We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
The Julius exclusus has generated a good deal of attention on the part of twentieth-century scholarship, especially since the publication of Wallace K. Ferguson's critical edition in 1933. Primary interest has centered on the debate concerning the authorship of the dialogue, with the prevailing scholarly opinion assigning the work unequivocally to Erasmus. According to the present consensus, Erasmus composed the Julius at some point between the death of Pope Julius II in February 1513 and his departure from England for Basel in July 1514. The work was known to members of Erasmus’ circle by August 1516 and was first published in 1517. With the issue of authorship and dating settled to their general satisfaction, Erasmian scholars have recently begun to direct their attention to the substance of the Julius, particularly its ecclesiology. On the other hand, the investigation of Erasmus’ possible sources for die work has received comparatively sketchy treatment.
The research on which this paper is based was made possible by a fellowship from the Institute for Research in the Humanities, University of Wisconsin.
1 Erasmus, Desiderius, Dialogus, Iulius exclusus e coelis, ed. Ferguson, Wallace K. in Erasmi opuscula (The Hague, 1933), pp. 65–124.Google Scholar
2 See the exhaustive analysis of the literature on the authorship question in McConica, James K., ‘Erasmus and the “Julius“: A Humanist Reflects on the Church,’ in The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion: Papers from the University of Michigan Conference, ed. Trinkaus, Charles with Oberman, Heiko A., Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, 10 (Leiden, 1974), 451–453, 467-471.Google Scholar
3 Ibid., pp. 446-451; Ferguson, p. 41; Sowards, J. Kelley, introduction to The Julius Exclusus of Erasmus, tr. Pascal, Paul (Bloomington, 1968), pp. 7, 11–12, 14.Google Scholar
4 Most notably McConica, ‘Erasmus and the “Julius,“’ pp. 444-491, and other scholars he cites.
5 Ibid., p. 447.
6 Sowards, pp. 27-28.
7 Ibid., pp. 114, 125, 132, 133, 140, 141; Pascal, introduction to his translation, p. 39; pp. 28-29.
8 See in particular the thorough study by Trillitzsch, Winfried, ‘Erasmus und Seneca,’ Philohgus, 109 (1965), 270–293 Google Scholar; Phillips, Margaret Mann, ‘Erasmus and the Classics,’ in Erasmus, ed. Dorey, T. A. (Albuquerque, 1970), pp. 11–17.Google Scholar
9 ‘Erasmus as a Satirist,’ in Erasmus, ed. Dorey, p. 51.
10 For literature on the issues of authorship, title, and textual transmission, see Allan Perley Ball, The Satire of Seneca on the Apotheosis of Claudius Commonly Called the ‘AIIOKOΛOKTNTΩΣIΣ (New York, 1902), pp. 24-28; L. Annaei Senecae, Divi Claudii ‘AIIOKOΛOKTNTΩΣIΣ, ed. Carlo F. Russo, Biblioteca di studi superiori, filologia latina, 3 (Firenze, 1948), pp. 7-40; Marti, Berthe M., ‘Seneca's Apocolocyntosis and Octavia: A Diptych,’ American Journal of Philology, 73 (1952), 24ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walther Just, ‘Senecas Satire auf die Apotheose des Kaisers Claudius in ihrer politischen Bedeutung,’ Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock, gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 15, Heft 4/5 (1966), 48; Athanassakis, Apostolos N., ‘Some Evidence in Defense of the Title Apocolocyntosis for Seneca's Satire,’ Transactions of the American Philological Association, 104 (1974), 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Seneca, , Apocolocyntosis, 10–11 Google Scholar, tr. W. D. H. Rouse, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1961), p. 391, n. 1; Ulrich Knoche, ‘Das Bild des Kaisers Augustus in Senecas Apocolocyntosis,’ Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock, gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 15, Heft 4/5 (1966), 463-470.
12 Ball, , The Satire of Seneca, pp. 74–78 Google Scholar; Weinreich, Otto, Senecas Apocolocyntosis, Die Satire auf Tod, Himmel- und Höllenfahrt des Kaisers Claudius: Einfuhrung, Analyse und Untersuchungen, Übersetzung (Berlin, 1923), pp. 104, 128.Google Scholar
13 A full discussion of the circumstances surrounding the copying of these manuscripts and their textual characteristics is provided by Eden, P. T., ‘William Gray, Bishop of Ely, and Three Oxford Manuscripts of Seneca,’ Classica et mediaevalia, 21 (1960), 29–42.Google Scholar
14 The copy of this work consulted is in the Columbia University Library. See also Ball, , The Satire of Seneca, p. 92.Google Scholar
15 To Ruthall, Thomas, Opus Epistolamm Des. Erasmi Roterodami, ed. Allen, P. S. (Oxford, 1910), II, no. 325, p. 53.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., 1, no. 222, p. 460.
