erasmus only deemed humanists capable of being civilized. Wesseling, ‘Het Beschavingsideaal van Erasmus,’ 113.

70. Allen IX, Ep. 2419 (to Wolfgang Rem on 2 January 1531); Allen XI, Ep. 3043 (to Damiaan van Goes on 18 August 1535).

71. Allen IV, Ep. 1147 (to Petrus Manius on 1 October 1520). The historical borders of the Batavian Empire were strongly debated by several Dutch humanists, especially Cornelis Aurelius and Gerard Geldenhouwer; Erasmus remained on the sidelines of this debate. Bejczy, ‘Drie Humanisten En Een Myth’; Tilmans, Historiography and Humanism in Holland in the Age of Erasmus; Van der Heijden, ‘De Bataafse Mythe in de Cartografie.’

72. See Allen X, Ep. 2795 (to Guillaume de Horion on 21 April 1533).

73. The most important study in this regard is Boyle, ‘The Eponyms of “Desiderius Erasmus”.’ However, Boyle neglects the loconym in favour of Erasmus’s eponym Desiderius. In her biography of Erasmus, Sandra Langereis also provides a short account of Erasmus’ name, including his loconym: Langereis, Erasmus Dwarsdenker, 62–65.

74. Allen VII, Ep. 1934 (to Johann von Botzheim on 1 February 1528): ‘[…] nec se vulgari more denominat a loco, vt a Roma Romanus […]’

75. J.R. Hale, The Travel Journal of Antonio De Beatis, 90.

76. Guicciardini, Descrittione Di Tutti i Paesi Bassi, 188. Translation mine, enhanced with kind suggestions of Annalisa Costella and Elisabetta Gobbo.

77. Becker, Hendrick de Keyser; Scholten, ‘Hendrick de Keyser’s Erasmus’; Schlüter, Standbeelden van Erasmus in Rotterdam.

78. Allen IV, Ep. 1147 (to Petrus Manius on 1 October 1520): ‘mihi non admodum referre videtur quo quisque sit loco natus; et inanem quandam gloriam arbitror, si ciuitas aut natio se iactarit quod vnum aliquem genuerit, qui suis studiis, non patriae praesidiis, magnus ac celebris euaserit’

79. Mout, ‘Het Bataafse Oor’, n. 87.

80. Erasmus argues this directly in Allen VI, Ep. 1753 (to Andrzej Krzycki on 9 September 1526).

81. Schöffer, ‘The Batavian Myth during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’; Bejczy, ‘Drie Humanisten en een Mythe”; Woud, De Bataafse hut.