We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2016
Twenty-Five years ago the title of this paper would have seemed to many a contradiction in terms; even now there may be some who will expect the scholar of my title to be a critic of Wyclif, erudite in the heresiarch’s manifold outpourings. The scholar was, however, himself a Wycliffite, indeed of the radical wing of that persuasion. His misfortune, from a modern viewpoint, is that he did not in his works reveal his name, and hence a cumbersome periphrasis is unavoidable. The writer reveals most about himself in the Tractatus de Oblacione Iugis Sacrificii, despite its title an English work of nearly 4000 lines, dealing primarily but not exclusively with the Eucharist: there it becomes clear that he must have been writing between March 1413, since Henry IV is spoken of as recently dead, and February 1414, since Arundel (þe grettist enmy þat Crist haþ in Ynglond) is still said to be archbishop of Canterbury, and that he had previously treated the subject of clerical temporalities in a sermon on the text Omnis plantacio qu[am] non plantauit pater meus celestis eradkabitur. The Tractatus survives in a single manuscript, now BL, Cotton Titus D. v, of the first half of the fifteenth century and clearly not the author’s original.
1 The allusions mentioned are at ff. 7r-v, 13v, and 8v respectively, using the modern pencilled foliation. I am preparing an edition of this text and of the sermon next described for the Early English Text Society. All abbreviations are here expanded without notice, and modern punctuation is supplied. That Titus is not the autograph emerges from various points where the text as it stands needs substantial emendation to make it intelligible.
2 All the fifteenth-century copies are defective, though Egerton only by the loss of the final leaf; Egerton and Dd. 14.30(2) are in the same hand. CUL, Ff.6.2 is the only manuscript with any item beyond the sermon, namely Jack Upland and the Epistola Sathanae ad Cleros [printed respectively by P. Heyworth (London, 1968) and Hudson, A., Selections from English Wycliffite Writings (Cambridge, 1978) no. 17]Google Scholar.
3 Printed by Matthew, F.D., The English Works of Wyclif hitherto unprinted, EETS, lxxiv (1880, 2nd rev.ed. 1902), pp. 362–404Google Scholar; for the printed text see Hudson, A., ‘ No newe thyng: the printing of medieval texts in the early Reformation period’, in Middle English Studies presented to Norman Davis, ed. Gray, D. and Stanley, E.G. (Oxford, 1983), pp. 153–74Google Scholar. Lambeth is cited here by page and supplied line number, ignoring all headings; where Egerton is quoted without a following Lambeth reference, it may be assumed that Lambeth does not contain the material.
4 The autobiographical passage was printed in Selections no. 18, lines 100-17. For the schools compare the evidence given in N. Tanner, Heresy Trials in the Diocese of Norwich, 1428-31 = CSer, 4, xx (1977), and by Aston, M., ‘Lollardy and Literacy’, History, lxii (1977), pp. 347–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 At Egerton ff. 48v-49r appear allusions to newe constituciouns slatutis, regarded as acts against the Lollards, restricting preaching on the grounds of preventing heresy, and encouraging what the author regarded as idolatry. Arundel’s Constitutions (Wilkins, iii, pp. 314-19) seem the likely reference, but earlier anti-Wycliffite legislation could be presented in similar terms.
6 Many of the other Wycliffite texts that show equal reliance upon learned sources are either much earlier (the Opus Arduum of 1389-90 or the Floretum compiled before 1396) or are less closely dateable (such as the Apology for Lollard Doctrines).
7 Though it is possible that scribes added some of these, it seems unlikely for the majority; in the sermon the four extant manuscripts usually coincide in their placing of references, whether marginally or in the text, and in those allusions they document.
8 Titus ff. 19r and 51v referring to Gratian, III, D. ii, c. 58 and 42 respectively; most of the Lambeth instances are in a group towards the end of the final appendix (Matthew, pp. 403-4) and give the originating authority as well as the canon-law reference, though some of these are utilized in translation earlier.
