The lanterne of lizt, ed. from ms. Harl. 2324 / by Lilian M. Swinburn.

APPENDIX

SOURCES OF THE QUOTATIONS FROM THE BIBLE MADE IN THE TEXT

As is the case with most mediaeval theological writers, the author supports his argument by frequent references to Scripture and to the writings of the Fathers and famous mediaeval divines, although, in accordance with the views of the Lollards with regard to the relative value of these two authorities, he evidently looked upon the latter as of secondary importance. The quotations from patristic literature are as a rule adduced in support and interpretation of Biblical passages. [The chief exception to this is on p. 37, where the author supports his attack on the costly decoration of churches mainly by an appeal to St. Jerome, St. Bernard, and William de St. Amour.]

In quoting from the Bible, the author's general practice is to give the text in Latin with an English translation. An investigation of the sources of both the Latin and the English texts follows.

A. Latin Quotations.

The Latin text of the Bible in use in the Middle Ages was the Vulgate. That there were many versions of this text current in England in the late fourteenth century is proved by contemporary evidence. The writer of the Prologue to the 1388 translation of the Bible bears witness to the corrupt state of the Latin Bibles of the time and speaks of the difficulty of making an accurate Latin text as not the least part of his task. 'First this symple creature hadde myche trauaile, with diuerse felowis and helperis, to gedere manie elde biblis, and othere doctouris and comune glosis . . . to make oo Latyn bible sumdel trewe. . . . If ony wijs man fynde ony defaute of the truthe of translacioun, let him sette in the trewe sentence and opin of holi writ, but loke that he examyne truli his Latyn Bible, for no doute he shal fynde ful manye biblis in Latyn ful false, if he loke manie, nameli newe; and the comune Latyn biblis han more nede to be correctid, as many as I have seen in my lif, than hath the English bible late translatid.' [The Holy Bible . . . in the earliest English version by Wyclif, ed. by J. Forshall and Sir F. Madden, 1850, vol. i, p. 57.]

It is possible, to some extent, to reconstruct the standardized Latin text upon which the Wycliffite translation was based. The 1380 version, in particular, is a close literal rendering of the Latin original, and a comparison with it of the Biblical passages in the Lanterne of Liȝt shows that the author of the latter could not have used the same Latin text. As would naturally be expected, the original of the Wycliffite translation is nearer to the sixteenth-century standard Clementine edition of the Vulgate (C) than that used by the writer of the tract. Compare:

1 John ii. 18. L. of L.

'Nunc autem sunt multi antichristi.'

W. V.

'Now many antecristes ben made.'

C.

'Nunc Antichristi multi facti sunt.'

<

Rom. viii. 9. L. of L.

'Qui non habet spiritum Christi nec est eius.'

W. V.

'If ony hath not the spirit of Crist, this is not his.

C.

'Si quis autem spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius.'

Ecclesiasticus xiv. 20. L. of L.

'Omne opus corruptibile in fine deficiet et qui fecit illud peribit cum illo.'

W. V.

'Eche corruptible werc in the ende shal faile; and he that wercheth it, shal go with it.'

C.

'Omne opus corruptibile in fine deficiet et qui operatur illud, ibit cum illo.'

Ephesians i. 22. L. of L.

'Ipsum dedit caput ecclesiae.'

W. V.

'(God) ȝaf him heed upon al the chirche.'

C.

'Ipsum dedit caput supra omnem ecclesiam.'

In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there were in existence a number of different versions of the Vulgate, which might conceivably have been known to the author. Of these, the best is the Codex Amiatinus (A), a version written in Northumbria in the seventh or eighth century at the command of Ceolfrid, Abbot of Wearmouth. The passages quoted in the text have been compared with A, and although they agree in many cases, the divergences of reading are too numerous to allow of the assumption that A was the text used by the author. Compare:

2 Pet. ii. 1. L. of L.

'Magistri mendaces qui introducent sectas perditionis.'

A.

'Magistri mendaces qui inducent sectas perditionis.'

Matt. xxiii. 15. L. of L.

'Vae vobis scribe et pharisei quia circuitis terram et mare.'

A.

'Vae vobis scribae et pharisaei hypocritae: quia circuitis mare et aridam.'

Jude ii. 16. L. of L.

'Mirantes personas hominum questus causa.'

A.

'Mirantes personas questus causa.'

