What do you think?
Rate this book
The Oxford Reformers: John Colet, Erasmus And Thomas More; Being A History Of Their Fellow-Work
This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the original. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions that are true to the original work.
604 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1970
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 4, 2026
Even though you are getting a gated and heavily edited biased position and opinion on three of some of the most important English personalities, it is still a well worth read for the rich content and characterization of these three great men. Erasmus is often, unfairly, characterized as the hen that laid the egg for the Protestant Reformation while Luther hatched it.
I think the Albigensians carry that torch well before Erasmus ever did and the main points in Luther's rebellion can be found in that heresy and within all its central points.
Colet is often abusive in his manner and though he seems to live an exemplary life, he suffered from being so liberal in his critique of Bishops to the point of showing contempt. He may have had the best of intentions, but so did Luther in his own way.
Erasmus' only fault was that he played the part of Folly much too well in his Moriae Encomium (Praise of Folly). He suffered for the method acting role he played in how Folly would have interpreted every hideous and controversial subject she chose to speak on. Erasmus can't help himself bleed through in some of his updates that tear into the rhythm of his work and, I say, alters the spirit of how well he channeled (gosh I hate how that word will make me come off) Folly.
As a Humanist, he should never be forgotten and it is sad that he is largely unknown in our day. How that happened I do not understand except that so many people consider Latin, in their ignorance, as a 'dead language'. Only, I suspect, because it will open up the history of the world and the influence and effect the holy Roman Catholic Church has had on the literature and history of the world.
As for Thomas More. This man speaks so very well for himself. I can hardly add anything to such a man. Learning from him is learning from the very best of men.
I think the Albigensians carry that torch well before Erasmus ever did and the main points in Luther's rebellion can be found in that heresy and within all its central points.
Colet is often abusive in his manner and though he seems to live an exemplary life, he suffered from being so liberal in his critique of Bishops to the point of showing contempt. He may have had the best of intentions, but so did Luther in his own way.
Erasmus' only fault was that he played the part of Folly much too well in his Moriae Encomium (Praise of Folly). He suffered for the method acting role he played in how Folly would have interpreted every hideous and controversial subject she chose to speak on. Erasmus can't help himself bleed through in some of his updates that tear into the rhythm of his work and, I say, alters the spirit of how well he channeled (gosh I hate how that word will make me come off) Folly.
As a Humanist, he should never be forgotten and it is sad that he is largely unknown in our day. How that happened I do not understand except that so many people consider Latin, in their ignorance, as a 'dead language'. Only, I suspect, because it will open up the history of the world and the influence and effect the holy Roman Catholic Church has had on the literature and history of the world.
As for Thomas More. This man speaks so very well for himself. I can hardly add anything to such a man. Learning from him is learning from the very best of men.
Displaying 1 of 1 review