9 For the sake of simplicity references where possible will be to the editions of PL, save in one case. Gregory’s Moralia was the chief source, the Homilia in Evangelia being cited once in each text, the Cura Pastoralis once in the sermon. Jerome’s letters were the main quarry, though there is one reference in the Tractatus to the commentary on Matthew (f. 5v, PL xxvi, 167).
10 For instance, Titus f. 60r: ‘Soþeli not God, whom þei mai not beþenk, but beþenking hemself for him, þei comparisounen not Cod but hemself, not to God but to hemself’, which translates De Civitate Dei, xii, 17 (PL xli, 367), ‘profecto non Deum, quern cogitare non possunt, sed semetipsos pro illo cogitantes, non ilium sed se ipsos, nec illi, sed sibi comparant’.
11 For these see Hudson, A., ‘A Lollard Compilation and the Dissemination of Wycliffite Thought’, JTS, ns xxiii (1972), pp. 65–81Google Scholar, Nolcken, C. von, The Middle English Translation of the ‘Rosarium Theologie’, = Heidelberg Middle English Texts, x (1979)Google Scholar and the same author’s paper ‘Some Alphabetical Compendia and how Preachers used them in Fourteenth-century England’, Viator, xii (1981), pp. 271-88.
12 For instance Titus f. 25v Austen … De Ci. Dei li. 18ca.38 (correct for PL xli, 598); f. 82v Austen … upon þe worde of þe prophete ‘Si dormiatis inter medios cleros’ (Enarr. in Ps., lxvii, n, PL xxxvi, 823); f. 88v Austen Super Genesim ad Litteram li.2 ca. 1 in þe ende (PL xxxiv, 263); f. 96r Ierom…Epistola 54 ad Lucin[i]um (PL xxii, 672, the medieval numeration of Jerome’s letters differed from that now used).
13 For example, Titus f. 19v Gregor 18. Moralia super isto uerbo ‘Habet argentum uenarum suarum principia et auro lotus est in quo conflatur’ (Moralia, xviii, 26, PL lxxvi, 58).
14 Titus f. 40v (correct reference to PL xlv, 996); compare f. 95r Austen rehersing Ciprian … libra 4 De Doctrina Christiana (correct reference to De Doctr., iv. 21, PL xxxiv, 111).
15 For an invaluable survey of medieval accessus see Rouse, R.H. and Rouse, M.A., Preachers, Florilegia and Sermons: Studies on the ‘Manipulus Florum’ of Thomas of Ireland (Toronto, 1979)Google Scholar and bibliography there.
16 Examples of such references may be seen in Arnold, T., Select English Works of John Wyclif (Oxford, 1869-71), iii, p. 281Google Scholar, line 13, p. 412, line 22, p. 416, line 20, and Matthew, p. 128, line 26; more precise references are found in the York version of the Glossed Gospels, York Minster Library, MS XVI.D.2, for instance f. 170v Ardmacan in x book of þe Questiouns of Armenyes xviii c°.
17 Titus f. 33v; Egerton ff. 52r and 112r. Only the last of these is a detailed reference Crisostum…upon pis word of pe gospel (Mt. 7) ‘Attendite a falsis prophetis’ (PG lvi, 737). Other Wycliffite works give homily number and further indication of location, as in York f. 178v xv omeli aftir þe bigynnyng, xviii omeli bifore þe myddis, or ff. 213r-14r marginal references 15.j, 13.1, 13-m, 13.0 using the literal subdivisions of the sermons.
18 Titus ff. 35v and 38r, Matthew, p. 399, line 13 to Summa Viciorum (ed. Paris, 1669), pp. 72, 106, and 123 respectively; Titus f. 20r to Summa Virtutum (ed. Paris, 1668), p. 120; with Titus f. 85v Parisiensis rehersing seint Ambrose super isto euangelio ‘Ego sum pastor bonus’ compare Oxford, Magdalen College, MS 204, pp. 97-8.
