Erasmus and the Pursuit of English Royal

Patronage in 1517 and 1518

by CECIL H. CLOUGH

Library of Charlecote Park, Warwickshire, contains the illu-

THE minated copy of Erasmus' Institutio Principis Christiani (Basel:
Johann Froben, May I s 1 6) ,which the author presented to King Henry
VIII in the autumn of 15 17. This volume is tangible testimony of an
essentially unknown episode relating to Erasmus' quest for English
royal patronage in I s 1 7 and 15 18. Apart from revealing something of
the problems of such patronage, the episode throws light on Erasmus'
complex character and on his contemporary reputation.
The bibliographical details of the Charlecote Park volume, with
convincing evidence that it is the actual presentation copy, will be
provided elsewhere.' My concern in this study is the circumstance of
the presentation and the motives behind it. First, when did the presen-
tation take place? An unctuous letter from Erasmus in Antwerp to
Henry VIII, dated 9 September 1 S y, was first published by Froben in
an Erasmian letter-collection published in August 15 I 8.2The printed
letter, the only existing testimony of it, most likely derived from a
draft supplied by the writer himself to the publisher, and one can

1 C. H. Clough, "A Presentation Volume for

Henry VIII... ," The Journal of'the
Warburgand CourtauldInstitutes,44 ( 1 98 1forthcoming.
):
2 Erasmus, Auctariumselectarum
aliquotepistolarum(Basel:J. Froben, August i 5 t 8),
191-195. See also Erasmus, Opus epistolarum,ed. P. S. Allen et al., 12 vols. (Oxford,
igo6-58), no. 657; this work is cited hereafter as Allen. P. S. Allen assumed that the
letter was a new dedicatory preface to Plutarch's Moralia, and as such intended for
publication with the third issue of the Moralia, which was eventually printed with the
Institutio (Basel:J. Froben, July 1 s 1 8).This supposition is repeated in Erasmus, The
Correspondence (part of The CollectedWorks,Toronto, 1974-), 2, p. 2S0, introduction to
no. 272 by W. K. Ferguson; this work is cited hereafter as CWE. The claim appears to
have been modified with the translation of the letter itself in CWE, 5, p. io8, where the
introduction to no. 657 by P. G. Bietenholz treats the letter as authentic, though
something of the problem lingers in his conflicting statement: "the bulk of this letter
was originally composed as a new dedicatory preface to the third edition of the
translations from Plutarch." See also the introduction to no. 834 at p. 411, where the
letter is said to be a dedication to the king of the translations of Plutarch, to which the
king responded with a gift of £20. In fact Allen's assumption has no substance to
support it and it is here maintained that the letter was an authentic one and in no way
related to a dedicatory epistle.

[ 126 ]
 127

conclude that it faithfully represents an authentic letter.3 In the letter

Erasmus stated that he was sending the king a copy of his recently
published writings. His further remarks concerning the volume indi-
cate that it included a translation into Latin of Plutarch's discourse on
distinguishing a friend from a flatterer, the panegyric of Archduke
Philip of Burgundy, and the Institution ofa Christian Prince, dedicated to
King Charles. Erasmus reminded the king, too, that his translation of
the work of Plutarch had first appeared in print some years previously,
dedicated to the king himself. The content of the volume as described
by Erasmus in his letter to the king corresponds with the material
found in the Basel edition of the Institutio that bears the colophon date:
May i $16.Moreover Erasmus wrote that the translation of Plutarch's
discourse had been printed for the third time in the volume that he was
5
sending the king, which is true of this edition of the Institutio.5
In another letter dated 9 September 1517 but addressed to Cardinal
Thomas Wolsey-likewise first printed in the letter-collection pub-
lished in August i s 1 8, and known only in this form-Erasmus re-
ferred to the presentation volume that he was sending to the king. 6
There he mentioned it as being a "libellum utcunque adornatum, " and
such adornment can be taken to mean the illuminations that are found
in the Charlecote Park volume.' In a letter of 7 October 1517 from

