As pecul at i onoft hesoci a l ci r cums t anceofEngl and i nt hepr e‑ Ref or mat i onper iod

Aspeculatl0nOfthesocl'alcircumstanceofEngland lnthepre‑ReformationperIOd

As pecul at i onoft hesoci a l ci r cums t anceofEngl and i nt hepr e‑ Ref or mat i onper iod

‑Ani nves t i gat i onort hei ss ue

onBi bl i ca l t r ans l at i onf r om Lat i ni nt oEngl i sh

Shi nobuWadュ

belewidpuplecriepaftirholiwr ittokunneit'･

(WycliffiteBible,Prologue) I.Introduction

JohnWyclifisgenerallykn ownasadefieragainsttheauthority oftheministeran dthechurchinhisdays,an dthefirsttran slatorof theBibleintoEnglish.IForthereason,hewastosufferpersecution from theseauthorities.Hisrealaction astheresistancetothem, however,hadspreadhisnotion thatthetruewordsin theBible shouldbewellgraspedbythelaity･2 AfterwardsHisbeliefwas takenoverbyhisfollowers,thatis,theLollardsortheWyclifate.The approachofhisandhisfbllowers'biblicaltranslationcausedsome upsurgeoftheemotionagalnStthedecompositionofthechurchin thelatefourteencentury.Intermsoftheboostingawarenessand takingactiononthereformationandrevolutionofthechurch,his effortoftheworklikeastranslatingtheBibleisvaluablebackin thosedays.In additiontothat,theirtranslation alsocontributes totheliteratureandeducationintheageofEngland･3 Thebiblical translationbesidesWyclif'Sotherwritingswasstrictlycondemned

1workTnan(1926),uol.2,p.149.

2Hudson(1978),p.6.

3Hudso'l(1978),p.13.

bytheauthorityofthechurch.Theview againstthechurchwas threateningandwouldtriggerthecommonattentionamongpeople tothecollapseofthehierarchyin thechurch.Accordingly,the translationseemstohavebeentwoincentives.Theoneisgenerated from an officiallyecclesiastical,butpartlypoliticalpointofview, whichshowsthedesiretobanishtheodiousrecordsfわrtheclergyln thehierarchy.Theotherismadeupoftheview ofthelaicalpeople, andthereunder,theWyclifatewan tedtoletcommonpeoplepractice theirdoctrinesasanundergroundmovement.

So asto examinetheinfluenceoftheWycliffitebiblical translationinsocialsituationinthelatemedievalEngland,Wewill lookatthedifferencebetweentheEarlyVersionofWycliffiteBible andtheLaterone,lnadditiontothecomparisonwiththeseEnglish textsandtheVulgateinLatin.Moreover,andthen,wewillpointout theparadoxofhisideologyinhisworkofthenew biblicaltranslation ofLatinintoEnglish,andthesocialcircumstanceofEnglandinthis time.ttisWritingsofWyclifandhisfわllowersthatshow theparadox oftheacceptanceorhisbiblicaltranslation.

2.WyclifandtheBible

ln fact,somegroupsofthebiblicaltranslatorsexceptWyclif himselfcertainlyexistedinthelatefourteenthcentury.Theperiodis said,asitwere,tohavebeenattheheightofthetranslationofthe Bible.Thewritingsnam edtheWyclifateBiblecametobecomewell known intheworldfrom theendofthefourteenthcenturyshortly afterhisdeath,becauseofan uncertaintyoffullevidencethatWyclif wasresponsiblefわrhisworksandthepresenceofmanymanuscripts concerningthem intheWesternEurope･4

4TheCambridgemstoryoft71eBible,vol.2,pp.387‑88.

AspeculationofthesoclalclrCUmStanCeOfEngland lnthepre‑Reformatl0nPeriod

TheimportanceofwhatWyclifhad doneisshown in his achievementofEnglishtranslation ortheBiblein Latin,notthe Psalter.English translation orPsalterwasmorepopularthan thatoftheBibleintheearlierpartofthecentury･5Hispurposeof tran slatingtheBiblemusthavebeenderivedfrom hiscreed,because thetranslationoftheBible,unlikethestoryinPsalter,wasclear andaccuratesothattheclergywhohadthesamesortofcreedas WyclifandtheWycliffitecouldpreach Christianityofrealvalueto theircommonpeopleandletthem leadtheirholyliveson earth.

Hisintentionofcarrylngthetruesensein theBibleandWyclif's performancecameacrosshisfわllowers,andthenwhowerecalled theLollardsortheWyclimte,afterhisdeaththemovementwasto w

ieldinfluencearoundtheWesternEuropeafterwardsasoneofthe basicconceptsfわrtheattitudetoaccessingtheBibletounderstandit muchbetterthanbefわre.