19 The Dicta at Titus f. 38r unspecific and unlocated, and Egerton f. 82v (Lambeth p. 385, line 30) Dicto 2 (cf. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. 798, f. 1v); the sermon Natis et Educatis specifically at Titus f. 79r and unnamed at f. 29v (cf. BL, MS Royal 6.E.V, ff. 122v-3r); Titus f. 69v Lincoln…super Ecclesiastica Ierarchia (cf. Oxford, Lincoln College, MS Lat. 101, f. 106v). For the sections where Grosseteste is not mentioned see Egerton f. 102v (cf. Lincoln f. 124v) and Titus f. 48r (cf. Lincoln f. 108r).
20 See Friend, A.C., ‘Master Odo of Cheriton’, Speculum, xxiii (1948), pp. 641–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar and the same author’s unpublished D.Phil, thesis, ‘The Life and Unprinted Works of Master Odo of Cheriton’ (Oxford, 1936). More Wycliffite use of Odo is noted by Helen Spencer in her unpublished D.Phil, thesis, ‘English Vernacular Sunday Preaching in the Late Fourteenth Century and Fifteenth Century, with illustrative texts’ (Oxford, 1982), pp. 423-534.
21 Odo’s sermons are listed in Schneyer, Repertorium, iv, pp. 438-99. Extracts from the sermon for 10 Trinity appear in the Floretum under columba (BL, MS Harley 401, f. 51r, cf. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodl. 420, f. 161v) and simonia (Harley, f. 291r-v, cf. Bodl., f. 161v), whilst one from the sermon for the feast of St Peter’s Chair appears under prelacia (Harley, f. 245r, cf. Bodl., f. 225v).
22 Apology for Lollard Doctrines, ed. J.H. Todd, CSer (1842), pp. 57, line 21-58, line 23 has the second exactly, p. 56, lines 9-14 has more of the passage cited in the third; the material not found in the Floretum is at p. 75, lines 12-15 from the sermon for St John’s day (Bodl., f. 33v). The columba Odo quotation appears in the Lanterne ofLiзt, ed. L.M. Swinburn, EETS, cli (1917), pp. 92, line 28-93, line 10.
23 Matthew, p. 374, line 14 and in the original Latin p. 400, line 27 Odo in a sermon…þat bigynneþ…’Ecce nos reliquimus omnia’ (cf. Bodl., f. 271v), and p. 399, line 33 Odo in sermone ‘Estote misericordes’ (cf. Bodl., f. 142r, but closer to the version in CUL, MSKk.1.11, f. 64v); Titus f. 15’ Odo…vpon þe gospellus (a passage with similar sentiments, but not the source if this is a close translation, is in Bodl. f. 225v).
24 Matthew, p. 401, lines 9-26.
25 Egerton ff. 72v (Lambeth p. 380, line 3) and 121v, and ff. 118r-19v respectively; the last of these is not a continuous quotation, but draws on a number of different passages united in a single argument.
26 Titus ff. 35r-v; the reference gives simply Gorham upon pe Apocalips, but just before it Apoc., xvii, 1-2 are in question.
27 Stegmüller, Bibl., no. 5810, with cross references to nos. 2961 and 1040 under 5811-12. For Gorham, see Smalley, Bible, pp. 273-4.
28 Smalley, Postilla, pp. 186-205; the text is noted at p. 188.
29 Respectively ff. 213r-v5, 231r, 193v-94r, and 206r; the whole text is ff. 173r-246v and is dated by the scribe at the end ‘Oxford 1403’.
30 See Stegmüller, , Bibl., nos. 3771 and 8066Google Scholar; I used the text printed in Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Opera Omnia, xxiii (Parma, 1869), pp. 325-511.
31 Under 3771 Stegmüller’s entries suggest attribution to Gorham is found in BL, MS Royal 3 E.x, ff. 173r—87r and to Gorham and Lyra in Berlin, Staatsbibl., Theol. Fol. 23 (Rose 493), ff. 122r-291r. The library catalogue for the latter confirms the information (and adds that the manuscript was written in 1432); but the former can be accepted only if a colophon at the end of a commentary on Mark in the companion volume, MS. Royal 3E.xi, f. 89v, is extended to the rest of the otherwise anonymous compendium.