3 P. S. Allen, Erasmus:Lecturesand
WayfaringSketches(Oxford, 1934), Ig-20.
4 For a detailed
bibliographical description, see A. Vincent, "Erasmus: Institutio
Principis Christiani," in Bibliographiegénérale des Pays-Bays, n.s., ed. Marie- Thérèse
Lenger, II (Brussels, 1964), 844-847.
5 Plutarch,
Opuscula, tr. Erasmus (Basel:J. Froben, August is 14); ibid. (Louvain:
Thierry Martin, i May 1 15). By the time that Erasmus actually wrote to the king on 9
September i s 17there had been two further editions of his translation of Plutarch
subsequent to that printed with the Institutio of May i s 16. These were: Plutarch,
Opuscula, tr. Erasmus (Louvain: Thierry Martin, August 1516), indicated as an
"Edition assez peu soignee" by Vincent, cited in note 4, pp. 847-848; ibid. (Paris:Josse
Badius Ascensius, i March 1 17), for which see Vincent, pp. 848-849. By making no
mention of these two latter printings when writing to the king, Erasmus minimized the
delay in sending the presentation copy of his Institutioto the king.
6 Erasmus, Auctarium...
epistolarum,189-191, and Allen, no. 658.
7 F. M. Nichols' translation in his Erasmus,
The Epistles ... (London, i9oi-19i8),
3, p. 49, provides: "a small volume in some sort of binding, " andin his introduction (p.
44) Nichols speculated that "the book sent to the king was a handsomely bound
volume, " adding"I am afraid this fine specimen ofbinding has not been preserved." Sir
R. A. B. Mynors and D. F. S. Thomson, the translators of the letter in CWE, 5, p.
113, miss the point with "a book, finished as best I can."Adornatus is the word Erasmus
128
Thomas More in Calais to Erasmus, then in Louvain, after mention of
Pieter Meghen, who had brought More the gift of a diptych painted by
Quentin Metsys, there occurred the sentence: "I do hope that the
present of De instituendo principe you have sent the prince [Henry VIII]
will turn out happily and advantageously for you. "8 Thomas More's
hopes of the consequence of the gift are repeated in his letter to
Erasmus of 25 October, and the wording conveys the implication, I
believe, that More had actually seen the volume as it was being carried
to England by Meghen. 9
A reference to Ammonius' death, which was on 17 August i s 1 7, in
the letter of 9 September to the king makes it evident that 15 7 is the
year in question, 10 and this is supported by More's two letters men-
tioned above. On the evidence of Froben's letter to Erasmus of 17 June
1 s I 6 the printing of the volume that contained the Institutio had been
completed then, which at most was only a few weeks after the colo-
phon date of May I s 1 6 . lHence the striking point to emerge is that the
presentation took place over a year after the volume had first appeared
in print: Erasmus' reference to it in his letter to the king as having been
recently printed is euphemistic. Erasmus in the Low Countries was
likely to have received from Basel his author's copies of the work in the
form of unbound sheets within a few weeks of publication. That work
on the illuminations (comprising an inserted vellum page with the
royal arms, and an illuminated border on the facing printed page), and
on any now-lost elaborate binding for the presentation volume, was

would most likely have used for the illuminations, which certainly existed, and this
adjective could have referred to the binding as well.
8 Allen, no. 683 (at
p. io5). For the diptych see Lorne Campbell, Margaret M.
Phillips, H. S. Herbruggen and J. B. Trapp, "Quentin Matsys, Desiderius Erasmus,
Pieter Gillis and Thomas More," in The BurlingtonMagazine, 120(1978), 716-724, and
also Holbein at the Court of Henry VIII-a catalogue of an exhibition, The Queen's
Gallery, Buckingham Palace, 1978-1979-(London, 1978), 3 t-32, item 5.
9 Allen, no. 688. Nichols identified the work as the
presentation copy of Erasmus'
Institutiofor the king. SeeNichols, 3, p. 102, note. Cf. CWE, 5, p. 138:"Of your Pieter,
since he went to England, I have no news. That was a present worthy of a king, and I
only hope that in that quarter it will secure you from the king something worth
"
having.
lo Letters and Papers... of the Reign of Henry VIII, 2,
part 2, ed. J. S. Brewer
(London, 1864), no. 3602, a letter oaf 18August 1317from Peter (Vannes] to [Wolsey];
Allen, nos. 623and 624, both dated 19 August 1517, respectively from Thomas More
and from John Sixtin to Erasmus.
'1 Allen, no. 419.
 129

carried out sporadically over a year-from June I s 1 6 until September

1 s 17-is so improbable that some other explanation seems likely for
the tardy dispatch of the volume to Henry VIII.
Erasmus had been commended to the king for patronage by Pope
Leo X with a brief dated io July 1515,12 and he had friends in England
who were eager to promote his advancement. 13 The timing of the
presentation volume in September i 51 ? can be related to these circum-
stances. About February i s 1 6 More had advocated Erasmus' nomina-
tion for a vacant canonry at Tournai, then in English control, though
nothing came of this, not least because Wolsey supported another
candidate. Wolsey's excuse was that Erasmus merited a richer bene-
fice, and he undertook to find him once. 14A complication was that
Erasmus was a canon, who in i S i 4 had disobeyed his prior and refused
to return to his monastery at Steyn;'5 moreover, since he was illegiti-
mate by birth he was disqualified from holding an ecclesiastical bene-
fice.16 In July i S i 6 Erasmus was offered a prebend at Kortrijk, likewise
in English control then, 17 and he had hopes of still richer benefices. In
order to enjoy such Erasmus appreciated that it was necessary to obtain
full papal dispensations, which would release him as an Augustinian
canon from his monastery, and set aside his illegitimacy. Accordingly
in July i s 16 Erasmus visited Ammonius in Westminster and with the
latter's assistance devised documents that sought the necessary dispen-
sations from the apostolic chancery. 18 Silvestro Gigli, Bishop of Wor-
cester, who was the envoy of England to the Lateran Council, inter-
ested himself in the matter and pleaded Erasmus' case at Rome. 19 Con-
stitutionally Erasmus' election to the prebend at Kortrijk made English

12Allen, no. 339.