WyclirsdeaanceagalnStthechurch,ofcourse,wastobefわllowed bytheWyclifateswhowerealsoobjectedtofrom thechurchalike･It wastheinterpretationoftheBiblethattheyassumedlyconsideredto beproblematicagalnStthechurch.Themedievalchurchoftheday insistedthatweshouldneedthefourfoldwaysofthinkinglnOrder todevelopanadvancedunderstandingoftheBible.Theyareliteral, allegorical,topologlCalandanaloglCal･6 sincethepriestsdefinitively consideredlaypeopleastoodimcultandimpotenttounderstand whattheBiblesays,theymadenoquestionthatthelaitywasunable tounderstandthetmesenseoftheBible.Asmentionedabove,the translationofPsalterratherthanthatoftheBibleseemstohave beencommonandnaturalintermsoftheconveyanceofChristian attitudeofmindtothelaityinthetime.ThetreatmentoftheBible

5 TfleCambn'dgemstoTyOftfwBible,vol.2,p.389

6workman(1926),pp.151‑52.

5

wasthemonopolyofthemedieval church,sothattheorganization, besidesdecision一makingauthorityovertheinterpretationorit,had greatlytaken advantageoftheauthorityin Christianitytohave enormousinfluencethroughouttheEuropean society.Ifallthelay peoplehadperfectlyunderstoodProvidenceintheBible,theycould attimeshavebeendoubtfulaboutthecontenttorigh tlypreachan d conveythewordsfrom theBible,aswellasGod.Asaresult,the churchassertedtheimportanceofunderstandingtheVulgate,which waswritteninLatinandifnotlettingthelaityfわllow theoriginalin Latin,theprleStSinthechurch regardedthem asheresyagainst christian ity.7 However,someinthelatemedieval periodhadalready realisedthatsuchpriestsinthechurchwerelesslean edintheBible itself.ThemovementagalnStthecor…ptioninthechurchwhichthe WyclifateswastoglVeriseto,therefore,wasalogical conclusionwith goodan dprecisetiming,an dthefateofthechurchalsowasexpected likewise.

3.TheEarlierVersionandtheLaterVersionoftheWycliffiteBible

TheWyclifAteBiblehasbeenkeptininnumerableman uscripts, whichcan bedividedintotwotypes;oneistheEarlierVersiontext oftranslation (EV)madeinapproximately 1384,andtheotherthe LaterVersiontext(LV)whichwascompletedinaround 1395.Each t

ypeoftheversionsshowsdifferentconsciousnessofthecomposers, forexample,theearlierversionseemstobetran slatedwordforword forthelaitywhocouldnotreadLatin,whilethelaterversionisanew translationoftheLatinBible.Theprecisedatingofthetwoversions ishardtodecideprecisely.Itisnotcertainhow muchWyclifhimself wasinvolvedintheworkofEV,thoughthedateofitwaspresumably

7TheCambridgeHistoryOftheBible,vol.2,p.391

AspeculationofthesoclalcircumstanceofEngland inthepre‑Reformationperiod

1380'S･InLV,ontheotherhan d,itsman uscriptofBodleian Library Fairbx2hasthedateof1408inthe丘nal colophon.However,there aresomeproblemsofdistinguishingthedate.̀GeneralPrologue'in thetextsuggeststhatLV wascompletedsometimebetween 1395 a

n d1397.8 Ascanbeseen,thereisatimelagofsometwenty years betweenthedateofthetwoversionsoftheBiblicaltranslation.

4.Textualcomparisonorthetwoversions

WithreferencetoexaminingthetextsbetweenEV andLV texts, Weneedtotakeconsiderationofsomedifferenceoftheexpressions inthetranslationofthetwotypes.Intermsofthestyleofthem,EV isaveryliteral,Stiltedandattimesunintelligiblerendering,partly becauseofafeatureofwordforwordtrn sa lation,an dLVisrelevan tly anuent,idiomaticversion asatranslation ortheBible･9Firstly, WewillseethedifferencesofthesetwoversionsconcerningLuke

15,ll‑32,whichiswell‑knownastheProdigalSon.Andsecondly wewillcomparethesetextswith thesamepartin theVulgate, whichissaidtobetheorlglnalLatintextoftheWycliffiteBible.The churchregardeditasthecanonsoftheinterpretationofSculpture.

Accordingly,thecomparisonofthesetwoversionsoftheWyclimte BibletotheVulgatewillcomeintoview ofourcomprehensionofthe effectofthebiblical translationinthisperiod.

