Erasmus and titles: the treatise on letter writing

A correspondent comments on Erasmus' view of titles in his work Opus de conscribendis epistolis or, "Treatise on letter writing" and opines that he recognised clerical titles but objected to them.

Erasmus’ treatise on letter-writing was published in Basle in 1522 with 410 pages.

Ironically for a humanist, Erasmus argues against the central doctrines of radical humanist letter-writing styles.

In the fifth chapter Erasmus seems nevertheless to yield to rhetorical formalism himself, dividing epistolary prose into three types introduced by Aristotle, namely the deliberative, forensic and epideictic genres or suasorium, demonstrativum and judiciale as he calls them.

He adds as a fourth category, the familiar letter, which was the type of epistolography celebrated by the humanists who so imitated Cicero’s style, ironically, since Erasmus is a critic of the elaborate Ciceronian style of the time.

I shall be corrected if wrong but I think it is this part of the work that is being referred to by my correspondent:

Iam uero consuetudinem insulsissimam quidem illam, sed aliquot iam seculis mire receptam, unum hominem multitudinis numero compellandi, non tam dedocendi sunt iuuenes quam animandi, ut ausint contemnere, certe quoties cum his agitur, unde nihil sit periculi. Mea certe aetate iam haec ineptia magna ex parte obsoleuit, paulatim subolescentibus bonis literis. Quanquam supersunt et hodie non pauci uossissatores, qui quod pueri male didicerunt, non solum ipsi mordicus tenent, uerumetiam ab aliis exigunt. Inexpiabili contumeia se putant affici, si quis unum singulari numeto salutet; ac plane rem putant iniuriarum actione dignam, ac legibus uindicandam.
[Cap 4, pp.266-8]

"As for that absurd practice, curiously in vogue now for several centuries, of addressing a single person in the plural, young men should not so much be untaught this vice as encouraged to scorn it altogether, at least in dealing with those with whom there is no risk involved. In my lifetime, at least, this folly has now largely fallen into disuse with the gradual coming of age of sound learning. Yet even today a good many users of the vos form of address, who not only hang on tenaciously to what they wrongly learnt as boys but also require it of others are still with us. They consider it an unforgivable insult if someone greets them in the singular; indeed, they deem it deserving of an action for damages and punishable by law!"
[Translation from Collected Works of Erasmus, 25-26, Toronto 1985, p.45]

This, of course, is more a reference to the excessive use of the plural address, more evident in European languages now than in English but then in use even in English by the use of "thou" (singular) and "you" (plural).

"You" being now universal in English and "thou" having died out, save in prayer and poetry, the issue is only live in other European countries where it is remains customary, Erasmus notwithstanding, to refer to familiars and servants as "thou" and others (whether or not noble) by the plural "you".

For example:

In German: "Du" and "Sie".
In French: "Tu" and "Vous".

Digressing slightly, some may know that the word "Thou" derives from the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of the German "Du", the hard "D" becoming a soft "Th" in Anglo-Saxon, written with the Anglo-Saxon letter resembling a "y".

"Sie" became "thee" and both "thou" and "thee" were later rendered "you" and "ye", as plurals, perhaps confusing the Anglo-Saxon letter for a "y" in the Greek sense.

"Die" became also "ye" and later "the" as in "Ye olde shoppe" (although one should not discount the effect of bad spelling in former times).

Even so, the plural was especially reserved for royal persons.

Use of the royal plural is not inappropriate and emphasizes the importance of the monarch at the apex of the Constitution.

It is true that Julius Caesar was addressed in the singular (as Erasmus points out) but then he was never emperor. Later Roman emperors were titled "Caesar Augustus" and addressed in the plural.

This was, in turn, as much a reflection of the Hebrew practice of addressing the great in the plural, most notably Almighty God, who, as you can see from one of the side-bar comments on this blog, was addressed in the plural as Elohim (when not addressed as Adonai).

In any event, I do not think that Erasmus objected to clerical and noble titles as such but more to their misuse.



...

Clerical titles: the real story is much more interesting...

It is now common, in the English speaking world, to address parish clergy as "Father".

Actually, this is a recent invention.

From some time after the Reformation until the 1820s, or thereabouts, parish clergy were addressed as "Mister", the title of a gentleman in civil society. This title originally comes, of course, from "Master" just as the titles "Mrs" and "Miss" come from "Mistress", the title of a lady of gentility. Those not of the nobility or gentry were called only by their first and/or surname e.g. John Smith.

In Medieval and Renaissance England, a secular priest was always titled "Sir" like a knight, thus "Sir John Smith". For examples of this, see Shakespeare's plays where the secular priests are called thus e.g. Sir Christopher Urswick in Richard III, especially Act IV, Scene V, and in other of his plays. Only religious or bishops are called by the title "Father" e.g. "Right Reverend Fathers" again in Richard III, and Friar Lawrence in Romeo and Juliet, who is greeted variously as "Father", "Friar", "Brother" and "my Ghostly Confessor".

Around the 1820s the use of the title "Father" even for secular clergy became more common in England, Ireland, America and the Anglophone world, having crept in over the penal times, by virtue of the difficulty in distinguishing between secular and religious clergy, since all were constantly in hiding or operating covertly and shared a similar life and persecuted status.

