No More Learning

But he owed even
to Grosseteste-'archi-doctor,'
‘Lincolniensis,' as he called him, and to Richard FitzRalph,
'Armaghanus,' archbishop of Armagh (1347—60). With the
former, who had greatly influenced Oxford, Wyclif was in general
philosophical agreement, and from him, possibly, learnt his great
love of the Scriptures. From FitzRalph, who was chancellor of
Oxford (1333), Wyclif drew the doctrine of dominion or lordship,
to which, although carrying it somewhat further, he really added
nothing. FitzRalph had reached his views through the con-
troversy with the mendicants; he had come across them at
Oxford; he knew the charges brought against them of enticing
more
2


## p. 53 (#71) ##############################################

Wyclif's Earlier Writings 53
youngsters to join them; later, on his return from Ireland (1356),
he found the controversy between them and the seculars peculiarly
keen; he preached against them in London, and, afterwards, at
Avignon (1357), he delivered his famous Defensio Curatorum on
behalf of parish priests who suffered much from their encroachments.
His De Pauperie Salvatoris not only dealt with the poverty of
Christ (which, as he pointed out, was not mendicancy) but dis-
cussed 'lordship' and 'use. ' In the end he made all 'lordship’
depend on that of God, to whom all lordship belonged; man had
once received as a loan from God an original lordship for himself;
but this he had lost through sin, and a new relation had begun.
There is, thus, a distinction between the lordship of the ideal state
of innocency, and the conditional lordship found in the actual world.
Only in so far as man serves God does he approach true lordship;
so far as he is sinful, he forfeits his lordship. To use Wyclif's
expression 'dominion is founded in grace,' and, as a consequence,
a man in mortal sin cannot exercise lordship. But Wyclif did not
follow FitzRalph blindly; for, while FitzRalph had gone on to
condemn the poverty of the mendicant friars, Wyclif, until his
last years, sympathised with the Franciscans, whose model bis own
'poor priests' in some ways reproduced.
But this doctrine of dominion, excellently as it enforced respon-
sibility towards God, was capable of much abuse. FitzRalph had
carefully guarded it as an ideal, and his discussion of the civil
state and property had moved in a different plane from that of
his ideal conditions. But, as so often happens between a master
and a scholar, Wyclif the scholar reproduces his master's outline
in deeper colours and without the shades; hence, it was not always
easy to see that his arguments applied merely to an ideal society.
If his teaching was charged with favouring the Peasants' Revolt,
and if, later, Lollards appeared to society as socialists, it was,
largely, owing to Wyclif's unguarded expression of this doctrine
of FitzRalph.
Wyclif's earliest writings are of a purely philosophical nature,
and, of course, academic in origin and style. De Logica, De Ente
Predicamentali, De Materia et Forma, De Benedicta Incarna-
cione and De Composicione Hominis are ordinary university
lectures: in the case of the last it is probable that we have only
the lecture-notes as they were delivered. They may be dated—not,
of course, with certainty-from 1360 to 1370 or thereabouts. They
give us Wyclif's philosophical basis, and show him as a follower
of St Augustine, named after his master, ‘Joannes Augustini. '


## p. 54 (#72) ##############################################

54 Religious Movements in the XIV th Century
Hence, also, came his views on predestination, upon which he had
a friendly controversy with the logician Ralph Strode: his doctrine
of the presciti (foreknown) remained unchanged throughout his
life. Already, too, he denied the possibility of the annihilation
of anything, a view which led him to his later denial of tran-
substantiation. His Latin works show how large a part these
discussions, which both influenced others and gained him a great
reputation in controversy', played in his life, and his chief op-
ponents, with the exception of Wadford or Wodeford (probably
a Franciscan), were monks. The abbot of Chertsey, for instance,
came up to Oxford to draw him into a discussion, and many other
opponents attacked him. Through these controversies, Wyclif's
views, as to the wrongfulness of endowments (to which he ascribed
all the evils of the church), as to the duty of the state and of lay
authorities to enforce reformation by seizing church property,
must have become widely known. But, probably, he had not yet
made his entry into political life, and, certainly, he had not as yet
any controversy with the mendicants. It is probable that Wyclif's
Determinatio, printed by Lewis, containing a supposed account of
a parliamentary debate upon papal taxation, belongs (as Loserth
has pointed out) not to 1366—7 but to a date some ten years later.
At the former date, it stands isolated in Wyclif's life; at the later
date, it finds a fitting place in the controversy recounted in
De Civili Dominio and De Ecclesia; the papal demand made
upon England in 1366 was repeated in 1374, so that we are not
restricted to the earlier date alone. Before 1374, also, great debates
had taken place upon the taxation of the church for national
needs, while the employment of churchmen in high secular offices
had been opposed by a strong court party since 1371. The latter
question caused the main struggle about the time, 1376—7, of the
Good parliament. Wyclif's visit to Bruges (July 1374), as member
of an embassy to discuss papal provisions, might deepen his
interest in these questions.
A new parliament met 27 January 1377 and convocation
assembled a little later (3 February). Wyclif, who had been asked
up to London (22 September 1376) to help John of Gaunt and his
party by his sermons, was now called before convocation to answer
for his views, but what the charges against him were we can only
· Here his somewhat rough humour showed itself, as in the expression DAIM's
castle-for his Carmelite, Augustinian, Jacobite (Dominican) and Minorite opponents ;
and as in his retort, when called a fox, that some of his adversaries were black dogs,
some white, according to the colours of their habits.


## p. 55 (#73) ##############################################

Attack upon Wyclif
55
infer from his writings: they probably arose out of his views as to
ecclesiastical endowments. He appeared in his defence accompanied
by John of Gaunt and Lord Percy, together with four mendicant
friars. A quarrel between Courtenay, bishop of London, and John
of Gaunt broke out, which led to a popular riot against the duke;
and the proceedings against Wyclif were thus interrupted. But
bulls—five in number—were now got from Rome against him : three
were addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury, one to the king
and one to the university of Oxford. Much discussion has arisen
as to the originators of this attack. It was, largely, the result of
the Oxford controversies, and was led by the monks; but some
among the bishops-especially Brunton, bishop of Rochester-may
have worked along with them; political dislikes embittered the
controversy ; and one reason why his enemies raised these con-
troversies against him was, says Wyclif, their wish to get him
deprived of his benefices. Eighteen errors were charged against
him which centred in his views on endowments, but his assertions
that the church in its censures and excommunications should
conform to the law of Christ, and that churchmen should be
subject to civil jurisdiction, were also brought against him. The
complaints were thus concerned with the organisation and outside
relations of the church rather than with its doctrines.
Both the young king Richard II and the parliament seemed to
support him; and he now speaks of himself as peculiaris dericus
of the king; he was consulted as to the action of parliament
(which met 13 October 1377) with regard to the drain of money
to Rome, and he also defended himself in a document addressed
to parliament. Bishop Brunton had spoken in parliament, as early
as February or March, of the expected bulls: they were dated
22 May 1377, but it was not until 18 December 1377 that the
archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London—as com-
missioners appointed by the pope began to move by requesting
the university to enquire into the charges. The university resented
the tone of the pope's bull to them, which had reproved their
laxity in admitting heresy, and it was not thought lawful for the
pope to order the imprisonment of anyone in England. But the
archbishop's request to examine the truth of the charges was
another matter. They made the investigation, during which they
confined Wyclif to his rooms, and their verdict was that the doctrines,
although capable of a bad construction, were not heterodox.
But Wyclif was further summoned before the two prelates
at Lambeth-probably in February or March 1378. He had