13
Notably Thomas More, Cuthbert Tunstall and Archbishop William Warham.
14Allen, no. 388, where the letter is dated circa 17 February i 5 r6;Nichols, 2, 262,
p.
less convincingly suggests May 1516. Wolsey was engaged in the conflict to take
possession as Bishop of Tournai; see C. G. Cruickshank, The English Occupationof
Tournai, is13-19 (Oxford, 1971), 143-187. Presumably Wolsey was eager that a
canon who would actively support him should be elected.
15Allen, no. 296, dated 8 from Erasmus to Servatius Rogerus.
July 1 s 1 4,
16For his
illegitimacy, see the material cited in note 18below.
17Allen, nos. 436 and 443.
18See Allen's introduction to no. 447, where the relevant material is indicated; H. C.
Porter's introduction to Erasmusand Cambridge(letters translated by D. F. S. Thom-
son) (Toronto, 1963), 62-65; J. K. Sowards, "The two lost years of Erasmus: Sum-
mary, review and speculation," Studiesin the Renaissance,9 (1962), 18o.
19Ibid.; see also Allen, nos. 498 and 649.
130
intervention on behalf of Erasmus entirely in order. Eventually in late
January 1517 two papal briefs relating to Erasmus' requests were dis-
patched, one to Erasmus himself, the other to Ammonius. That to
Erasmus reached him about mid-March and gave him the permission
that he sought to live in the world and to hold benefices.2°
Shortly after receipt of his brief Erasmus went to England, where he
stayed some three weeks in London at the home of Thomas More. On
9 April Erasmus received his absolution in Ammonius' house in a
formal ceremony conducted by Ammonius himself on the authority of
the papal brief which he had been sent.21 During this visit, on the
evidence of several letters of Erasmus, 22 but most specifically in the one
he addressed to his friend Willibald Pirckheimer,23 Erasmus was most
cordially received by both King Henry and by Wolsey. The latter was
"a person not generally good-natured or complaisant," as Erasmus
acidly commented. Seemingly on the occasion of this visit Erasmus
was led to believe that if he settled in England he would receive patron-
age from the king in the form of a house, presumably in London, and a
pension of about W oo a year. 25 The evidence suggests that at this stage

20See the material indicated in note 188 above;see also Allen, nos. S I7-S I9.
21For the visit to
England see Allen's introduction to nos. 566 and 577; for thc
absolution, see Ammonius' affirmation docketed on thc original papal bricf of 26
January addressed to him in Allen, no. 517 (at p. 436) and Preserved Smith, Erasmus
(New York, 1923), 74-78.
22Allen, no. 419, dated 7
September 1517, from Erasmus to [Silvestro Gigli, Bishop
of Worcester]; no. 756, dated 7 January t I 8, from Erasmus to Paschasius Bersclius;
no. 761, dated 14 January iSi8, from Erasmus to Antoon van Bergen; others are
indicated in Allen's note to no. 694, line 10 (at p. 116).
23Allen, no. 694, dated 2 November 1517.
24Allen, no. 761, dated 14
January 1318, from Erasmus to Antoon van Bergcn ;cf.
note 64.
See Allen, no. 694. The letter refers to thc offer as being of "sexcentos florenos"
annually (at p. 116). The Florin of the Rhine was worth 41 English pence in i Soo,and
hence the equivalent then was just over £I02. See J. H. Munro, "Money and coinage in
the age of Erasmus," in CWE, I, pp. 3i6-317, 339. See also Allen's note (at p. 116),
which gives the equivalent as £ 100on the basis of what Erasmus said in a subsequent
letter: "et centum libras me sperare voluit," no. 786 (at p. 24I). It is worth remarking
that the royal standard bearer had reccived in January I s 1 an
4 annuity of £ Tooand other
gifts were added. See E. W. Ives, "Patronage at the court of Henry VIII... ," The
Bulletin of the John RylandsLibrary, 52 (I970), 3 ss-3 s9; clearly the sum promised to
Erasmus in patronage was not excessive and it was one that Erasmus could reasonably
expect to receive.
 131
in his career Erasmus hankered after the patronage of a monarch, with
security and a distinguished position. At the same time he was aware of
the obligations imposed by such patronage, and he wanted to under-
take his own research and go his own way, free of a patron's con-
straints. Even this latter alternative required patronage, however, if of
a more modest kind. By early i 5 ig one can conclude that it was the
latter form of patronage that Erasmus had decided to seek. It would,
though, be a mistake to overlook the temptation offered by the other.
Between 1516 and 1319 Erasmus' correspondence suggests that while
he was indeed unwilling to commit himself wholeheartedly to the
quest for court patronage he did make positive moves to obtain it, and
in the end it was extraneous circumstances that determined for him the
humbler form of patronage.
In these years bids were made to Erasmus from potential royal
patrons other than Henry VIII. Francis I, with typical generosity,
promised Erasmus if he would settle in France mountains of gold'-6-a
like vision, which though it proved an illusion, had drawn Erasmus to
England in 1303,? and had kept him there from 1509 until 15 14.28 King
Charles of Spain appointed Erasmus one of his councillors,29 and
received in response Erasmus' dedication of the Institutio,30 but
apparently that monarch made no further bid. There were offers, too,
from lesser mortals. In a letter of 13November 1317 Lodovico
Canossa, who as Bishop of Bayeux held one of the richest sees in

