Letters to Radulphus.1. Beginning (p. 195): ‘Miror sane te optime Radulphe quum voluisti ...;’ ending (p. 199): ‘... fac nos te queso participes. Vale.’2. Beginning (p. 199): ‘Parumper de reliquis diebus uti petis in calce Epistole. Facta mentione de materia et forma ...;’ ending (p. 207); ‘... scribendi paululum levaverim. Vale.’3. Beginning (p. 207): ‘Tercium nunc deinceps diem aggrediamur, memores semper ...;’ ending (p. 222): ‘... leviter nos in hiis rebus lucubrasse. Vale.’4. Beginning (p. 222): ‘Salve Radulphe, ac cum salute puto te rediisse quod tibi opto ...’ breaking off at the end of the quire (p. 226): ‘... id licere facere docet Macrobius in Comen[tario edito]....’
Letters to Radulphus.
1. Beginning (p. 195): ‘Miror sane te optime Radulphe quum voluisti ...;’ ending (p. 199): ‘... fac nos te queso participes. Vale.’
2. Beginning (p. 199): ‘Parumper de reliquis diebus uti petis in calce Epistole. Facta mentione de materia et forma ...;’ ending (p. 207); ‘... scribendi paululum levaverim. Vale.’
3. Beginning (p. 207): ‘Tercium nunc deinceps diem aggrediamur, memores semper ...;’ ending (p. 222): ‘... leviter nos in hiis rebus lucubrasse. Vale.’
4. Beginning (p. 222): ‘Salve Radulphe, ac cum salute puto te rediisse quod tibi opto ...’ breaking off at the end of the quire (p. 226): ‘... id licere facere docet Macrobius in Comen[tario edito]....’
⁂ These letters follow Colet’s Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, in the volume marked 355, in Corpus Christi College Library.
TheExpositionis written in the handwriting of Colet’s scribe, Peter Meghen, the ‘monoculus Brabantinus,’ and there are corrections and alterations throughout, evidently by Colet himself.
Theletters to Radulphusare merelybound withthe other. Only two quires are now remaining: the handwriting is not the same, but similar.
[126]The following appears to be the passage Colet was about to quote: ‘Aut sacrarum rerum notio, subfigmentorumvelamine,honestiset tecta rebus et vestita nominibus enuntiatur; et hoc est solum figmenti genus, quod cautio de divinis rebus admittit.’—In Somnium Scipionis, lib. i. c. 2. The ‘aut’ with which the sentence begins refers to its being an alternative of two kinds of mythical writing, about which Macrobius has been speaking. I am indebted to Mr. Lupton for this reference.
[127]The following passage from Mr. Lupton’s translation of Colet’s abstract of Dionysius’sDe celesti Hierarchiâ(pp. 12, 13) will show that he may have derived some of his thoughts from that source. ‘Thus led he forth those uninstructed Hebrews, like boys, to school; in order that like children, playing with dolls and toys, they might represent in shadow what they were one day to do in reality as men: herein imitating little girls, who in early age play with dolls, the images of sons, being destined afterwards in riper years to bring forth real sons: ... “When I was a child,” says St. Paul, “I understood as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” From childishness and images and imitations Christ has drawn us, who has shone upon our darkness, and has taught us the truth, and has made us that believe to be men, in order that we, “with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, may be changed into the same image from glory to glory even as by the spirit of the Lord.”’...
‘In these foreshadowings and signs, metaphors are borrowed from all quarters by Moses—a theologian and observer of nature of the deepest insight—inasmuch as there are not words proper to express the Divine attributes. For nothing is fitted to denote God Himself, who is not only unutterable but even inconceivable. Wherefore he is most truly expressed by negations; since you may state what He is not, but not what He is; for whatever positive statement you make concerning Him, you err, seeing that He is none of those things which you can say. Still because a hidden principle of the Deity resides in all things, on account of that faint resemblance, the sacred writers have endeavoured to indicate Him by the names of all objects, not only of the better but of the worse kind, lest the duller sort of people, attracted by the beauty of the fairer objects, should think God to be that very thing which He is called.’
The above isColet’s amplificationof the passage in Dionysius (chap. ii.). The latter part of it is a pretty close rendering of the original.
[128]‘Heptaplus Johannis Pici Mirandulæ de Septiformi sex dierum Geneseos Enarratione.’
[129]The first edition is without date, but the publisher’s letter at the commencement, to Lorenzo de’ Medici, shows that it was published during the lifetime of the latter, i.e. before 1492—probably in 1490.
[130]The letter preceding the abstract of the ‘Celestial Hierarchy,’ in the Cambridge MS. Gg. 4, 26, is evidently a copy by the same hand as the letter to the Abbot of Winchcombe. Possibly the Abbot may be the person to whom it was addressed.
[131]These treatises were:—1. ‘De Compositione Sancti Corporis Christi mistici.’—Camb. MS. Gg. 4, 26.
2. ‘On the Sacraments of the Church,’ printed with a very valuable introduction and notes, by the Rev. J. H. Lupton, M.A., from the MS. in the St. Paul’s School Library. (Bell and Daldy, 1867.)
3. A short essay in the Camb. MS. Gg. 4, 26, commencing ‘Deus immensum bonum,’ &c.
Mr. Lupton is publishing Colet’s abstracts of the ‘Celestial’ and ‘Ecclesiastical’ Hierarchy of Dionysius, from the MSS. at St. Paul’s School; and it will be seen how much use I have made in this chapter of his admirable translation. I have expressed in the preface to this edition the obligations I am under to Mr. Lupton for bringing to light these interesting MSS., and thus materially assisting in restoring some lost links in the history of Colet’s inner life and opinions.
