Page 633 [633]
OCR
PRINCIPAL EDITIONS OF ERASMUS’ EPISTOLAE 597 in them, and a few new lettersadded ; together with some prefaces in accordance with Erasmus’ wishes ?, and other printed matter, which had appeared under his name. There are, however, slight divergences of reading, and in one point a notable difference. N? has, on p. 1114, a short letter to a certain George Loxanus, Vice-Chancellor of Bohemia, squeezed in between two to Gilbert Cousin (Lond. xxvil. 50 and 51). This letter is not in N1; and from the fact that it has been removed again in N°, though the reference to it is found in the index, we may conclude that its insertion in N? was procured by Loxanus through surreptitious means and did not find favour with Episcopius, unless N° was reprinted directly from N! Some account of the volume edited by Merula (O1) has been given already above”. Of the two books into which it is divided, the first contains a few letters to Hoban of Hesse and his circle, evidently derived from Eoban’s À profectione ad Des. Erasmum Roterodamum Hodoeporicon, Erfurt, Maler, c. Jan. 1519, and also a miscellaneous collection of letters written in Erasmus’ later years, a large proportion of which are to Goclen. The second book consists mainly of letters to Servatius Rogerus, Cornelius Gerard, and William Herman, which come no doubt from an early letter-book of Erasmus. From the fact that Ep. 186 occurs among them, it is evident that they are the collection made in 1505 at his request by Francis, who seems to have gathered what letters he could from the circle of Erasmus’ friends at Steyn and Gouda, and ata later date added the six brief notes written from London and from Italy in 1506, which but for the existence of such a collection would probably not have survived. Besides these letters there are two, of which the latter is actually a preface, whilst the former was perhaps intended for inclusion in a volume. Doubt has been thrown on the genuineness of the letters published by Merula, especially on those in the second book, which was not reprinted by Seriverius ; but, as with the Compendium Vitae”, there are a number of considerations which make the assumption of forgery impossible to maintain. The entire diversity of the letters to Servatius from any other letters published by Erasmus, except perhaps those to Grey *, the repetitions in Epp. 15, 16; the absence of any attempt to dovetail the letters together ; the use of unclassical and even fabricated words, such as odientes”, imbenignus®, barbarismus and recompensare® : and the addition of a single date, and no more, to the letters from Steyn—all these are points which indicate genuine rather than spurious compositions. And finally the inclusion of one undoubtedly genuine letter”, and of one™ which, by its abundance of various readings, directly challenged comparison with the text sanctioned by Erasmus, seems too bold a stroke for even an accomplished literary forger. This internal evidence receives striking confirmation from the Gouda manuscripts which are described in Appendix 9, and as to the authenticity of which there can be no i. p. 39. 26-8, ai Epp 7. 55 CI. 12.20. 4 DP: 575) 0. Mi 12.8. i 2* Epp. 32 and 47, = Ep, 15. 42 and 57, 2 App. I. 5 Ep. 47. AY Epp. 58 and 63. *t Ep. 83.