26Allen, no. 809, dated 5

April 1 s I 8,from Erasmus to Marcus Laurinus: "Invitatus
sum aureis montibus promissis a Rege Gallorum" (at p. 267). For the generosity of
Francis I see C. H. Clough, "Francis I and the Courtiers of Castiglione's Courtier," "
EuropeanStudiesReview, 8 (1978), 23-70; reprinted in Clough, The Duchy of Urbinoin
the Renaissance(London, ig8i), item XVI, with additions and corrections.
Allen, I, p. 44.
28That Erasmus was in
England between 1509 and1519, as well as between1510 and
i 5 i 4,is argued by J. K. Sowards, "The two lost years... ," pp. I6I-186. H. W.
Garrod, "Erasmus and his English Patrons," The Library, fifth series, 4 (1949), 4, 6,
assumed that Erasmus' third visit to England was from 1 so9until I s 1 4,as did Portcr in
his introduction to Erasmusand Cambridge,63-64 and 99-100. For details of Erasmus'
income at Cambridge between I S Iand 1514, see Porter, pp. 68-72.
29For this
appointment, which may be dated January I s 1 6,see Allen's note to no.
370, line 18, and nos. 669 and 688. Erasmus' pursuit of patronage at the court of Charles
in the Low Countries is amply considered by James D. Tracy, The PoliticsqfErasmus
(Toronto, 1978), S1-69.
3oSee Allen's introduction to no. 393
(at p. 205).
132

France,31 wrote to Erasmus and offered him some £33 a year if he

would enter his service as a secretary32-this was not at all the kind of
patronage which Erasmus had in mind, and he coldly declined.33
Canossa's offer, moreover, suggests that Erasmus' quest for patronage
was no secret. Interestingly enough, too, Canossa and Erasmus had
first met at the house of Ammonius in Westminster in June 1514.?
Erasmus' correspondence makes it plain that he was genuinely much
attracted to England and to the court of Henry VIII. 35 He had resided
for years in England and had his close friend More at court. 36 Further-
more Erasmus had a considerable respect for the king, and despite the
frustrations of the years 1509 to 1514, when the promises of English
patrons had been so inadequately honoured, Erasmus in 1517 still
appeared to believe that Henry VIII might prove a beneficent patron to
such a distinguished scholar as himself. 37 He was attracted by the offer
that was made to him by the king and Wolsey in April i s 1 7, though at
once he neither accepted it nor rejected it. What he seems to have
sought to do was to ensure that the offer became a reality, precisely as
promised, so that he could avoid the pitfalls of the i So9 to i S 14 phase
of his career. Dealing with princely patrons had made him cautious,
and apparently Erasmus' first move was to try to persuade Wolsey to
put the terms in writing. 38 Almost a year later, in February 151S, when
Wolsey appears to have provided a written statement, the £ioo had

31For Canossa, see

Clough, "L. Canossa," Dizionario biograficodegli italiani, 18
(1975), 186-192.
32Allen, no. 489.
33Allen, no. 538, dated 24 February 1517.
34Allen, no. 259, no. 242, and the introduction to no. 294.
35
Henry VIII's court, for instance, was eulogized by Erasmus in Allen, nos. 821 (at
p. 289), 634 (at pp. 304-305), 855 (at pp. 356-357).
36More became a royal councillor in the summer of 1517, though it is not certain
when Erasmus learnt of this; cf. Allen, no. 816, datcd 17April [1518), from Erasmus to
Wilhelm Nesen. Erasmus' first clear reference to More in this office is in Allen, no. 855
s
(at p. 3 S6),dated 26 July 1518, from Erasmus to Paul Bombasius. See G. R. Elton,
"Thomas More, Councillor," in Sir ThomasMore: Actionand Contemplation,ed. R. S.
Sylvester (New Haven, 1972), 89.
Cf. Allen, no. 999, dated 23 July 1519, from Erasmus to Ulrich von Hutten. For
Erasmus' patronage between 1509 and 1514, see the studies cited in note 28.
38Allen, no. 577; cf. Bietenholz's note in CWE, 5, p. 165, line I I.
 133

shrunk to £20. 39 A few weeks later this had been increased to £40, 4° and
this in turn by mid-April had been augmented to the sum of £66 13ss
4d. 41 By the late October following, however, this offer seemed likely
to be deceptive, but rather than lose all Erasmus wrote to Cuthbert
Tunstall in October saying that he would settle for it ;42 at the same time
he wrote to Richard Pace, the king's secretary, stating formally his
acceptance of the terms offered.
It is against the background of these negotiations concerning patron-
age on Erasmus' part that his presentation of the Institutio to Henry VIII
should be seen. In his letter of 9 September 1 s 1 7to Wolsey Erasmus
stated that he was sending him a book as a gift also.44 No details of its
title or of its contents are provided. He merely called it a libellum, the
word he had used of his Institutio, which he had termed synonymously
a volumen ,45 While the actual copy of the book that was sent to Wolsey
has not been identified,46 it is likely that the work in question was