[132]Balthasar Corderius, in his prefatory observations to his edition of the works of St. Dionysius (Paris 1644), speaks of Dionysius as being the originator of the Scholastic Theology, and proves it by giving four folio pages of references to passages in the ‘Summa’ of Aquinas, where the authority of Dionysius is quoted.
[133]Mr. Lupton’s translation, pp. 135, 136.
[134]‘God, who is one, beautiful and good—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: the Trinity which created all things—is at once the purification of things to unity, their illumination to what is beautiful, and their perfection to what is good.’—Mr. Lupton’s translation, pp. 15, 24.
[135]‘God created all things because He is good (p. 16); and because He is good, He also recalls to himself all things according to their capacity, that He may bountifully communicate himself to them.’
[136]All after this is Colet’s own addition to what is said in Dionysius.
[137]Mr. Lupton’s translation of Colet’s Abstract of theEccl. Hier.p. 92. In a short essay contained in the MSS. Gg. 4, 26, of the Cambridge University Library, entitled ‘De compositione sancti corporis Christi mistici, quæ est ecclesia, quæ sine anima ejus, Spiritu scilicet, dispergitur et dissipatur.’ Colet, after showing how men, if left to themselves, would wander apart and become scattered; and that the purpose of God is, that they should be united in one body the church by the Spirit, as by a magnet, goes on to say, ‘Predestinatum fuit hominem qui decidit a Deo retrahi ad Deum non posse quidem nisi per Deum factum hominem.... Mortuus est ut liberos faceret homines ad talem vitam, ut debita cujusque hominum in illius morte soluta, nunc desinentes peccare deinceps liberi sint justiciæ, ut non amplius maneamus in peccato,’ &c.—Ff. 70b, 71a.
[138]Wilberforce, in hisDoctrine of the Incarnation, third edition, 1850, thus expressed the modern sacerdotal theory. In the wordPriest, in primitive languages, ‘the notion of the setting apart those who should acton man’s behalf towards Godis everywhere visible.’—P. 229.
‘Now if Christ is still maintaining a real intercession (if He still pleads that sacrifice) then is there ample place for that sacerdotal system, by which some actualthingis still to be effected, and in which some agents must still be employed.’—P. 381. ‘We put the Priestly office under the law in a line with the ministerial office under the Gospel; we assert, that if the title of Priest could be given fitly to the first, it belongs also to the second.’—P. 383. ‘Any persons who discharge an office which has reference to God, and who present to Him what is offered by men, may be called Priests.’—P. 384.
[139]See the same views expressed by Colet in his exposition of ‘Corinthians.’—Emmanuel Col. MS. 3, 3, 12, leaf g, 2.
[140]Colet’s Abstract of theEcc. Hier.ch. ii. s. 2. Mr. Lupton’s translation, pp. 61, 62. Colet writes a little further on:—‘The office of the bishop is, like Christ, to preach constantly and diligently the truth he has received. For he is, as it were, a messenger midway between God and men, to announce to men heavenly things, as Christ did.’—Pp. 63, 64.
[141]‘Through this bread and this cup, that which is offered as a true sacrifice in heaven is present as a real though immaterial agent in the church’s ministrations. So that what is done by Christ’s ministers below is a constituent part of that general work which the one great High Priest performs in heaven: through the intervention of his heavenly Head, the earthly sacrificer truly exhibits to the Father that body of Christ which is the one only sacrifice for sins; each visible act has its efficacy through those invisible acts of which it is the earthly expression, and things done on earth are one with those done in heaven.’—Wilberforce’sDoctrine of the Incarnation, pp. 372, 373.
[142]Colet’s abstract of theEccl. Hier.ch. iii. Mr. Lupton’s translation, pp. 78-94. Whilst not disapproving inothersdaily attendance ‘ad mensam Dominicam,’ Erasmus tells us that Colet did not make adailyhabit of ithimself.—Eras.Op.iii. p. 459, E.
[143]Eccl. Hier.ch. ii. Colet speaks in his abstract (Mr. Lupton’s translation, p. 65) of the Christian being ‘brought to the captain of the army, the bishop,’ that by the soldier’s oath, &c. ‘he may own himself a soldier of Christ.’ He concludes this section as follows:—
‘Such was the custom and ceremony of baptism and the washing of regeneration in the primitive church, instituted by the holy apostles,whereby the more excellent baptism of the inner man is signified. And this form differs very greatly from the one we make use of in this age. And herein I own that I marvel!... The apostles being fully taught by Jesus Christ, knew well what are convenient symbols and appropriate signs for the mysteries. So that one may suspect either rashness or neglect on the part of their successors in what has been added to or taken from their ordinances.’
Then follows a section on the ‘spiritual contemplation of baptism,’ in which occurs the passage beginning ‘Gracious God!’ &c.—Infra, p. 73.Eccl. Hier.ch. ii. s. 3, pp. 76, 77 of Mr. Lupton’s translation.
[144]‘Meanwhile the foster father who has undertaken the rearing of the child in Christ, gives a pledge and sacred promise, on behalf of the infant, of all things that true Christianity demands, viz. a renouncing of all sin, &c.... And this he says,not in the child’s stead, since it would be a fond thing for another to speak in place of one that was in ignorance; but when, in his own person, he speaks of renouncing, he professes thathe will bring it to pass, so far as he can, that the little infant, as soon as ever it is capable of instruction, shall in reality and in his life utterly renounce, &c....
‘When the bishop, I say, hears him saying, “I renounce,”which means, as Dionysius explains it, “I will take care that the infantrenounce,” &c.... Thus we see how in the primitive church, by the ordinance of the apostles, infants were not admitted unreservedly to the sacred rights, but on condition only that some one would be surety for them, that when they came to years of discretion they should thenceforward set before them in reality the pattern of Christ.
