* Tb. p. xivii. For the evidence that the de Dominio is Wyclif’s, see p. xxii.
+ English Works, ed. by F. D. Matthew, pp. 405, 429. The editor makes no doubt that this is Wyclif’s own composition. In another tract, on the Office of Curates, probably not by Wyclif himself, but by one of his school (¢b. p. 141), the lan- guage used is very decisive. Speaking of the opposite party, the writer says: ‘thei crien opynly that seculer men schullen not entirmeten (meddle) hem of the gospel to rede it in heir modir tonge, but heere her gostly fadris preche & do after hem in alle thingis ; but this is expresly ayenst goddis techynge.’
{ Mr. Matthew suggests (p. 530) that the French translation referred to in this passage may be that described by M. Paris. See above, p. 237> note ||. Bender, in his Der Reformator Johann Wicklif, 1884, pp. 11-20, collects the passages, from Foxe and others, which seem to indicate the existence of vernacular Bibles in England before Wyclif’s time. But if any such had been known to Wyclif, his argument in the text would have lost its force.
§ Nicholas of Hereford was an Oxford man, and Fellow of Queen’s, with which college Wyclif also is said to have been connected. He was implicated in the confession of John Ball in 1381. Throughout the Lent of 1382 he was preaching zeal- ously at the University Church in support of Wyclif’s doctrines ; but on June 15th was suspended from all public functions. On July 1st, failing to appear at his trial, he was excommunicated. From this sentence he appealed to the pope, and set out for Rome. Hence probably the sudden termination of his manu- script work, before referred to. More than once he narrowly escaped being handed over to the secular power. At Jength, after being, according to Foxe, grievously tormented in Salt- wood Castle, he recanted, probably in 1391. He afterwards himself sat in judgment on heretics, was treasurer of Hereford Cathedral in 1397, and died in the Carthusian monastery of St. Anne, Coventry, somewhere about 1420.—See R. L. Poole’s article in the Dict. of Nat. Biography.
240 VERSIONS (ENGLISH)
VERSIONS (ENGLISH)
municated on July ist. Who continued and finished the OT* ‘we do not know. It would no doubt be under Wyclif’s superintendence ; but
it was in this year that he had his first seizure of illness, and it is difficult to believe that he could, single-handed, have finished his own NT work, and also what was wanting of Hereford’s. It is usual, however, to assign to him the whole of the NT translation and the remainder of the OT.
The want of uniformity perceptible in the work, added to the defects naturally attending a first attempt, rendered a complete revision necessary. This was at once taken in hand; but, before it could be finished, death removed the master mind. A faithful disciple of Wyclif, John Purvey,} car- ried on the work, and, somewhere about 1388, the whole task of revision was accomplished.
In a lengthy ‘Prolog’ to the OT thus revised, Purvey states the principles by which he had been guided. Out of a charitable desire, he says, ‘to saue alle men in our rewme (realm), whiche God wole haue sauid, a symple creature hadde myche trauaile, with diuerse felawis and helperis,+ to gedere manie elde biblis, and othere doctouris, and comune glosis,§ and to make oo Latyn bibel sumdel (somewhat) trewe.’? He then describes the process of revision, as the workers compared the version made with ‘the glose,’ and other doctors, ‘and speciali Lire|| on the elde testament, that helpide ful myche in this werke.’ A third time their performance was tested, by a reference to grammarians and early writers, in order to settle
*It should be remembered that, according to the arrange- ment of the books of the OT in the Vulgate, the portion remain- ing after Baruch is not large—Ezekiel, Daniel (with its con- tinuations), the Minor Prophets, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
t The important part taken by Purvey in Wyclif’s great work makes some particulars of his life desirable. He is said to have been a native of Lathbury in Buckinghamshire, born about 1354. Wyclif, it will be remembered, was at one time rector of Ludgershall in that county. During Wyclif’s residence at Lutterworth, Purvey was closely associated with him, and, after his master’s death, went, as one of the itinerant preachers, to Bristol, a city in sympathy with the new movement. Proceed- ings were taken against him by the Bishop of Worcester, and in 1390 he was imprisoned. In 1400-1 he was brought before Con- vocation, and recanted. In August 1401 he was presented to the vicarage of West Hythe in Kent ; but, his min being ill at ease, he resigned it in Oct. 1403. In 1421 we find him again imprisoned by Archbishop Chicheley. He was alive in 1427, after which nothing seems known of him.—See the article by J. W. Hales in the Dict. of Nat. Biography, vol. xlvii. py 52
¢ Who these helperg were we can only conjecture. The three following were noted adherents of Wyclif at the time, and it is not improbable that one or more of them had a hand in the work :—John Aston, or Ashton, is said to have been of Merton College, Oxford. If Wyclif was seneschal of Merton, this might account for their friendship. In 1382 he was conspicuous as one of Wyclif’s itinerant preachers. In that year, along with Lawrence Bedeman, Nicholas Hereford, and Philip Repyngdon, he was summoned to appear at Blackfriars, in London, before Archbishop Courtney. By a royal patent, July 12th, he was expelled from his university. On Nov. 27th he recanted, but we find him again denounced as a Lollard, and prohibited from preaching.