Talk:Colloquies

Lead

Many characterizations in the original lede are debatable, at best. The Latin definition is not correct (anachronism). The idea that the colloquies are all gentle, or all light, or all serious, and so on, whrn they are quite varied. "Leader" is not a good word, as many/most Erasmians took paths opposite to his moderation, or disagreed with him on key issues, or lived some of his works and deplored others (a danger of the glib "Prince of Humanists"??) I will attempt to improve It.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Summaries

I have put in summaries of a few colloquies. I encourage editors to add more, e.g a single paragraph per colloquay unless the collequy is particularly long or interesting or exposes a facet of Erasmus' thought that the main articles miss. (I recommend that editors read the primary source, then find a good secondary source: just using secondary sources without having read the colloquy can give a Chinese Whisper effect. Also be aware that translators and commentators, especially the ones before 1900, frequently had partisan religious agendas and worldviews that can skew the messaging in ways that Erasmus did not intend: be careful of commentators who anachronisticly couch a colloquy in terms of "Erasmus versus the Catholic Church" rather than, say, "Erasmus versus abuses in the Church".)Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)