Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

NOTE XIV. p. 25.

Wycliffe's was certainly the first translation of the Bible, though different parts of it had before been rendered into Saxon and English. Dr. Lingard hastily adopts a vague expression of Sir Thomas More's in his Discourses, to show that a translation had long before been made; and the expression does not bear him out (Hist. iii. 198). Wycliffe's translation, made chiefly by himself, and wholly under his immediate direction, was principally from the Latin versions. A very full and learned account of the Translations of the Bible is given in Dr. Rees's Cyclopædia, voce Bible. Sir T. More's Dial., b. iii. c. 14, lavishes much abuse on Wycliffe, and charges him with gross and systematic mistranslation and corruption of the Scriptures. His assertion that they had all been translated before is given with the most suspicious generality, and plainly rests on no specific or definite facts. He contends, too, that the Romish clergy did not lock up the Bible from the laity, and would have us believe that they only were desirous of preventing erroneous translations from misleading the people.- Works, 1549, pp. 233-4.

More's bigotry exceeds that of most men. It is perhaps the most remarkable instance of the prostration of great faculties by superstition. One of his principal charges against Luther is his being an enemy of crusades against the Turks. His answer to Tindale is unrivalled in weakness and in zeal.

The number of Wycliffe's writings was enormous, even for that voluminous age. They exceeded those of St. Augustin. His Bible, though hastily executed, is most valuable as a mine or record of our Saxon tongue; for it is written in singularly idiomatic language; and Mr. Hallam has done it only justice in representing its composition as an important step in the progress of the language.-ii. 607.

NOTE XV. p. 27.

The abuse of Luther by both clerical and lay adversaries exceeded the ordinary measure of polemical virulence. That he was criminally connected with Catherine Bora before marriage, or, as it was phrased, that he was within two days a monk, a husband, and a father; that he was a glutton and a sot, and died suddenly after a debauch; that he succeeded in convincing himself against all religion after a ten years' struggle, compared to the siege of Troy, and that he became an atheist- these are charges, wholly false, indeed, but not impossible to be true in the nature of things. But it was also currently asserted that he had been begotten by a monster, or incubus, and that he habitually drank two gallons of sweet wine at dinner and supper, -assertions which stamp themselves with falsehood, and their authors with folly as well as fraud. Erasmus, who had at one time believed and given currency to the charge respecting his wife, afterwards retracted it most fully. To vindicate Luther from faults of another kind, some of them almost bordering on mental alienation, would be an altogether hopeless task. His table-talk dwells with disgusting detail on supposed conflicts with the devil; he gave the Elector a dispensation to marry two wives; and he profaned the pulpit with sermons vindicating fornication.

NOTE XVI. p. 29.

The first part of Spencer's epitaph refers to these exploits :-

"Lollardi mores damnant deteriores

Insurrectores permissus necat et proditores."

"Nullus pacturus (says Copgrave) tempore suo inter populum habitare potuit."-Vit. Henrici Norvicensis apud Wharton Orig. Sac. ii. 359-69.

NOTE XVII. p. 35.

The doubts cast upon the authority of the act are, I think, insufficient to shake it. To some observation, however, it is certainly liable. The Rot. Par. only says that it was "de consensû Regis, magnatum, procerum ;" and no mention is made of the Commons. But the Statute itself mentions the ComAgain, the prelates in the Petition say nothing of the punishment; so that, though the Commons assent with the Temporal Peers and the Crown, the Spiritual Peers give no consent to the whole act. But then the statute mentions the Prelates as well as the Temporal Peers. Perhaps, however, the most suspicious circumstance is the place in which the Petition and answer are found on the Parliament Roll. The 46th and 47th entries are stated to be made of what passed the last day of Parliament, Thursday, March 10, 1401. The Parliament is then dissolved, the members dismissed, and their wages ordered; and then comes the 48th entry, which is the petition of the clergy and the answer enacting also the punishment. But it must be admitted that in the 47th article the Commons thank the King for what had been enacted during the session to put down heresy, and no other enactment except the stat. de hær. comb. appears to have been made, unless it be the writ for burning Sawtré, which is certainly entered Art. 20, as framed by advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal. There is also much irregularity in these entries for example, one of the entries before the dissolution on the 10th of March bears date the 15th, if this be not an error in transcribing.

