John Wycliffe.

Iohannis Wycliffe De dominio divino libri tres; to which are added the first four books of the treatise De pauperie Salvatoris (Volume 10) online

. (page 1 of 55)
Online LibraryJohn WycliffeIohannis Wycliffe De dominio divino libri tres; to which are added the first four books of the treatise De pauperie Salvatoris (Volume 10) → online text (page 1 of 55)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

illi^Hwlnt I

j[JiTiintleiii bu "Vs^vc^p '^trcvAir



















4999 s


Preface :

The treatise de Dominio divino :
The manuscripts

The present edition .
Relation of the mannscripts
Title of the work .

Division into books .
Fragmentary state of the work
Authorship and date
Contents .....
Richard FitzRalph's treatise de Pauperie Salvatoris:
Origin and date of composition
Contents ....

Relation to Wycliffe
Conclusion .....


Liber I

Liber II

Liber III

Appendix :

RiCARDi FiLii Radulphi de Pauperie Salvatoris
Libri I.— IV

Preliminary notice:

The manuscripts ........

Table of contents of the books not here printed .

Liber I. ..,..,.,. .

Liber II

Liber III

Liber IV

Additions and Corrections

Glossary to Wycliffe's treatise de Doniiiiio divino

Index of Authorities cited

Index of Subjects




















48 8


Wycliffe's three books de Dominio divino areThetrea-

1 1 SG CiB

preserved in four manuscripts in the imperial hbrary ^^;;„„/^
at Vienna. Of these Cod. 1339 (formerly known as'''^^'"^-

The ma-
Cod, theol. 900^, and denoted in the present edition nuscripts.

by the letter a) is an octavo volume written on parch- Cod. a.
ment and bound in the original wooden boards. It
measures 21-4 x 13-2 centimetres. The page is divided
into two columns (here distinguished by A, B, and C, D,
for the recto and verso respectively) ; and each column
measures about 15-4 x 4-1 centimetres, the interval
between the two being about 9 millemetres. The
book is all written with great regularity and singular
clearness in one beautiful trained hand ; the characters
are small with thick down-strokes, and the contrac-
tions are comparatively few and rarely present any
difficulty to the reader. Throughout the margins are
scattered rough headings, catchwords, and glosses,
which it has not been thought worth while to re-
produce in this edition. The beginnings of chapters
are distinguished by coloured initial letters, red and
blue, for the most part alternately ; the initial letters
which begin the several books are illuminated chiefly
in green, mauve-blue, and pink, with a gold framing,
and the work is executed not only with skill and

' The designation of this manuscript given by Michael Denis is Cod.
theol. ccclxxx. : Codd. MSS. thcol. Biblioth. palat. Vindobon., i (2)
i446seq., Vienna 1794 folio.


delicacy but also with some pretension to artistic
design. The date of the manuscript may be assigned
to the first years of the fifteenth century, and the
corrections altera maim are those of a contemporary
bLop6oiTi]s who apparently did nothing more than
collate the text with its exemplar. There is no evi-
dence to show the country in which it was written.
Like the manuscript of the De civili Doininio, though
in neither case is it possible to arrive at a certain
conclusion, it may well have been written by a
Bohemian scribe in England and then transported
into Bohemia. On the ground of its early date this
is perhaps, on the whole, most likely^. The volume
contains : —

1. The three books de Dominio divino, f. i.

2. ' Liber Mandato7'um qui est primus in ordine Summe

sue et presupponit istos tres tractatus de Dominio
precedentes,' f. 91.

3. ' Tractatus de Statu Lmocende,' f. 237, ending defectively

on f. 248.