32 See, for instance, MSS Bodl. 716, ff. 247r-255v, CUL, Kk. 1.29, ff. 177v-184r and Oxford, Merton College, MS 42, ff. 166r-70r plus a supplementary index ff. 170v-73r (listed separately by Stegmuller at no. 280s and attributed with a query and for no clear reason to Guilelmus de Alvernia).
33 Titus ff. 70r-71v. A paraphrased version of part of the same quotation appears in Thorpe’s account of his trial before Arundel, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson C. 208, f. 43, where it is also attributed to Fulgencius.
34 See the edition by H. Haacke, CC, Continuatio Mediaeualis, vii (1967); bk. ii, 9, lines 361-421 and 424-36, not including the long extra passage quoted in the variants there for lines 401 or 426 nor the extra variants given for this chapter by P. Classen, ‘Zur kritischen Edition der Schriften Ruperts von Deutz’, DA, xxvi (1970), pp. 522-7.
35 De Apostasia, ed M.H. Dziewicki, WS (1889), pp. 73, line 25-75, line 25 corresponding to Rupert, book ii, 9, lines 359-85, 393-436; this passage is referred to again p. 123, lines 25-7.
36 De Apostasia, p. 95, lines 36-9, from Rupert ii, 9, pp. 106, line 36-107, line 16 from ii, 2, lines 93-114 and pp. 248, line 4-249, line 37 from ii, 21, lines 676-746. In a review of Haacke’s edition J. Möllerfeld’ Theologische Revue, lxv (1969), pp. 374-5], referring to some of these passages, suggests that Wyclif’s copy of the text may have contained only book ii.
37 For the former see the text in FZ, p. 121 summarizing Rupert, ii, 9, variants to p. 426, line 30; for the latter edition by J. Loserth, WS (1895-6), ii. p. 145, lines 5-8, paraphrasing ii. 9.
38 De Eucharistia Tractatus Maior, ed. J. Loserth, WS (1892), p. 99, lines 26-28; Gratian, III, D. ii, c.43. Since John, vi. 68 is quoted in the canon-law passage, it is now easy to verify this; though the verse is quoted in the extra passage added by some manuscripts the rest does not correspond.
39 De Apostasia p. 95, line 37, the manuscript is Vienna, Cvp, 1343; the only surviving manuscript of English origin does not extend so far. The most recent dating of the works by Wyclif mentioned here is that in Thomson, W.R., The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf: An Annotated Catalog (Toronto, 1983)Google Scholar: De Apostasia, p. 64, late 1380; De Eucharistia, p. 67, mid-to-late 1380; Confessio minor, p. 69, 10 May 1381; Opus Evangelicum, p. 220, 1383 to end 1384. The second of these may be a little early, and Thomson makes insufficient allowance for Wyclif’s habits of revision.
40 I have used the edition by B. Blanciotti (Venice, 1757-9), here ii, cols. 293-7, 404, 485, and 546-9. Notes at the end of the volume, cols. 978-82, identify Rupert of Deutz as the auctor De diuinis officiis.
41 Bk. v, 47 (col. 295); Netter does not candidly reflect the extent of Wyclif’s hesitation about the author.
42 The occasion of these discussions, and the instigation by the King, remains obscure. A possible opportunity would seem to have been during Netter’s probable involvement from 1409 onwards in attempts to persuade the university to submit a list of Wyclifs heretical conclusions [see Snappe’s Formulary, ed. H.E. Salter, OHS, lxxx (1924), p. 169, and Crompton, J., ‘ Fasciculi ZizaniorumII’, JEH, xii (1961), p. 159].Google Scholar
43 Col. 294; the letter is actually by William of St Thierry (PL clxxx, 341-2), where precisely the section first quoted in the De Apostasia and by the Titus Tractatus is singled out for condemnation. The passage of Guitmund is PL cxlix, 1430.
