Pagina 33 [33]
XXIX
1874. FROM JULIUS 11.
Vatican Archives, Reg. Later. 1174, f 345 v°. Rome.
EHR. xxv. 124. 4 January 150%.
[For the document that follows I am indebted to Dr. Brom, Director of the
Dutch Historical Institute at Rome, who has very kindly placed it at my disposal.
It was discovered by him in the course of his systematic researches for the
Archivalia in Italié ; and an abstract of it is given in his second volume, 1909,
no. 1877. Its main interest is that it brings to light a transaction in Erasmus’
life of which hitherto nothing has been known. The dispensation confers upon
him the power to hold benefices of certain kinds; and in form it closely resembles
a similar brief which he received from Leo x in 1517 (Ep. 518). As to the pur¬
pose for which it was obtained, at first sight a clue seems to be offered by a letter
of Erasmus to Servatius at Steyn in 1505 ; in which he speaks of ‘ spes istic non
contemnendae’, which might have been expected to deter him from going to
England (Ep. 185. 6,7). But Dr. Brom points out that the reference to Otho le
Blane and Ottoboni Fieschi, papal legates in England in 1237 and 1268, and the
dispensation from their constitutions (Wilkins i. 649 seq., ii. 1 seq.)—evidently
those requiring residence—implies conclusively that the patronage expected by
Erasmus was English; and this is borne out by the facts. In the summer
or autumn of 1505 he came to England in quest of endowment (11. 120-2) and
was there for more than a year. The greater part of that time he spent in
London, in close intimacy with Colet (Ep. 384 introd.) and with other ecclesiastics
and noblemen; and in April 1506 he mentions a promise of a benefice from
Henry vit (Hp. 189. 3,4). It may therefore be presumed that on arrival in
England he had at once set on foot negotiations at Rome to enable him to enjoy
an English living ; and that this letter is the answer. It is even possible that
he may have been helped in the matter by Ammonius and Sylvester Gigli, who
afterwards secured for him the dispensation from Leo x (see Ep. 447 introd.).
Both were in England at the time (Ep. 218 introd.), and Ammonius had influential
friends at Julius’ court (Ep. 243. 25-32). But Henry’s promise was not fulfilled ;
and thus the dispensation was of no avail to Erasmus until 1512 (Ep. 255 introd.).
The letter also contributes something to the question of Erasmus’ parentage.
The statement that his father was an unmarried layman (solutus) seems to dis¬
pose of the legend that he was the son of a priest. But it is considerably
discounted by the language used about him in Ep. 517. 7,8, where his defectus
natalium is said to consist in being ex illicito et, vt timet, incesto damnatoque coitu
genitus: a description which suggests that he may in the interval have learnt
more about the circumstances of his birth ; while, as Vischer notes, it also
implies some uncertainty remaining in his mind as to the date when his father
took orders.
There can be no question as to the authenticity of this document ; for it
occurs in one of the registers in which letters were regularly entered by the papal
secretaries before dispatch. In this case the copy was made carelessly and with
some abbreviations of formulas by ‘ete.’ The first of these I have amplified from
comparison with Ep. 518; the last three omit stereotyped forms. Ihave also in
a few places taken the liberty of writing c for t to avoid such forms as loto or
simplititer. For permission to reprint from EHR. Iam obliged to Dr. R. L. Poole. ]
IVLIVS &C. DILECTO FILIO DESIDERIO ERASMO, CANONICO
MONASTERII DE STEYN IN HOLLANDIA, ORDINIS SANCTI
AVGVSTINI, TRAIETENSIS DIOCESIS, SALVTEM &C.
ReLigronis zellus, vite ac morum honestas, aliaque laudabillia
probitatis et virtutum merita, super quibus apud nos fidedigno
commendaris testimonio, nos inducunt vt te specialibus fauoribus
et graciis prosequamur. Hinc est quod nos volentes te, qui, vt
asseris, deffectum natalium pateris, de soluto genitus et vidua, 5
ALLEN