## p. 56 (#74) ##############################################

56 Religious Movements in the XIV th Century
drawn up a defence of himself for transmission to the pope, which
,
was sent through the hands of the bishops, and was also widely
circulated in England, doubtless through the 'poor priests. Once
again, the proceedings were interrupted: a message from the
princess of Wales stayed the trial, and the fickle and turbulent
Londoners broke into the hall, this time on the side of Wyclif,
and not on that of their bishop as before. He was, however,
directed not to preach or teach the doctrines charged against
him, which, although not judged erroneous, were likely to cause
trouble. It is possible that the changed attitude of the Londoners
was due to Wyclif's preaching among them, and, as a matter
of fact, he did not obey the command of silence. In more ways
than one, this year (1378) was a turning point in his life, and one
of his larger Latin works, De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, written
at this very time, gives us unusual insight into his mind and
feelings.
The election of Urban VI (7 April 1378) was followed (Sep-
tember 1378) by that of an anti-pope, Clement VII, and thus the
barely ended sojourn at Avignon gave place to an even more
disastrous schism. England supported Urban, and Wyclif, for a
time, was loyal to him. But the many admitted ecclesiastical
abuses, which others, besides Wyclif, freely pointed out, naturally
grew greater during the schism, and the rivalry of two popes led
to a wider discussion of ecclesiastical questions. The bishop of
Norwich (Henry le Spenser) actually undertook (1382) the leadership
of a crusade in Flanders proclaimed by Urban against Clement;
indulgences were issued to all who shared in it; friars were
specially active in furthering it, and the archbishop of Canterbury
(Courtenay had now succeeded the murdered Sudbury) ordered
prayers and a general collection for the expedition (April 1383).
It is clear, both from Wyclif's Latin works (such as Cruciata)
and from his English tracts, that the crusade, with its mingling of
unchristian warfare, a keen struggle for power, the pursuit of wealth
and the abuses of indulgences, turned him more strongly against
the papacy. Henceforth, there was no reserve in his language, no
moderation in his views: he regarded the pope as anti-Christ.
But, by anti-Christ, Wyclif hardly meant the same that the prophetic
school of later theologians mean. Anything opposed to the law
of Christ was anti-christian, and, so far as he broke the law of
Christ, a man might be anti-Christ; to be anti-Christ was thus,
with Wyclif, a phase of character, and not a personal existence.
Before 1378, he had used the expression of isolated acts and


## p. 57 (#75) ##############################################

The Poor Priests. The Bible
57
>
special deeds, but, after that year, he came to hold the pope con-
sistently and always anti-Christ. He no longer confined himself
to the criticism of abuses; he questioned, at one time or another,
the utility of every part of the church's system : sacraments, holy
orders, everything was unessential. Far as this criticism went, it
is probable that in it, and in the growing stress laid on preaching
as the one essential of religion, lie Wyclif's chief affinities with
later reformers. So strongly did he feel about the Schism and
this crusade that the occurrence or omission of any reference to
either is an accepted test of date for his works.
Wyclif's liking for the friars and their fundamental doctrine
of poverty has already been mentioned. But he had also sympathy
with their popular work, even if he thought it sometimes neglected
or badly done. This feeling led him to institute his 'poor priests,'
who must have begun their work while he was still at Oxford,
probably about 1377, as they are certainly mentioned in works of
1378. Originally, they were priests living in poverty and journeying
about the country, clad in simple russet, preaching as the Dominicans
had done ; later, some, if not most, of them were laymen; gradually,
too, as his quarrel with the church authorities grew and he became
estranged from his university, he demanded less learning from his
poor priests; simple piety, a love of the Scriptures and a readiness
to preach were all he asked from them. One unlearned man
(unus ydiota) might, by God's grace, do more than many graduates
in schools or colleges. There was nothing strange in the original
idea of such a body, and it was only by an accident that Wyclif did
not become the founder of a new order of friars. Before the end
of his life they had spread his doctrines widely, and had met with
great success, especially in the vast diocese of Lincoln, and in those
of Norwich and Worcester. The districts which were centres of
his teaching long remained centres of Lollardy, although the views
of the later Lollards can hardly be held the same as his. For
they changed his views upon property into a socialism discontented
with existing government and the distribution of wealth; his
denunciation of evils, which grew gradually more sweeping and
subversive of ecclesiastical order, became, with them, a hatred of
the whole church ; his love of the Bible, and his appeal to it as
the test of everything, too often became, with them, a disregard of
everything but the Bible; his denial of transubstantiation, based
upon philosophical reasoning, became, with them, a contempt for
the Sacrament itself.
So far, we have seen Wyclif mainly critical and even destructive.
a


## p. 58 (#76) ##############################################

58 Religious Movements in the XIV th Century
But there was also a strongly positive side to his teaching: his
regard for the Scriptures and his frequent use of them in his
writings (common with medieval writers, but very common with
him) is best seen in his work De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, which
he was writing about 1378. He regarded Scripture as the test of
everything, in comparison with which tradition had no force. It
is impossible to trace fully the development of his views, but the
medieval love of speculation and freedom of thought (which was
not, as a rule, interfered with, unless it led to revolutionary action)
carried him far: there is hardly anything in the constitution or
worship or doctrine of the church which, in some of his latest
works, was not questioned. Nevertheless, after leaving Oxford,
he remained quietly working in his parish, following the ordinary
round of a parish priest. It is to be noted, too, that in his English
sermons he faithfully follows the church's choice of Epistles and
Gospels, not casting it aside as did some later reformers. But the
inconsistency between his life and his words is more apparent
than real ; the habit of hypothesis, of questioning, of making
assumptions, was so ingrained in him that too much weight must not
be assigned to all his statements, as if they expressed a deliberate
and well-formed conviction. The world at large was, however,
different from an academic audience, and many whom his works
reached must have drawn practical inferences from them which
Wyclif himself never drew. Still, as regards the church-
poisoned as he held it to be by the endowments poured into its
system first by Constantine and, since then, by others-his mental
attitude was distinctly sceptical. His positive appeal to Scripture,
however, was another thing; it was directed against the abuses
of the time. But, among his opponents, men like bishop Brunton
of Rochester also had a deep love for the Scriptures; the language
often used as to ignorance or dislike of the Bible at the time is
much exaggerated and mistaken, as the works of Rolle indicate.
Nevertheless, there were some opponents of Wyclif whom he
charged rightly with belittling the Scriptures. These criticisms
were directed against the growing school of nominalists against
whom Wyclif, as one of the latest medieval realists, fought
vigorously, and whose influence had, in the end, the evil effects
of which Wyclif complained.
It was this appeal to the Scriptures that gained Wyclif his
name of Doctor Evangelicus. In the Bible he found a source
of spiritual strength, an inspiration of moral energy as well as
a guide to conduct. For these reasons he wished to spread its


