Of his connivance in the matter there is actual proof; for in 1517 he had the letter copied by one of his servant-pupils into a letter-book, and added the heading himself.  What he first wrote was:  ‘Andreas Ammonius Erasmo Roterodamo S.D.,’ but afterwards he scratched out Ammonius’ name and wrote in ‘Guilhelmus Montioius’.  In a sense, of course, he was correct; for the letter was written in Mountjoy’s name.  But he cannot have been unaware that in an age which valued elegant Latinity so highly, his patron would be gratified by the ascription.

It was no great matter, and did no harm to any one.  But it throws some doubt on Erasmus’ statement as to the scholarship of Henry VIII.  When Henry’s book against Luther appeared in 1521, people said that Erasmus had lent him a hand.  In denying the insinuation Erasmus avers that Henry was quite capable of doing the work himself, and adds that his own suspicions of Henry’s capacity had been dispelled by Mountjoy, who when tutor to the young prince had preserved rough copies of Latin letters written by Henry’s own hand; and these he produced to convince the doubter.  Erasmus had a double motive in asserting Henry’s authorship, to play the courtier and to avoid provoking Luther; and Mountjoy, as we have seen, is not above suspicion.  But there is some further evidence in support of them all, prince and patron and scholar.  Pace, Colet’s successor at St. Paul’s, speaks of hearing Henry talk Latin quickly and readily; and Giustinian, the Venetian ambassador, quotes a few remarks made to him by Henry in Latin by way of greeting.  Till more evidence is forthcoming, Erasmus must be let off on this count with a Not proven.

Another example of scant regard for truth is his disowning of the Julius Exclusus.  This was a witty dialogue, in Erasmus’ best style, on the death of Pope Julius II.  The Pope is shown arriving at the gate of heaven, accompanied by his Genius, a sort of guardian angel, and amazed to find it locked, with no preparation at all for his reception.  His amazement grows when St. Peter at length appears and makes it plain that the gate is not going to be opened, and that there is no room in heaven for Julius with his record of wars and other unchristian deeds; whereupon there is a fine set-to, and each party receives some hard knocks.

That Erasmus was its author there can be no doubt; for there is evidence in two directions of the existence of a copy or copies of it in his handwriting, and we cannot suppose that at that period of his life, when he regularly had one or more servant-pupils in his employ, he would have troubled to copy out with his own hand a work of that length by another.  There was nothing very outrageous in the dialogue, nothing much more than there was in the Moria; but it was not the sort of thing for a man to write who was so closely connected as Erasmus was with the Papal see, and who wished to stand well with it in the future.  The Julius appeared in print