Page 633 [633]
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 diver¬
gences 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 de¬
rived from Eoban’s À profectione ad Des. Erasmum Roterodamum Hodoe¬
poricon, Erfurt, Maler, c. Jan. 1519, and also a miscellaneous col¬
lection 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 re¬
printed by Seriverius ; but, as with the Compendium Vitae”, there are a
number of considerations which make the assumption of forgery im¬
possible 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 fabri¬
cated words, such as odientes”, imbenignus®, barbarismus and recom¬
pensare® : 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 accom¬
plished 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.