## p. 59 (#77) ##############################################

The Bible in English
59
.
use. He pointed to other nations with translations of it in their
own tongue and asked why England should not have the same:
the faith should be known to all in the language most familiar to
them. The same impulses that led him to found his poor priests
made him wish to spread a knowledge of the Bible in England.
But in De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, while there are
already complaints that preaching is interfered with, there are
no complaints that the Bible in the vernacular is prohibited :
indeed, the history of the English translations before Wyclif show
that such was not the case. We have already seen in the case
of Rolle how translations were made for dwellers in religious
houses; one of the independent versions-edited by Miss Paues
-has an interesting prologue in which a 'brother' and 'sister'
'lewed and unkunnynge' ask a more learned 'brother' to teach
them : 'I preye you pur charite to techen us lewed men trewlyche
be sobe aftur oure axynge. ' The reply is 'Broper, y knowe wel
þat y am holde by Cristis lawe to parforme þyn axynge: bote
napeles we bep now so fer y-fallen awey from Cristis lawe, þat zif
I wolde answere to þyn axynge I moste in cas underfonge pe dep. '
The translation of the Bible into English was not prohibited, but
the use now made of it was leading to a claim for stricter control.
Much controversy, however, has arisen lately as to the share of
Wyclif in the versions which go by his name. We have express
statements by the chronicler Knighton-nearly contemporary
and also anti-Wyclifite-and Hus-a little later (1411)that
Wyclif had translated the whole Bible into English. Archbishop
Arundel, in a letter to the pope asking for Wyclif's condemnation,
speaks (1412) of Wyclif having filled up the measure of his malice
by the design to render the Scriptures into English; and a general
tradition, the value of which may be much or little, confirms this
statement. There are two 'Wyclifite' versions : one, a little earlier
than the other, stiffer and inferior in style, closely following the
Vulgate, from which both translations were made without the use
of Greek. The prologues, some for the whole work, and some for
commentaries upon individual books, are certainly Wyclifite in
tone, although none of them can be assigned to Wyclif himself ;
specially important is the general prologue to the second version,
giving an account of the writer's method of work; and the writer
of this was certainly a Wyclifite? On the other hand, we have
the curious fact that Wyclif himself never uses the translation
that goes by his name, but gives an independent translation from
· Cf. post, p. 77, in the Chapter on Trevisa.
6


## p. 60 (#78) ##############################################

60 Religious Movements in the XIV th Century
the Vulgate. Too much, however, should not be made of this, for,
no doubt, Wyclif knew the Latin better than the English, and
he would, therefore, translate incidentally and afresh instead of
referring to a manuscript : in acting thus he would be only follow-
ing the usual course. More importance, however, belongs to a
statement, made independently by Foxe and Sir Thomas More (in
his Dialogue), that there were translations dating before Wyclif;
to which the latter adds that the whole Bible had been then
translated by 'virtuous and well-learned men. ' The whole ques-
tion has been complicated by over-inference from actual statements
on either side, by the ascription of everything Wyclifite to Wyclif
himself, and by confusing two matters quite distinct—the existence
of English translations and their permission or condemnation by
the church.
We cannot cast aside the express association of a translation
with the name of Wyclif; his own works and feelings make such
a translation probable, although they give us no express evidence.
As to the part he himself took in it, nothing is known, although
very definite statements are sometimes made. There were already
in circulation many copies of isolated books of the Bible, and the
whole of the New Testament could be read in English translations
which had been made mainly for the inmates of monastic houses,
especially for nuns ; the impulses which had produced these copies
had been felt more in the north and the midlands than in the south,
where French was understood and used down to a later date.
Some of these earlier works, which prepared the way, may have
been used by the Wyclifite translators; among them are transla-
tions, such as one of the Apocalypse, and an English version (with
preface) of the Latin Harmony of the Gospels by Clement of
Llanthony, wrongly ascribed to Wyclif himself. But the Wyclifite
versions were due to a more general impulse and were meant for
a wider public. Their literary history needs much further study,
and when criticism, textual and linguistic, has been further applied,
some more certain conclusions may be drawn. But it does not
appear likely that the statements made here will be largely
affected.
As to Wyclif's fellow-workers, not very much is known. The
names of two have come down to us— Nicholas Hereford and John
Purvey. The former had worked with Wyclif at Oxford and is
spoken of by the mendicants at Oxford in an appeal to John of
Gaunt (18 February 1382) as their chief enemy; he was then a
Doctor, paginae sacrae professor, et utinam non perversor, words


## p. 61 (#79) ##############################################

John Purvey's Revision 61
which may refer to his share in the translation. One of the
manuscripts directly attributes the translation to Hereford, and
the fact that it breaks off suddenly at Baruch iii, 20 implies a
sudden interruption. Owing to tumults in the university, which
had arisen out of his sermons (1381–2), he was summoned to
appear in London, and was there excommunicated (1 July 1382).
He appealed to Rome and went thither only to be imprisoned.
Wyclif, in his Opus Evangelicum, which he was writing at his
death, speaks indignantly of this imprisonment. In 1385, he
escaped, and, in 1387, was back again in England: we find him,
with Purvey and others, prohibited by the bishop of Worcester
from preaching in his diocese. In 1391, he was promised protection
by the king, and, in 1394, he became chancellor of Hereford,
but, in 1417, he retired to be a Carthusian monk at Coventry.
So far as language is concerned, the revision ascribed to Purvey
deserves higher praise than the first translation. John Purvey
was born at Lathbury, near Newport Pagnell. In 1387, with
Hereford, Aston, Parker and Swynderby, he was inhibited from
preaching by the bishop of Worcester ; they were said to be leagued
together in a certain college unlicensed and disallowed by law.
He submitted and recanted his errors on 6 March 1401, and, in
August of that year, became vicar of West Hythe, Kent; he held
this post for two years, but, in 1421, we again find him in prison.
He was the author of Regimen Ecclesiae, a work from which
Richard Lavenham (1396) collected his errors. In his prologue
to the Bible, he describes the method which he, “a poor catiff
lettid fro prechyng,' took for finding out the exact meaning and
faithfully rendering it with 'myche travile, with diverse felawis
and helperis. ' But his work was far more than that of a mere
scholar: he understands (and expresses in words that remind us
of Colet) how a labourer at Scripture hath 'nede to live a clene
lif, and be ful devout in preiers, and have not his wit occupied
about worldli thingis '; only with good livyng and greet traveil'
could men come to 'trewe understonding of holi writ. ' The
comparisons so often drawn between these two revisions make clear
the superiority, in idiom and all that makes a language, of Purvey's
revision. The earlier, ascribed partly to Wyclif, is the roughest of
renderings, and its English is unlike that of Wyclif's sermons, wbich
may, however, have undergone revision. But it must be repeated
that the history of these early translations has yet to be deciphered
and written; the literary tendencies of the Middle Ages, spoken of
before, have thoroughly hidden from us the workers and much of