NOTE XVIII.—p. 36.

Dr. Lingard is mistaken in his statement that the Commons returned thanks specially for Sawtré's punishment (iii. 329). He cites the general thanks which they gave at the end of the session "for the good and just remedy which had been made and

ordained to the destruction of the heresy and the sect

(Rot.

Par. iii. 466). Now, Dr. Lingard uses this passage (p. 330) as a proof that the Commons thanked the King for the statute, not for the writ; and so, probably, must the thanks be read. If they refer to Sawtré's case, then one of Dr. Lingard's proofs that the statute had the consent of the Commons fails. He and others express doubt of the precise time of Sawtre's execution. But the writ or ordinance de comburendo W. Sawtré is tested 26th February, 1401; and though the entry on the Parl. Roll is 2nd of March, that may be the day it received the Lords' assent, in anticipation of which it was probably framed. There can be little or no doubt then as to the time.

NOTE XIX.-p. 41.

We only

T. Walsingham is the only authority on which the proposal of the Commons to Henry IV. has come down to us. find in Rot. Parl. iii. 623, that the Commons desired to have a petition returned to them which they had presented, and that it was given back with some reluctance, and a note that this proceeding should not be drawn into a precedent. T. Walsingham, 422, says that the petition came from "Milites parliamentales, vel ut dicam verius satellites Pilatales, in maligno positi, nulli commoditati regni studentes sed unum solummodo scelus molientes ut ecclesiam destituant."

NOTE XX. p. 46.

After a solemn mass had been performed, he also offered to be treated as a traitor should he be found false in his protestations to Richard. (Relation de la Mort de Richard II.) He was the person who seized Richard. On Henry's landing, Salisbury, who had been sent into Wales by Richard, assembled 40,000 men, but Henry is said to have collected 100,000. Richard, on the way to London, at Lichfield, attempted to escape by sliding

down from the tower window; but he was taken in the garden. While on the journey a body of Londoners came to demand his head; but Henry refused, and said he should let him be tried by the Parliament. As Richard rode through the city the mob reviled him with the name of "little bastard," a calumny adopted in some proclamations of Henry which call him John de Bourdeaux. (Relation de la Mort de Ric. II.-Relation d'un Français, Témoin oculaire, au sujet de la Déposition de Ric. II. et de l'Usurpation de Henri IV.-Chronicle of the Betrayal of Richard II., published in Archæol. VI. by the Antiquarian Society.) This is the same with the work last cited, and it had been printed in France before the Society published this edition, assuming that the original remained still in MS.

NOTE XXI. p. 49.

Sir T. Blount was embowelled alive; that is, placed upon a bench while only half hanged and yet alive, and his entrails forcibly torn out and burnt before his face; cruel, taunting expressions being at the same time used towards the sufferer. The 'Relation de la Mort de Rich. II.' gives this shocking account of it :-"Il se deboutonnat, et adonc le bourrel en y latta le ventre et luy coppa les boyaulx droit desous l'estomac, et les noua d'une laniere que le vent ne partist hors de luy, et jetta les boyaulx dans le feu. Adonc Sir Thomas etait assis devant le feu, le ventre tout ouvert, et les vist ardoir les boyaulx devant luy."

To the savage ferocity of the law was added the vile spite of the courtier. Sir Thomas Erpingham, the usurper's chamberlain, must needs insult the victim of his cruelty, and whose only crime was the refusing to partake of his own treason: Go," said he, "seek a master that can cure thee!" Blount only answered by blessing God that he had been suffered to die for his lawful prince. (Relation, 232.) He refused to betray the names of his accomplices. (See the Cronycle of the Betrayal, p. 246.)

« ZurückWeiter »