Hereford, at least the first five-sixths of it, up to the middle of Baruch 3.20, where the fifth and last hand of MS Bodley 959 suddenly breaks off, because another manuscript, Douce 369.1, says at this point, though not in the hand of the scribe, “Explicit Nicholay de herford.”81 They argue that Douce was copied from 959 before the extensive corrections found in 959 were added.82 Lindberg dates MS 959 to around 1400, and he thinks the ascription of this part of the Old Testament to Hereford to be likely, and probably the rest of the Old Testament as well. He estimates that the project would have taken Hereford around twenty years, beginning while he was still an adherent to Wyclif ’s doctrines, and continuing after his reconciliation to the Church authorities, which occurred by 1391.83 Anne Hudson regards the interpretation placed on this ascription with skepticism, not necessarily doubting that Hereford might have been involved, but rejecting the notion that the work of translation was that of one man.84
Forshall and Madden are convinced that the translation of EV after Baruch 3.20 changes noticeably,85 but Lindberg concludes that there is no material difference.86 One example that Forshall and Madden give, that Hereford uniformly translates Latin secundum as after, whereas later it is frequently rendered as up, has been shown above to be true of only some books.
As noted earlier, John Purvey’s role as the chief mover behind the LV translation was elaborated from earlier conjectures to a harder hypothesis by Forshall and Madden. It was brought to the peak of respectability and certainty by Margaret Deanesly, who holds, in her monograph of 1920, that Purvey was not only the author of LV and GP but of the Glossed Gospels and various other tracts.87 Cardinal Gasquet’s protest of 1894 went unheeded, but claims for Purvey were dismissed by most scholars after Hudson’s article of 1981.88 It would be tempting to keep Purvey available as the Wycliffite prologuist Simple Creature,89 since his recanting of Lollard doctrine came only in 1401, whereas Hereford’s was a decade earlier. Purvey came originally from northern Buckinghamshire (the village of Lathbury, by Newport Pagnell), which may have been a region of either speakers, and he does not seem to have been a scholar, since there is no record of him at Oxford90—which, of course, would fit with SC’s ignorance of Oxford customs. In 1414, however, he was found to be in possession of a Bible (presumably Latin), a separate copy of the Gospels and a copy of the Pauline Epistles and other Latin works connected with the Bible, especially commentaries on the Epistles (by Lyre, “Bede,” and “Parisiensis”); and he also possessed the two main collections of canon law, Gratian’s Decretum and Gregory IX’s Decretals.91
A Trial Scenario for Simple Creature
Let us first consider the possibility that Simple Creature, a native of either country (perhaps somewhere in Buckinghamshire away from the Oxford environs), came to his biblical scholarship late, well after EV was finished and when LV was just wrapping up. He managed to join the New Testament team in time to contribute to the revising of four books, namely, Acts, James, 1 Peter, and the Apocalypse.
It is possible that at some point Simple Creature turned his hand to work with fellow either speakers on the Glossed Gospels, even though EV was used throughout. These compilations are entirely derivative in content, and, except for some quasi-treatises on special topics, they show little or no Lollard bias.92 The author of the Prologue to Short Matthew uses only either, at least in one of the two manuscripts that contain it (Mary Dove’s editions do not take note of either/or variants), and calls himself Simple Creature.93 The body of the work also uses only either in the excerpts given by Hudson.94 The Prologue to Short Luke similarly uses only either.95 Here the author calls himself “a poor caitiff,” prevented from preaching for a while, for reasons known to God. Like Simple Creature in Five and Twenty Books, he uses both thirdperson and first-person pronouns to refer to himself.96 Short Luke is based on Long Luke, and, in the selections given by Hudson, both use only either,97 as do those from Short Mark98 (Hudson considers Mark the last Gospel to be glossed).99 Long John prefers or, though with a good sprinkling of eithers,100 whereas Short John uses or almost entirely,101 and Long Matthew does so exclusively.102
The Glossed Gospels was undoubtedly a long-term project. It must have overlapped with the LV project, even though it continued to use basically EV texts throughout.103 It is my guess that the LV undertaking was independent of the Glossed Gospels endeavor, and that Simple Creature, if he did indeed work on the Glossed Gospels, eventually sought out the LV Old Testament team, which had been outsourced to his home territory, in either-speaking country.104
Work on the LV Old Testament was nearing its end; specifically, I suggest, Isaiah had been finished: or was changed to either, and up mostly eliminated (as in other parts of the LV Old Testament), and, though forsooths were drastically cut down, still a lot remained (Table 2.3).
Table. 2.3. Or/Either, Up, Forsooth, and Forwhy in Isaiah
Note: “gl” refers to alternative translations of words preceded by or or either.
In EV, forsooth did service for enim in the Latin (which occurs ninety-seven instances in the Vulgate Isaiah) and other words; in LV, thirty-six of the instances that remain are carried over from EV (fourteen translating enim, seventeen translating autem). Only one new forsooth has been added (Isaiah 7.9, corresponding to no Latin term), and in two cases EV forsooth has been replaced by forwhy (Isaiah 10.22, translating enim, and 10.25, translating autem), and one time forwhy replaces for in EV (Isaiah 11.9, translating Latin quia). Soothly replaces forsooth six times in LV, and adds one (Isaiah 43.19, utique, EV also). It can hardly be thought that Simple Creature’s influence has been at work here. But perhaps it was the use of forwhy twice in this book to translate enim that gave him the idea for his remark in GP (that forwhy is the rendering of enim when signifying cause).
Up to this point, the LV team had omitted all of the prefatory material found in EV, but Simple Creature now proposed to contribute a prologue to Isaiah, which was accepted. The result fits his style, as we can see from a comparison with the EV Jerome prologue (Table 2.4).
Table 2.4. Or/Either and Forsooth in the Prologues to Isaiah
| Isaiah | EV Prologue (Jerome) | LV Prologue (SC?) |
| Or/Either | or 3 | or 1 |
| or (gl) 2 | ||
| ether 0 | ether, ethir 11 | |
| Forsooth | forsothe 5 | forsothe 0 |
We note that the new prologue has only one or, but this is doubtless a scribal stylistic improvement from either in the Royal manuscript, since the other collated manuscripts have either. Here is the sentence in which it occurs:
Therfor men moten seke the treuthe of the text, and be war of goostli undurstonding