Within the first cover of the binding is the following
note : —

' Iste est ordo librorum Summe sue in theologia :
Primus, liber IMandatorum, et presupponitur tres libros

de divino Dominio ;
Secundus, de Statu Innocencie ;
Tercius, quartus, et quintus, de Dominio civili ;
Sextus, de Veritate sacre Scripture,'

and so on to the twelfth book de BlaspJicmia. Then

follows : —

' Secundum aliam quotacioncm iste est ordo :

■^ The regular spelling of evangdium and its derivations with a w
probably points in the same direction : so too the abbreviation of
Lincolniensis as Lincottn. (p. 246 1. 1), and oi Ardinachani,\i\\\Q!n. is
often written more like Ardindi, a form which actually occurs, with the
i dotted, in the margin of f 42 c.


Primus liber est de divino Dominio ;

Secundus, de Dominio Status Innocencie ;

Tercius, de Dominio Hominis post lapsum.

Hec patent in tractatu Status Innocencie in fine, ubi
addendum dicit ad primum librum trac[ta]tum de
]\Iandatis, ad secundum de Dominio Angelorum, ad
tercium de Dominio Clericorum.

Hec patent ubi supra alleg[atur].'

Cod. 1294 (formerly known as Cod. theol. 388 ^ and Cod. b.
here denoted by the letter b) is a large octavo volume
written on parchment and bound in wooden boards,
the flyleaves consisting of a Moravian charter of the
year 1401. The book measures 24-5 x 16 centimetres.
The page is divided into two columns ; and each
column measures 18x5-5 centimetres, the interval
between the two being about 5 millemetres. The
whole work, except the indexes, is written in one very
fine delicate hand, from which proceed also some of
the marginal catchwords and glosses, the remainder
being due to the correctors. The initial letters of the
chapters are not filled in, as they were intended to be,
in colour. The volume contains : —

1. The treatise de Veriiate sacrae Scripturae, f. i ; with

index in a later hand, f. 120.

2. The treatise de Ecclesia, f. 128; with index in a later

hand, f. 208.

3. The three books de Dominio divino, f. 212, ending

defectively on f. 251 d.

The three sections bear an old separate pagination,
and a comparison of the dates given in the margin of
the manuscript leads to the conclusion that originally

^ Cod. theol. ccccv. in Denis' catalogue, i (2) 1507-1510. Dr Loserth
takes this manuscript (which he calls a) as the basis of his edition of
the treatise De Ecclesia published in 1886. He gives a full description
of the volume in his introduction, pp. xvii.-xix.


the De Dominio divino stood second and the De
Ecclesia last in the volume ^ That the scribe was a
Bohemian is shown by the fact that not a few marginal
notes are written in Czech. These notes further in-
form us that he wrote in England, that the correctors
were likewise Bohemians, and that their work was
completed in 1407, or perhaps more probably 1408.
At the end of the treatise de Veritate sacrae ScripUirae
is the note ' Correctus graviter A. D. 1407 in vigilia
Purificacionis sancte Marie Oxonie per Nicolaum
Faulfiss et Georgium de Knyehnicz ' (f. 119 d). Now
Faulfisch is the man whom Aeneas Sylvius credited
with being the first to introduce Wycliffite books into
Bohemia^; and although the statement is so far in-
correct that other Bohemians before him had brought
home works by Wycliffe with them, yet its substantial
accuracy in mentioning the works De hire divino and
De Ecclesia among the books which Faulfisch took into
Bohemia may induce us to attach more weight than
is usually done to the list Aeneas gives of the works
carried home by him^.

Other Czech notes scattered through the volume
enable us to trace a little more of the scribe's history.
Of the De Dominio divino the tenth chapter of book i.
was finished on Maundy Thursday^, the eleventh on
Easter Eve ^. At the end of the fifth chapter of
book iii. there is a note, Braybj'tig psano'^, written at
Braybrook, which indicates that the scribe was working

* Loserth, intr. to De Eccl., p. xviii.

^ Hist. Bohem. xxv., 0pp. p. 103, ed. Basle 1571 folio, or with a
slight textual variation in the edition of the Hist. Bohem., Helmstadt
1699 quarto, p. 49.