Firstofall,wecan sometimesfindthat̀forsope'(̀forsooth'in Modem English)an d̀sot)li'inEVisreplacedwi th ̀an d'or1)ut'in LV:10

8Hudson(1988),pp.246‑47.

9 Hudson(1988),pp.238‑39.

10Theexam plesofEVandLVarequotedfromHudson(1988),pp.46‑47

15:ll(EV)Forsot)e,heseip,‑ (LV)And,heseide,...

15:17(EV)Soplihe,turneda3eenintohymself,... (LV)Andheturnydea3enintohymself,... 15:18(EV)forso壬)e【I]persheheerinhungir.

(LV)andIperisshehereI)om うhungur.

15:20(EV)SopliwhanhewasSitferr,... (LV)Andwhan hewasSitafeer,...

15:22(EV)Forsopepefaderseidetohisseru an tis... (LV)An dpefadirseidetohiseseru auntis…

15:25(EV)Forsot)ehiselderesomewasinI)efeeld,… (LV)Buthiseelderesomewasin壬)efeeld,… 15:28(EV)ForsoI)ehewaswrop…

(LV)AndhewaswrooI),.‥

15:32(EV)Forso壬)eitbihoftetoetenplenteuously‑

(LV)Butitbihoftetomakefeest... (Allunderlinesaremine,asthesamebelow.)

Theseexamplesshow thattheuseofwords,̀forsope'or̀sopli',inEV putsgreatemphasisonveracityofthetranslatorwhenhetoldthe story,buttheexpressioninLV issupersededbyconjunctions,'an d' or'but',sothattheseconjunctionsseem toplayamereroleasthe connection between sentencesandhavenoeffectmorethan that. Thischangemaylosesomesavorofalesson Christian shouldtake heedof,butinligh tofafluentan dplinfa low inthestory,LV seems tobebetterbecauseorlessinsistenceofwordsinthetext.Interms ofgettingabetterunderstan dingofthecontext,thelatter,theuse of̀and'orl⊃ut'maybesuitablefb∫thelaity,becauseofsimplicityof thetext.IntheequivalentofOldEnglish text,̀so61ice',whichisan a

n tecedentof̀sopli'inthehistoryoftheEnglishlanguage,isoften

AspeculationofthesocialcllCUmStanCeOfEngland lnthepre･Reformationperl0d

used,SoEV mayhavebeen much innuencedbythetradition of thelanguage･llIntheVugate,theadverbialexpressionlikethisis omitted.LV,inthepoint,isconcernedaboutthepossibilitythatits textwasthough ttobethebasisasthetranslationfrom theVulgate Latinorlglnaltext･12

1nthenextexamples,theword,̀substaunce',inEV isreplaced with̀catel'or̀goodis'inLV:

15:12(EV)…̀Fader,SirtomepeporcionofsubstaunceI)at bifallehtme.'

(LV)

.

(LV)Andhedepartidetohem pecatel･

15.13(Ev上.andperewastedehissubstaunceinliuynge lecherously.

(LVト .andperehewastidehisegoodisinlyuynge lecherously.

Thewordsinthesetwoversionsapparentlyshiftfrom sortofarigid wordtosimpleone.Andthefbm erexpression,̀substaunce',hasan abstractmeaningoftheword,butthelatterglVeSuSarealimage, 'cattle'and'goods',respectively.Thuswecan readilyconjecturethat thewriters,whoaretheWyclifates,feltthenecessity ofthechan ge intoplainexpressionsforglVingthelaityintheircountryabetter understandingofthetruthwrittenin theBible･Furthermore,as comparedwiththeVulgateintheseparts,wecangetanothernotion differentfrom thepreviousexamples.Thesefollowingexam plesare from15:12‑13intheVulgate:

llMitchell(1995),pp256‑57.

12BibliaSacra,ⅠⅠ,pp･1638‑39

9

15:12etdixitadulescentiorexillispartipaterdaminiportionem substantiaequaemecontingitetdivisitillissubstantia血 15:13etnonpostmultosdiescongregatisomnibusadulescentior

f

iliusperegreprofectusestinreglOnem loglnquam etibidisslpaVitsubstantiam suam vivendoluxriose

ln theLatinVulgatetext,theword,̀substantia',isused asthe equivalentstothepartsinthetwoEnglishversions.Wemayjudge, inview ofthis,thatthetranslationofEV textfわllowstheorlglnal LatintextmorecloselythanLVtext.Plainnessandunderstandability withwhichthisevangelistictextwasglVentOthelaitywouldhave been someissueforthepreachersusingEV text.Thedecision to changeintothelaterone,LV,mayhavebreddiscordeventothetext compilers,andtheresultisnow leftus.Thereupon,wecannothelp admittingthechoiceofthehistory,an djudgingfrom thischoice,we cansupposethatitisachiefaim fbrthewritersinthelaterperiod afterWycliftofindanotherdevicesothatthelaity inEnglan dcould mosteasilyunderstandtherealmeaningintheBible･LVwastobe suitablefわrtheEnglishpeopleintheage.