‘Mark thus how great a burden he takes upon himself who promises to be a godfather,’ &c.—Mr. Lupton’s translation of Colet’s abstract of theEccl. Hier.ch. viii. pp. 158, 159.
[145]‘Men execute the previous decisions of God, and by the ministry of men that is at length disclosed on earth,’ &c.—Mr. Lupton’s translation, p. 149. ‘It must be heedfully marked, lest bishops should be presumptuous, that it is not the part of men to loose the bonds of sins: nor does the power pertain to them of loosing or binding anything.’... ‘And if they do not proceed according to revelation, moved by the Spirit of God ... they abuse the power given to them, both to the blaspheming of God and the destruction of the Church.’—Ibid.150.
[146]See Eras.Op.iii. p. 459, C and D.
[147]Mr. Lupton’s translation of Colet’s abstract of theEccl. Hier.p. 83. This was a strictly Dionysian thought and one shared also by Pico. ‘The little affection of an old man or an old woman to Godward (were it never so small), he set more by than all his own knowledge as well of natural things as godly.’... He writeth thiswise [to Politian], ‘Love God (while we be in this body), we rather may than either know Him, or by speech utter Him.’—Life of Picus, E. of Mirandula,Sir Thomas More’s Works, p. 7.
To the same purport is the passage from Ficino, quoted by Colet in his MS. on the ‘Romans.’—Vide supra, p. 37.
[148]Mr. Lupton’s translation, pp. 76, 77.
[149]Ibid. p. 73.
[150]Mr. Lupton’s translation, pp. 150, 151.
[151]Mr. Lupton’s translation, pp. 90, 91. See also pp. 123-126, where Colet inveighs warmly against the nomination by secular princes of worldly bishops.
[152]Camb. University Library, MS. Gg. 4, 26. There is a beautiful copy embodying these corrections in the hand of Peter Meghen, in the Library of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, MS. 3, 3, 12.
[153]Emmanuel Col. MS. leaf e, 5: ‘Homo unus omnium divinissimus et consideratissimus.’ See also leaf k, 6.
[154]Leaf a, 5. ‘Quod tamen facit ubique modestissime homo piissimus.’
[155]‘Velit ergo prudentissimus Paulus.’—Leaf k, 3.
[156]Leaf k, 6, and p. 8.
[157]In another place Colet writes, ‘Fuit illa græca natio illis argutiis versatilibus humani ingenii semper prompta ad arguendum et redarguendum.’—Leaf c, 2.
[158]Emmanuel Col. MS. 3, 3, 12, leaf a, 4, and Appendix (B, a).
[159]Abridged quotation. Leaf a, 5, and Appendix (B, a).
[160]Emmanuel Col. MS. leaf a, 5, 6, and Appendix (B, a).
[161]Leaf b, 4, and Appendix (B, b). See a very similar remark with reference to St. Paul and Dionysius inJoan. Fran. Pici Mirand. De Studio Div. et Hum. Philosophiælib. i. ch. iii. J. F. Pico was living when Colet was in Italy.
[162]Appendix (B, c).
[163]Appendix (B, d). Emmanuel Coll. MS. leaf b, 6, and b, 8.
[164]‘In these matters regard must be had to condition and strength.... It was thus that Moses taught the truth and justice of God, as it was brought down to the level of sensible things, and diluted for the ancient Hebrews. It was thus that Christ taught to the disciples what they were able to bear. It was thus, lastly, that Paul, both gently and sparingly gave to the Corinthians, as it were, milk instead of meat.... He spoke wisdom to the perfect, to the imperfect he accommodated as it were foolish, more humble and more homely things. With this design, also, he tolerated indulgently less perfect and less absolute morals for a time, dealing gently with them as far as was lawful, not thinking how much was lawful to himself, but what was expedient to others; not how much he himself could bear, but what was adapted to the Corinthians.’...—Leaf c, 7. See also leaf e, 6.
[165]1 See Eras.Op.iii. p. 1263, and Ibid. p. 184, E. ‘1499 was the date of the 1st edition, which is comprised in eight pages, and forms the last treatise in a volume of ancient writers on astronomy, edited by Aldus. It is intituled, “Procli Diadochi Sphæra, Astronomiam discere Incipientibus Vtilissima, Thomâ Linacro Britanno Interprete.”’—Johnson’sLife of Linacre, p. 152.
[166]In a letter from Politian to Franciscus Casa, there is a description of an ‘orrery’ made at Florence. The letter was written 1484.—Illustrium Virorum Epistolæ ab Angelo Politiano, n. 1523, fol. lxxxiii.
[167]Luther’sTable Talk, ‘Of Astronomy and Astrology.’
[168]So also in Pico’sHeptaplusthe same kind of speculation is much indulged in.
[169]Emmanuel Col. MS. 3, 3, 12, leaves d, 3 to d, 5, and Appendix (B, e). See also leaf n, 2.
[170]Eras.Op.iii. p. 459, A.
[171]Leaf g, 4.
[172]Emmanuel Col. MS. Leaf i, 1 to leaf i, 3.
[173]Leaf k, 7 and 8.
[174]Leaves g, 5 to g, 7.
[175]Emmanuel MS. Leaf f, 6, and Appendix (B, f).
[176]‘Plurimum tribuebat Epistolis Apostolicis, sed ita suspiciebat admirabilem illam Christi majestatem ut ad hanc quodammodo sordescerent Apostolorum scripta.’—Eras.Op.iii. p. 459, F. See also this view supported by Erasmus in hisRatio Veræ Theologiæ. ‘Nec fortassis absurdum fuerit, in sacris quoque voluminibus ordinem auctoritatis aliquem constituere,’ &c.—Eras.Op.v. p. 92, C; andIbid.p. 132, C.