^ Cf. Wycliffe, de civ. Dom., i. pref. pp. viii., ix. For further par-
ticulars concerning Faulfisch see Dr Loserth 's introduction, pp. xvii., seq.

* Infra, p. 75, n. 31. * P. 89. n. 29. * P. 249, n. S.


at a village in Northamptonshire, the rector of which,
Robert Hoke, was reputed in 1405 to be a heretic, and
was tried and made his recantation in 1425^. The
manor-house belonged to the Latimers, and its late
owner, sir Thomas Latimer, who died in September,
1 40 1, was a well-known Lollard leader^. Braybrook
too was on the borders of Leicestershire, which
was in a sense the headquarters of Lollardy. It is
Henry Knighton, canon of Leicester, who says,
speaking of the latter years of the fourteenth cen-
tury, ' Secta ilia in maximo honore illis diebus ha-
bebatur, et in tantum multiplicata fuit quod vix
duos videres in via quin alter eorum discipulus Wyc-
lyfife fuerit^;' and he gives several specimens of
Lollard activity in the neighbourhood of Leicester
which have become commonplaces of Wyclififite

Passing on to the De Ecclesia^ which, as we have
seen, now stands second in the volume, we find that
the second chapter"^ was completed at Kemerton in
Gloucestershire, a village lying not many miles from
Evesham, the home of the Lollard tailor, John Badby ^,
who was burned in 1410, and between the towns of
Tewkesbury and Pershore, which furnished armed
support to sir John Oldcastle when he was at Malvern
preparing for revolt a few years later '^. The fourth

* Wilkins, Cone. Magn. Brit., 3. 437.

- Ivnighton, de Event. Angl. v., Hist. Angl. Scriptt. decern, 2. 2661,
ed. R. Twysden, 1652 ; Walsingham, Hist. Anglic. 2. 159, 216, ed. H. T.
Riley, 1864: cf. Dugdale's Baronage, 2. 33 b, 1676 ; Bridges' Hist, and
Antiqq. of Northamptonshire, 2. 11, 1791.

' De Event. Angl. v., p. 2666.

* De Eccl. , p. 47, n. 5.

* Rymer's Foedera, S. 627, ed. 1709.

* Walsingham, Hi>t. Anglic, 2. 306 seq.


chapter is dated in Latin on the vigil of Whitsunday^.
Further on, at the end of f. 163 2, the scribe com-
memorates in a Czech couplet the imprisonment of
two EngHsh Lollard priests, possibly the cases of
William Sawtree and John Purvey in 140 1 ; for there
is no need to assume that the verses relate to an
absolutely contemporaneous event.

When we observe that the dates given follow one
another continuously, — Candlemas, Maundy Thurs-
day, Easter Eve, Whitsun Eve, — it is difficult to avoid
the conclusion that the work of transcribing and of
' correction ' went on side by side, and that all these
dates belong to the same year. In other words, our
scribe and his friends (or friend, for there is no reason
why the scribe himself should not be either Faulfisch
or Knyehnicz) finished the De Veritate at Oxford on
the 1st February, 1407, went to Braybrook apparently
some time after Easter, and then removed to Kemerton
shortly before Whitsunday. If, as is on the whole
most likely, our Bohemian visitors adopted the Eng-
lish reckoning of time, the first date, February i, will
fall in 1407-8, Maundy Thursday on April 12, Easter
Eve on April 14, and Whitsun Eve on June 2, all in
1408. But the possibility, of course, remains that they
adopted the practice of beginning the year at Christ-
mas, in which case the dates would all belong to 1407
and the times fixed by Easter would be nineteen days
Cod. c. Cod. 3935 (formerly known as Cod. theol. 886 ^ and

here distinguished as c) is a quarto volume written
partly on paper and partly on parchment; the
leaves containing the De Dominio divino are of