## p. 62 (#80) ##############################################

62 Religious Movements in the XIV th Century
1
1
their work. We can say that Wyclif, as the centre of the move-
ment, was, probably, the source of its energy; more, we cannot assert
as yet. It is likely that, when this history is made out, the im-
portance of pre-Wyclifite translations, fragmentary and incomplete,
will appear greater. It is also likely that we shall be led to assign
less to individual labourers and more to successive labours of
schools of writers. But the name of Wyclif will probably still be
left in its old connection even if his individual share be uncertain or
lessened.
This translation can claim to be the first complete rendering
of the Bible into English ; but it is quite possible that its effect
upon the language has been sometimes over-estimated. The
reason for this lies in its history and in the history of Wyclifism.
For some years after 1381 or so, there is no hint of any hostility
to the Scriptures on the part of ecclesiastical rulers; it is only
Lollard preaching that is checked. The translation of Purvey
is so far free from having any bias, that it has lately been even
claimed for an authorised translation ; MSS of it were certainly
owned by obedient churchmen and by bishops themselves. Purvey
does add a few simple glosses, but they are free from any party
colour and are taken from Nicholas de Lyra (1340). His version
seems to have superseded others, even the Vulgate itself; Henry
Bradshaw stated that he had not come across a single Latin MS
copied after its appearance. The question of prologues was a
different matter; a Lollard prologue was often added to anything,
as, for instance, to works of Rolle. But the church was not hostile
to the translations themselves, nor did it forbid their being made.
Lyndwood and Sir Thomas More both spoke to the fact that
translations made before Wyclif were not prohibited nor forbidden
to be read. Cranmer also said that if the matter should be tried
by custom, we might also allege custom for the reading of the
Scriptures in the vulgar tongue. . . . For it is not much above one
hundred years ago, since Scripture hath not been accustomed to
be read in the vulgar tongue within the realm. ' Archbishop
Arundel himself praised queen Anne of Bohemia because of her
love towards the Bible and her study of it, exceeding that of some
prelates. The Wyclifite version did not become the property
of a mere section of the people, such as the Lollards were.
Possession of a copy of it, however, by a person not under
religious vows, needed an ecclesiastical licence, which was freely
granted. But the changed attitude of the church-the way in
which it laid stress upon its right of controlling the reading of


## p. 63 (#81) ##############################################

Wyclif and Popular Movements
63
vernacular translations and was led to regard popular literature,
when likely to supersede its own teaching, with suspicion-was
due to the history of Lollardy.
The church, which had been so long the guardian of unity, found
itself confronted by forces forming nations and tending to disrup-
tions. To control and guide these forces would have been a noble
work, but it was a work of supreme difficulty, not to be wrought
by short-sighted or selfish men. To begin with, the church
which recognised its duty of teaching the nation should have
brought out an authorised version of its own. There is no proof
that it ever tried to do this on a complete scale; it was, indeed,
content to use the Wyclifite versions, as it well might be, until the
growth of Lollard prologues and commentaries made it suspicious.
Thus, some of the Wyclifite MSS have the tables of lessons added,
and some smaller MSS contain the Gospels and Epistles alone.
The claim made by the Lollards that 'eche lewed man that schul
be saved is a real priest maad of God’ tended to weaken the
power of the church, its power for good as well as for evil, and,
naturally, made 'worldly clerkis crien that holy writ in Englische
wole make cristen men at debate, and suggetis to rebelle against
her sovereyns and therefor' ought not to be suffred among lewed
men. ' Medieval notions of freedom differed from our own, and,
as a rule, freedom to do any special work was held to belong only
to a corporation licensed for the purpose.
The danger of popular excitement was made pressing by the
Peasants' Revolt. The appeal to a democratic public, the recog-
nition of the simple layman's place in the church, the crusade
against endowments and the growing criticism of ecclesiastical
institutions, worked along with other causes of the rebellion, while
Wyclif's exaltation of the power of king and state was lost sight
of. His own sympathies, indeed, went strongly with the rebels.
His 'poor priests' were charged with having incited to revolt, and
Nicholas Hereford hurled back the charge at the friars. Friars
and 'poor priests' were both parts of the large floating population
which was all in a ferment, and there was probably some truth in
the charges on both sides. If John Ball's confession that he had
learnt bis views from Wyclif be somewhat suspicious, it should still
be remembered that Wyclif's revolutionary views on endowments
had been before the world for some years. Both in Ball's confession
and in a popular poem of the day, Wyclif's attack upon the
doctrine of transubstantiation was connected with the general
excitement. That attack stirred up many animosities new and


## p. 64 (#82) ##############################################

64 Religious Movements in the XIV th Century
old; it was the result of a gradual development of Wyclif's views,
and it had important historical results.
There are three stages in Wyclif's views upon the Eucharist.
First, a stage in which he accepts the current doctrine of transub-
stantiation, but holds it to be an exception to his other doctrine
of the permanence and indestructibility of matter. This stage
lasted until about 1370. But in De Benedicta Incarnacione
(written before his doctorate in 1372) he is wavering as to what
the changed substance is, and is inclined to leave the question aside
as unnecessary to a simple ‘pilgrim. This being his position,
he is not inclined to discuss the question overmuch. But when,
about 1380 or so, he had reached a positive opinion, and maintained
that the substance of bread remained, he felt bound to teach this,
as he held, vital doctrine. Hence, this final stage is marked by
great energy of utterance, and continual reference to the question.
But the result of his latest view of the Eucharist, taught with
much insistence and gradually made the centre of his system,
was a controversy, in which he was opposed not only by his
former enemies the monks, but by secular priests, and, lastly,
by friars. With these last he had, indeed, been gradually break-
ing friendship; it had seemed to him that some of them, bound
as they were to poverty, must sympathise with him and must,
therefore, join him. In his disappointment he began to regard
their law of life as hostile, like the law of monasticism, to the law
of Christ ; in his latest works, therefore, the friars are attacked with
much bitterness. They, concerned, on their part, for their whole
position, and, also, passionately believing in the central doctrine
he now attacked, replied with equal vigour. His followers, too,
who, possibly, may have hastened the quarrel, took their part in
the strife. Hence, his teaching on this point seemed to overshadow
all his other views. Thus, his system, as it was handed down
to later years, attacked the papacy, the organisation of the church,
monks and friars and overthrew the popular conception of the
Mass. His positive teaching was forgotten; his followers kept
merely to his love of the Scriptures and found practically no
place for church organisation, for sacraments or rites; prayer,
preaching and the reading of the Scriptures summed up, for them,
the conception of the Christian faith.
An assembly of bishops and ecclesiastics was held at Black-
friars on 17 May 1382. The council, which was afterwards called
'the earthquake council' from its being interrupted in its session
with 'earthdyn,' condemned some doctrines of Wyclif. He him-