39Allen, no. 775, dated 22 February [1518], from Erasmus to John Sixtin, which
refers to an offer as being of "XX libras" (at p. 2 1 8) .
4° Allen, no. 786, dated [ca. 5 March I s I 8],from. Erasmus to John Colet, which
refers to an offer as being "librae 40" (at p. 24I).
41Allen, no. 8 r 6,dated 17
April [ i s 1 8]from
, Erasmus to Wilhelm Nesen; this refers
to the offer of a beneficevalued at i oomarks. For the mark, English money-of-account,
worth two-thirds of the pound sterling, see Munro, "Money and coinage... ," cited
in note 25, p. 325; cf. Allen's note to no. 694 (at p. r i6).
42Allen, no. 886, dated 22 October 1518, which stated: "Si accederent centum
marce, quas Rex iam pridem offert, non ambirem amplius" (at p. 434).
43Allen, no. 887, dated 22 October I s I 8,which stated: "Si accederet quod offert
Rex, nihil ambirem praeterea" (at p. 425).
44Allen, no. 658.
as Ibid. Nichols, cited in note 7, volume 3, p. 49, translated libellum as "small
volume," where it referred to the gift for Henry VIII; where it referred to the gift for
Wolsey he provided "little book" (at p. 50). Indeed Nichols considered the Institutio
(Basel: J. Froben, 1516) to be a small book (volume 2, p. 249). Given the tone of
Erasmus' letter to Wolsey, with its blatant flattery and exaggerated modesty Erasmus'
reference to his gift book as being small should not be taken literally. In any event there
is no reason to believe that the gift volume for Wolsey was actually smaller in format or
thickness than the Institutio(itself 170X288 mm., and 25 mm. thick), and it could have
been larger and thicker.
46Nichols, cited in note 7, volume 2, p. 5o, note, speculated that the work was
"probably a bound copy of the Latin translation of Plutarch's treatise, De utilitate
capiendaex inimicis,which had been dedicated to Wolsey in January This is
134

Erasmus' edition of the Greek and Latin New Testament (Novum

instrumentum omne), which had been published by Froben in March
I S I (S(Allen, 2, 183) and dedicated to Pope Leo X. 47 Reflecting Eras-
mus' train of thought, and perhaps testimony that the gift volume was
indeed the New Testament, is the fact that in the letter to Wolsey, after
mentioning the gift to him, Erasmus immediately referred to his cur-
rent work on revisions of the New Testament48 (eventually published as
a second edition by Froben in Basel, March i S 19). It was to maintain
himself while he carried out his revisions and associated writings that
Erasmus was anxiously soliciting suitable patronage at this time. Cer-
tainly Wolsey did at some time prior to early i s 1 8receive as a gift from
Erasmus the first edition of his New Testament. The evidence is Thom-
as More's dedicatory epigram, by proxy, which begged Wolsey's
acceptance of the work and his benevolence towards Erasmus; this
epigram was first printed in March i s 1 8. 49The gift volume, by anal-

followed by Bietenholz in his note to line 33in CWE, S, p. I I4; there in consequence,
too, the translators miss the point of the Latin in providing: "With it [the gift volume of
the Institutiodestined for Henry VIII] is the treatise addressed to you, as small as you
yourself are great. " Itis most unlikely that Erasmus had not sent Wolsey a copy of the
work of Plutarch that he translated when he dedicated it to him in 1314;it was, indeed,
published in Plutarch's Opuscula, translated by Erasmus (Basel: J. Froben, August
i s 1 4)and
, subsequently as indicated in note 5 above. A manuscript for presentation to
Wolsey, though not actually donated, exists (see CWE, 2, p. 27S) and presumably was
displaced by a copy that was sent and which is now lost. Henry VIII was certainly
presented with a presentation copy of the Plutarch treatise that in Erasmus' translation
was dedicated to him; see CWE, 2, p. 250. There is no reason to suppose Erasmus sent
Wolsey a second copy of the Plutarch item dedicated to him after a lapse of three years,
and the Latin of his letter does not support the translation in CWE, 5, p. 114, quoted
above. For Erasmus' practice in donating presentation copies to the dedicatee, see
Garrod, "Erasmus and his English Patrons," cited in note 28, pp. 8-9.
Erasmus' prefatory letter, dated i February 1516, is addressed to Leo X and
published in Novum Instrumentum,trans. Erasmus (Basel:J. Froben, 2 parts, February
and March i s 1 6)ff.[a]aa2-aaa3;
, reprinted in Allen, no. 3 84.For the request to Leo X to
dedicate to him the translation of the writings of St. Jerome and other unspecified
writings, see Allen, no. 3 3 sdated
, 2 1 may i s i s;cf. Allen, no. 3 3 8,dated io July i s i s,
from Leo X to Erasmus, which mentions only the translation of St. Jerome's works.
Allen, no. 446, dated 9 August i s 1 6,from Erasmus to Leo X, makes reference to the
dedication of the NovumInstrumentum(at p. 290) ;cf. also Allen, no. 76 (at p. 198). The
size of the Novum Instrumentumis indicated in note So below.
48Allen, no. 658 (at 81).
p.
49Thomas More,
Utopia [with his epigrammata](Basel:J. Froben, March 1S i 8),pp.
269-270. The epigram is headed "AD REVERENDISSIMUM ETC. THOMAM
 135