Finally,Wewilllookatthedifferencein thesceneofafeast betweenEVandLVtexts.

15:23(EV)…an°eteweeandgladeweeinplenteuouseting,‑ (LV)...an deetewean dmakewefeeste,･･･

15:32(EV)Forsopeitbihoftetoetenplenteuouslyandto ioぅen,‑

(LV)Butitbihoftetomakefeestan dtohaueioie,...

Hereisadifferenceoftheaboveexpressions:̀eten plenteously', whichmean s̀eatingplentifully'inModernEnglish,inEVan d̀make

As〔治CUlalionofthesoclalcIlCUmStanCeOfEngland inthepre‑Reformationperiod

feest'inLV,whichhasameaningof'makingafeast(foreating)'.The formermakesuseofthewordsshoingtw hefactofjustmucheating withgladness,bywhichwewilltakethenotionthattheyoungerson wasglVenplentyofproperty.Ontheotherhand,thelaterversion adopted,asanequivalentfわrthisexpression,thewordsofmakinga feast,whichsimplytransmitthesituationwartsandall.Inthispart, theVulgatesaysasmentionedbelow:

15:23etadducitevitulum saginatum etoccidite etmanducemusetepulemur

Thewordof'epulemur'hasthemeaningofLfeast',SoLV textisa faithfultranslationinthisview.InOEversionoftheProdigalSon, theequivalentwordofitis'gewistfullian',whichmeans'tofeast'in ModernEnglish.LV takesoveranimageoffeastfrom theVulgate LatinorlglnaltextaswellastheOldEnglishversion.Thewordof 'feast',alsoregardingitsmeaning,mayhavebecomecommon to peopleinthelatemedievalperiodbesidesthehighclasslikekings andnobles.Thus,theworditselfmayhavebeenadoptedbecauseit isawell‑kn own wordtoeveryonesincethean Cienttimes.

S.Conclusion

TheWyclifatecertainlyseemstohaveworriedaboutthewayto introducethet… emeaningoftheBibleintotheirpeople.Wyclifand hisfわllowersshouldnothavespokenoftheradicalnotionabouttheir new Biblicaltranslationandmusthaverealisedthattheyplayedan importantroleofthechurch,whichhadabsoluteauthoritytodeal withtheBibleinEngland.Theintention oftheWycliffitemaking theirnew translationoftheBible,however,didservetheinterestof

ll

thelaitylnthecountry.Sincetheyfacedthecollapseofthechurch inbothEnglandandEurope,hedeterminedtodetectthemisleading de丘nitionoftheBiblecompletely和ledbychurch.Inthisperiod,we maydiscoverthathehadthefeelingofthe'paradox'Onhisworkof thebiblicaltranslation.Thatiswhythepurposeofthetranslation seemstohavebeenambiguousintermsoffわrwhatandwhom the Biblewasatdifferenttimepoints.In spiteoftheparadoxofthe Biblical tran slation,thecirculationofthenew Englishtranslationof theBibledefinitelyhadagreateffectonpolitical,ecclesiastical world inthelateMedieval Englan d.Then,itledtotheReformationinthe new erathroughoutEuropeincludingEngland.Inresponsetothat, Englishlanguagealsowastobechangedgreatlyhencefわrth.

ChangesinthebackgroundofBibletranslatIOn

Workscited

PrimaIysources

Hudson,Anne,ed.,Selectionsjlom EnglishWycl聯 teWritings (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1978)

Mitchell,Bruce,AnITWitationtoOldEnglish&Anglo‑SczxonEngland (Oxford:Blackwell,1995)

Weber,Robert,andothers,eds,BibliaSacra:IuxtaVulgatam

VersioneTn,VOl.2(Stuttgart:WtirttembergischeBibelan stalt,1969)

Secondarysources

Lam pe,G.W.H.,ed.TheCambn'dgeHistoT710ftTleBible:TheWest jiom theFat71erStOt71eRejTomlatiort,vol.2(Cam bridge:Cam bridge

UniversityPress,1969)

Hudson,Anne,TTlePrematuTTeRefomlation(Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,1988)

Workman,HerbertB.,JoTm Wycltf.A StudyoftheEnglishMedieval CTturch,vol.2(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1926)

13