1 De Eccl., p. 92, n. 5. ' Ibid., p. 250, n. 16.

3 Cod. theol. ccccx. in Denis' catalogue, i (2) 1519-1523.


paper. It measures 30 x 21-5 centimetres. The page
is divided into two columns, each measuring roughly
23 X 7 centimetres, but the writing is very irregular ;
the interval between the columns is about i centi-
metre. The volume is the work of various scribes of
the date of the first quarter of the fifteenth century ;
the corrections of the text and the glosses are all
added by one hand. The manuscript contains : —

1. Index to the De Dominio divino, lib. i., f. i.

2. De Dominio divino, lib. i., f. 13.

3. „ „ „ lib. ii., f. 37. V

4. „ „ „ lib. iii., f. 40 B.

5. De Aposiasia, f. 49.

6. De Blasphemia, f. 129.

7. A list of WyclifFe's writings [printed by Shirley, Cata-

logue of the original Works of John Wyclif, 63-69,
and by Dr Buddensieg, in his introduction to Wy-
cliffe's Polemical Works, i., pp. l.xvii.-lxxiii., 1883],
f. 223 c.

8. De Statu hmocejitiae^ f. 225.

9. De Trinitate, f. 237.

10, II. FitzRalph's ' propositiones et articuli contra ordines
mendicantes,' and sermon before the pope, a.d. 1357,
ff. 273, 291.

12. Peter Payne's defence of Wycliffe. Inc.: 'Quia nuper

in regno Bohemie,' f. 309.

13, 14. A letter to a Wyclififite with his reply, ff. 340D-343.

Cod. 3929 (formerly known as Cod. theol. 880^ and Cod. d.
here distinguished by the letter d) is a paper manu-
script written not long after i4i5- It has been
fully described by Dr Buddensieg in his introduc-
tion to Wycliffe 's Polemical Works, 1., pp. xxix.-
xxxi. ; a briefer account will be found in Lechler's
edition of the Trialogiis, pp. '^'>, seq. (Oxford 1869)

^ Cod. theol. ccclxxxv. in Denis, i (2) 1453-1459.


and in Dr Loserth's of the De Ecclesia, intr., pp. xix.-
xxi.^ It contains : —

1. De Ecclesia, f. i.

2. De Dominio divmo, lib. i., f. 114 b.

3. „ „ „ lib. ii., f. 159 A.

4. „ „ „ lib. iii., f. 168 c.

5. Supplementum Trialogi, f. 170 c.

and other works for which reference may be made to
Dr Buddensieg's account.

In the De Dominio divino it may be noticed that
the title of book iii. is wanting : it follows book ii.
without a break, and its beginning is marked only by
a large initial letter. The chapters also, excepting
book i. 1—4 and book ii. 4, bear no numbers. The
scribe has inserted some notes in Czech.

The Shortly after the foundation of the Wyclif Society


edition. m 1 882 arrangements were made for the transcription
of the text of the De Dominio divino from Codex A,
in order to serve as the basis of an edition of the
work. The transcript was sent to Dresden to be
collated under the direction of Dr Buddensieg with
Codex B, which was at that time lent to him for the
purpose of his intended edition of the De Veritate
sacrae Scripturae. Dr Buddensieg was so kind as to
execute almost the whole of the collation with his own
hand, and he transmitted his work to me at Ziirich,
where I was then resident, in March, 1883. I have
gone over the ground again in all doubtful cases,
and have peculiar pleasure in saying that this col-
lation of a manuscript presenting an unusual number
of pitfalls to the reader, for instance, in ambiguous

' The manuscript is variously denoted as 'b ' by Lechler, 'a' by Dr
Buddensieg, and ' A; ' by Dr Loserth.