ogy with that sent at the same time to the king, would have had some
illumination and probably its decoration included Wolsey's arms.
Might the so-called earliest bookplate, which bears Wolsey's arms, be
the remnant of such, cut away from its original setting?5° In any event
whatever book Erasmus sent Wolsey it was not hot from the press, but
like the presentation volume to Henry VIII something of an after-
thought.
Is there any evidence that suggests why the volumes were sent as
gifts to the king and to Wolsey in the autumn of The timing can
circumstantially be linked with Ammonius' death in August 1 S 1 ?,
which Erasmus mentioned in his letter to Henry VIII.51 Erasmus had
visited Ammonius' house,52 knew the royal favours that he enjoyed,
including the remunerative one of being a papal deputy-collector,53
and he was sufficiently familiar with the ways of the world to know
that princes liked value for money. As successor to Ammonius,
Erasmus would be Latin secretary to Henry VIII, and the royal prom-

CARDINALEM ET ARCHIEPISCOPUM EBORACENSEM, IN LIBRUM NOVI

TESTAMENTI, EI AB ERASMO DATUM," and its tcxt refers to "... Ab liber iste
tuo longe tibi venit Erasmo." See The Latin Poemso f ThomasMore, ed. L. Bradner and
C. Lynch (Chicago, 1953), 103-104. Cf. J. B. Trapp and H. S. Herbruggen, 'The
King's Good Servant': Sir Thomas More, 1477/8-1535 (catalogue of an exhibition,
London: National Portrait Gallery, 2sNovember 1977to 12March 1978)(London: rev
ed., 1978), p. 36, item 40.
5° R. Marks and Ann
Payne, BritishHeraldry fromIts Origins to c. 18oo-catalogue of
an exhibition-(London: the British Library and the British Museum, 1978), p. 72,
item 131, and plate on p. 73. The coloured arms are on paper, and pasted on the inside
front cover of TomusPrimus [-Secundus] Conciliorumquatuorgeneralium,ed. J. Merlin
(Paris: Galioti a Prato, 1524). It has been cut down from a larger sheet and now
measures 187 X 241mm. (not as given in the exhibition catalogue). The Novum
Instrumentum (Basel: J. Froben, 1516), shelf-number 675.h.lO, British Library, is
205X313 mm. in size, and is 45 mm. in thickness. E. Castle, English Book-Plates
(London, 1892), 38-39, refers to Wolsey's so-called book-plate, which is not really
"one in the ordinary sense, but an illuminated armorial composition, displaying the
cardinal's arms, duly supported, under the tasselled hat.""
sl See note io above.
52See the text of this article at notes 2i and 34.
53For Ammonius, see H. v[on] L[aun], "A. Ammonio," The Dictionary
of National
Biography, I, p. 363, though this has important inaccuracies; C. Pizzi, Un amico
d'Erasmo:L'umanista Andrea Ammonio(Florence, 1956); Porter, "A. Ammonio" in his
biographical register, Erasmusand Cambridge,cited in note 1 8,pp. 2 i S-2 i 6.For the
circumstances of Ammonius' appointment as deputy-collector of St. Peter's pence in
June 1515, see Denys Hay, PolydoreVergil(Oxford, I9s2), 1 1-1 3 .
136
ise of about £ioo annually was likely to be honoured: between April
and August 15 17 Erasmus had heard nothing more about this offer.
The task involved was one for which Erasmus was exceptionally fit-
ted, and it would have satisfied his craving for a brilliant position,
while at the same time ensuring that he had sufficient leisure to con-
tinue his own writings.
Other circumstances were propitious. Erasmus' dedication of his
Institutio to King Charles had repaid the debt to that monarch, but its
publication was not likely to have found favour in the summer of i s 1 6
with Henry VIII and with Wolsey. This was not simply because a rival
had been given a dedication that Henry himself would have welcomed,
but because in August i s 1 6 King Charles had agreed to the Treaty of
Noyon with Francis I, whereby England suffered a diplomatic
rebuff. By the summer however, the situation had changed
and King Charles had sought and been promised a loan from England.
His ambassadors had been welcomed and it was even proposed that
Charles on leaving the Low Countries by sea for Spain should visit on
his way England and Henry. In the light of this development, which
there is no reason to suppose was unknown to Erasmus,56 he could
believe that the dedication of his Institutio to Charles rather than being
held against him by Henry VIII might even be viewed with some
favour. By the summer of I s 1 7, also, the king's displeasure with Lord
Mountjoy, Erasmus' first English patron, and the individual who had
urged Erasmus to return to England on the king's accession in 1 so9,
was likely to have cooled. Mountjoy, who as Governor ofTournai had
had an unhappy term of office, had been replaced in that post early in
Back in England by April ISI7 Mountjoy may have been privy
to the royal offer of that month, and certainly he subsequently

