Pagina 33 [33]
OCR
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 purpose 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 dispose 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
