David Daniell sums up Fowler’s case and leaves it an open question as to whether Trevisa was involved in the project.18 On the face of it, Trevisa’s participation might seem unlikely, in view of EV’s “iconic” character (that is, its strict adherence to Latin grammatical constructions),19 which is foreign to Trevisa’s practice elsewhere. However, Fristedt has brought forth convincing evidence that Trevisa first produced a literal version of the Polychronicon similar to EV before giving it the sort of freer form that we find in LV.20 Perhaps Trevisa’s participation in LV, which Fowler considers but does not defend, deserves more consideration. A prosodic (cursus) analysis could possibly throw light on the question, but it is outside the scope of the present study.
We will discuss further implications of Simple Creature’s alleged program, and Trevisa’s possible role in the MEB, when taking up Scripture study at Oxford in Chapter 3.
Simple Creature’s Wycliffite Sentiments and His Date of Writing
I have great doubt, on linguistic grounds and translation practices identifiable in the EV and LV texts, that the prologuist Simple Creature is himself the translator of LV, at least the greater part of it. But before I get into the peculiarities of his dialect, style, and principles, let me set out some of his views as we can deduce them from Five and Twenty Books. For the most part he avoids controversial topics, but he does manifest some Wycliffite teachings, although many are buried deep within the treatise. It would not be surprising if many users of the treatise in the Middle Ages, whether placed as a prologue to the Scriptures or as an independent work, would have missed the polemical elements, as Gasquet did.
The very first sentence of the treatise: “Five and twenty books of the Old Testament be books of faith, and fully books of Holy Writ,”21 expresses a controversial position, but it is not recognizably Wycliffite; it follows St. Jerome in labeling the other books as “apocryphal” and not inspired, a view not widely accepted since patristic times, so far as I am aware, at least in the West. Wyclif himself was not dogmatic on the subject. In De veritate Sacrae Scripturae, he follows Jerome’s count of 22 canonized books of the Old Testament, which correspond to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, whereas there were 24 books immediately accepted to the canon of the New Testament, corresponding to the 24 letters of the Latin alphabet (with three more soon added, namely, Mark, Luke, and Acts). But Wyclif says that many of the apocryphal books are inscribed in the Book of Life, and therefore they are to be accepted as constituting the same sort of truths as our canonical Scripture, and holds that it is foolish to debate excessively about it.22
The first near-Wycliffite passage is the assertion later in chapter 1 that Christian men and women, old and young, should study the New Testament assiduously, because it is open to the understanding of simple men, especially those who are properly meek and full of charity.23 In chapter 2, the author becomes bolder in calling the pardons of the bishops of Rome lies (“leesingis”) and associated with Antichrist.24 Nothing else untoward occurs after that until chapter 10, when he takes occasion to use three stories from Kings and Paralipomena to chastise unworthy lords and prelates. “Alas, alas, alas!” he exclaims. In contrast to King Josaphat’s promulgation of the law of God, some lords today order the preaching of indulgences, which are no more than bald-faced lies.25 He denounces rulers who persecute those who preach the Gospel26 and criticizes making idols of saints and swearing by them.27 He laments that those who abstain from needless oaths and reprove sin are called Lollards, heretics, and raisers of debate and treason against the king,28 and he rebukes the giving of alms to dead images.29 Less specifically Wycliffite, perhaps, are his denunciations in chapter 13 of the widespread practice of sodomy and simony at Oxford University (the “strong maintenaunce” of sodomy at Oxford was made known “at the laste parlement”), and his condemnation of the new proposal that would require spending nine or ten years in the arts (which deal with pagan traditions) before one is allowed to proceed to the study of God’s word.30 We will deal with the curricular complaint in Chapter 3, where we will see that, far from being an accurate reference to events of 1387 and 1388, it shows him to be unfamiliar with the university and its rules and customs, and cannot be taken to indicate the date of his writing.
Beginning with John Lewis in 1731,31 the sodomy complaint was connected to the denunciation of sodomy in the Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards posted during the parliament held in London in 1395, thereby dating the prologue subsequently, and many scholars have agreed with him; at the same time, of course, this would provide a date for the completion of LV, for those who believe that Simple Creature was responsible for both.32 But Mary Dove has convincingly questioned the connection of sodomy at Oxford with that parliament. The accusation of sodomy against the clergy in Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards posted at the time does not concern Oxford; and the Oxford master reported as charged with sodomy then had in fact died years before.33 But given Simple Creature’s above-mentioned unfamiliarity with Oxford, a distorted report of one or other of these incidents may underlie his complaint of rampant sodomy at the university.
Seemingly the most seriously heterodox passage in GP is to be found in chapter 12, where Simple Creature appears to characterize the Eucharist as purely commemorative:
If it seemith to comaunde cruelte either wickidnesse, either to forbede prophit either good doinge, it is a figuratiif speche. Crist seith, “If ye eten not the flesch of Mannis Sone and drinke not His blood, ye schulen not have liif in you.” This speche semith to comaunde wickidnesse either cruelte, therfore it is a figuratif speche, and comaundith men to comune with Cristis passioun, and to kepe in mynde sweetly and profitably that Cristis flesch was woundid and crucified for us.34
As we will see, this passage was the basis of the most incriminating charges in the posthumous trial of Richard Hunne.35 The fact is, however, that Simple Creature was not concerned here to introduce a controversial theological theory, since the statement comes in the midst of a large swatch of St. Augustine’s discourse on ways of interpreting Scripture in his treatise De doctrina Christiana, and he translates it literally. Here is the original Latin:
Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. “Nisi manducaveritis,” inquit, “carnem Filii Hominis et sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis.” Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere; figura est ergo, praecipiens passioni dominicae communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit.36
It is a great irony that Augustine’s sentiment was taken to accord with Wycliffite theology, though it would seem rather to contrast with Wyclif ’s usual statement of his view, which can be labeled “consubstantiation” as opposed to the transubstantiation of the orthodox Church; that is, Wyclif holds for the real presence of the body and blood of Christ along with the continuing presence of the substances of bread and wine.37
Simple Creature in my view reveals no awareness of EV. I think that Forshall and Madden and others are misreading the text when they say that the author in referring to the English Bible “late translated” is speaking of EV,38 and that he is also saying that it needs correction. The expression comes after Simple Creature has set forth the principles he uses in his translation, and he concludes by saying, if anyone should find fault in the result, let him correct it, but first check to see if there is not some mistake in the Latin Bible used, for he has seen many Latin Bibles that have more need to be corrected “than hath the English Bible late translated.”39 The most natural way to take this, I think, is to say that he is referring to his own just completed Bible. If, however, he is taken to refer to EV, it would be his only such reference to EV in his treatise, or only one of two.40 We will take this matter up again in the Chapter