letters and contractions, is — as indeed might have
been expected from the special experience and
learning of the collator — as near absolute accuracy
as any human performance can be. With A, unfor-
tunately, the case was very different. The copyist
who undertook the work was entirely without palaeo-
graphical training, and did not even take the pains to
inform himself of the meaning of familiar contractions.
Although a classical student, he blundered on from
sentence to sentence without a thought whether the
words yielded any sense at all ; and to add the last
straw to the editor's and the printer's burthen he
wrote a handwriting which seemed ingeniously devised
with the object of preventing its being read. Portions
of letters were separated by a space, whereas separate
letters and words were run into one another ; letters
liable to confusion were so written as to be most easily
confounded ; and the spelling, while professing to be that
of the original, was frequently but silently normalised.
In reading through the transcript I marked all the
places which seemed to me wrong, and noted all those
in which A differed from B to be collated with C.
These points were verified by Dr Rudolf Beer partly
under my direction and with my help in September,
1884, and partly by himself; but so soon as I came to
printing, I found that the thorough untrustworthiness
of the transcript made it necessary not merely to test
it but to collate it afresh throughout. Accordingly in
January, 1889, I began a regular collation of A with
the printed sheets, a work which Dr Beer continued
and finished for me. Meanwhile I devoted myself to
the task of settling the various readings of B and C,
of course with constant reference to the text of A.
Further doubts which arose in the course of the proof-


reading I submitted to Dr Beer, who verified them,
wherever needful, in all the three manuscripts.

The present edition is thus made on the foundation
of A : a complete collation of B, omitting only ortho-
graphical variants ^, is added ^ ; and C has been collated
wherever A and B differ, as well as in a number of
cases where the reading both of A and B presented
difficulties, but not regularly in the same way as B has
been collated. I have often regretted that the tran-
script was not at the outset made from B, on account
of the peculiar interest attaching to that manuscript
and of the fact that it was written in England. On
the other hand, A has the appearance of being the
earlier manuscript, and it has the further claim upon
the Wycliffe editor of forming, like the unique
copy of the De civili Dominio, one of a series of
manuscripts of the English divine written in the same
size and style and comprehending a large proportion
of his most considerable works. Moreover, while A is
written with the punctilious regularity and precision
of a standard book — as a work of one of the fathers
would be reproduced, — B is written with an indepen-
dence which had no scruple to correct mistakes.
Many of these corrections are indeed plainly right,
and not a few have been received into the text of the
present edition ; but many also give evidence of the
scribe's having altered sentences to agree with what
he thought was the meaning of the passage, when the
passage rightly understood needed no change at all.

* It should be stated that where A has ' ergo ' B uniformly reads
* igitur.' This variant has been only noticed, once for all, in the critical
note to p. 5, 1. 15.

^ The beginning of each folio and column of this manuscript is entered
in the critical notes with the sign || prefixed.


In other words, A is a mechanical transcript, while B is
the work of one who thought for himself.

That A and B are independent copies, and not even Relation of

, . the manu-

copies of the same archetype, may be taken as certam. scripts.
They have all the appearance of standing to one
another in the relation not of sisters but of cousins.
As for C, I have little doubt that it is a direct tran-
script of A \ The number of cases in which it agrees
with B as against A is very small, and most of these
are of the nature of corrections of obvious errata.
Had I been persuaded of this at first, I should not
have carried out the collation of the manuscript even
as far as I have done ; but since the collation was
done and in part printed before I had arrived
definitely at this conclusion, I thought it best to leave
it as it stood. Still, it must always be borne in mind,
in considering the evidence for any particular reading,
that, unless my judgement is quite wrong, C has no
claim to be regarded as an independent witness.
With respect to D, Dr Loserth's proof that its text of
the De Ecclesia is 'simply a copy of B may be con-
fidently extended to that of the De Dominio divino,
which I collated in selected passages taken from
various parts of the book. The instances in which it
conforms with A or C, or both, as against B, are very
few, and may for the most part be accounted for as
due to misreadings of contractions or ambiguous