54For the
promise of about £ioo annually, see note 25 above. For the fact the offer
was not confirmed see Bietenholz's note in CWE, 5, p. 165, line 11.
55For the
treaty of Noyon, see J. D. Mackie, The Earlier Tudors, 1485-1 558
(Oxford, 1952), 306-307 ;J. J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII (London, 1968), 63-64; and J.
Wegg, RichardPace (London, 1932), I07-I IO.
s6 For the loan see Lettersand
Papers... , cited in note 10, no. 3 s s6,a dispatch of 4
August [1518], from C. Tunstall and Sir Thomas Spinelly, ambassadors in Flanders, to
[Henry VIII]; see also A. F. Pollard, Henry VIII (London, 1951), 74-77. Erasmus'
correspondents kept him well-informed, and while no existing letters of this corres-
pondence mention these circumstances they were not secret; in particular the visit of
Charles' envoys to England for the purpose of negotiating a loan was likely to have
been common knowledge in Flanders.
 137

counselled Erasmus on the matter. The volume of the Institutio

included the "Panegyric" to Archduke Philip, who had captured
Henry's imagination, when he had visited England in the period Janu-
ary-February I so6. This esteem on the part of Prince Henry was
known at the time by Erasmus, since he had sent a letter of condolence
to Henry on the death of Philip and had received an elegant reply from
the prince. Hence the reissue of this work, first printed in 1 so4, was
certain to have royal approbation.5g The presentation volumes to the
king and to Wolsey were sent with the object of jogging the memory
so that the promises made in the previous April would be hon-
oured-he hoped by the king's taking the hint concerning Ammonius'
post, so discreetly inserted by Erasmus into his letter. More seems to
have assumed that the purpose of the gifts was to stimulate patronage,
for such is the implication of his remarks concerning the presentation
volume to Henry VIII, quoted above.
In any event Erasmus was not successful in his bid to become Latin
secretary to Henry VIII; he was not even able to obtain permanent
royal patronage, although he was associated with the "new" humanist
group favoured by the king, and although in all probability he had the
backing of More.59 The vacancy caused by Ammonius' death was
filled by his cousin, Peter Vannes, who for four years had been his
assistant, and Erasmus' letter of April 1518 to Vannes may reflect
something of his frustration and disappointment over his failure to be
nominated to the post. ?° In 1513 Vannes had been backed by Gigli for
the appointment as Ammonius' assistant, and he subsequently became

57For Mountjoy as governor, see Cruickshank, The English Occupation of

Tournai..., cited in note 14, pp. 41-44. For Mountjoy's part in February 15 I 8,see
Allen, no. 775, and for his participation in the negotiations earlier see Bietenholz's note
in CWE, 5, p. 165, line 11.
58Allen, no. 204, dated [ca. 17 November 1506],from Erasmus to Prince Henry, and
no. 206, dated 17 January from Prince Henry to Erasmus; cf. Marie Louise
Bruce, The Making of HenryVIII (London, 1977), 1 79-1 93It. was printed as Erasmus,
Panegyricusad Phillippum (Antwerp [Thierry Martin, 1504]).
59For this "new
group," as against Polydore Vergil, Carmeliano and Bernard
Andr6, who had been favoured by Henry VII, see Hay, PolydoreVergil,cited in note
see also Porter, "A. Ammonio," cited in note S3, p. 2 1 s .
For Vannes, see W. LL. Bullock, "The Lost MiscellanaeQuaestionesof O. Lando,""
Italian Studies, 2 (1938), 53-54, and A. F. P[ollard], "P. Vannes," in The Dictionaryof
National Biography,20, pp. 134-136.
138

Wolsey's secretary as well. 61 Understandably on Ammonius' death

Wolsey wanted a candidate of his choice to replace Ammonius, one
who was beholden to him and whom he could influence. 62 Erasmus
may have hoped for Gigli's support, but the latter knew better than to
oppose Wolsey, and by April i S 18 Vannes was Latin secretary, and
probably had held this post for several months
Erasmus appears to have judged Wolsey to be the key figure in his
bid. Possibly he hoped that Wolsey's success in overthrowing Cardinal
Adriano Castellesi, and in obtaining his see and other benefices in
England, since it had brought about the downfall of Castellesi's asso-
ciates, would provide the occasion and the financial means for "new"
humanists, including Erasmus himself, to be advanced. Erasmus'
antipathy to Wolsey seems to have increased as time progressed and
suggests that he considered that it was Wolsey, above all, who had
frustrated his ambitions .64 Erasmus at this time was the inspiration and
the propagandist of the party concerned with reforming the church in
England-More and Cuthbert Tunstall were two influential suppor-
ters of the movement-but there were many with influence who were
opposed to Erasmian views on both religion and education.65 A
preacher at Oxford, for instance, publicly denounced the study of
Greek, and More replied in i5i8 with a pamphlet-letter to the univer-
sity which defended humanistic education. Even more direct was the

61Pollard in The Dictionary

of National Biography mentions Gigli's part but
erroneously refers to Letters and Papers... , cited in note io, volumc 2, part 2, nos.
3602-3603; see, however, ibid., volume 1 (1862), no.
62A. F. Pollard,
Wolsey(London, 1929), p. 223. Though Pollard provides no source
for this information, see the following note.
63Letters and Papers..., cited in note 10, volume two, part two, no. 4082, for
Vannes' appointment by April 1518. That Vannes saw Erasmus as a rival may be
suggested by his conduct towards Erasmus as described by the latter in Allen, no. 828,
dated 23 April [15 I 8),to John Sixtin. See also Allen, no. 822, dated 23 April likewise,
from Erasmus to Vannes. Pollard, cited in note 60, p. r 3 S,states that Vannes was
supported in his appointment as Latin secretary by Gigli, but provides no source.
For Castellesi, see P. Paschini, Tre illustriprelati del Rinascimento(Rome, 1957),
43-130, particularly 87-103. Erasmus' antipathy to Wolsey came out even when he was
writing to Wolsey to seek his favour. See Allen, no. 658, though one need not go as far
as Nichols who believed the opening lines of this letter were scarcely veiled satire; cf.
Nichols, cited in note 7, volume 3, p. 48. See also Erasmus' words concerning Wolsey,
quoted in the text of this article at note 24.
65J. K. McConica,
English Humanistsand ReformationPoliticsunder Henry VIII and
Edward VI (Oxford: rev. ed., 1968), 14-3 5.
 139