## p.
65 (#83) ##############################################

Wyclif's Later Works
65
self was not named in the decrees issued, but the bishops were
to excommunicate any one preaching the condemned doctrines, the
university was to prohibit their setting forth and the company
of those offending was to be avoided under pain of excom-
munication. After much discussion at Oxford, Wyclif was attacked,
and, like his supporters, was suspended from all scholastic duties,
by an order which was afterwards repeated by the king. But, of
his later life, and of the result of the proceedings against him,
we know little or nothing. A passage in his Trialogus seems to
imply that he was bound by some promise not to use certain
terms-i. e. substance of bread and wine-outside the schools. It
was supposed, at one time, that he, like his leading Oxford followers,
had recanted, but of this there seems no evidence. Just before
the earthquake council, he had presented a very bold defence of
his views to parliament, demanding not only freedom for his
opinions but their enforcement in practice. His boldness did not
leave him, but his influence in Oxford was at an end, and he lived
for the rest of his days at Lutterworth.
The sum of his work, Latin and English, in these last two years
(1382—4) is enormous, but there are traces of his utilising former
lectures ready to hand. To this time most of his undoubted English
writings belong, as does the Trialogus' in Latin, perhaps the best
known and most connected, although not most interesting, state-
ment of his views. His struggle with the mendicants who opposed
him was now at its height, and his language was unmeasured ;
we must suppose that much of what he said was put forth without
due consideration of possible dangers from its being misunder-
stood. But, in some of his later Latin works—especially his Opus
Evangelicum-notes of a growing calmness of mind may also be
heard beneath the controversies. He had always been inspired
by the warmest national feeling, and it was not at all strange
that he should, therefore, address the nation as he did ; it is this
consciousness of the wide audience to whom he was speaking that
made his English writings distinctly different from any that had
1 Wyclif used the form of dialogue also in the Dialogus (1379) between Veritas,
standing for Christ, and Mendacium, standing for Satan. But soon all characterisation
is lost, and Wyclif himself speaks throughout, the replies of Mendacium being short
and unworthy of his reputation. In Trialogus (about 1382) the form is handled
better; the characters are: Alithia, a solidus philosophus-Philosophy; Pneustis, &
captiosus infidelus–Unbelief; and Phronesis, a subtilis theologus-Theology : the first
lays down a proposition, to which the second objects, and, at length, the third sums
ap. But Pneustis holds long silences, during which Alithia and Phronesis speak as
enquiring disciple and master. It may be noted that dialogue is also used in the
prologue and text of A Fourteenth Century Biblical Version (Miss Paues).
E. L. II. сн, II,
5


## p. 66 (#84) ##############################################

66 Religious Movements in the XIV th Century
gone before. The nation that had proved its unity in the battle-
field and in parliament was now, we may say for the first time,
addressed as one body in popular literature. Neither in style nor in
power, however, have his English works any special note of dis-
tinction. The style of his sermons ranks higher than the early
version of the New Testament, commonly ascribed to him, and it
would not be surprising to find that, like many other medieval
works, they had undergone some revision by a faithful disciple. In
these English works there is a strange mingling of simple directness
and ruggedness; their true significance lies in their instinctive
feeling for their large audience. Wyclif had proved his power
over an academic world, democratic in itself, and so he easily
passed to a more democratic public still; his conception of the
state, and his experience of parliament, gave a peculiar vividness
to the manner of his address, but an even higher quality gave it
spiritual force.
For Wyclif had an intense reverence for the Incarnate Christ,
communis homo, unicus homo. His realist mind made him unite
Christ, as the type, with all Christian men. A like belief, worked
out in practice, had been the strength of the early Franciscans,
and hence had come Wyclif's original sympathy with them. In
his later years, after he had parted from them, the same belief
was the real basis of his popular appeal, and it was also con-
nected with another characteristic of his last phase. After he
had left Oxford, and the university had drifted, although reluc-
tantly, away from his teaching, he came to undervalue learning ;
the simple, 'lewd' man, if a follower of Christ, could do all the ✓
educated man might do. This side of his teaching, which would
naturally be exaggerated by the later Lollards, had a real
theological basis in his intense desire to see the Christ in every
man; an idea which, taught (1370—2) in De Benedicta Incar.
nacione, links together his earlier and later writings.
If we accept, as we probably should, the story told (1441) by
John Horn, Wyclif's helper at Lutterworth, to Gascoigne, it is
easier to understand his life after 1382. According to Horn, he
was paralysed for his last two years, and this explains much.
Silence had been enjoined upon him, and silence he had to keep ;
he was cited to Rome (this can be no longer doubted) and he
could but refuse to go; he was debilis and claudus, the Rex
regum had forbidden him to travel. He could still work at his
writings without openly disobeying the order to be silent; and
his poor priests' gave him a ready means of scattering them.


## p. 67 (#85) ##############################################

Wyclif's Later Life
67
6
When we read in notes to some of the MSS of his works how
they were copied in English villages by Bohemian scholars, as
they moved from Oxford, to Braybrook, near Leicester, and then
to Kemerton, near Evesham, places where Lollard influence was
strong, it is easy to see how the crusade was carried on. But,
with the growing severity of the persecution under the Lancaster
kings, the whole Lollard movement was, as Erasmus says, 'sup-
pressed but not extinguished. ' 'It was,' as Gairdner has told
us 'by no means an innocent attempt to secure freedom for the
individual judgments; it was a spirit that prompted the violation
of order and disrespect to all authority. ' It left behind it much
discontent, an appeal to the Scriptures and to them alone and an
exaltation of preaching above aught else; these traditions lingered
on, especially in a few local centres, until Tudor days. But Wyclif
himself was almost bidden by the loosely organised sect that
claimed descent from him.
It is easy to understand why, under the circumstances, nothing
more came of Wyclif's citation to Rome. Thus, the scholar, un-
excommunicated, although, perhaps, bound by some promise, his
feeble body consumed by this restless fire within, lived on in his quiet
parish. Upon Holy Innocents' Day, 1384, the final stroke fell on him
as he was hearing Mass, and, on St Sylvester's Day (31 December),
he died. It is well known how his ashes were treated; but
the scanty remembrance of him left in England, contrasted with
the activity of the Lollards, was, perhaps, more of a slight to his
memory. At Oxford, few traces of his work were left. The uni-
versity, although not without difficulty, was brought by archbishop
Arundel under strict control, and, with the loss of its freedom, and
the decay of the realist philosophy for which it had stood, Oxford
lost much of its hold upon the nation : controversies such as
Wyclif and his followers had raised destroy the atmosphere needed
for study and intellectual life. It has been suggested that, owing
to the decay of Oxford, Cambridge took its place; such was
certainly the result, although positive, as well as negative, reasons
might be given for the growing reputation of the younger
university.
Meanwhile, the suppressed activity of the Lollards lived on.
The archbishop had used the ordinary episcopal powers of inqui-
sition for heresy, which, in England, were never superseded by the
inquisition, so that the earlier punishments of heresy by death
took place under canon law. But, with the act De Haeretico
Comburendo (1401), a new basis was given to the persecution, and
5-2


