Gasquet begins his original essay by documenting the widespread scholarly belief at the time, the last decade of the nineteenth century, that John Wyclif himself had had an active role in the English Bible project, starting with the label on the Egerton manuscript that stood as the premier exhibit in the King’s Library in the British Museum: “The English Bible, Wycliffe’s Translation.”42 He can easily show that the idea of translating the Bible into English and examples of English translations existed long before Wyclif ’s time and were not the outcome of his movement.43 On the conclusion of Forshall and Madden that Wyclif translated the EV New Testament, he finds no evidence at all, and adds, “It is difficult to account for the silence of Wyclif himself, who in none of his undoubted writings, so far as I am aware, lays any stress on, or, indeed, in any way advocates having the Scriptures in the vernacular, except so far as is implied in the claim that the Bible is the sole guide in faith and practice for all.”44 It is admitted nowadays that Wyclif showed little interest in any kind of vernacular use until the end of his life.45 Alastair Minnis puts it strongly: “The arch-heresiarch himself, John Wyclif, made no attempt to champion his ‘vulgar’ tongue (to the best of our knowledge). No justification of the translation of that most authoritative of all books, ‘The Book of Life,’ may be found anywhere in Wyclif ’s voluminous theological writings, though for centuries he has been lauded as the fons et origo of the First English Bible.”46 “Wyclif ’s dismissive, perhaps even insulting, remarks in De veritate sacrae scripturae (1378) about the skills needed for the making of material Bibles are very much his own—and evidently consistent with what Anne Hudson has termed his ‘amazingly nonchalant’ attitude to language transference.”47
None of Wyclif ’s adversaries attribute any such enterprise to him, Gasquet says, except that Henry Knighton said that he translated the Gospel; and John Hus reported that he translated the whole Bible, while Archbishop Arundel, writing to Pope John XXIII, at least implied the same.48 Later scholars agree with Gasquet in dismissing the first two of these witnesses, and they should agree with him on his arguments against the third.49 Finally, Gasquet observes, “From what we know of Wyclif ’s active, restless, and combative disposition, and of his particularly speculative turn of mind, we should hardly have been disposed to assign to him so tedious a task as that of mere translation.”50
F. D. Matthew, in his 1895 response to Gasquet, cites a few pseudo-Wycliffian passages from his own English Works of Wyclif and from Thomas Arnold’s Select English Works of John Wyclif, which, he says, certainly imply “the authorship of Wyclif or some associate of his,”51 and Ogle rebukes Gasquet for not responding to this evidence.52 But Gasquet had already written off the wholesale ascription of English works to Wyclif,53 and most modern authorities agree in denying his authorship of everything previously assigned to him in English.54
What of the role of particular Wycliffites in the translation project? It was an easy deduction on Gasquet’s part that the universal acceptance of Wyclif ’s secretary John Purvey as the translator of LV rested on no proof whatsoever: “I believe that practically the only direct evidence to connect Purvey with this translation is the fact that his name appears in a single copy of the revision as a former owner.”55 Ogle responds to this statement with indignant bluster, simply repeating what Forshall and Madden have to say—which indeed consists of no evidence at all.56 The definitive dismissal of Purvey’s participation in the project came only in 1981 in Anne Hudson’s article in Viator.57
Gasquet was willing to admit the participation of the Wycliffite Nicholas Hereford in the EV Old Testament, if the big “if ” of Forshall and Madden’s assertion turns out to be true. Gasquet says, “If the note ascribing the version to Nicholas Hereford is, as Forshall and Madden testify, practically contemporary, it certainly furnishes us with strong evidence that Hereford had a main hand in the translation of the Old Testament.”58 Gasquet goes on to tell of Hereford’s renunciation of Wycliffite doctrines, and Ogle can see no reason for his doing so “unless it be to suggest that the orthodoxy which Hereford may have resumed in 1391 possessed some kind of retroactive virtue.”59 Perhaps Gasquet was suggesting that he resumed work on the Bible, a possibility noted by Conrad Lindberg.60
In recent times, the authenticity of the ascription to Hereford has come into question, as Hudson points out. It appears in manuscript Douce 369.1 at Baruch 3.20. This is the manuscript that Forshall and Madden used as their base text of EV from 1 Esdras up to this point.61 But this manuscript was written subsequently to another manuscript, Bodley 959, which preserves EEV, considered by Forshall and Madden to be “the original copy of the translator.”62 It breaks off at the same point, but has no attribution.63 Hudson concludes: “The attempt to ascribe sections of the translation and its revisions to individual Wycliffites, or indeed to Wyclif himself, seems to me misguided, and furthermore, to show a singular failure to grasp the nature or magnitude of the undertaking.”64 I will, however, suggest reasons later for doubting that the project was as massive as is sometimes supposed.
That leaves us without Wyclif and without specific Wycliffites and only with the Wycliffite doctrine in the anonymous so-called General Prologue (GP). This is where Gasquet made his big mistake. He did not read this treatise on the Old Testament, which Gasquet calls Five and Twenty Books (FTB),65 closely enough to take notice of its occasional antiestablishment statements. While he exposed the groundlessness of Forshall and Madden’s assumptions about Purvey’s authorship of FTB and LV, he accepted their position that the treatise and LV were by the same person, the position taken by Henry Wharton: “In some few copies there exists a lengthy prologue, which gives an account of the method employed by the translator. Whatever the author says of these methods is borne out in the actual version; and there is thus no room for doubting, as Henry Wharton long ago observed, that the prologues [sic] and the translation are by the same hand.”66 Gasquet goes on to cite the passage from chapter 15 of Five and Twenty Books that details the four steps outlined by the author in preparing his translation.67 Gasquet concludes from this that he had no previous knowledge of EV.68 (This would mean, of course, that LV was a fresh translation from the Bible, not a revision of EV.)69 At least we can say that the author reveals no knowledge of EV and makes no reference to it.
Gasquet subsequently says, when speaking of the errors singled out for censure in the prologue of Richard Hunne’s Bible, in Hunne’s posthumous trial for heresy, that he can find no trace of such errors in the prologue to LV as edited by Forshall and Madden.70 It is here that Ogle was able to convict him of a mistake that was thought by him and Coulton and many others to destroy his whole position.
From his statement in the preface to the reprinting of the Old English Bible, where he speaks of the challenges that he had received and his continued conviction as to the correctness of his views, it is evident that Gasquet thought that he had an adequate response to this objection. It should have been quite simple to guess what the general nature of such a response would be: if there had been no room for doubting that the author of the prologue was the same as the translator of the LV, now there is. In a lecture delivered in 1905 but printed only in 1912, Gasquet admits the Wycliffite nature of the prologue. In speaking of the Elizabethan period, he says: “Of Wiclif ’s works we have practically nothing. A print of the Wiclif at Nuremberg in 1546, another by Foxe at Strasburg in 1534; and, in England itself, the Prologue of the Bible in Henry’s reign (if indeed the Prologue be by Wiclif at all), and nothing else, is all that we find in the way of influences.”71
The only person who ever came close to suggesting such a probable response on Gasquet’s behalf was Herbert Thurston, who brings up the possibility that prologue and text are by different authors. Here is what he says: “No doubt the existence of these errors in the Prologue is a serious blow to one of his arguments, if we admit, as Dom Gasquet himself