[177]Eras.Op.vi. p. 503, F;Annotationes in loco, Acts xvii. v. 34. The edition of 1516 does not mention the anecdote at all. Those of 1519 and 1522 mention it as having occurred ‘ante complures annos.’ Also see ‘Declamatio adversus Censuram Facultatis Theol. Parisien.’ Eras.Op.ix. p. 917 and Epist. mccv. The former was written in 1530 or 1531, and in it he says:—‘Is ante annos triginta, Londini in æde Divi Pauli,’ &c.: which gives the date of Grocyn’s lectures as some time before 1500 or 1501. The publication of the Paris edition of Dionysius, in 1498, may have called forth these lectures.
[178]Jewell, however, mentions John Colet as believing that the Areopagite was not the author of these ancient writings.—Of Private Masse, ed. 1611, p. 8.
[179]Vide supra, p. 82.
[180]‘Apostoli sermo ... (qui in hoc locoartificiosissimusest)....’—MS. on1 Corinthians, Emmanuel Coll. leaf a, 6.
[181]The date of Erasmus’s coming to England may be approximately fixed as follows. Epist. xxix. dated 12th April, and evidently written in 1500, after his visit to England, mentions a fever which nearly killed Erasmustwo years before. Comparing this with what is said in the ‘Life’ prefixed to vol i. of Eras.Op., Epist. vi. vii. and viii., dated 3 Feb., 4 Feb., and 12 Feb., seem to belong to Feb. 1498. Epist. vi. ix. and v. seem to place his studies with Mountjoy, at Paris, in the spring of that year. Epist. xxii. seems to mention the projected visit to England. Epist. xiv. ‘Londini tumultuarie,’ 5 Dec., is evidently written after he had been to Oxford and seen Colet, Grocyn, and Linacre, and yet, comparatively soon after his arrival in England. It alludes to his coming to England, but gives no hint that he is going to leave England. In the winter of 1499-1500 he was at Oxford, intending to leave, but delayed by political reasons. He really did leave England 27 Jan. 1500. Whilst, therefore, it is just possible that Epist. xiv. may have been written in Dec. 1499, it is more probable that it was written in Dec. 1498, and that the first experience of Erasmus at Oxford had been during the previous summer and autumn. This seems to comport best both with Epist. vi. ix. v. and xxii., and also with the circumstances connected with his stay in England, mentioned in this chapter. See also the next note. The years attached to the early letters of Erasmus are not in the least to be relied on.
[182]Coletus Erasmo: Eras. Epist. xi.
[183]‘Hic (at Oxford) hominem nosse cœpi, nam eodem tum me Deus nescio quis adegerat; natus tum erat annos ferme triginta, me minor duobus aut tribus mensibus.’—Eras.Op.iii. p. 456, B. Erasmus, according to his monument at Rotterdam (Eras.Op.i. (7)) was born 28 Oct. 1467. Colet would be born, say, Jan. 1467-8, if three months younger, and would be ‘annos ferme triginta, in the spring of 1498.’ According to Colet’s monument he would be 31 at that date, as he died 16 Sept. 1519, and the inscription states ‘vixit annos 53.’—Knight’sColet, p. 261.
[184]Epist. xii. Sixtinus Erasmo.
[185]Else how could Erasmus describe Colet’s style of speaking so clearly in his first letter to him?—Epist. xli.
[186]‘Virum optimum et bonitate præditum singulari.’—Eras. Epist. xi.
[187]Coletus Erasmo: Epist. xi.
[188]Eras. Epist. xli.Op.iii. p. 40, D.
[189]‘Dicebat Coletus, Caym ea primum culpa Deum offendisse, quod tanquam conditoris benignitate diffisus, suæque nimium confisus industriæ, terram primus prosciderit, quum Abel, sponte nascentibus contentus, oves paverit.’—Eras. Epist. xliv.Op.iii. p. 42, F. Compare MS. G. g. 4, 26, fols. 4-6 and 29, 30, and Erasmus’s Paraphrases,in loco, Hebrews xi. 4.
[190]‘At ille unus vincebat omnes; visus est sacro quodam furore debacchari, ac nescio quid homine sublimius augustiusque præferre. Aliud sonabat vox, aliud tuebantur oculi, alius vultus, alius adspectus, majorque videri, afflatus est numine quando.’—Eras.Op.iii. 42, F.
[191]Eras. Epist. xliv.
[192]Erasmus Sixtino, Epist. xliv.Op.iii. p. 42, C.
[193]See his colloquy,Ichthyophagia, in which he describes his college experience at Paris, especially his physical hardships. The latter are probably caricatured, and perhaps too much magnified for the description to be taken literally.
[194]Erasmus to Lord Mountjoy: Epist. xlii. Oxoniæ, 1498.
[195]‘Beatus Rhenanus Cæsari Carolo.’—Eras.Op.i. leaf * * * 1.
[196]Eras.Op.iii. p. 458, D and E.
[197]Eras.Op.iii. pt. 1, p. 459, F.
[198]‘Siquidem magnum erat, Coletum, in ea fortuna, constanter sequutum esse, non quo vocabat natura, sed quo Christus,’ &c.—Ibid.p. 461, E.
[199]See the following extract from the colloquy of Erasmus, ‘Pietas puerilis,’ edition Argent. 1522, leaf e, 4, and Basileæ, 1526, p. 92, and Eras.Op.i. p. 653.
