The Middle English Bible. Henry Ansgar Kelly
Чтение книги онлайн.
Читать онлайн книгу The Middle English Bible - Henry Ansgar Kelly страница 19
Название: The Middle English Bible
Автор: Henry Ansgar Kelly
Издательство: Ingram
Жанр: Языкознание
Серия: The Middle Ages Series
isbn: 9780812293081
isbn:
Butler sums up his reasons against translation at the end: (1) the allectiva conditio (attractive nature) of Scripture (from which errors of interpretation easily arise); (2) the defective understanding of human nature (caused by original sin); (3) the analogy of the angelic hierarchy; (4) the singular conferral of the law of the Gospel (to be proclaimed rather than written); (5) the subtlety of Scripture’s literal artifice; and (6) the mystical body of Christ (different functions for different members).25 In the course of his third argument, he seems to be asserting that bishops were currently prohibiting their subjects from having the Scriptures in English.26 But, as Jeremy Catto observes, Butler makes no reference to Lollards, and, although the treatise by Palmer does mention Lollard interpretations of the Bible, it does not attribute any translation to them or accuse them of unorthodoxy.27 Kantik Ghosh, however, argues that both Butler and Palmer do show awareness of Wycliffite issues, namely attacks against the prerogatives of the clergy, and he finds Ullerston’s reticence about the Lollards deliberately or indeliberately naive.28
Richard Ullerston: Completely in Favor
Third, we address a Latin treatise preserved in the National Library in Vienna, advocating the translation of the Bible into English. Deanesly had attributed it to Purvey,29 but Anne Hudson discovered from a copy of the end of the text in Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, that it was by Richard Ullerston, a solidly orthodox and anti-Lollard doctor of theology from Queen’s College, Oxford.30 Ullerston’s arguments were then used in an English tract titled Against Them That Say That Holy Writ Should Not or May Not Be Drawn into English, also attributed by Deanesly to Purvey, which reports Archbishop Thomas Arundel as having approved Queen Anne’s English Gospels.31 Only the third article of Ullerston’s original three-article treatise on Bible translation has survived, having been preserved among the Hussites in Bohemia, and the title that comes at the end of the Caius text, Tractatus de translacione Sacre Scripture in vulgare, may refer only to this part. Hudson deciphers the date as 1401, but she admits that the final digit is not absolutely clear, concluding however that “from the shape of the stroke there seems no possible alternative.”32 To me, however, the last digit does not resemble the first digit at all, and it may well be a “7”.33
Last page of Ullerston’s treatise on translation, Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College MS 803/807, fragment 36 verso detail.
Ullerston’s first two articles (nonextant) dealt with the question of whether Jerome’s translation is “true,” and he concluded that it is. It is puzzling how he could write at great length on this subject without knowing the original languages from which Jerome was translating. The conclusion that he came to is clear from the third article, that it was allowable for Jerome to make his translation; and this remaining article deals with the question of whether it is allowable to translate Scripture into other languages as well, that is, tongues that are “less principal and famous” than Latin.34
He goes on to say that in the times of “our fathers”—it is not clear whether he means this literally, “in the previous generation,” or is referring to earlier times, even the patristic era, or to all times up to now—there was never any question about this matter. He could have added that this was also seemingly still the case outside England, since it is only in England that we find a call for unrestricted access to the Scriptures. In other words, there was no need for such a demand in other countries, where vernacular translations were a matter of course.35
However, nowadays, Ullerston continues, there is great doubt, so much so that two valiant doctors in this cathedra, or seat of learning, spent the whole time of their lectures on much this point; one of them gave several arguments for the negative position, and the other offered scores (vigenarii) of arguments on the affirmative side. But neither of them was judged to have won his case.36 Thus Ullerston resembles Butler, reacting to a debate that he did not personally participate in.
He then describes his plan of procedure: first he will recite some of the negative arguments of the first doctor, and then add some further negative arguments on his own, and finally he will respond to all of these arguments with positive arguments, by which responses his own position will be made clear.37
Ullerston’s gently sarcastic tone in his introduction was missed by Deanesly, who mistranslates “nescio per quot argumentorum vigenarios” as “by I know not how many powerful arguments.”38 Hudson does not translate the passage, but she does identify the second doctor with Ullerston himself, and she thinks that all thirty of the negative arguments he gives are those of the first doctor.39 Dove follows suit, saying that Ullerston’s treatise “is set up as a debate between two doctors.”40 But in fact it is clear from what Ullerston says that he did not even attend the Oxford debate, and that the debate dealt with a somewhat different question from that of his article. Furthermore, only the first four of his negative arguments are those of the first doctor, which were supplied to him by a friend. When Ullerston begins to list the arguments against the proposition, he says: “The first doctor asks: ‘Should Sacred Scripture be interpreted into all languages,’ which somewhat coincides with my article” (that is, the positive position taken in his treatise).41 Then, after giving the first four arguments, he says: “Now these arguments a certain man, a friend, set down, as written in the hand of the aforesaid first doctor.”42 He continues by giving twenty-six additional arguments against his own article (not against the question debated by the two doctors).43 Later on, at the end of his response to the fourth argument, he says that this concludes his response to the arguments of “the reverend doctor.”44
In proceeding as he does, Ullerston is not trying to give the appearance of being evenhanded,45 but rather is following (or inventing) a modified form of scholastic argumentation. In the classic scholastic method, as demonstrated most familiarly by St. Thomas in his Summa theologica, a proposition is stated and arguments given in favor of it, and then the professor comes to the opposite conclusion, giving his reasons; finally, he responds to the original arguments one by one.46 What Ullerston does is to start with a question, rather than a proposition; he gives arguments on the negative side and then he refutes the arguments, thereby affirming the positive side.
Let us examine Ullerston’s treatise. It is divided into twenty-four chapters, and, whether this division was Ullerston’s doing or not, it will be useful to follow it.47 There is some hesitation on the part of the scribe as to where the divisions go, and some rubrics are crossed out. The chapters are as follows:
Chapter 1 (195ra): introduction; negative arguments 1–4 from the first doctor; negative arguments 5–10 from Ullerston.
Chapter 2 (195va): negative arguments 11–20.
Chapter 3 (196ra): negative arguments 21–30.
Chapter 4 (196rb): discourse on translacio and interpretacio.
Chapter 5 (196vb): discourse on what is licit and illicit.
Chapter СКАЧАТЬ