## p. 68 (#86) ##############################################

68 Religious Movements in the XIV th Century
the state, as usual, showed itself more severe than the church.
The Lollard party in parliament was, at one time, strong, and,
more than once, brought forward suggestions of sweeping changes
and confiscation. But, with the condemnation for heresy of Sir
John Oldcastle (Lord Cobham, by marriage) in 1413, it ceased to
be coherent and effective. Oldcastle himself escaped, after a severe
examination, and, until his execution for treason (1417), was a
centre for disaffection and rumours of rebellion. Much popular
ridicule, such as may be read in the political poems of the day,
was thrown upon him, and some of it, by a curious change, was
transferred to the Norfolk soldier Sir John Fastolf. The chief
result of Oldcastle's life was, thus, a strangely confused impression
upon literature, but his Lollardism had been driven back by
Arundel's strong action and the wider sweep of domestic politics
into the lowlier paths of the national life. The old centres of
Lollardy, nevertheless, remained ; the activity of Lollard writers,
in adding prologues to works already known and in copying or
abridging them, went on. The work of Lollard schools, and the
circulation of Lollard tracts—for the most part of little merit-
had yet both a religious and a literary significance. They come
mostly before us in trials, and isolated examples (such as the appeal
to parliament in 1395, which, in its English dress, presented, in many
slightly varying forms, originals possibly first composed in Latin);
but a literature of this kind has often more effect than more
ambitious and larger works. There always had been, before the
days of Wyclif, this literature of lowly discontent. If, after his
days, it was raised to rather a higher level, for a time a little
invigorated, and nourished by vague memories, it had, nevertheless,
no very precise connection with his teaching. The religious litera-
ture of discontent lived on side by side with the more recognised
literature of devotion. Tracts and sermons, handed about and read
as treasured teachings to little gatherings, loosely copied and at
times condensed, are difficult to classify, or to appreciate. But
the exact relation of the later Lollard sect to Wyclif's doctrines,
and its influence upon the reformation, are difficult and distinct
historical problems. It is certain that, while like him in denying
transubstantiation, the later Lollards were not like him in their
positive view of the Eucharist ; his views upon endowment might
reappear again and again in parliament, but had no permanent
effect. If there was much floating discontent with the church, and
still more with the abuses of the day, it is difficult to trace this
to Wyclif's influence, and the same, probably, would have been


## p. 69 (#87) ##############################################

Wyclif's Personality
69
found without him. In weight of learning, and power of argument,
those who wrote against his views outmatched his English followers.
But, in Bohemia, the influence, which was denied Wyclif in
England, was permanent and strong. It is sufficient to refer
to Loserth, who has treated the whole question fully and with
an adequate knowledge of both Wyclif and Hus. Bohemian
students had been at cosmopolitan Oxford in the days of Wyclif
himself, and the connection thus begun continued long. The whole
Hussite movement in its beginning was Wyclifite, and was called so
by its friends and enemies alike; Wyclif's influence was firmly esta-
blished there even before 1403. His views became part of a national
and university movement which, on its philosophical side, was also
realist. Hus was simply a disciple of Wyclif, and his works
were mainly copies of Wyclif's ; this revival of Wyclifite teaching
led to the condemnation of forty-five selected errors at the council of
Constance (4 May 1415). But, when, in the early years of the
reformation, the works of Hus were printed, and came into the
hands of Luther and Zwingli among others, it was really Wyclif
who was speaking to them. Everything seemed to work together
in disguising the real influence Wyclif had exercised.
A survey, then, of Wyclif's life and works, as they can be
estimated now, shows that much at one time assigned to him
was not really his. He was the last of a school of philosophers,
but, as such, his intellectual influence was not enduring ; he was the
first of a school of writers, but his literary influence was not
great. His connection with our English Bible, difficult as it may
be to state precisely, is, perhaps, his greatest achievement. His
personality does not become plainer to us as his works are better
known. Even his appearance is hardly known to us, for the
portraits of him are of much later date and of uncertain genea-
logy. But Thorpe-an early Lollard and, probably, a disciple
at Oxford_describes him as held by many the holiest of all in
his day, lean of body, spare and almost deprived of strength,
most pure in his life. ' That he was simple and ascetic, quick
of temper and too ready to speak, we hear from himself and
can gather from his works. The secret of his influence, well
suited to his day, whether working through the decaying Latin or
the ripening English, lies in the sensitive, impulsive and fiery
spirit of the Latin scholastic and English preacher, sympathetic
towards movements and ideas, although not towards individual
minds. But the medium through which that spirit worked belongs
to an age that has passed away, and we cannot discover the
secret of it for ourselves.


## p. 70 (#88) ##############################################

CHAPTER III
THE BEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH PROSE
1
TREVISA. THE MANDEVILLE TRANSLATORS
EARLY English prose had, of necessity, a practical character.
To those who understood neither Latin nor French all proclama-
tions and instructions, laws and sermons, had to be issued in
English, while, for a long time, the official Latin of the accountant
and the law clerk had been very English in kind, even to the
insertion of native words with a case-ending appended. With the
increasing importance of the commons in the fourteenth century,
the proceedings of parliament itself began to descend to the vulgar
tongue, which obtained a signal recognition when three successive
parliaments (1362—4) were opened by English speeches from the
chancellor. Furthermore, a statute, in 1362, ordered the pleadings
in the law-courts to be conducted in English, though the cases
were to be recorded in Latin, on the ground that French was no
longer sufficiently understood. Political sentiment may have
inspired this declaration, which was as much overstated as the
plea of two of Henry IV's envoys that French was, to their
ignorant understandings, as bad as Hebrew; for the yearbooks
continued to be recorded in French, and in French not only
diplomatic letters but reports to Henry IV himself were written.
The use of that tongue, so long the medium of polite intercourse,
did not vanish suddenly, but a definite movement which ensured
its doom took place in the grammar schools, after the Black
Death, when English instead of French was adopted as the
medium of instruction. John Trevisa, writing in 1385, tells
us that this reform was the work of John Cornwall and his
disciple Richard Pencrich, and that, ‘in alle be gramere
scoles of Engelond children leveb Frensche and construep and
lernep an Englische,' with the result that they learned their
grammar more quickly than children were wont to do, but with
the disadvantage that they 'connep na more Frensche than can
hir lift heele' and 'þat is harme for hem and þey schulle passe