‘Erasmus.Many abstain from divinity because they are afraid lest they should waver in the catholic faith, when they see there is nothing which is not called in question.
‘Gaspar.I believe firmly what I read in the Holy Scriptures, and the creed called the Apostles’, and I don’t trouble my head any further. I leave the rest to be disputed and defined by the clergy, if they please.
‘Erasmus.WhatThalestaught you that philosophy?
‘Gaspar.I was for some time in domestic service’ [as More was in the house of Cardinal Morton before he was sent to Oxford], ‘with that honestest of men,John Colet.He imbued me with these precepts.’ See Argent. 1522, leaf c, 4.
[200]‘Illic in collegio Montis Acuti ex putribus ovis et cubiculo infecto concepit morbum, h.e. malam corporis, antea purissimi, affectionem.’—Vita, prefixed to Eras.Op.i. written by himself. See the letter to Conrad Goclenius.
[201]‘A studio theologiæ abhorrebat, quod sentiret animum non propensum, ut omnia illorum fundamenta subverteret; deinde futurum, ut hæretici nomen inureretur.’—Vita, prefixed to Eras.Op.i.
[202]See for this anecdote, Eras.Op.iii. p. 458, E and F.
[203]‘Tanquam afflatus spiritu quodam, “Quid tu, inquit, mihi prædicas istum, qui nisi habuisset multum arrogantiæ, non tanta temeritate tantoque supercilio definisset omnia; et nisi habuisset aliquid spiritus mundani, non ita totam Christi doctrinam sua profana philosophia contaminasset.”’—Eras.Op.iii. p. 458, F.
[204]Summa, i. quest. 52, 53.
[205]‘Omnino decessit aliquid meæ de illo existimationi.’—Eras.Op.iii. pt. 1, 458, F.
[206]SeeThe Praise of Folly, Eras.Op.iv. p. 462, where the dogmatic science of the age is as severely satirised by Erasmus as the dogmatic theology of the Schoolmen. Thus Folly is made to say:—‘With what ease, truly, do they indulge in day-dreams (delirant), when they invent innumerable worlds, and measure the sun, moon, and stars, and the earth, as though by thumb and thread; and render a reason for thunder, winds, eclipses, and other inexplicable things, without the least hesitation, as though they had been the secret architects of all the works of nature, or as though they had come down to us from the council of the gods.At whom and whose conjectures nature is mightily amused!’
[207]Cresacre More’sLife of Sir Thomas More, p. 93.
[208]Erasmi aliquot Epistolæ: Paris, 1524, p. 33. Eras.Op.iii. Epist. lxiii. 1521 ed. p. 291. Whether written in 1498 or 1499 is doubtful.
[209]Erasmus Roberto Piscatori: Epist. xiv.
[210]The incidents related in this section are taken fromDisputatiuncula de Tædio, Pavore, Tristitiâ Jesu, instante Supplicio Crucis, deque Verbis, quibus visus est Mortem deprecari, ‘Pater, si fieri potest, transeat a me calix iste.’—Eras.Op.v, pp. 1265-1294.
[211]Eras.Op.v. pp. 1291 and 1292.
[212]‘From this order, any one may perceive the reason of thefour sensesin the old law which are customary in the church. Theliteralis, when the actions of the men of old time are related. When you think of the image, even of the Christian church which the law foreshadows, then you catch theallegoricalsense. When you are raised aloft, so as from the shadow to conceive of the reality which both represent, then there dawns upon you theanagogicsense. And when from signs you observe the instruction of individual man, then all has amoraltone for you.... In the writings of the New Testament, saving when it pleased the Lord Jesus and his Apostles to speak in parables, as Christ often does in the Gospels, and St. John throughout in the Revelation, all the rest of the discourse, in which either the Saviour teaches his disciples more plainly, or the disciples instruct the churches, has the sense that appears on the surface. Nor is one thing said and another meant, but the very thing is meant which is said, and the sense is wholly literal. Still, inasmuch as the church of God is figurative, conceive always ananagogein what you hear in the doctrines of the church, the meaning of which will not cease till the figure has become the truth. From this moreover conclude, that where the literal sense is, then the allegorical sense isnotalways along with it; but, on the other hand, that where there is the allegorical sense, the literal sense is always underlying it.’—Colet’s abstract of theEccl. Hier., Mr. Lupton’s translation, pp. 105-107; and see Mr. Lupton’s note on this passage.
[213]Summa, pt. i. quest. 1, article x. Conclusio.
[214]Eras.Op.v. pp. 1291 to 1294. This reply of Colet to the long letter of Erasmus does not seem to have been published in the early editions of the latter. Thus I do not find it in the editions of Schurerius, Argent. 1516, and again 1517. The earliest print of it that I have seen is that appended to theEnchiridion, &c. Basle, 1518.
[215]Eras.Op.iii. Epist. lxv. Erasmus Fausto Andrelino, 1521 ed. p. 260.
[216]‘Torquatis istis aulicis.’—Eras.Op.v. p. 126, E.
[217]Colet’s letter to Erasmus has been lost, but the above may be gathered from the reply of Erasmus.
[218]Eras.Op.v. p. 1263.
[219]It is possible that Colet himself had, at one time, thought of expounding the book of Genesis, but the manuscript letters to Radulphus appended to the copy of the MS. on the ‘Romans,’ in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, contain no allusion to any such intention.
[220]Probably De la Pole. See Mr. Gairdner’sLetters and Papers, &c. of Richard III. and Henry VII.vol. i. p. 129, and vol. ii. preface, p. xl; and appendix, p. 377; where Mr. Gairdner mentions under date, 20th Aug. 14 Henry VII. (1499) a ‘Proclamation, against leaving the kingdom without license,’ and adds ‘N.B. clearly in consequence of the flight of Edmund De la Pole.’ If this prohibition extended through December, it fixes the date of this letter as written in the winter of 1499-1500.