anonymous pamphlet-letter (now identified as John Batmanson's)

which condemned Erasmus' translation of the New Testament from
the Greek, to which More likewise replied .66 In fact Erasmus' writings
provided the blueprint for the reform of western Christendom based
on lay piety, with the consequential deposition of clerical authority.
The method depended on a study of the classics, by means of which the
language and the historical background of the New Testament could
be understood.6' Hence despite Leo X's briefs in support of Erasmus,
and Erasmus' dedication of his translation of the New Testament to
that pope, the vested interest of many influential clerics in the church
was opposed to Erasmian reform. Wolsey was not interested in church
reform, but he could see that little advantage would accrue to himself
through supporting Erasmus, and that such support might rather be a
handicap in furthering his own ambitions for the papal tiara. No
doubt, too, Wolsey became increasingly aware of Erasmus' antipathy
towards him and responded with coolness. Moreover, Wolsey's offer,
probably of May 1318, to reform the statutes of Oxford University-
which might have resulted in a change in the curriculum of that univer-
sity, and perhaps a lectureship for Erasmus-came to nothing. From
January t S r 8 Wolsey was preoccupied with his idea of universal peace,
which was to result in the Treaty of London of 2 October 1518, and
had little time to spare for Erasmus. 68
Henry VIII, for his part, was eager to obtain a title from the pope,
analogous to those which graced the King of Spain and the King of
France,69 and he may have felt that support of Erasmus, who was so
closely allied to church reform, could be prejudicial. The king may
have been flattered that Erasmus was angling for a position at his court,
when apparently his services were being sought by the King of Spain
and the King of France, but without powerful backing at court

" Ibid., 92-93. See also The

Correspondenceof ThomasMore, ed. Elizabeth Rogers
(Princeton, 1947), nos. 60 and 83.
McConica, English Humanists.., cited in note 65.
68For
Wolsey's lack of interest in church reform, see Mackie, The Earlier Tudors... ,
cited in note 55, p. 295. For Oxford University, see E. Mullally, "Wolsey's Proposed
Reform of the Oxford University Statutes: A Recently Discovered Text, " The Bodleian
Library Record,10 (1978), 22-27; for the Treaty of London, see Scarisbrick, Henry VIII,
cited in note 55, pp. 70-72.
69Scarisbrick,
Henry VIII, cited in note s5, pp. 115-117, and Trapp and
Herbruggen, `The King's Good Servant'..., cited in note 49, pp. 64-66, item 117.
140
Erasmus was merely one among many seeking royal patronage. Hence
while the king's blandishments in April 1317 were probably genuine,
reflection and Wolsey's hostility to Erasmus could have convinced
Henry VIII that his best interests would not be served by taking
Erasmus into royal service. In the face of increasing pressure from
Erasmus to honour his promises, the royal response appears to have
been to keep Erasmus in play, as Erasmus himself came to suspect
What Erasmus did receive in the form of royal patronage was a gift
of £20 that reached him in mid-April '518. 71 Some recent authorities
on Erasmus assume that this gift was in response to the dedication of
the Plutarch, which was almost four years earlier. My view is that it
was sent rather for the presentation of the Institutio, which had arrived
in England by October 1517. When Erasmus wrote profuse thanks to
the king on 25 April it is significant that he took the opportunity to
accept, if somewhat ambiguously, the unspecific royal offer of a per-
manent position of distinction in England that had accompanied the
money.73 The king required Erasmus to undertake to come in person
to England, and this Erasmus promised to do in four months' time,
when the publication of the revised version of the New Testament was
completed. As already mentioned, in October i s 1 8 ,Erasmus wrote to
the king's secretary to stress that he had accepted the royal offer. 74
Nothing, though, that was consistent with the promises of April was
forthcoming. Thereafter Erasmus turned his back on the possibility of
a position not only at the English court but in England in any capacity.

UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL

Cf. Allen, no. 784, dated [ca. 5 March 15 I 8],from Erasmus to [John Fisher] (at p.
238) and no. 786, dated [ca. 5 March ist8], from Erasmus to John Colet (at p. 241).
Allen, nos. 816, 825, and 834.
?2For the authorities, see note 2 above. Though Bietenholz in CWE, 5, p. 4 I I,relates
the gift Of 120to the dedication of Plutarch's treatise on page i o8, this is contradicted by
the statement that the gift of the Institutiowas what brought the reward of 20. The first
printing of the dedication was in August 1514; cf. note 5 above.
73Allen, no. 834.
74See note 43 above.