to
circulate
tar
into
the
16tti
century.
Anotlier
version
of
the
Psalter
was
produced
contemporaneously
with
RoUe'a,
soniewhere
in
the
West
Midlands.
The
author-ship
of
it
WM
formerly
attributed
to
William
of
Shore-
ham,
vicar
oft
Chart
Sutton,
in
Kent,
but
for
no
other
reason
than
tl
lat
in
one
of
the
two
MSS
in
wliich
it
is
preserved
(Br
t.
Mus.
Add.
MS
17376,
the
other
being
at
Trinity
Col
ege,
Dublin)
it
is
now
bound
up
with
his
religious
poei
is.
The
dialect,
however,
proves
that
this
authorship
is
impossible,
and
the
version
must
be
put
down
as
anonymous.
As
in
the
case
of
RoUe's
translation,
the
Latin
and
English
texts
are
inter-mixed,
verse
by
verse;
but
there
is
no
commentary.
[See
K.
S.
BUlbring,
The
Earliest
Complete
Sngliah
Prose
Psalter
(Early
English
Text
Society),
1891.)
6.
The
Psalter
was
not
the
only
part
of
the
Bible
of
which
versions
came
into
existence
in
the
course
of
the
14th
century.
At
Magdalene
College,
Cambridge
(Pepys
MS
2498),
is
an
EngUsh
narrative
of
the
Life
of
Christ,
compiled
out
of
a
re-arrangement
of
the
Gospels
for
Sundays
and
holy
days
throughout
the
year.
Quite
recently,
too,
a
group
of
MSS,
wliich
(so
far
as
they
were
known
at
all)
had
been
regarded
as
belonging
to
the
WycUflte
Bible,
has
been
shown
by
Miss
Anna
C.
Panes
[A
Fourteenth
Century
English
Biblical
Version
(Cambridge,
1902)]
to
contain
an
independent
trans-lation
of
the
NT.
It
is
not
complete,
the
Gospels
being
represented
only
by
Mt
I'-e*,
and
the
Apocalypse
being
altogether
omitted.
The
original
nucleus
seems,
indeed,
to
have
consisted
of
the
four
larger
Catholic
Epistles
and
the
Epistles
of
St.
Paul,
to
which
were
subsequently
added
2
and
3
John,
Jude,
Acts,
and
Mt
l'-6'.
Four
MSS
of
tins
version
are
at
present
known,
the
oldest
being
one
at
Selwyn
College,
Cambridge,
which
was
written
about
1400.
The
prologue
narrates
that
the
translation
was
made
at
the
request
of
a
monk
and
a
nun
by
their
superior,
who
defers
to
their
earnest
desire,
although,
as
he
says,
it
is
at
the
risk
of
his
life.
This
phrase
seems
to
show
that
the
work
was
produced
after
the
rise
of
the
great
party
controversy
which
is
associated
with
the
name
of
Wyclif.
'7.
With
Wyclif
(1320-1384).wereachalandmarkinthe
history
of
the
English
Bible,
in
the
production
of
the
first
complete
version
of
both
OT
and
NT.
It
belongs
to
the
last
period
of
W^clif's
life,
that
in
which
he
was
engaged
in
open
war
with
the
Papacy
and
with
most
of
the
official
chiefs
of
the
English
Church.
It
was
con-nected
with
his
institution
of
'
poor
priests,'
or
mission
preachers,
and
formed
part
of
his
scheme
of
appealing
to
the
populace
in
general
against
the
doctrines
and
supremacy
of
Rome.
The
NT
seems
to
have
been
completed
about
1380,
the
OT
between
1382
and
1384.
Exactly
how
much
of
it
was
done
by
Wyclif
's
own
hand
is
uncertain.
The
greater
part
of
the
OT
(as
far
as
Baruch
3^")
is
assigned
in
an
Oxford
MS
to
Nicholas
Hereford,
one
of
Wyclif's
principal
supporters
at
that
university;
and
it
is
certain
that
this
part
of
the
trans-lation
is
in
a
different
style
(more
stiff
and
pedantic)
from
the
rest.
The
NT
is
generally
attributed
to
Wyclif
himself,
and
he
may
also
have
completed
the
OT,
which
Hereford
apparently
had
to
abandon
abruptly,
perhaps
when
he
was
summoned
to
London
and
excommunicated
in
1382.
This
part
of
the
work
is
free
and
vigorous
in
style,
though
its
interpretation
of
the
original
is
often
strange,
and
many
sentences
in
it
can
have
conveyed
very
little
idea
of
their
meaning
to
its
readers.
Such
as
it
was.
however,
it
was
a
com-plete
English
Bible,
addressed
to
the
whole
English
people,
high
and
low,
rich
and
poor.
That
this
is
the
case
is
proved
by
the
character
of
the
copies
which
have
survived
(about
30
in
number).
Some
are
large
foUo
volumes,
handsomely
written
and
illuminated
in
the
best,
or
nearly
the
best,
style
of
the
period;
such
is
the
fine
copy,
in
two
volumes
(now
Brit.
Mus.
Egerton
MSS
617,
618),
which
once
belonged
to
Thomas,
Duke
of
Gloucester,
uncle
of
Richard
ii.