44 FZ, p. 156 quoting PL clxxx, 342; Tissyngton, though he perceived the date of the letter, describes it as by Anselm ad auctorem quendam de Officiis Divinis; he reverts to it pp. 172 and 178-9.
45 Col. 296. Haacke lists fifty-three complete surviving manuscripts and a further twelve partial texts. Many of these are unattributed. It is tempting to think that Netter’s defective text was that now Lincoln Cathedral Library, MS 82, which lacks the first four folios and begins at i, 22. By 1501 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud misc. 412 belonged to Canterbury College, Oxford, but in default of any ascription that would explain either ‘Ambrose’ or ‘Fulgentius’ it remains unprovable that this was the text seen either by Wyclif or by the author of the Tractatus.
46 Rupert, viii, 4.
47 Netter, cols. 296, 485, and 546. For Harkeley see BRUO, ii. pp. 874-5. Pelster, F., ‘Heinrich von Harclay, Kanzler von Oxford, und seine Quästionen’, ST, xxxvii (1924), pp. 307–56Google Scholar at p. 331 mentions Netter’s allusions, but wonders whether the attribution is correct; no such question survives. Bale’s attribution of a text De transubstantione, Catalogus, i, p. 503 goes beyond Netter’s information in giving an incipit, Utrum de necessitate salutis. Harkeley’s author, however, is presumably Bishop Waleram of Naumburg, who corresponded with Anselm of Canterbury on the Eucharist, see S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia, ii, ed. F.S. Schmitt (Edinburgh, 1946), pp. 223-42.
48 Col. 546.
49 For the earlier period see J. de Montclos, Lanfranc el Bérenger: la controverse eucharistique du XIe siecle = Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, xxxvii (1971), and M. Gibson, Lanfranc of Bee (Oxford, 1978), pp. 63-97. The recent biography Rupert of Deutz by J.H. van Engen (Los Angeles and London, 1983) has much useful information, but unfortunately nothing on knowledge of Rupert in the later medieval period.
50 Titus f. 69v; the earlier citations are at ff. 16v, 18v, and 48r.
51 Egerton ff. 28r-v; cf. J.E. Murdoch, ‘Infinity and Continuity’, in CHLMP, pp. 564-91. Murdoch points out (p. 576, n. 36) that Wyclif was an indivisiblist; the sermon writer follows him in this.
52 Titus ff. 10v-11r; Egerton f. 76r (Lambeth p. 382, line 28). Matthew, p. 528, draws attention to the same phrase in one of the articles from Wyclif condemned at the Council of Constance in 1415; see Fasciculus Rerum Expetendarum, ed. E. Brown (London, 1690) i, p. 267; the article is a quotation from Opus Evangelicum, ii, p. 152, lines 22-6.
53 Egerton ff. 78r-v, 99r, 95r-6v.
54 Titus f. 76v; the argument turns on the reasonable translation of the Pauline Titus ii. 12 that pie is equivalent to in pietate (corrupted by the scribe to impietate), and hence may be rendered in trew wirschipping of uerri God. I am indebted to David Thomson for his solution to this obscurity.
55 Titus f. 33v; the author apparently has in mind sobrius and has taken e- as a negative prefix (not supported by A. Walde revd. J.B. Hofmann, Lateinisches Etymotogisches Wörterbuch (Heidelberg, 1938-54) i, pp. 387-8).
56 Titus f. 91v.
57 Titus ff. 90v-91r; see De Statu Innocencie, ed. J. Loserth and F.D. Matthew, WS (1922), p. 478, lines 8ff and also Trialogus, ed. G. Lechler (Oxford, 1969), pp. 289-92.
58 Titus ff. 55r—56v and mention of John de Deo f. 15r; cf. Trialogus pp. 247-81 (John de Deo, pp. 251, line 10 and 264, line 22).