* The following example affords nearly convincing evidence of this.
In p. 97, U. 20-24 ^ passage is omitted both in a and c. In the
former manuscript the omission occurs at the end of a page, and may
easily be accounted for by the common mistake of homoeoteleuton as
the scribe turned over the leaf. In c on the other hand the error
cannot be explained in this way, since it does not occur at the end
of a page ; the presumption therefore is that the scribe was copying
from A.



letters ^ in B or as the corrections of manifest blunders.
It has therefore seemed needless to make a regular
collation of the manuscript, or to record the results of
so much collation as I actually made. In two or
three cases I have taken a reading from it ^ ; but as a
rule I have used it only to substantiate my extension
of the extremely contracted forms of words which are
characteristic of B, and for this purpose it has proved
very serviceable in difficult or doubtful places.

In preparing the text of the present work for
publication, I have followed the same general rules
as in my edition of the De civili Doniinio, to the
preface of which (especially pp. xvi-xviii) I may be
allowed to refer. The readings supplied by the
correctors of the several manuscripts are distinguished
in the critical notes by the numeral ^, as A^, B^, &c.
The marginal headings and notes in the manu-
scripts, excepting the Czech ones in Codex B,
have been omitted altogether. How slight an in-
terest they possess may be seen from the parts
of B and C printed by Dr Loserth and Dr Bud-
densieg, who have scrupulously reproduced them in
their footnotes. The book itself I have endeavoured
to print without any alteration, except in cases where
the alteration is indicated in a note. Roman numerals,
however, have been uniformly employed in citations
from books, the usage of the manuscripts being
various ; and in the case of citations from the Bible,
in order to avoid a needless multiplication of foot-

* Thus it has ' generalissimo,' p. 180, 1. 9, with a c as against 'gene-
ralissime ' in B.

2 See p. 185, 1. 31 ; 186, 1. 3. In p. 57, 1. 13, the marginal reading
' denotaciones ' maybe worth mentioning. See too p. 217, n. 5. But
such specimens of readings supplied by D which are found in none
of the other manuscripts are quite exceptional.


notes, the reference has been supplemented by the
number of the verse in the Vulgate. I have also paid
no attention to the use of capital letters, punctuation,
and division into paragraphs found in the manuscripts.
With these exceptions the edition aims at a faithful
following of its original, with all its irregularities
and monstrosities of spelling ^ ; but I cannot but fear
that this aim, in consequence of the exceedingly-
bad transcript I had to work upon, has been not
quite perfectly carried out. Each new collation dis-
covered new and gratuitous blunders, and I am by
no means confident that I have succeeded in effacing
all the mischievous doing of my transcriber. I be-
lieve however that such errors as remain concern only
details of spelling, which are apt to elude even the
most vigilant collator, and do not affect the sense.

That the De Dominio divino was intended to stand Title of the
as an introduction to Wyclifife's Suimna in Theologia,
is shown not only by the first note written in the cover
of A^, but also by the first of the four early catalogues
of Wycliffe's works printed by Dr Buddensieg ^. It
has, however, been disputed whether its title, or at
least the title of its first book, should not be simply
De Dominio. Lechler inferred this, first, from the
terms of the prologue, 'Consonum videtur a dominio
inchoandum,' and secondly, from the fact that the
third catalogue of Wycliffe's works gives the title as

' Perhaps it should be mentioned that utt has been printed for w
where the latter stands for two letters, as in ' distingwntur,' ' wit.'

^ Supra, p. viii. The second note, ibid., which makes it the first book
of the Summa, is contradicted by the numbers given in the manuscripts
to the actual books of the Summa.

' Polemical Works, i., intr., p. Ixvi. So too apparently in the second
catalogue, where the title is miswritten ' de dominio domino []),' ibid.,
p. Ixxii.


Online LibraryJohn WycliffeIohannis Wycliffe De dominio divino libri tres; to which are added the first four books of the treatise De pauperie Salvatoris (Volume 10) → online text (page 1 of 55)