HUIZINGA, JOHAN. – Dutch historian, b. December 1872 in Groningen, d. 10 February 1945 in De Steeg.
He first studied comparative philology and Sanskrit, then devoted himself to historical studies, earning the chair of history at the University of Groningen (1906) with a study on the origins of Haarlem; in 1915 he moved to the University of Leiden.
The work that brought him universal fame and established him as a classic of “Kulturgeschichte” was Herfstij der middeleeuwen (Eng. trans., *Autunno del Medioevo*, Florence 1940), a masterful description of Burgundian society in the 14th–15th centuries. H. examines the transition in that society from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, focusing his analysis on “the way of life of knights and common people, on symbolism and allegory, on forms of devotion, on concepts of life and death, on myths and dreams.” With this work he provided, against historicist intellectualism, a prototype and model of historiography attentive to the inner resonances of human existence.
In the years that followed his scholarly activity never ceased: among his works are *Erasmus* (Haarlem 1924, Eng. trans.: *Erasmo*, Turin 1941), a profile perhaps somewhat marred by the inadequate framing of the humanist within the historical-political problems of his time, yet exquisite in its portrayal of a man of “middle tones,” of words “never fully spoken,” “a mind steeped in mental reservation”; *Homo ludens* (Eng. trans., Turin 1946), in which he presents life as play, as style, resolving the initial formula “Kultur als Spiel, nicht Kultur aus Spiel”; *Patriotisme en nation-alisme in de Europeesche geschiedenis tot het einde der 19e eeuw* (Haarlem 1940), as well as various essays collected by W. Kaege in German translation in *Wege der Kultur-geschichte* (Munich 1930), *Im Bann der Geschichte* (Basel 1943), and *Parerga* (Basel 1945). His other writings—*In de Schaduwen van Morgen* (1935, Eng. trans., *La crisi della civiltà*, Turin 1937), *Wenn die Waffen schweigen* (Basel 1945), and *Mein Weg zur Geschichte* (ibid. 1947)—are not only expressions of a sensitive spirit but also testimony to a sadness, often without hope, for a world of culture and civilization that is collapsing.
During the Second World War H. was arrested and imprisoned in a concentration camp for his opposition to the “new German order,” and upon release he was confined to a restricted residence near Arnhem.
The substantial doctrinal unity of the Syllabus (v.) with the Leonine encyclicals was something in which he delighted the Pope, though he could never agree with him (on a purely theoretical and debated matter) regarding the question of relaxation. A convinced monarchist and confidant of the Count of Paris (the heir to the throne), he never adhered to the Leonine policy, which advised Catholics to accept the Republic. Nevertheless, his sincere devotion to the Holy See enabled him to overcome this severe trial and demonstrated his obedience when he accepted the role of deputy in the abhorred regime: he entered the Chamber to address “matters of God.”
He demonstrated his attachment to the Church on another occasion: in an article in the *Correspondent* (25 Jan. 1893), which became famous, he sought to summarize the various tendencies surrounding the biblical question. With upright intent—aiming at harmony of minds—but with little prudence, he made concessions to criticism, which discerned in Scripture genuine errors, though limiting them to the historical sphere. A polemical outcry flared up immediately: Leo XIII intervened with the encyclical *Providentissimus Deus*, in which d’H.’s position was clearly rejected. He, despite the contrary urgings of d’H. Loyson, made a solemn and sincere act of adherence to the papal directives.
More fortunate and effective was his influence in the philosophical and apologetic realm. Particularly well-versed in philosophy, he opposed the two dominant currents—the metaphysical idealism tinged with Hegelianism and the positivistic monism of Darwinian tendency—with the principles of Christian spiritualism. Faithful to the mandate of the encyclical *Aeterni Patris* (1879), in his teaching as in his cultural lectures, he aimed to educate minds in a tradition harmonized with progress and to offer them, through the doctrine of St. Thomas, the key to true metaphysics, capable of unlocking the treasures of modern science, which had been enslaved to an anti-Catholic conception. These ideas were finely developed in the *Mélanges oratoires* (2 vols., Paris 1891) and especially in the *Mélanges philosophiques* (ibid. 1892) and in many articles in the *Annales*.
of Christian philosophy. Succeeding J. Monsabré (v.) in the chair at Notre-Dame, he wished to complete the dogmatic work of the famous Dominican by treating Catholic morality. Thus Monsabré and d'H. form as it were a complete doctrinal diptych. D'H. successively developed: the foundations of morality (1891), duties toward God (1892-93), domestic morality (1894), civic morality (1895), social morality (1896). To the Lenten conferences of each year he added the sermons for the Easter retreat (except in 1893). The orator still counted on four more Lents, but premature death prevented him from completing his vast design. Though incomplete, his is the most deeply thought-out work of all those produced at Notre-Dame in the 19th century; perhaps it is not the most popular, since, written in a French of classical perfection, it can only be appreciated by highly cultivated minds, all the more so because d'H. lacked oratorical flair and external warmth. Yet whoever reads and meditates upon it will find there a latent, inextinguishable inner flame, fed by sincere faith and singular strength of reasoning. Nobility of lineage and spirit, purity of style and thought, a felt and lived priestly piety united with merciful generosity toward the poor and sinners, make of d'H., as L. Baudrillard defined him, the first priest of France at the end of the 19th century.