[221]Eras.Op.v. p. 1263. This letter is generally found prefixed to the various editions of theDisputatiuncula de Tædio Christi. And this is often appended to editions of theEnchiridion.
[222]Epist. lxiv. Erasmus to Mountjoy, and also see Epist. xlii.
[223]Eras.Op.iii. p. 26, E. Epist. xxix.
[224]The fact that Erasmus saw PrinceEdmundfixes the date of his departure from England to 1500, instead of 1499. He left England 27th Jan., and it could not be in 1499, for Prince Edmund was not born till Feb. 21, 1499.
[225]See the mention of this incident in Erasmus’s letter to Botzhem, printed asCatalogus Omnium Erasmi Roterdami Lucubrationum, ipso Autore, 1523, Basil, fol. a. 6, and reprinted by Jortin, app. 418, 419.
[226]For the verses see Eras.Op.i. p. 1215.
[227]See Ep. xcii. and lxxxi.
[228]‘He [Tyndale] was born (about 1484) about the borders of Wales, and brought up from a child in the University of Oxford, where he, by long continuance, grew and increased as well in the knowledge of tongues and other liberal arts, as specially in the knowledge of the Scriptures, whereunto his mind was singularly addicted; insomuch that he, lying there in Magdalen Hall, read privily to certain students and fellows of Magdalen College, some parcel of divinity, instructing them in the knowledge and truth of the Scriptures.’—Quoted from Foxe in the biographical notice of William Tyndale, prefixed to his Doctrinal Treatises, p. xiv, Parker Society, 1848. Magdalen College is supposed to have been the college in which Colet resided at Oxford; as, according to Wood, some of the name of Colet are mentioned in the records, though not John Colet himself.
[229]‘How many years did he (Colet) following the example of St. Paul, teach the peoplewithout reward!’—Eras. Epist. cccclxxxi. Eras.Op.iii. p. 532, E.
[230]In Colet’s epitaph it is stated ‘administravit 16;’ as he died in 1519, this will bring the commencement of his administration to 1504, at latest. See also the note in theAppendixon Colet’s preferments.
[231]Fasti Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, p. 184.
[232]Eras.Op.iii. p. 456, C.
[233]Eras.Op.iii. p. 456, D.
[234]Ibid. E. and F.
[235]Walter Stone, LL.D., was admitted to the vicarage of Stepney, void by the resignation of D. Colet, Sept. 21, 1505.—Kennett’s MSS. vol. xliv. f. 234 b (Lansdowne, 978). He seems to have retained his rectory of Denyngton.
[236]Eras.Op.iii. p. 465, E.
[237]Ibid. E. and F.
[238]Grocyn and Linacre had also removed to London. More was already there.
[239]‘Impense delectabatur amicorum colloquiis quæ sæpe differebat in multam noctem. Sed omnisillius sermo, aut de literis erat, aut de Christo.’—Eras.Op.iii. p. 457. A.
[240]Eras.Op.iii. p. 459, F.
[241]Ibid. p. 457, A.
[242]Ibid. p. 459, F.
[243]Ibid. p. 456, E.
[244]‘Porro in suo templo non sumebat sibi carptim argumentum ex Evangelio aut ex epistolis Apostolicis sed unum aliquod argumentum proponebat, quod diversis concionibus ad finem usque prosequebatur: puta Evangelium Matthæi, Symbolum Fidei, Precationem Dominicam.’—Eras.Op.iii. p. 456, D, E.
[245]Grocyn was apparently rector of this parish up to 1517, when he vacated it.—Wood’sAth. Oxon.p. 32.
[246]Stapleton, p. 160.
[247]Roper, Singer’s ed. 1822, p. 5.
[248]Rot. Parl. vi. 521, B.
[249]12 Henry VII. c. 12, also Rot. Parl. vi. p. 514.
[250]12 Henry VII. c. 13.
[251]See 3 Edward I. c. 36, and 25 Edward III. s. 5, c. 11.
[252]Roper, p. 7.
[253]Possibly, ‘our trusty and right well-beloved knight and counseller,’Sir William Tyler, who had so often partaken of the royal bounty, being made ‘Controller of Works,’ ‘Messenger of Exchequer,’ ‘Receiver of certain Lordships,’ &c. &c. (see Rot. Parl. vi. 341, 378 b, 404 b, 497 b), and who was remembered for good in chap. 35 of this very Parliament.
[254]A fifteenth of the three estates was estimated by the Venetian ambassador, in 1500, to produce 37,930l.—SeeItalian Relation of England, Camden Soc. p. 52. The amount of a ‘fifteenth’ was fixed in 1334, by 8 Ed. III. Blackstone (vol. i. p. 310) states that the amount was fixed at about 29,000l.This was probably the amount, exclusive of the quota derived from the estates of the clergy, which latter was estimated at 12,000l.by the Venetian ambassador in 1500. This being added would raise Blackstone’s estimate to 41,000l.in all. From this, however, about 4,000l.was always excused to ‘poor towns, cities, &c.,’ so that the nett actual amount would be about 37,000l.according to Blackstone, which agrees well with the Venetian estimate.
[255]19 Henry VII. c. 32, Jan. 25, 1503, Rot. Parl. vi. 532-542. In lieu of two reasonable aids, one for making a knight of Prince Arthur deceased, and the other of marriage of Princess Margaret to the King of Scots, and also great expenses in wars, the Commons grant 40,000l.less 10,000l.remitted, ‘of his more ample grace and pity, for that the poraill of his comens should not in anywise be contributory or chargeable to any part of the said sum of 40,000l.’ The 30,000l.to be paid by the shires in the sums stated, and to the payment every person to be liable having lands, &c. to the yearly value of 20s.of free charter lands, or of 26s.8d.of lands held at will, or any person having goods or cattalls to the value of x marks or above, not accounting their cattle for their plough nor stuff or implement of household.