A comparison with other codices (e.g. Codex Armachanus,

Codex Cavensis, Codex Fuldensis) has been made where the Latin of the tract exhibits marked peculiarities. This has led to the same result as the comparison with A, namely, that the peculiarities of the text are not entirely shared by any of the more famous of the extant Vulgate versions.

It might be urged that when quoting from the Vulgate, the author relied entirely upon his own memory, and that the divergences from any other known Latin text are due to this fact. In a few cases the nature of the differences in reading lends colour to this theory, e.g.:

Matt. xiii. 25. L. of L.

'Inimicus homo superseminavit zizaunia.'

A. and W. V.

'Inimicus eius superseminavit zizania,' but

v. 28,

'Inimicus homo hoc fecit.'

and many places where the difference consists solely in the omission of such particles as 'enim', 'autem', 'vero', or in the inversion of two words; but such differences are equally likely to have arisen among the variant texts of the Vulgate in existence at the time, and it is more probable that the author of the Lanterne of Liȝt quoted from some actual current version. As has been shown, the particular text which he used differed from that upon which the Wycliffite translations of 1380 and 1388 were based, and also from that of the famous codices extant at the time, such as the Codex Amiatinus. In all probability it was one of the many 'Latyn biblis' current at that period, to the existence of which the Prologue to the 1388 Wycliffite Bible bears witness, but that it was not one of the more corrupt of these is proved by the fact that out of the two hundred and seventy-four passages quoted, one hundred and seventy agree with the readings of the standard Clementine version.

B. The English Translation.

By the beginning of the fifteenth century there were in existence a number of translations of different parts of the Bible in addition to the famous Wycliffite versions of 1380 and 1388. They are as follows:

I. The Psalter translated by Richard Rolle of Hampole. [Bramley, The Psalter ... by R. Rolle of Hampole, Oxford, 1884.]

II. The West Midland Psalter. [Bülbring, Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter, E.E.T.S.]

III. Commentaries upon the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. [Cf. Wycl. Bible, i, p. ix.]

IV. Translation of the Gospels for Sundays and Festivals, arranged to form a continuous narrative. [MS. Pepys, 2498; cf. Paues, English Bibl. Version, 1902, Introduction.]

V. The Pauline Epistles with a Commentary. [MS. Parker, 32, Corpus Christi College; cf. Wycl. Bible, i. p. xiii.]

VI. Apocalypse with a Commentary. [Formerly attributed to Wyclif; now proved to be a verbal rendering of twelfth-century Norman Apocalypse; cf. Paues, Fourteenth-century English Bible Version, p. xxvii.]

VII. Part of St. Matthew, the Acts, Catholic Epistles, and Pauline Epistles. [Paues, Fourteenth-century English Bible Version.]

VIII. Wycliffite Translations of the Bible, 1380 and 1388. [The Holy Bible . . . in the earliest English version by Wyclif, ed. by J. Forshall and Sir F. Madden, 1850.]

It might be expected that in a work of this kind, written during the early years of the fifteenth century and evidently directly inspired by the teaching of Wyclif, the English rendering of the quotations from the Vulgate would have been taken from either of the two Wycliffite translations of the Bible. This, however, is not the case, for on a comparison being made, it was found that in spite of occasional similarities of rendering, the divergences in translation are too many to allow of the theory that the author of the Lanterne of Liȝt used either the 1380 or the 1388 version.

The renderings in the text have also, where possible, been compared with those in the Biblical versions mentioned above. The comparison proved that none of these translations were used by the author, although with regard to the version edited by Miss Paues, there are three passages in the text which closely resemble its renderings:

James v. 16. MS.

'Þe bisi preier of þe riȝtwise is miche worþe.'

P.

'For muche worþ is a bysy preyere of a riȝtful man.'

James i. 18. MS.

'God haþ wilfulli & of his owene free wille gotun us þoruȝ þe worde of trouþe, þat we mai be summe bigynnyng of his creature.'

P.

'For wylfullyche he haþ bygeten ous þoruȝ þe word of trewþe, þat we ben sum bygynnynge of his creature.'

Acts v. 42. MS.

'Forsoþe iche dai in þe temple & aboute housis: þei ceessid not teching & preching Crist Jesu.'

P.

'Soþely euery day in þe temple & abowte howses þei cessed noghte of techinge ande prechinge of Jesu Criste.'

Elsewhere, however, the renderings are so different, that the resemblances in these three passages must be looked upon as accidental.

