Olivia Montepaone (Università degli Studi di Milano)
The object of this paper is to discuss the peculiar use of sources in Erasmus’ most extensive and relevant work on marriage, the Christiani matrimonii institutio (1526). Marriage is an important topic within the production of the great humanist, pondered throughout many works (e.g. the Colloquia but also the Annotationes to the New Testament) and sole focus of various publications (in addition to the Institutio, cf. Vidua Chritiana, Encomium matrimonii, Apologia pro declamatione matrimoniii), where Erasmus expressed views that were greatly innovative for that time, and are extremely fascinating for us today.
The novelty of Erasmus’ complex, multifaceted position on marriage also lies in the fact that it is based on an extraordinary number of sources that are skillfully recombined in an often-unexpected, and at times perhaps even controversial way. In the Christiani matrimonii institutio, some authors are explicitly quoted while others work as a subtext to Erasmus’ reasoning, less obvious but still present and therefore in an interesting relation with the openly cited passages: while naming Aristotle, Xenophon and Plutarch as authoritative figures on marriage at the beginning of his discourse, Erasmus then bases a large portion of his long examination of the institution of marriage on medieval texts, often building his considerations on the interpretation of Peter Lombard and Thomas of Aquin. The exemplary value of classical texts is constantly reasserted, and at the same time the classics appear deeply recontextualized and reinterpreted; where we may have expected a more exclusive focus on classical antiquity, and perhaps even a clear distancing from certain medieval traditions, Erasmus in fact works with both sets of references, creating a new fruitful dialog between them. Socrates and Aristippus are set alongside John Duns Scotus or Durandus of Saint Pourçain, ancient comedy is not in contrast with Theophylact of Ohrid.
Altogether this incredible array of sources ranging from Homer to Byzantine literature, from Roman law to Canon law, and its unusual combination, applied to such a dominant theme in Erasmus’ speculation, represents an interesting addition to the already rich portrait of Erasmus’ relation with classical antiquity, urging us to further investigate his notion of auctoritas in general, of classic in particular, and his specific way of engaging with the authority of a text.