Others
are
plain
copies
of
ordinary
size,
intended
for
private
persons
or
monastic
libraries;
for
it
is
clear
that,
in
spite
of
official
disfavour
and
eventual
prohibition,
there
were
many
places
in
England
where
Wyclif
and
his
Bible
were
welcomed.
Wyclif,
indeed,
enjoyed
advantages
from
personal
repute
and
influential
support
such
as
had
been
enjoyed
by
tuo
English
translator
since
Alfred.
An
Oxford
scholar,
at
one
time
Master
of
Balliol,
holder
of
livings
successively
from
his
college
and
the
Crown,
employed
officially
on
behalf
of
his
country
in
controversy
with
the
Pope,
the
friend
and
prot6gfi
of
John
of
Gaunt
and
other
prominent
nobles,
and
enjoying
as
a
rule
the
strenuous
support
of
the
University
of
Oxford,
Wyclif
was
in
all
respects
a
person
of
weight
and
influence
in
the
realm,
who
could
not
be
silenced
or
isolated
by
the
opposition
of
bishops
such
as
Arundel.
The
work
that
he
had
done
had
struck
its
roots
too
deep
to
be
destroyed,
and
though
it
was
identified
with
Lollardism
by
its
adversaries,
its
range
was
much
wider
than
that
of
any
one
sect
or
party.
8.
Wyclif's
translation,
however,
though
too
strong
to
be
overthrown
by
its
opponents,
was
capable
of
improvement
by
its
friends.
The
difference
of
style
between
Hereford
and
his
continuator
or
continuators,
the
stiff
and
unpopular
character
of
the
work
of
the
former,
and
the
imperfections
inevitable
in
a
first
attempt
on
so
large
a
scale,
called
aloud
for
revision;
and
a
second
Wyclifite
Bible,
the
result
of
a
very
complete
revision
of
its
predecessor,
saw
the
light
not
many
years
after
the
Reformer's
death.
The
authorship
of
the
second
version
is
doubtful.
It
was
assigned
by
Forshall
and
Madden,
the
editors
of
the
Wyclifite
Bible,
to
John
Purvey,
one
of
Wyclif's
most
intimate
followers;
but
the
evidence
is
purely
circumstantial,
and
rests
mainly
on
verbal
resemblances
between
the
translator's
preface
and
known
works
of
Purvey,
together
with
the
fact
that
a
copy
of
this
preface
is
found
attached
to
a
copy
of
the
earlier
version
which
was
once
Purvey's
property.
What
is
certain
is
that
the
second
version
is
based
upon
the
first,
and
that
the
translator's
preface
is
permeated
with
Wyclifite
opinions.
This
version
speedily
superseded
the
other,
and
in
spite
of
a
decree
passed,
at
Arundel's
instigation,
by
the
Council
of
Blackfriars
in
1408,
it
must
have
circulated
in
large
numbers.
Over
140
copies
are
still
in
existence,
many
of
them
small
pocket
volumes
such
as
must
have
been
the
personal
property
of
private
individuals
for
their
own
study.
Others
belonged
to
the
greatest
personages
in
the
land,
and
copies
are
still
in
existence
which
formerly
had
for
owners
Henry
vi.,
Henry
vii.,
Edward
vi.,
and
EUzabeth.
9.
At
this
point
it
aeems
necessary
to
aay
something
of
the
theory
which
has
been
propounded
by
the
well-known
Roman
Catholic
historian.
Abbot
Gasquet,
to
the
effect
that
the
versions
which
pass
under
the
name
of
'
Wyclifite
'
were
not
produced
by
Wyclif
or
his
followers
at
all,
but
were
translations
authorized
and
circulated
by
the
heads
of
the
Church
of
England,
Wyclif's
particular
enemies.
[The
Old
English
Bible,
1897,
pp.
102-178.]
The
strongest
argument
adduced
in
support
of
this
view
is
the
possession
of
copies
of
the
versions
in
question
h)Oth
by
kings
and
princes
of
England,
and
by
religious
houses
and
persons
of
unquestioned
ortho-doxy.
'This
does,
indeed,
prove
that
the
persecution
of
the
English
Bible
and
its
possessors
by
the
authorities
of
the
Catholic
Church
was
not
so
universal
or
continuous
as
it
is
sometimes
represented
to
have
been,
but
it
does
not
go
far
towards
disproving
the
Wyclifite
authorship
of
versionfj
which
can
be
demonstratively
connected,
as
these
are,
with
the
names
of
leading
supporters
of
Wyclif,
such
as
Hereford
and
Purvey;
the
more
so
since
the
evidence
of
orthodox
owner-ship
of
many
of
the
copies
in
question
dates
from
times
long
after
the
cessation
of
the
Lollard
persecution.
Dr.
Gasquet
also
denies
that
there
is
any
real
evidence
connecting
Wyclif
with
the
production
of
an
English
Bible
at
all;
but
m
order
to
make
good
this
assertion
he
has
to
ignore
several
passages
in
Wyclif's
own
writings
in
which
he
refers
to
the
importance
of
a
vernacular
version
(to
the
existence
of
his
own
version
he
could
not
refer,
since
that
was
produced
only
at
the
end
of
his
life)
,
and
to
do
violence
alike
to
the
proper
translation
and
to
the
natural
interpretation
of
passages
written
by