## p. 71 (#89) ##############################################

Early Translations
71
be see and travaille in straunge landes. Even noblemen had
left off teaching their children French.
Before the close of the fourteenth century, therefore, it could no
longer be assumed that all who wished to read would read French
or Latin. There was a dearth of educated clergy after the Black
Death; disaster abroad and at home left little inclination for
refinement, and, when life was reduced to its essentials, the use of
the popular speech naturally became universal. Thus, in the great
scene of Richard II's deposition, English was used at the crucial
moments, while, at the other end of the scale, king Richard's
master cook was setting down his Forme of Cury for practical
people. In the same way, on the continent, 'Sir John Man-
deville' was writing in French before 1371 for the sake of nobles
and gentlemen who knew not Latin, and there, as at home, Latin
books and encyclopaedias were so far ceasing to be read that he
could venture to plagiarise from the most recent. In England,
the needs of students, teachers and preachers were now supplied
in the vernacular by the great undertakings of John Trevisa, who
translated what may be called the standard works of the time on
scientific and humane knowledge-De Proprietatibus Rerum
by Bartholomaeus Anglicus and Higden's Polychronicon. These
great treatises are typically medieval, and the former a recognised
classic in the universities. The minorite friar Bartholomaeus, who
must have been born an Englishman, was a theological professor
of the university of Paris, and his De Proprietatibus Rerum, an
encyclopaedia of all knowledge concerned with nature, was com-
piled in the middle of the thirteenth century, possibly during his
residence in Saxony, whither he was sent, in 1231, to organise the
Franciscans of the duchy. Ranulf Higden was a monk of St Wer-
burgh's, Chester, and wrote his Polychronicon about 1350. It
is compiled from many authorities, and embraces the history of
the entire world, from the Creation to Higden's own times; the
different countries are described geographically, and all the favourite
medieval legends in the histories of Persia, Babylon and Rome are in-
troduced. There are many points in which Higden, Bartholomaeus
and the later 'Sir John Mandeville'accord, revealing some common
predecessor among the earlier accepted authorities; for the object
of the medieval student was knowledge and no merit resided in
originality: he who would introduce novelty did wisely to insert it
in some older work which commanded confidence. Naturally,
therefore, translations of books already known were the first prose
works to be set before the English public, namely the two great


## p. 72 (#90) ##############################################

72
The Beginnings of English Prose
works of Trevisa, and The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, a book
which, under a thin disguise of pious utility, was really a volume
of entertainment.
The translators of these works aimed at being understood by a
wider class of readers than the audience of Chaucer or even of Piers
the Plowman. The style, therefore, though simple, is by no means
terse. Where any doubt of the meaning might arise, pairs of words
are often used, after a fashion not unknown to the poets. This usage
prevailed during the following century—and with some reason, for
the several dialects of England still differed so much that a southern
man could scarcely apprehend what Trevisa calls the 'scharpe
slitting, frotynge and unschape' speech of York. The translators
desired only to convey the meaning of their originals and their ren-
derings are extremely free; they omit or expand as they choose,
and this saves early English prose from the pitfall of Latinism, giving
it a certain originality, though at the cost of tautology. Trevisa,
in the introduction to Polychronicon, explains to his patron that
though he must sometimes give word for word, active for active,
passive for passive, yet he must sometimes change the order and
set active for passive, or 'a resoun’ (a phrase) for a word, but
he promises that, in any case, he will render the meaning exactly.
These translations became recognised authorities among the reading
public of the fifteenth century and may reasonably be considered
the corner-stones of English prose. All three were accepted as
absolutely veracious; the adventures of Mandeville, the legends of
Polychronicon, the fairy-tale science of Bartholomaeus, were taken
as literally as their scriptural quotations or hints on health. The
information, all the same, seems to be conveyed with an eye to
entertainment; little effort of thought is required in the reader;
paragraphs are short, statements definite and the proportion of
amusing anecdote is only equalled by the trite moralising, couched
in common-place phrases, which had become a required convention
in a materialist age. Books were distributed to the public by
means of professional scribes; but, since there lay no sanctity
in exact phraseology, the translators themselves were at the mercy
of copyists. Cheaper copies were sometimes produced by cur-
tailing the text, or newer information might be added. Trevisa's
Bartholomaeus was probably brought up to date by many a
scribe, and the different MSS of his Polychronicon, though un-
altered as to the narrative, present a variety of terms. Mandeville,
too, appears in (probably) three distinct translations, the most
popular of which was multiplied in shortened forms.
It is,


## p. 73 (#91) ##############################################

John Trevisa
73
therefore dangerous to base theories upon the forms found in any
one MS; for we can rarely be sure of having the actual words of
the author. Often, though not always, the MS may be incon-
sistent with itself, and, in any case, few MSS of philological
interest exist in many copies ; in other words, they were not popular
versions, and, as most of the MSS are inconsistent with each other
in spelling and in verb-forms, it seems that the general reader must
have been accustomed to different renderings of sound. Caxton
need hardly bave been so much concerned about the famous 'egges
or eyren. '
John Trevisa, a Cornishman, had made himself somewhat
notorious at Oxford. He was a Fellow of standing at Exeter
College in 1362, and Fellow of Queen's, in 1372–6, when
Wyclif and Nicholas Hereford were also residents, at a time
when Queen's was in favour with John of Gaunt, and, perhaps,
a rather fashionable house. The university was then, like other
parts of England, a prey to disorder. Factions of regulars and
seculars, quarrels between university authorities and friars,
rivalry amongst booksellers and a revolt of the Bachelors of
arts, produced petitions to parliament and royal commissions
in quick succession. Amongst these dissensions had occurred a
quarrel in 'Quenehalle,' so violent that the archbishop of York,
visitor of the college, had intervened and, in 1376, in spite of re-
sistance and insult, had expelled the Provost and three Fellows,
of whom one was Trevisa, ‘for their unworthiness. ' It is possible
that Wyclifite leanings caused this disgrace; for the university was
already in difficulties on the reformer's account, and both Exeter
and Queen's are believed to have been to some extent Wyclifite,
while Trevisa's subsequent writings betray agreement with Wyclif's
earlier opinions? . The ejected party carried off the keys, charters,
plate, books and money of their college, for which the new Provost
was clamouring in vain three years later. Royal commissions
were disregarded till 1380, when Trevisa and his companions at
length gave up their plunder. No ill-will seems to have been
felt towards the ejected Fellows, for Trevisa rented a chamber
6
1 The old suggestion of Henry Wharton, rejected by Forshall and Madden, that
Trevisa might be the author of the general prologue to the second Wyclifite Bible, has
been lately repeated, on the ground of the likeness of their expressed opinions on the
art of translation. But, apart from other arguments, the style is not Trevisa's, nor
its self-assertion, nor its vigorous protestantism. Trevisa's anti-papal remarks are
timid and he never finds fault with the secular clergy. The same principles of
translation were in the literary atmosphere, and it is open to doubt whether Trevisa's
scholarship would have been equal to the full and precise explanations of the prologue.