[256]John More was one of the commissioners for Herts.
[257]This story is told in substantially the same form in the manuscript life of More by Harpsfield, written in the time of Queen Mary, and dedicated to William Roper.—Harleian MSS.No. 6253, fol. 4.
[258]‘Meditabatur adolescens sacerdotium cum suo Lilio.’—Stapleton,Tres Thomæ, ed. 1588, p. 18, ed. 1612, p. 161. See also Roper, pp. 5, 6.
[259]Stapleton and Roper,ubi supra.
[260]Richard Whitford himself, retiring soon after from public life, entered the monastery called ‘Sion,’ near Brentford in Middlesex, and wrote books, in which he styled himself ‘thewretch of Sion.’ See Roper, p. 8, and Knight’sLife of Erasmus, p. 64.
[261]Stapleton, ed. 1588, p. 20, ed. 1612, p. 163.
[262]That this letter was written in 1504 is evident. First, it cannot well have been written before Colet had commenced his labours at St. Paul’s; secondly, it cannot have been written in Oct. 1505, because it speaks of Colet as still holding the living of Stepney, which he resigned Sept. 21, 1505. Also the whole drift of it leads to the conclusion that More was unmarried when he wrote it. And he married in 1505, according to the register on the Burford picture, which, the correct date of More’s birth having been found and from it the true date of Holbein’s sketch, seems to be amply confirmed by the age there given of More’s eldest daughter, Margaret Roper. She is stated to be twenty-two on the sketch made in 1528, and so was probably born in 1506.
[263]Mori Epigrammata: Basle, 1518, p. 6. See the prefatory letter by Beatus Rhenanus.
[264]Ibid.
[265]See Epigram entitled ‘Gratulatur quod eam repererit Incolumem quam olim ferme Puer amaverat.’—Epigrammata: Basle, 1520, p. 108, andPhilomorus, pp. 37-39.
[266]‘From whence [the Tower], the day before he suffered, he sent his shirt of hair, not willing to have it seen, to my wife, his dearly beloved daughter.’—Roper, p. 91.
[267]Walter’sLife of More, London, 1840, pp. 7, 8. Cresacre More’sLife of More, pp. 24-26.
[268]‘Maluit igitur maritus esse castus quam sacerdos impurus.’—Erasmus to Hutten: Eras.Op.iii. p. 75, c. Stapelton, 1612 ed. pp. 161, 162. Cresacre More’sLife of More, pp. 25, 26. Even Walter allows that his ‘finding that at that time religious orders in England had somewhat degenerated from their ancient strictness and fervour of spirit,’ was the cause of his ‘altering his mind.’—Walter’sLife of More, p. 8.
[269]Sir Thomas More’sWorks, pp. 1-34; and see the note on Pico’s religious history, and his connection with Savonarola, above, p. 19.
[270]Compare this with the line of argument pursued by Marsilio Ficino in hisDe Religione Christianâ. Vide supra, p. 11.
[271]This remarkable letter was written, ‘Ferrariæ, 15 May, 1492’ (PiciOp.p. 233), scarcely six weeks after Pico’s visit to the deathbed of Lorenzo de Medici.
[272]This letter is dated in More’s translation M.cccclxxxxii. fromParis, in mistake for M.cccclxxxvi. fromPerugia. See PiciOp.p. 257.
[273]See More’sWorks, p. 19,in loco, v. 6.
[274]Stapleton, ed. 1612, p. 162. Cresacre More’sLife of Sir T. More, p. 27.
[275]Sir T. More’sWorks, p. 9.
[276]There is a copy of this translation of More’s in the British Museum Library. ‘276, c. 27,Pico, &c., 4o,London, 1510.’ This is probably the original edition. More may have waited till Henry VIII.’s accession before daring to publish it.
[277]This date of More’s marriage is the date given in the register contained on the Burford family picture; and as it is in no way dependent on the other dates, probably it rested upon some family tradition or record. It is confirmed by the age of Margaret Roper on the Basle sketch—22 in 1528. Vide supra, p. 149, n. 1.
[278]Cresacre More’sLife of Sir T. More, p. 39.
[279]Erasmus Botzhemo:Catalogus Omnium Erasmi Lucubrationum: Basle, 1523.
[280]Epist. lxxxi. He arrived at Paris ‘postridie Calend, Februarias’ (p. 73, E.), i.e. Feb. 2, 1500.
[281]Epist. iii. This letter is dated in the Leyden edition, 1490, and in the edition of 1521, p. 264, M.LXXXIX. (sic), but it evidently was written shortly after the illness of Erasmus at Paris in the spring of 1500. See also the mention of ‘Arnold’ in Epist. xxix. (Paris, 12 April) and a repetition in it of much that is said in this letter respecting Erasmus’s illness and intention of visiting Italy. See also Epist. dii. App.
[282]‘In Britannico littore pecuniola mea, studiorum meorum alimonia, naufragium fecit.’—Epist. xcii. p. 84 C.
[283]‘Tenuiter.’—Eras.Op.iii. p. 73, F. Epist. lxxxi. and see also lxxx.
[284]Erasmus to Battus: Epist. xxix. Paris, 12 April, probably in 1500. See also Epist. lxxx. ‘Græscæ literæ animum meum propemodum enecant: verum neque precium datur, neque suppetit, quo libros, aut præceptoris operam redimam. Et dum hæc omnia tumultuor, vix est unde vitam sustineam.’
