Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:28:20.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lollard Sources of ‘The Pore Caitif’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Brady M. Teresa
Brady M. Teresa*
Affiliation:
College of White Plains of Pace University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The extraordinary productivity of John Wycliffe and his followers is evident in the number of their extensive projects that despite ecclesiastical condemnation survived to modern times: the large corpus of Wycliffe's own Latin treatises and the grand-scale undertakings he inspired including the translations of the Bible, the Glossed Gospels, the vernacular sermon cycle, the multiple versions of the Floretum, and the numerous Lollard tracts. Fourteenth- and fifteenth-century writers in England would inevitably have been aware of these Wycliffite resources, and the present study will indicate that the compiler of the orthodox collection of Middle English tracts known as The Pore Caitif (PC), ca. 1395–1402, used several of the great Lollard reference works in assembling his materials. In four sections below, evidence is presented that links The Pore Caitif to the Glossed Gospels, an Early Version of the Wycliffite Bible (EV), the Lollard translation of the pseudo-Augustinian De salutaribus documentis, and possibly the Floretum.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 44 , 1988 , pp. 389 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Despite a long history of attribution of The Pore Caitif to Wycliffe and/or the Lollards, I believe the text is uncontaminated by heresy. Cf. details in my article ‘The Pore Caitif: An Introductory Study,’ Traditio 10 (1954) 524–48. It should be noted, however, that interpolations and omissions that seem to be the work of Lollard sympathizers occur in twelve manuscripts of PC. These are studied in my article ‘Lollard Interpolations and Omissions in Manuscripts of The Pore Caitif,’ De Cella in Seculum , ed. Sargent, Michael (1989).Google Scholar

2 Quotations are from ms BL Harley 2336. The spelling of the manuscript is reproduced. Standard abbreviations are silently expanded. Punctuation and capitalization conform to modern practice, but are kept at a minimum.Google Scholar

3 ‘The Influence of the Concepts of Ordinatio and Compilatio on the Development of the Book,’ in Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented to Richard William Hunt, edd. Alexander, J. J. G. and Gibson, M. T. (Oxford 1976) 128, 132.Google Scholar

4 ‘John Wyclif's Postilla super totam Bibliam,’ The Bodleian Library Record 4 (1952–53) 187, 197–98, 203; and ‘Wyclif's, Postilla on the Old Testament and His Principium,’ in Oxford Studies Presented to Daniel Callus (Oxford Historical Society ns 16; 1959–60) 253–83.Google Scholar

5 Hargreaves, Henry, ‘The Marginal Glosses to the Wycliffite New Testament,’ Studia Neophilologica 33 (1961) 286:Google Scholar

6 ‘Popularising Biblical Scholarship: The Role of the Wycliffite Glossed Gospels,’ in The Bible and Medieval Culture, edd. Lourdaux, W. and Verhelst, D. (Louvain 1979) especially 182–87.Google Scholar

7 Selections from English Wycliffite Writings (Cambridge 1978) 167–68, and in a conversation in which we discussed my research on the relationship of a section of The Pore Caitif to the Glossed Gospels. I am also indebted to Dr. Hudson for the use of her photocopy of ms York Minster XVI.D.2.Google Scholar

8 This schematization breaks down in that gluttony is never mentioned, sloth and lust are placed together in the sixth petition, and the sin against the Holy Ghost is linked with the seventh. Single virtues are identified only in the first four petitions, and clusters of virtues are cited in the remaining three.Google Scholar

9 The Book of Vices and Virtues was edited by Nelson Francis, W. (EETS os 217; London 1942).Google Scholar

10 Select English Works of John Wyclif, ed. Arnold, Thomas, 3 vols. (Oxford 1869–71) III 98–110. Mention should also be made of a short exposition of the Pater Noster in a Middle English Sermon in ms BL Royal 18 B xxiii that has a number of passages identical with the exposition in PC. The sermon may derive from PC, or both may be indebted to a Lollard treatise on the prayer. Often the selections coincide with materials of The Book of Vices and Virtues and with the tract in ms BL Harley 2398 in Arnold. Cf. Middle English Sermons Edited from British Museum MS Royal 18 B xxiii , ed. Ross, Woodburn O. (EETS os 209; London 1940) 9–12. Helen Spencer has also noted the similarity to PC and is currently engaged in a study of the sermons.Google Scholar