## p. 74 (#92) ##############################################

74
The Beginnings of English Prose
at Queen's between 1395 and 1399, probably while executing his
translation of Bartholomaeus. Most of his subsequent life, how-
ever, was spent as vicar of Berkeley in Gloucestershire and chaplain
to Thomas, Lord Berkeley, reputed to have been a disciple of
Wyclif. He also, like Wyclif, held a non-resident canonry of the
collegiate church of Westbury-on-Trym. At some earlier date,
Trevisa had travelled, for he incidentally mentions his experiences
at Breisach on the Rhine, Aachen and Aix-les-Bains, but he had not
seen Rome.
His two great translations were made at the desire of Lord
Berkeley. Polychronicon was concluded in 1387, De Proprieta-
tibus in 1398. He executed several smaller translations, including
the famous sermon of archbishop FitzRalph, himself an Oxford
scholar, against the mendicant orders, and, probably, a translation
of the Bible now lost.
Trevisa was a man of wide reading rather than exact scholar-
ship; his explanation of the quadrivium is incorrect, and his
Latinity was far inferior to Higden's. But his robust good sense,
his regard for strict accuracy and his determination to be under-
stood, make him an interesting writer. He was fond of nature,
he knew his De Proprietatibus well before he wrote it in English
and he could even bring witness of additional wonders, told to him
at first hand by trustworthy parishioners of Berkeley. Without
historical acumen, he does not hesitate to level scathing criticisms
at old writers, but, on the other hand, he sometimes clears away a
difficulty by common sense. Why was Higden puzzled by the
inconsistent descriptions of Alcluyd? was there not more than
one Carthage, and is there not a Newport in Wales and another
in the parish of Berkeley?
The explanations so frequently inserted in the text suggest
that, though Polychronicon was translated in the first instance
for Lord Berkeley, a wider public was in the maker's mind. His
notes are usually brief:
Ethiopia, blew men lond; laborintus, Daedalus his hous; Ecco is be re-
boundynge of noyse; Gode genius is to menynge a spirit þat foloweș a man
al his lyftime; Kent and Essex, Westsex and Mercia - þat is as hit were a greet
deel of myddel Englond; theatres, places hize and real to stonde and sytte
ynne and byholde aboute: Tempe Florida, likynge place wip floures.
It is but seldom that he is absurd, as when he renders matrones
by old mothers, or gives a derivation for satirical: "som poete is
i-clepede satiricus, and haþ þat name of satis, þat is inow, for be
matire þat he spekep of he touchep at pe fulle. ' These lengthier
notes, inserted 'for to brynge here hertes out of pouzt' he always
1


## p. 75 (#93) ##############################################

Trevisa's Polychronicon
75
signs "Trevisa. ' We observe that he feels it advisable to explain
in full a very simple use of hyperbole.
As a translator, many more slips in scholarship might be for-
given him for the raciness of the style. Neither in terms nor
structure does it suggest the Latin, but the interpolated criticisms
are less wordy than the translation. Trevisa expands his original,
not because he is a poor Latinist but partly because he wishes
to be understood, and partly from that pleasure in doublets which
would seem to be a natural English inheritance. Sometimes the
synonymous words are accepted catch-phrases, sometimes they
evince pure pleasure in language. We always get 'domesmen and
juges,' 'tempest and tene,' pis worlde wyde'i Not that Trevisa
is enslaved by alliteration; he uses it less as the work proceeds,
save in the regular phrases ; but he loves balanced expression,
and ruins Higden's favourite antitheses. His picturesqueness is,
perhaps, elementary, less that of an artist than of a child.
It is Trevisa's principle to translate every word: the Medi-
terranean is 'be see of myddel erpe. ' Even when he cannot
understand a set of verses he doggedly turns them into a
jumble of pure nonsense which he asserts to be rime, adding,
candidly, 'God woot what pis is to mene. ' The outspoken
criticisms and occasional touches of sarcasm seem to betray a
man impatient of conventions which he felt to be practical abuses,
but scrupulously orthodox in every detail which could be held to
affect creed. To the wonderful fable of the marble horses at Rome he
appends the moral that it shows þat who forsakep all þyng forsakep
all his clobes, and so it folowe} þat þey þat beep wel i-cloped and
goop aboute and beggep and gaderep money and corn and catel of
oper men forsakep not al þing. ' On the other hand, he is shocked
that Gregory Nazianzen tells 'a ungodly tale of so worthy a
prince of philosophes as Aristotle was. ' A saying of the mythical
Nectabanus: ‘No man may flee his owne destanye' is thus
stigmatised : Nectabanus seide pis sawe and was a wiiche, and
þerfore it is nevere be bettere to trowynge. . . for from every mis-
hap þat man is i-schape in his worlde to falle inne God may hym
1 •Limites=þe meeres and be marke, aflixit = dede hym moche woo and tene,
fortes=stalworpe men and wight. ' So too 'a pigmey boskep hym to bataile and array
hym to fizt. '
3 . Figmenta gentilium, dicta ethicorum, miranda locorum,' becomes 'feynynge
and sawes of mysbileved and lawles men and wondres and merveillis of dyverse con-
trees and londes. '
8 Ocean by clippeb al þe erbe aboute ag & garlond '; antiquitas=' longe passynge
of tyme and elde of dedes. '


## p. 76 (#94) ##############################################

76
The Beginnings of English Prose
save zif it is his wille. To the charitable miracle recorded of
Dunstan and St Gregory who, respectively, prayed the souls of
Edwy and Trajan out of hell, he refuses credit—so it mzte seeme
to a man þat were worse pan wood and out of rizt bileve. At
least once, he deliberately modifies his author: Higden observes,
giving his reasons, that the Gospel of Matthew must, in a certain
passage, be defective; Trevisa writes that here St Matthew 'is
ful skars for mene men myzte understonde. ' Yet, though puncti-
liously orthodox, Trevisa has scant reverence for popes or for
fathers of the church, and none for monks and friars. Edgar, he
saye, was lewdly moved to substitute monks for (secular) clerks :
and, in at least two of the early MSS, though not in all, a passage
distinctly Wyclifite is inserted in the midst of the translation:
and nowe for þe moste partie monkes beep worste of all, for þey beep to riche
and þat makep hem to take more hede about seculer besynesse pan gostely
devocioun. . . þerfore seculer lordes schulde take awey the superfluyte of here
possessionns and zeve it to bem þat needep or elles, whan pey knowen þat, þey
beep cause and mayntenours of here evel dedes. . . for it were almesse to take
awey þe superfluite of hero possessiouns now pan it was at be firste fundacioun
to zeve hem what hem nedede.
Though this passage is not signed ‘Trevisa,' its occurrence in the
copy which belonged to Berkeley's son-in-law Richard Beauchamp
suggests its authenticity. Trevisa was a positive man: he falls
foul of Alfred of Beverley for reckoning up the shires of England
without Cornwall' and he cannot forgive Giraldus Cambrensis
for qualifying a tale with si fas sit credere.
The translation of Bartholomaeus, also made for Lord Berkeley,
though doubtless as popular as the chronicle, has, perhaps, not
survived in so authentic a form; moreover, embodying the
accepted learning of the Middle Ages, it gave less scope for Trevisa's
originality. History anyone might criticise but novelty in science
was only less dangerous than in theology. The style of the original,
too, is inferior to Higden's; there are already duplicate terms
in plenty, and, though Trevisa contrived to increase them, he got
less opportunity for phrasing.
This encyclopaedia, in nineteen books, is a work of reference for
divine and natural science, intermixed with moral and metaphor.
Beginning with the Trinity, the prophets and angels, it proceeds
to properties of soul and body, and so to the visible universe.