[285]Epist. xciv.
[286]Epistolæ xxxvi. lxxvi. lxxi. (20 Nov.), lxxii. (9 Dec.), xciv. xcix. (11 Dec.), lxxiii. (11 Dec.), and lxxiv. seem to belong to this period of flight to Orleans. Epist. xv. and lxxvii. (14 Dec.), lxxviii. (18 Dec.), and xci. (14 Jan.), seem to mark the date of his return to Paris.
[287]Epist. xcii. Paris, 27 Jan. 1500 (should be 1501).
[288]Epist. xxxix.
[289]Epist. ccccvii. App.
[290]‘Nec est in ullo mortalium aliquid solidæ spei, nisi in uno Batto.’—Eras.Op.iii. p. 48, C. Epist. liii.
[291]Epist. xxx. 2 July [1501] seems to be the first letter written from St. Omer, where Erasmus was then staying with the Abbot. See also Epist. xxxix., where he speaks of having been terrified at Paris with the numbers of funerals. On 12 July and 18 July he writes Epist. liv.-lviii. (‘Tornaco’ evidently meaning the castle of Tornahens). Epist. lix. also was written about the same time. Epist. xcviii. 30 July, if written by Erasmus, shows he was still at St. Omer. All these letters seem to belong to the year 1501.
[292]Eras.Op.iii. p. 52, E. Epist. lix.
[293]Epist. lxii.
[294]Erasmus to Botzhem:Catalogus Omnium Erasmi Lucubrationum: Basle, 1523, leaf b, 4.
[295]Erasmus to Justus Jonas: Epist. ccccxxxv.
[296]‘Ea quum placerent etiam eruditis, præsertim Ioanni Viterio Franciscano cujus erat in illis regionibus autoritas summa.’—Letter to Botzhem, leaf b, 4. There can be no doubt that the John Viterius mentioned in this letter is the same person as the Vitrarius of the letter to Justus Jonas. See also Mr. Lupton’s introduction to his translation of Colet on Dionysius.
[297]Eras. Epist. clxxiii.
[298]Ibid. xciv.
[299]Lucubratiunculæ aliquot Erasmi: Antwerp, 1503.Biogr. de Thierry Martins: par A. F. Van Iseghem: Alost, 1852, 8vo. See also Letter to Botzhem (Catalogus, &c.), fol. b, 4.
[300]It is very difficult to fix the true dates of these letters, and to ascertain to what year they belong. Epist. ccccxlvi. App., from Louvain, mentions the death of Battus, and that the Marchioness of Vere had married below her. He speaks of himself as buried in Greek studies.
[301]Eras.Op.iii. p. 94. Epist. cii. Dated 1504, but should be probably 1505.
[302]See Erasmus Edmundo: Epist xcvi. ‘ex arce Courtemburnensi.’
[303]The Panegyric upon Philip, King of Spain, on his return to the Netherlands. See Epist. ccccxlv. App. Erasmus Gulielmo Goudano.
[304]More literally ‘ThePocket Daggerof the Christian Soldier.’ But Erasmus himself regarded it as a ‘Handybook.’ SeeEnchiridion, ch. viii. English ed. 1522. ‘We must haste to that which remaineth lest it should not be an “Enchiridion,” that is to say “a lytell treatyse hansome to be caryed in a man’s hande,” but rather a great volume.’
[305]See especially chap. ii.Allegoria de Manna, Eras.Op.v. fol. 6-10, &c.
[306]It is evident that Erasmus had not yet appreciated as fully as he did afterwards thehistoricalmethod which Colet had applied to St. Paul’s Epistles to get at their real meaning and ‘spirit.’
[307]Alfonso Fernandez, Archdeacon of Alcor, to Erasmus: Palencia, Nov. 27, 1527.Life and Writings of Juan de Valdès, by Benjamin Wiffen: London, Quaritch, 1865, p. 41.
[308]The above is an abridged translation from theEnchiridion, ed. Argent. June, 1516, pp. 7, 8, which, being published before the Lutheran controversy commenced, is probably a reprint of the earlier editions. The editions of 1515 are the earliest that I have seen.
[309]This letter was republished in the edition of some letters of Erasmus printed at Basle, 1521, p. 221, and see also Eras.Op.iii. Epist. ciii.
[310]Letter to Fox, Bishop of Winchester. London, Cal. Jan. 1506. Eras.Op.i. p. 214.
[311]Erasmus’s letter to Botzhem,Catalogus, &c.Basle, 1523, leaf b, 3.
[312]Eras.Op.iii. p. 475, D.
[313]The epigrams have no dates, and it is impossible, therefore, to say positively which of them were written during this period. The following translation of one of them from Cayley’sLife of Sir Thomas More, vol. i. p. 270 (with this reservation as to its date), may be taken as a sample:—
A squall arose; the vessel’s tossed;The sailors fear their lives are lost.‘Our sins, our sins,’ dismayed they cry,‘Have wrought this fatal destiny!’A monk it chanced was of the crew,And round him to confess they drew.Yet still the restless ship is tossed,And still they fear their lives are lost.One sailor, keener than the rest,Cries, ‘With our sins she’s still oppress’d;Heave out that monk, who bears them all,And then full well she’ll ride the squall.’So said, so done; with one accordThey threw the caitiff overboard.And now the bark before the galeScuds with light hull and easy sail.Learn hence the weight of sin to know,With which a ship could scarcely go.
[For the Latin, seeEpigrammata Thomæ Mori, Basilæ, 1520, pp. 72, 73.]
[314]E. g.:—