In Catholic countries on the continent of Europe, however, the distinction of titles continued and still continues today. Thus, the titles for a secular cleric, broadly equivalent to "Sir" or "Mr" are as follows:

France - Monsieur l'Abbé. For a Parish Priest, Monsieur le Curé.
Italy - Signor Don followed by the name (more like "Sir" in English). For a Parish Priest, Signor Don Parroco.
Spain - Señor Don followed by the name. For a Parish Priest, Señor Don Cura.
Austria/Germany - Hochwurden (literally "most worthy" but roughly equivalent to
"your Reverence"). For a Parish Priest, Herr Pfarrer (meaning "Lord Rector" or "Sir Rector").

Signor, Señor, Monsieur or Herr are all titles of gentility, gentry or nobility, meaning "Lord". So, in fact, is "Mister" or "Mr", which is the title by which a gentleman is addressed. An higher estate is that of Knight who was addressed "Sir" which is roughly equivalent to the Spanish and Italian title Don. The middle ranking title of "Esquire" is derived from the French Esquier, or "shield-bearer", meaning one who is entitled to a coat of arms, the sign of nobility. In German, the equivalent used to be Junker and in Dutch is still the title Jonkheer.

Monsieur is unusual in that all French nobility, high or low, were called by this short title, since it means "my Lord". Moreover, the French nobility were mildly encouraged, by an old royal tradition, to treat each other as equals and so all, whether dukes or small local sieurs, called each other Monsieur. There were, of course, variations and royalty began to be called Mon Seigneur, a title used by both kings and bishops. An older title was that of Mon Sire which is broadly the same as Monsieur. From it we get the title of address "Sire" sometimes used for royalty and some Prince-bishops.

Prince-Electors of the Empire, whether clerical or lay, were styled "your Eminence" just as cardinals were, and are, and as the Grand Master of the Order of Malta still is, although not a cleric.

It is readily apparent what the Italian title Monsignor means: it means, again, "my Lord".

There are broad equivalents in all other European countries, with many variations as befits the variety of culture that flourished under the Church reflecting the "glorious liberty of the Sons of God".

Clemens-August, Archbishop Baron von Droste zu Vischering, the saintly Archbishop of Cologne (and by ancient right a Prince-Elector of the Empire) who was persecuted and imprisoned by the Prussian Protestant government for his faith and loyalty to the See of St Peter. Note the scarlet of a Prince-Elector, similar to a cardinal (he was not a cardinal, having declined the offer by the Pope).

All clergy in Major Orders were termed "Lord" or "Sir" like their lay counterparts, the gentlemen, esquires, knights, barons and nobility of Christendom.

The modern, absurdly chummy manner of introducing oneself to a complete stranger with "Hello, Bob" or "It's Fred, here" is entirely foreign to Catholic culture and tradition. Of course, close friends, clerical and lay, called each other interchangeably by their first names but the modern idea of treating every person as if they were a close friend is an invasion of the privacy of individuals and disrespectful of the right of men and women to their privacy and to respect for their individual personhood.

The title "Father" is still - in theory - preserved in non-Anglophone Catholic countries for clerical members of religious orders, just as it used to be in Anglophone countries before about 1820.

In the Catholic Church permanent deacons (that is, deacons who are not preparing for ordination to priesthood) are styled "Reverend Mr" in correspondence, although it has also become customary to address them simply as "Deacon John Smith". In fact, in former times, and still in the Eastern churches, all deacons were styled "Father Deacon Smith". The idea that permanent deacons are somehow "different" from other deacons is simply fallacious. Permanent deacons of varying kinds have existed for a long time in various forms. The Holy Roman Emperor, since the time of Emperor Charles V was always, at his coronation, ordained a permanent deacon by the Pope. In earlier times he was ordained a subdeacon.

The idea that the title "Father" was always used for priests, and only priests, is simply ahistorical. St Francis of Assisi was called "Father" by his brethren (and still is) although he was a deacon not a priest and St Benedict, likewise was called "Father" by his brethren (and still is), albeit he was not even in Major Orders. In the Middle Ages many abbots were not priests but were still called "Father" by their brethren.

The title "your Reverence" was also once much in use (and one can still occasionally hear it in Ireland).

The idea that the title or description "Reverend" is Anglican is another Anglophone fallacy resulting from poor education among Catholics.

It is used on the continent, also, e.g. Reverend pere is used in France to address clerical religious and occasionally even parish clergy; also Reverendissime Pere, or "Very Reverend Father" for an abbot or bishop.

ALL Anglican clerical titles are derived from the days when the Roman Catholic Church was the Church of England, the Ecclesia Anglicana.

Thus the title Rector means a Parish Priest and the title Vicar means a priest or cleric standing in for another cleric, often an absentee cleric, which often meant an absentee Parish Priest which is why many Anglican clergy are called Vicar. It comes from the Latin vicarius (meaning "in place of another") and is an entirely Roman Catholic title. Another example of its use is in the title "Vicar-General".

Titles like "Prebendary" are also originally Catholic and refer to "Canons Prebendary" (Canoni Prebendarii) of a Cathedral whose office attracted funds called "Prebends" (from another Latin word) which came from tithes and were to be used by the Canon for the spiritual and corporal works of mercy of the Church.

So next time you hear someone say of some traditional title "Oh, that's just Anglican!", you may correct the ill-informed person concerned and point out to them that it was, without question, Roman Catholic first.

The only thing that is peculiarly "Anglican" is their Protestant doctrine - that and nothing more. The rest is, and always was, Catholic in form, spirit and origin.



...