11 III 102–3.Google Scholar

12 PL 175.768.Google Scholar

13 The following items in the outline of the first petition occur in the source: A: # 1 p. 98; #2, 3 p. 99. B: #1 pp. 99–100; #2 (exclusive of the quotation from St. Augustine), p. 100. C: #1 p. 103; #2 (exclusive of the quotation from St. Augustine) p. 103. D: #4 pp. 104–5. Passages from the Book of Vices and Virtues occur in the prologue and in all seven petitions. The borrowing is always selective. The excerpts are sometimes paraphrased; frequently, the exact translation is used. Samples of matching excerpts will illustrate the PC compiler's procedures: Prologue to Noster, Pater, PC Whanne a child is first sett to scole, me techip him his Pater Noster. And perfore who pat wole lerne pis clergie, bicome he meke as a child & withoute malice. (fol. 63v) First Petition No man shal seie ‘fadir myn’ but oonli he pat is sone bi kynde, without bigynnyng & eending, as Crist Goddis sone is. We ben not hise sones of kynde saue in as moche as we ben maad to his licnesse. But we ben hise sones porus grace & bi adopcioun epir purchace, as a lord hauynge no sone of his owne to be his eir mai make a pore mannes sone his / heir bi avourie epir purchace. (fols. 66v–67r) pis word ‘oure’ seip pat we ben alle briperen, grete & smale, pore & riche, hise & lowe, of oo fadir & of oo modir, pat is God & hooli chirche, & pat noon shal scorne opir ne dispise opir, but loue as his bropir. / And oon shulde helpe an opir as doen lymes of mannes bodi, as Seynt Poul seip. (fol. 67r-v) Book of Vices and Virtues Whan men setten first a child to lerne lettrure, men techip hym his pater noster. Who-so wole lerne pis clergie, hym bihouep become meke and vmble as a child. (p. 97) No wist schal seye ‘fadyr myn’ but only he pat is sone of kynde, wip-out bigynnyng and endyng, verrei Goddes sone. But we bep not his sones of kynde, but in as moche as we bep made to his ymage, and so bep pee sarazenes; se but we bep his sones bi grace and bi adopcioun. Adopcioun is a word of lawe ciuile. For as bi pe lawes of emperoures, whan a gret lord hap no child, he may chese a pore mannes sone, sif he wole, and make of hym his eir bi adopcioun, pat is to seye bi auowerei…. (pp. 99–100) pis word lernep vs and seip pat we bep alle breperen, grete and smale, pore and riche, hise and lowe, of on fadre and on modre, pat is to seye of God and holy chirche, and pat non schal scorne ne despise opere, and on schal helpe a-nopere, as dop pe lymes of a mannes owne body…. (pp. 100–101) Google Scholar

14 PL 34.1276.Google Scholar

15 PL 34.1277.Google Scholar

16 PG 54.711.Google Scholar

17 P. 108.Google Scholar

18 SEW, III 105–6. Here, the second type of bread is the ‘lore of Godes worde,’ more necessary to man than bodily bread. If through the negligence of bishops, prelates, and false teachers this bread is not made available to the people, then ‘praye we Jesus Crist byschepe of oure soule pat he ordeyne prechours in pe peple to warne hem of synne …’ (106). It was commonplace in expositions of the Pater Noster to make this type of reference to the clergy's failure to teach the people. In Speculum Christiani, for example, it is linked with the deadly sin of sloth (ed. Holmstedt, Gustaf [EETS os 182; Oxford 1933] 170); the Lollard tract blames covetousness. PC has broader accusations in a passage for which I have not yet discovered a source: ‘Hou moche more ben pei accursid pat shulden feede soulis in point of perishing with goostli food of Goddis word & doen not. And sip pis pat is veri food of soulis hap many dai be withdrawe, what porus pride, couetise, ignoraunce & lusti lyuyng of hem pat shulden be techers, and porus vnholsum loore & lesyngis & couetouse flaterers …’ (fol. 73r). But there follows immediately a passage remarkably similar in wording to that in the Lollard tract cited above: PC The Fourth Petition perfore preie we herteli Ihesu Crist, veri bishop of oure soulis pat he ordeyne trewe techers in his peple to breke to hem pe breed of Goddis word & warne hem of her synnes, tellynge to hem pe veri trupe of God; & pat he pat enspiride pe hooli prophetis with kunnyng & wisdom & tauste pe apostlis pe weie of al trupe, listne oure hertis with vndirstonding of his loore & graunte us grace to worche peraftir. And for us nedip ech dai pis food of bodi & of soule, perfore mekeli preie we oure heuenli Fadir pat he syue us oure ech daies breed todai. (fol. 73r) S.E.W. III 106 … praye we Jesus Criost byschepe of oure soule, pat he ordeyne prechours in pe peple to warne hem of synne, and telle hem pe trupe of God. And he pat enspiryde pe prophetes wip kunnyng and wysdome, and tauste pe apostles pe weye of al trupe, lyste oure hertes wip understondyng of his lore, and graunte ous grace to worche perafter. And specialiche, for ous nedep eche day pis breed, perfore pray we mekelyche, Oure eche dayes breed syue ous to-day.Google Scholar

