Bible has been such as not merely to mould the thoughts and ideals, but to determine the very language, of our poets and prose writers.

Although it is not too much to say that some Middle English translators often surprise us, in the rendering of occasional verses, by their facile, dignified, and even rhythmical language, it is not likely that any long-sustained, imaginative passages of true poetic power, like Job 38, as rendered in the Authorized Version, could have been produced so early as the Middle English period. Whether the translator's power over language was sufficient for this, and whether the vocabulary itself was adequate, would be interesting questions for investigation, as would also be that of the capacity of the vocabulary for rendering abstract and metaphysical terms. But until more has been done toward bringing together all Middle English translations of various parts of the Bible made before the time of Wyclif, it is impossible to answer such questions with any degree of certainty. They can only be suggested as profitable subjects of inquiry.

While, then, it is undeniable that the English vocabulary, even in its transitional stage, was often proved capable of rendering the Vulgate with accuracy, dignity, simplicity, and beauty, it must be frankly admitted that, as a few examples have already shown, the language used in the quotations was often inadequate, stiff, and awkward. The translator did not always fully understand the meaning of the Latin before him, and sometimes it is only the fact that he cites the Vulgate which enables us to locate the quotation at all, so strange and unfamiliar does it sound. An interesting example occurs in Vices and Virtues, where the words Væ, qui dicitis bonum malum,

et malum bonum are thus translated, 'Wa, yeu de segged dat it is god te bigeten michel eihte, de ne mai bien bigeten wiðuten unrihtwisnesse. Here the word bonum may have been taken in the sense of worldly goods, or possibly the translator, like the Lollard revisers. of Rolle's Psalter, or the translators of the Douay version, deliberately rendered the phrase according to some pet theory of his.

Again, when the thought of a passage was not perfectly understood, a coldly literal translation of the Vulgate failed to convey the real meaning, however correct the actual use of words. For instance, instead of saying, as did the translator of the Authorized Version, 'Praise him in the assembly of the elders,' the Middle English writer tells us to praise God in 'the chayer of the old men," a phrase which means nothing at all, though the Vulgate, cathedra seniorum, is quite correctly rendered as regards the literal meaning of the words.

Furthermore, awkwardness in the translation sometimes resulted from the demands of metre, or the difficulty encountered in finding suitable rhyme-words. For example, in the Gospel of Nicodemus occurs this sentence, the natural order of its clauses being inverted purely in order that the last word may rhyme with the words lay and say in preceding lines, and with the word ay in a following line:

pat God has made, bis es þe day.'

In The Pricke of Conscience there is another illustration of the same thing:

Omang his grete anguys

Hym þai sal tak al hys enemys.3

1 North-English Legendary, p. 51. 225. The Gospel of Nicodemus 1361-62.

The Pricke of Conscience 2240-41.

This is an accurate enough rendering of the Vulgate, but it is hardly idiomatic English, even for Rolle's time.

Sometimes the awkwardness or lack of dignity in a translation is apparent rather than real; that is, renderings that would not be tolerated now were once perfectly dignified and suitable, probably the only possible one at the time. Words have acquired connotations not originally theirs, and new words have taken the place of the old in Biblical and liturgical phraseology. A case in point is the following: 'God is a gost and huo pet wile by yhierd of God, hit him behouep pet he bidde ine goste and in zope.' For centuries, the word gost was the accepted rendering for the Latin spiritus, spirit having come into the language comparatively late. Although, in the same work, the author once uses the word spirit,2 his usual habit was to translate spiritus by gost, and, in general, this is true of all writers before Wyclif. This is but one instance of Middle English renderings which make us feel, at first thought, that the resources of the language were meagre; but which were, in reality, entirely adequate and proper.

4. COMPARISON OF TRANSLATIONS OF GIVEN

PASSAGES.

If, now, we compare various translations of a given Biblical passage, written at different dates between 1200 and 1400, we shall obtain a better idea than can be had in any other way of the resources of the

1 The Ayenbite of Inwyt 211.

Ibid. 241. 28-9.

language at intervals of several years. How much difference can be discovered in the manner of translating, and how important is such difference? Can we discern real progress in smoothness and efficiency? Take first a passage from the Old Testament and then one from the New, both of them favorite passages during the Middle English period. From the Old Testament take part of the story of the temptation. Five versions of Genesis 3. 1-7 are given in parallel columns, in order that the differences between them may be obvious at a glance. The earliest occurs in a homily of about 1200, which seems to be a transliteration of a homily by Elfric on the same subject.1 The only change of any importance in the wording of these two versions of the verses from Genesis is that from neorxnawang to paradis, so that this Middle English translation may be regarded as standing for the Old English manner of translating, as well.

Homily.

Cursor Mundi.

Hwi for-bead geu God bes tro-Womman, tel me now qui wes westm þe stent on midden pat gee ette noght al communli paradis? pa cweð þat wif, God On paradis of ilk a tre?' hus for-bead þes trowes westmCertes,' said sco, sua do we and cweð þat we sceoldon dead Of al þe tres bot of an, swelten gif we his abirizdon. pa cwe se deofel, Nis hit naht swa, ac God wot genon geare gif ze of ban treowe æteð þanne beoð giure eagen geopened and imugon gecnowen eigoer god and euyl and beoð englen gelice.

1 Homilies 1, p. 223.

pe midward tre is vs outtan,
Our Lauerd in forbot has it laid.'
'And wat bou quarfor?' 'nai,'
sco said,

Bot sco said, 'if we com þer nei
O ded forsoth þan suld we dei;
pis tre suld him seluen haue,
And we all othere þen þat laue.'