The natural inference is that the author of the Lanterne of Liȝt made his own translation from the Latin, a deduction which is borne out by the fact that Wyclif pursued a similar plan. Throughout his English works, the passages which Wyclif quotes from the Bible are not taken from the early Wycliffite version, but are translated from the Latin independently. [Cam. Hist. of Engl. Lit., vol. ii, pp. 52, 60.]

C. The Value of the Translation.

As an actual translation, the rendering in the Lanterne of Liȝt is of less value than the 1388 Wycliffite version. The translation is freer, and the author frequently adds words and phrases for which there is no justification in the Latin original. Sometimes these additions are merely explanatory; occasionally they are used to give a certain bias to the passage in order to make it more apposite to the argument. It was doubtless a tendency of this kind on the part of the Lollards which led to the constitution of 1409, which forbade unauthorized translations of the Bible or of any part of it, and which caused a popular writer against the Lollards to say:

'Ther the Bibelle is al myswent To jangle of Job or Jeremie, That construen hit after her entent For lewde lust of Lollardie.' [Political Poems and Songs, R. S., vol. ii, p. 243.]

Examples of such glossed passages will be found in the following:

p. 12. 1 John ii. 1. 'Filioli mei haec scribo vobis, ut non peccetis.'

'Mi litil sones, þise þingis I write unto ȝou, þat ȝe synne not in þe synne of dispeire.'

p. 23. Isaiah ix. 15. 'Longevus & venerabilis ipse est caput, propheta docens mendacium ipse est cauda.'

'A man of greet agee & worschipful holden to þe world, he is heed and cheef anticrist; a prophete or a prechour techyng lesing: he is þe taile of þis anticrist.'

p. 26. Jude i. 11. 'Vae qui in via Caym abierunt, & in errore Balaam mercede effuci sunt: & in contradictione Chore perierunt.'

'Woo to hem þat walken in þe weye of Caym: þise ben fals possessioners. And woo to hem þat ben schadde out for mede in þe errour of Balaam: þise ben miȝti nedles mendiners. And woo to hem þat han perischide in þe aȝenseiyng of Chore: þise ben proude sturdi maynteners.'

p. 63. Ecclesiasticus xiv. 20. 'Omne opus corruptibile in fine deficiet, & qui fecit illud peribit cum illo.'

'Iche corruptible werke or iche werke þat is rotun in þe roote schal faile in þe ende, & he þat is foundir of suche ungroundid werk schal faile & worþe to nouȝt þerwiþ in þe last daies.'

From the point of view of language, the renderings in the text compare very favourably with the 1388 version, and are greatly superior as regards idiomatic ease and clearness of expression to the 1380 translation.

The following passages may exemplify this:

L. of L.

Rom. viii. 18. 'Þe passiouns of þis tyme ... ben as noo passiouns in comparisoun to þe glorie þat is to come þat schal be schewid in us.'

Matt. xiii. 47. 'Þe rewme of heuenes is lijk to a nett þat is sent in to þe see & gadriþ to-gidre in to his cloos of alle þe kynde of diverse fisches & whanne þis nett was ful of fisches þe fischers drowen it to þe lond & þei sitting biside þe see brynk chosen þe good into her vessellis, þe yuel forsoþe þei sentten oute: & kesten hem aȝen in to þe see.'

Ps. xl. 1. 'Blessid be he þat takiþ hede on þe nedi & pore.'

Ecclesiasticus xxix. 20. 'Forgete þou not þe kyndenes of þi borow; forsoþe he haþ ȝouun for þee his lijf.'

1380 W. V.

'The passiouns of this tyme ben not euene worthi to the glorie to comynge, that schal be schewid in us.'

'The kingdom of heuenes is lic to a nette sent in to the see, and of alle kynd of fishis gedrynge; the whiche whan it was fulfillid men ledynge out, and sittinge bysidis the brynke, cheesiden the good into her vessels, but thei senten out the yuel.'

'Blisful that understant up on the nedi and pore.'

'The grace of the borȝ ne forgete thou; forsothe he ȝaf for thee his soule.'

1388 W. V.

'The passiouns of this time ben not worthi to the glorie to comynge, that schal be shewid in us.'

'The kyngdom of heuenes is lijk to a nette cast into the see, and that gaderith togidere of al kynde of fisschis; which whanne it was ful, thei drowen up, and seten bi the brenke, and chesen the goode in to her vessels, but the yuel thei kesten out.'

'Blessid is he that undurstondith on a nedi man and pore.'

'Forȝete thou not the grace of the borewe; for he ȝaf his lijf for thee.'