19 The sixth petiton (fol. 75v) has the quotation from St. Augustine in ms A fol. 21va; the seventh has a genuine passage of John Chrysostom (fol. 77v) found in ms A fol. 21va. The explication of ‘Amen’ (fol. 78v) is in ms A fol. 21va .Google Scholar

20 I am indebted to Dr. Anne Hudson for checking these passages in ms A after I had left London.Google Scholar

21 The Wycliffite Bible Part II: The Origin of the First Revision as Presented in De salutaribus documentis (Stockholm Studies in English 21; 1969).Google Scholar

22 This similarity was noticed by Deanesly, Margaret, The Lollard Bible and Other Medieval Biblical Versions (Cambridge 1920) 276.Google Scholar

23 mss Trinity College Cambridge 336, Lambeth Palace Library 484, Hunterian 496, and CUL FF. VI. 55.Google Scholar

24 ms Bodley 938. The remaining three mss using the title contain orthodox texts of PC: Bibliothèque Nationale Anglais 49, Harvard 701, and Bodleian Library Ashmole 1286.Google Scholar

25 mss BL Stowe 38 and Harley 2322.Google Scholar

26 mss Bodleian Lyell 29, Hunterian 520, Harley 953, Downside Abbey, Longleat 3, Antiquary Society 300, Bibliothèque Nationale Anglais 49, Harvard 701, and BL Stowe 38. It should be noted here that the last three mss also have one of the foregoing titles above.Google Scholar

27 Hargreaves notes some of these passages in ‘Popularising Biblical Scholarship’ 180–81.Google Scholar

28 ‘A Lollard Sermon-Cycle and Its Implications,’ Medium Ævum 40 (1971) 150; and ‘Some Aspects of Lollard Book Production,’ Studies in Church History 9 (1972) 154–55.Google Scholar

29 ‘The Wycliffite Versions,’ in The Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. Lampe, G. W. 3 vols. (Cambridge 1969) II 408.Google Scholar

30 ‘Popularising Biblical Scholarship’ 172.Google Scholar

31 In a conversation in which we discussed the similarity of translation between the version in PC and in the Glossed Gospels. Google Scholar

32 ‘The Debate on Bible Translation, Oxford, 1401,’ English Historical Review 90 (1975) 16–17.Google Scholar

33 Fowler, David C., The Bible in Early English Literature (London 1977) 148.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Ernest Talbert, W. and Harrison Thomson, S., ‘Wyclyf and His Followers,’ in A Manual of the Writing in Middle English, 1050–1500, ed. Burke Severs, J. (Hamden, Conn. 1970) II 354–77; Hudson, Anne, ‘Contribution to a Bibliography of Wycliffite Writings,’ Notes and Queries ns 20 (1973) 443–52; Hudson, Anne, ‘Wycliffite Prose,’ in Middle English Prose: A Critical Guide to Major Authors and Genres (New Brunswick, N.J. 1984) 249–70.Google Scholar

35 Selections from English Wycliffite Writings 67–68.Google Scholar

36 Cf. note 21, above.Google Scholar

37 I 43–51.Google Scholar

38 For the convenience of having both Latin and Middle English texts together, I have used Fristedt's edition for the citations from both mss.Google Scholar

39 ‘A Lollard Compilation and the Dissemination of Wycliffite Thought,’ Journal of Theological Studies ns 25 (1972) 72, 76, 78; cf. also ‘A Lollard Compilation in England and Bohemia,’ JTS ns 25 (1974) 129–40.Google Scholar

40 ‘A Lollard Compilation and the Dissemination of Wycliffite Thought,’ 79.Google Scholar

41 I am indebted to Dr. Christina Von Nolcken for the use of her microfilm copy of this manuscript.Google Scholar

42 ‘A Neglected Wycliffite Text,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 29 (1978) 279.Google Scholar

43 ‘A Survey of the Origins and Circulation of Theological Writings in English in the 14th, 15th and Early 16th Centuries with Special Consideration of the Part of the Clergy Therein’ (diss. University of Cambridge 1953) 132.Google Scholar

44 ‘The Debate on Bible Translation, Oxford 1401’ 17.Google Scholar

45 Cf. note 1, above.Google Scholar

46 mss Harley 2322, Bodley Add. B 66, Bodley 938, Westminster School 3, JR Eng. 412, and JR Eng. 85.Google Scholar

47 I wish to express gratitude to the Deans Council of Pace University and to the American Philosophical Society for grants that supported the research in British libraries that made possible the writing of this paper.Google Scholar